stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Mercedes claims the C-Class gets 0.24, CLA gets 0.22. If Tesla takes a similar design, adds a bit more rear headroom, and take advantage of lower EV cooling requirements, maybe they can get the same 0.24 as Model S.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla are already at <$200/kWh for industrial installation.
If they need a 60~65kWh pack to go 300 miles at 65mph then they can do this for about $13k.
That is a significant cost, but could be absorbed for the next tier in battery capacity.
It is likely that Tesla will offer at least two batteries, possibly even three for the Model 3. As it is a more mass produced vehicle optionality can be expanded.
Maybe something like 40kWh = ~180 miles, base, $30k before incentives; 50kWh = ~220 miles, $35k before incentives; 60kWh = ~270 miles, $40k before incentives.
(mileage is a guesstimate)
with the 40kWh being introduced about 1 year in to capture more of the Leaf / Prius upgrade market (not on launch to keep ASP higher, just like 60kWh delayed on Model S launch)
If they need a 60~65kWh pack to go 300 miles at 65mph then they can do this for about $13k.
That is a significant cost, but could be absorbed for the next tier in battery capacity.
It is likely that Tesla will offer at least two batteries, possibly even three for the Model 3. As it is a more mass produced vehicle optionality can be expanded.
Maybe something like 40kWh = ~180 miles, base, $30k before incentives; 50kWh = ~220 miles, $35k before incentives; 60kWh = ~270 miles, $40k before incentives.
(mileage is a guesstimate)
with the 40kWh being introduced about 1 year in to capture more of the Leaf / Prius upgrade market (not on launch to keep ASP higher, just like 60kWh delayed on Model S launch)
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I don't think Tesla will offer anything less than 200 miles - because of super charger spacing realities. I think this was the reason 40 kWh S didn't offer Supercharging and was eventually dropped.
To start with I won't be surprised if 3 comes in a single 60 kWh pack option with 220 EPA miles. More options will come later.
To start with I won't be surprised if 3 comes in a single 60 kWh pack option with 220 EPA miles. More options will come later.
The problem is that those are "claims". In the Car&Driver test in the same wind tunnel they got:
Model S .24
Prius .26
Volt .28
CLA .30
Leaf .32
If they can hit .24 with the Model 3 that would be pretty awesome. Perhaps with better rims and mirror removal it could see better.
CantaMia Ron
Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Car and Driver noted that the CLA tested was the US version that was not fitted with the active aero components as the European version has. Also the 0.22 is the BlueEfficiency version (regular European version they claim 0.23).
True, but a .08 spread is pretty big and I doubt the active aero contributes that much of a gain. I was mostly pointing out that any aero claims that come from the manufacturer should also be taken with a grain of salt.
I really wish that more unbiased studies were done on drag values for cars. Its easier to find Cd numbers on bicycle frames. Would be nice to have CdA numbers on the EPA stickers right next to the MPG(e) numbers.
I really wish that more unbiased studies were done on drag values for cars. Its easier to find Cd numbers on bicycle frames. Would be nice to have CdA numbers on the EPA stickers right next to the MPG(e) numbers.
Yes indeed $100 per kWh is the long term goal. In one of Tesla's conference calls an analyst asked whether Tesla will achieve 100 USD per kWh which is when electric cars reach cost parity with gas cars and Elon said yes Tesla will get there. There is an article about it here. The scenario I would imagine would be like this:
Cell costs over time:
Nov 2014: 221 USD/kWh source: page 16 on this PDF file
July 2015: 205 USD/kWh: That's just my guess
Sep 2016: Gigafactory pilot plant starts production
30% savings: Elon said they will save 30% just from transportation costs by not moving materials and cells all around the world.
10% savings: Tesla will switch from 18650 form factor to 20700 form factor. That means 10% taller and 10% thicker cells. That is 30% more energy per cell. Instead 7104 18650 cells they might use 4972 20700 cells. This would reduce production costs because you need less time and less energy to manufacture the same kWh
10% savings because of economies of scale. This means they will negotiate better deals with materials suppliers because they will buy in larger quantities. Also their fixed costs like research costs become a smaller percentage.
Total Gigafactory savings= 30+10+10= 50%
On 24 Oct 2014 Jerome Guillen said 50% price drop in cell cost should be achievable.
Cells prices after 50% reduction from current prices would be $103/kWh
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
He said the Generation III car would be 20% smaller than Model S. Since he had already said it would be competing against the BMW 3-Series, I believe he was speaking of its weight. Because 80% of the base Model S weight at the time happened to fall right in the middle of weights for 3-Series vehicle configurations, RWD and XDrive.
He was repeatedly misquoted in the press as saying the battery pack would therefore be 48 kWh, or 80% of a 60 kWh capacity. I believe he was speaking instead of the physical size of the battery pack in Generation III, not the capacity. Each Generation of Tesla Motors vehicles has had a greater range than the one before. I expect that trend to continue with Model ≡. It would not be a bad thing for the base Model ≡ to have a range equivalent to or longer than the top-of-the-line Model S.
50 kWh is absolutely too little capacity to achieve a "200 mile usable range minimum" -- while still meeting performance targets. If you presume that some capacity is reserved for battery protection, you may have only 42 kWh to 45 kWh to work with. So the car may have to operate at an average of 210 Wh per mile or less just to reach 200 miles. It could be as low as 175 Wh per mile if you wanted to make sure it could go 240 miles. I think it best to plan for a possible 225-to-250 miles at 270-300 Wh per mile, and then accept any improvement in efficiency you get otherwise.
Candleflame
Active Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
at 0 Deg F in 10" of snow ?
My theory is - 3 hours of freeway travel + adequate charging will end the ICEage.
Last edited:
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
If 80 MPH is around 375 Wh per mile, then 200 miles of driving at that rate would consume 75,000 Wh, or 75 kWh of energy. If you presume that is a full battery pack, and that there is perhaps a 10% anti-brick protection... That would require an 83.333~ kWh battery pack. If you instead presume that is with a 20% buffer remaining after charging to 90%, then the full capacity would be... Something like a 119 kWh battery pack.
My first car was rated at an EPA 28 MPG. In actuality, it got around 32 MPG when filled with Premium fuel. Due to its efficiency and sizable gas tank, I could set the cruise control at 85 MPH, drive around 530-to-540 miles and still have 1-1/2 gallons of fuel left. No other car I've owned, or driven regularly, had such range. It would be spectacular to have such range in an EV on the highway.
But again, looking at the reality of how much energy that would be expended, and the state of battery technology for the near future, that is truly an unreasonable short term goal. Thus, I have no problem with Tesla Motors looking to satisfy their range goals under EPA ratings until that time comes. As many have said already, until you live the life of an EV on the road, you just don't know what you don't know. And everyone that says it isn't practical, it can't be done, that it's just too slow, and far too inconvenient, is ignoring all the facts that are before them. Unless they are simply using lowest common denominator preventive social maintenance to presume that people simply won't be able to manage the mental gymnastics of planning a road trip because they are just that dumb and will get themselves stranded.
Sure. There are plenty of dumb people. But I think that all it takes is a bit of education. Changing a few bad habits. And experiencing EVs on a daily basis. So that with practice, almost anyone with opposable thumbs and an IQ that is an order of magnitude above their sneaker size will be just fine.
My first car was rated at an EPA 28 MPG. In actuality, it got around 32 MPG when filled with Premium fuel. Due to its efficiency and sizable gas tank, I could set the cruise control at 85 MPH, drive around 530-to-540 miles and still have 1-1/2 gallons of fuel left. No other car I've owned, or driven regularly, had such range. It would be spectacular to have such range in an EV on the highway.
But again, looking at the reality of how much energy that would be expended, and the state of battery technology for the near future, that is truly an unreasonable short term goal. Thus, I have no problem with Tesla Motors looking to satisfy their range goals under EPA ratings until that time comes. As many have said already, until you live the life of an EV on the road, you just don't know what you don't know. And everyone that says it isn't practical, it can't be done, that it's just too slow, and far too inconvenient, is ignoring all the facts that are before them. Unless they are simply using lowest common denominator preventive social maintenance to presume that people simply won't be able to manage the mental gymnastics of planning a road trip because they are just that dumb and will get themselves stranded.
Sure. There are plenty of dumb people. But I think that all it takes is a bit of education. Changing a few bad habits. And experiencing EVs on a daily basis. So that with practice, almost anyone with opposable thumbs and an IQ that is an order of magnitude above their sneaker size will be just fine.
Candleflame
Active Member
At 90mph on a european motorway?
My theory is - Tesla will make sure europeans will get some usuable range too. If the speed limit is 55mph then you might as well take the bus...:-(
- - - Updated - - -
afaik the S85 can just about pull the 200 miles off at 80mph with a 100% charge.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
I'm not too familiar with driving habits in Europe. My theory is for the US - since most people drive around 3 hours before taking a break, that is the range people will be comfortable with (I guess + some buffer). Let us say 75 mph - so that would be about 100kWh or so.
No, we won't get that now with 3 - but if we want to break into ICE market share in a big way, that is what is needed.
The other big part is adequate charging - which to me means everywhere you may expect people to drive in large numbers - so along all freeways and state highways - 50 or 100 miles apart.
Last edited:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DqXADb8gE9RU&ved=0CB8QtwIwAWoVChMI1bGut6yJxwIVhowNCh1L6Abz&usg=AFQjCNGzjkvWhJMlWV8YXzMYH9HsRaD_qQ
Look at 17 minutes for an actual number. Start a minute earlier for the question.
I stand corrected however. He does not say 240 miles, but rather "250 to 300 miles." He also states that 250 to 350 miles is the sweet spot.
Candleflame
Active Member
I agree on the 3 hours, but even in the UK where the speed limits are one of the lowest in europe at 70mph, noone drives 70. More like 80 and sometimes 90. In France, spain, Netherlands, Italy this is much higher, which is why I picked 85mph. 85mph x 3hours is 255 miles. So by saying minimum range of 200 miles at normal european cruising speed, I'm not asking for the world. :frown:
200 miles at 3 hours would be 66mph which is just too slow for europe. You will hold the traffic up behind you lol
Last edited:
We're talking about highway mileage at high speeds here. In order to even have a chance at hitting 3 hours endurance at 70-80mph (with a reasonably small battery) it will be absolutely critical for Model 3 to have incredible aerodynamics. Like 0.20 Cd. As a pilot and general nerd, just the thought of having such a slippery car makes me want it that much more.
I'm hoping that there is a special "aero" model of the Model 3 that makes style compromises for ultimate aerodynamics and range. I'll take wheel fairings and weird hubcaps if it means super low energy consumption.
I'm hoping that there is a special "aero" model of the Model 3 that makes style compromises for ultimate aerodynamics and range. I'll take wheel fairings and weird hubcaps if it means super low energy consumption.
Similar threads
