The way I see it, is Tesla will KISS until production ramps up. More variation means more engineering. We only have one basic design of Model S, with minor variations. Same will apply to the Model 3. More models means more engineering, more engineering means more parts, more production costs to incur. Tesla is being very careful.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
On today's TMC Podcast, we ask the question "What is the Tesla Cybercab?". Join us on YouTube live at 1PM and participate in the chat.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Yes, but you are implying that if they design more variations there has to be more compromises - which is not true.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think it's true that there will be more compromises, you just try to minimize the amount. When you build something that is "optimal" for two very different applications (in this case, one with a top and one not), you compromise in certain aspects for both models in order to strike a balance.
If not, it is like what JRP3 says: the convertible version will require a lot of extra design work on top of the existing chassis. In most other convertibles, they don't build a chassis that is designed for both applications, but rather just add extra bracing to the convertible version (which adds weight). They choose to compromise on the convertible version because that is typically not the main seller.
I'm reminded by the whole conversation about the F35 over at Jalopnik and the compromises made in the various versions in order to accommodate the C version.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a good compromise to me. Otherwise it might cost more if it is separately designed.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Sounds as if they shouldn't bother to make a convertible, which would be a very low volume production model and not worth the extra engineering and weight that would handicap the higher production units.
ProphetM
Member
I would have to agree, even if the weight was the same. Even a really popular convertible like the Mustang makes up just 20% of production compared to the coupe version. If the model 3 is meant to be a car for the masses then they would do well to keep it simple. They will already be selling everything they can produce for quite a long time with just a sedan and crossover/wagon. Doing the design and engineering for even a coupe seems like wasted effort, and even more so for a niche vehicle like a convertible.
James Anders
Member
Well if they're going to make a new Roadster anyway - a convertible is about the same.
One compromise for a new Roadster / Convertible could be slightly higher side sills and the addition of a center structural "hump" or tunnel (no flat floor). That might be a reasonable trade-off for a 2 seat Roadster or a 2+2 seat convertible.
One compromise for a new Roadster / Convertible could be slightly higher side sills and the addition of a center structural "hump" or tunnel (no flat floor). That might be a reasonable trade-off for a 2 seat Roadster or a 2+2 seat convertible.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It makes no sense to me to make a clay model with two very different looks on each side. But I know nothing about auto design. I do believe there currently is a full scale Model 3 clay model in the Hawthorne design studio but doubt it would have been present during that 60 Minutes shoot. Still, the model you are referring to does seem significantly smaller than the partially revealed X clay model
JER
Member
It's normal to trial different shapes on each side of the clay. They don't even try to match the two sides by sculpting - that's done digitally after 3D scanning.
What is not normal is for it to be so radically asymmetrical. That's probably something laid on top of the model, perhaps as a disguise.
What is not normal is for it to be so radically asymmetrical. That's probably something laid on top of the model, perhaps as a disguise.
What's that between the clay models of the X and the 3? The Power Wheels version of the S? ;-)
Greg, you nailed it. I read the Wait But Why piece last month but forgot about that. It does seem likely that the odd shaped model shown in that photo is what was described.
Similar threads
