Gen III Range & Pricing Speculation

[raymond]

If the weight is 35% less, it needs 35% less energy to drive it.

As richkae said: No. The rolling resistance may be around 35% less, but that only makes up a small portion of the energy required to drive the car. A 35% lighter car will accelerate around 35% faster (given the same energy to accelerate) and in stop-and-go traffic less energy will be wasted (although with regen the advantages of a lighter car are less than with an ICE).

What reasons (pro and con) would Tesla have to build Gen III using aluminium vs. steel? It basically seems a cost trade-off towards acceleration. And for a mass-market car that trade-off may be different than for a premium sedan. But perhaps Tesla being "used" to aluminium the once-off costs will be higher for steel?

[JRP3]

Gen III will be smaller which will immediately give a lower CdA (and thus reduced drag). A lower Cd may be hard, but I'm not sure. Does anyone here know if a smaller (width and length) car would typically have a lower or higher Cd? I would think a smaller car being "boxier" would typically have a higher Cd, but not having a background in aerodynamics I could be 100% wrong.

Smaller frontal area is a large part of the picture, but so is the shape and the way it tapers in the rear. The Audi A2 looks rather boxy but had a pretty low cd Audi A2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[richkae]

If Tesla could take something like this and tweak it I think they could have a nice looking car with very low cd.

Attachment 6801

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_XL1#2011_model

If they made that an EV I would buy.

[richkae]

True, but giant wheels and giant wheel wells look better. They're actually the same size as what's on the Model S currently. I figure you can improve the Cd just by removing the side mirrors and reducing the width of the car. Not sure if reducing the length really matters. The purpose of that would be to reduce the weight and differentiate it from the Model S. You're got to justify the additional cost of the Model S somehow. By limiting the passengers to only 4 it would appeal to an entirely different kind of customer. Younger and more budget conscious.

Drag is CdA, where A is area. Reducing the width will reduce A, which helps. They can't remove the side mirrors, they are required by law. I would love to see them try to change the law, but I bet ICE manufacturers fight them and it will take a long time.
By having the same size wheels on a smaller car - the Cd will go up, not down - because more of the car is wheel well.
Without improving aerodynamics and rolling resistance you are not going to get 160 miles out of 30kWh.
The biggest aerodynamic flaw of the current Model S is the giant wheels.

[JRP3]

Folding mirrors with a camera would help.

[vfx]

... They can't remove the side mirrors, they are required by law. I would love to see them try to change the law, but I bet ICE manufacturers fight them and it will take a long time.....

All cars would benefit. Why not a coalition of efficiency minded automakers?

Start a list by finding all auto prototypes/design studies/concepts built without side mirrors.

[richkae]

All cars would benefit. Why not a coalition of efficiency minded automakers?

Start a list by finding all auto prototypes/design studies/concepts built without side mirrors.

Cars that need the efficiency ( EVs ) benefit disproportionately more than gas cars.
Yes it would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but I don't think it would be the first time.

[dsm363]

Nice. Everything looks right about it except the price. At $58k I wouldn't bet against you in the Tesla prediction pool. As it stands though, I feel like it'd be stealing cookies outta your cookie jar

I think it says $38,000 on the picture which sounds about right.

[Fredrik S]

As richkae said: No. The rolling resistance may be around 35% less, but that only makes up a small portion of the energy required to drive the car. A 35% lighter car will accelerate around 35% faster (given the same energy to accelerate) and in stop-and-go traffic less energy will be wasted (although with regen the advantages of a lighter car are less than with an ICE).

What reasons (pro and con) would Tesla have to build Gen III using aluminium vs. steel? It basically seems a cost trade-off towards acceleration. And for a mass-market car that trade-off may be different than for a premium sedan. But perhaps Tesla being "used" to aluminium the once-off costs will be higher for steel?

Sure, I got a bit carried away The more I live the more I learn, as Schwarzenegger once said.
I asked some people who know these things, and they said, a 35 % lighter car would reduce the energy needed by 6 %. That would mean that a lighter and smaller Gen III would need 80 kwh to drive 300 miles, if CD is the same. Let's say a smaller car, improves CD by 10 %. That gives you a 16% smaller battery than the Model S to drive 300 miles, about 70 kwh.
Let's say TM get the batteries for $175 per kwh. A 300 miles battery pack for Gen III would then cost 12 250. To sell the car for $39 950 after incentitives (the same sum as the incentative, $ 7500, is the 20% profit), would mean TM has $27 700 to spend on production. And they will not need that. How much do you think the car will cost to produce without the battery?

[jerry33]

Sure, I got a bit carried away The more I live the more I learn, as Schwarzenegger once said.
I asked some people who know these things, and they said, a 35 % lighter car would reduce the energy needed by 6 %.

That assumes the car is the same size. It also depends on the driving done. Weight means very little on highway trips. Reduce the frontal area, use more aerodynamic styling, put on a sensible tire size, and reduce the motor size and you should be able to easily get a 25% and perhaps as much as a 50% range increase.