Model S specs

[stopcrazypp]

I had heard before that Tesla had planned for the chassis to be their own design "from the ground up", but using an existing / proven chassis could be more expedient.

3800+ lbs is starting to get a bit heavy...

I though they were going to do a ground up design also, so I'm a little skeptical about the E Class line. However, I do remember a report (on the Renault-Nissan / Daimler deal) mentioning Tesla talking to Daimler about parts for the Model S.

~4000lbs was what I expected for the 230 mile version, given most mid-sized V8 sedans are in that range and keeping in mind even the 160 mile / ~42kWh pack will likely weigh ~600-700lbs.

 

[Cobos]

I thought also they would create a chassis from scratch, so I was rather surprised about that line. Though it seems Topline got some inside information it still might turn out differently so keep this information as one datapoint but as it's one step removed from Tesla wait until we can get it confirmed.

Cobos

 

[vfx]

Any chance they were confused by the Prototype that was built off a Mercedes?

 

[T@oo]

MB E-Class chassis

Wheel Base 2874 mm - 9'5"

Model S spec

• Wheelbase 116.5"

Changing a chassis to stretch the wheelbase AND rework the transmission tunnel and who knows what else to fit the battery pack... Not sure if doing it "from ground up" wouldn't be a better option.

 

[T@oo]

BTW, I have Jaguar XF in my garage for a week, so I can get used to the rear view ... :wink:

 

[tdelta1000]

This may have been asked but i'm a little lazy right now... Will the Model S have rear heasrests? If not why?

 

[Albern]

I brought that up when Model S was unveiled last year.

While I can't give a definitive answer, based on various auto safety requirements (FMVSS) I would assume that independent and adjustable headrests for the second row (possibly even the third row jump seats too) will be a requirement. Since the current running prototypes are what they are, I figured they decided not to opt for them for now.

Interesting thing though: I've been trying to find more info on rear passenger head rests. I'm noticing that manufacturers (especially the Japanese) have started to move away from fixed / no head rests to adjustable ones (eg. current gen Honda Civic VS previous gen).

However, some coups like the Infiniti G37 and Hyundai Genesis Coupe sill have fixed headrests. I've always wondered why that has been the case. (was kind of a selling point for me actually to which I decided not to buy). Yet, a BMW 335 coupe has them - what gives?

 

[2fast4u]

It could be because of the low speed, but 243 is exactly 81% of 300 so it would be a big coincidence.

Over here, Kevin wrote:

agree

 

[eledille]

vfx, Cobos:

I bet Topline is wrong about the Mercedes chassis. Different material = different construction. Also, the layout is completely different, and Tesla has been telling us all about how great it was to design the car from the ground up with all that space available that the flat battery pack gives.

Cobos: A Tesla employee told me via email that they will have a store in Oslo in time for the Model S. If not, Tesla has a store in Copenhagen. You can buy one there and drive it to the Norwegian customs office. So I would not give Topline or any other gold diggers any money. I bet Teslas price will be better than either Toplines or Ferdinands - and if Tesla is also too greedy, you can always import one from the US yourself. Many companies specialize in this business. I contacted a company with employees in the US that help out with inspection, packaging etc - they estimated about 12k NOK total cost to have a Roadster shipped from California to Oslo in a container. You need to check out the reputation of any company or individual you buy these services from.

 

[Cobos]

I also think Topline is wrong about the Mercedes chassis, but it might be a matter of using a Mercedes chassis as a basis for their own. Essentially getting Mercedes to custombuild an aluminium-chassis for Tesla?

I'm sure Topline wont price themselves out of the market, he's been very sensible in that regard. Which is also why I resent calling him a golddigger. There's no doubt he's doing good work representing Tesla in Oslo. He wants to become the Oslo store for Tesla, and if you ask me that would be a good call. Espen their scandinavian sales manager told me at Klimabil 2010 that his main project is an Oslo store by the end of 2011. Centrally located in Oslo, and hopefully running by the end of next year.

Tesla has a slight problem with their international sales, as all their top people are used to the US way of thinking at these things. It was pretty clear that after talking with the Model S contact in the UK branch they don't really understand car sales in Europe, at least not all the fine nuances.

Cobos

 

[eledille]

Ok, that's good to hear. I shouldn't have called Topline a golddigger without knowing more about them. Sorry.

I'm just annoyed at seeing non-Tesla companies advertising 2008 Roadsters for NOK 799000 (USD 127k at todays rate). At that markup I could have taken a month off from work and brought the whole family to the US to buy one myself and still save money.

 

[Cobos]

Eledille: I'm not sure where you are seeing regular Roadsters for 800k NOK. Looking at finn.no where he advertises for the Roadster Topline is selling the base Roadster model for 699k NOK. That is a pretty decent price since Tesla themselves lists the Roadster at 787k DKK If anything I'd say Topline is taking a too small cut, so I fear for the health of the company

Cobos

 

[eledille]

I didn't check current prices, my post was a knee-jerk reaction. But I have seen those prices not that long ago, otherwise I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. I checked now, and I have to admit it's looking better. Perhaps Topline has been able to push the prices down. If so - good job.

 

[TEG]

Back when we saw original press releases and articles I had ~80kWh for 300 mile pack, but based on updates, I changed it to 90.
Currently I show this:

• 160 mile range base pack (42kWh, 5500 cells)
• 230 mile range upgrade (~60kWh, 7800 cells)
• 300 mile range upgrade (~90kWh, 7800 next generation cells)

• That 90kWh figure in part was based on _this article_
  
  But I keep thinking it doesn't quite fit.
  If we guess that current, proven Roadster cells are 2200mAh, then
  
  160 mile modelS = 5500cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~42kWh
  245mile Roadster= 6831cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~53kWh
  230 mile modelS = 7800cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~60kWh
  300 mile modelS = 7800cells*2800mAh*3.6V=~78kWh ???
  300 mile modelS = 7800cells*3000mAh*3.6V=~84kWh ???
  
  
  
  The above makes some sense since 2200mAh are common commodity 18650 cells right now, and the 2800mAh & 3000mAh are "next generation".
  
  Checking the numbers,
  160miles*60/42=~230miles (check)
  160miles*78/42=~300miles... OK... So why would they need 90kWh?
  
  So I am still wondering why the quotes of 95kWh rather than 80kWh...
  Maybe they already have a "next-next generation" pack in the works that can do 160*95/42=360 mile range (?!)
  
  Anyways, just pondering numbers...

 

[eledille]

A 360 mile battery would be very welcome - then I wouldn't have to worry about a recharge network that may or may not work or be present where I need it.

 

[T@oo]

Back when we saw original press releases and articles I had ~80kWh for 300 mile pack, but based on updates, I changed it to 90.
Currently I show this:

• That 90kWh figure in part was based on _this article_
  
  But I keep thinking it doesn't quite fit.
  If we guess that current, proven Roadster cells are 2200mAh, then
  
  160 mile modelS = 5500cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~42kWh
  245mile Roadster= 6831cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~53kWh
  230 mile modelS = 7800cells*2200mAh*3.6V=~60kWh
  300 mile modelS = 7800cells*2800mAh*3.6V=~78kWh ???
  300 mile modelS = 7800cells*3000mAh*3.6V=~84kWh ???
  
  
  
  The above makes some sense since 2200mAh are common commodity 18650 cells right now, and the 2800mAh & 3000mAh are "next generation".
  
  Checking the numbers,
  160miles*60/42=~230miles (check)
  160miles*78/42=~300miles... OK... So why would they need 90kWh?
  
  So I am still wondering why the quotes of 95kWh rather than 80kWh...
  Maybe they already have a "next-next generation" pack in the works that can do 160*95/42=360 mile range (?!)
  
  Anyways, just pondering numbers...

Using given specs, I did some calculations, too.

6831 cells * 3.6 * 2200 = 54,1 kW/h for 244 miles I get 220 Wh/mile for the roadster.
Using 42 kW/h for 160 miles, I get 262 Wh/mile for small pack Model S. That's a hefty 20% more Wh/mile mainly for one reason: weight (~2000 kg).

The Roadster Battery pack contains 11 modules each 621 cells. Assuming they want to keep the voltage level equal and keep using the 11 modules layout, a 160-mile Model S will have:

11x483= 5313 cells * 3,6V * 2200 mAh = 42,1 kW/h.

But more cells for bigger packs means more weight reducing the efficency even more. Just assuming another 5% means the 230 mile pack will need to be around 63 kW/h. My calc:

11*724=7964 cells
7964 * 3.6 * 2200 = 63,1 kW/h

The same pack with the upgrade cells:

7964 * 3.6 * 3000 = 86 kW/h

And using the 4000 mAh cells expected for 2013:

7964 * 3.6 * 4000= 114,7 kW/h

Wow. A small pack with upgraded cells:

5313 cells * 3.6 * 3000 = 57,4 kW/h
5313 cells * 3.6 * 4000 = 76,5 kW/h

Just playing with the numbers but quite some options. The biggest pack will be good for > 400 miles.

 

[TEG]

Thanks for continuing to ponder. We are assuming consistent cell voltage but it is possible that different chemistry cells might have different voltage range possibilities...

Anyways, here is a recap of the numbers:

Range - Cells - Cap/Cell - PackCap
~160 - 5313 - 2200mAh - 42kWh
~230 - 7964 - 2200mAh - 61kWh
~300 - 7964 - 2800mAh - 80kWh
~330 - 7964 - 3000mAh - 86kWh
~390 - 7964 - 3600mAh - 103kWh
~430 - 7964 - 4000mAh - 115kWh

Just speculation at this point though.

 

[SteveTheTech]

I suppose a fob key button could pop open the door(s) like it does the trunk as well.

I have been working closely with the Nissan ikey system for a while now. They are pretty secure and fairly simple. Now the car has the ability to register the owner from a distance of a meter to illuminate welcome lighting. Although not used by Nissan an auto unlock feature or other mechanism might be able to ""magically" operate with hard and software already in use (and being in use since 2003). Pop out door handles look nifty but unrealistic, at least it was in the conventional market.

Thinking about for a few minutes makes me realize something new. There would never be a really dead battery lockout condition. I would imagine even if the battery were too discharged to drive it should still power the low voltage devices.

The keys use a standard rfid chip in the key and proximity detectors around the vehicle it should know when the key is approaching anything could happen.

OK, so perhaps the concept car is closer to production intent than some of us thought. I had heard before that Tesla had planned for the chassis to be their own design "from the ground up", but using an existing / proven chassis could be more expedient.

I find it really hard to believe after reading the Wired article that Tesla would reuse such an already widely available (all the Es, Clk, Glk) platform for their debut sedan. More likely what they would do if partnered with MB would be the third phase of their plan, the micro electrics. Selling batteries is what will keep them afloat for a little while. I think that article mentioned that as well.

 

[PopSmith]

Pop out door handles look nifty but unrealistic, at least it was in the conventional market.

I thought I heard someone at Tesla mention during the Model S unveiling that the door handles were designed that way to help further reduce drag.

As far as I know aerodynamics has a greater impact on range than weight. That got me wondering: Since the pop out handles (and/or the system to support them) probably weigh more than conventional handles, would the aerodynamic advantage really be enough to justify them vs conventional door handles?

 

[SteveTheTech]

CAD to the rescue.

This video wasn't exactly the one I was looking for but there are several good shots of airflow over the door area with simulated door handles. The smoothness of the cars' waistline appears to be an area of focus here. Cars like the GT-R have push and pull designs that are already very flush and ideal for drag. I'm someone here can elaborate better than me on this.

In reality car companies already have very complex mechanisms inside the doors now. Cars with intelligent key technology have both pulse sensors and request buttons as well as several mechanisms to transmit the handle motion and unlock function. I would imagine integrating this into one simpler lightweight device would make the reliability of such a mechanised door handle would realistically be possible but I do not know that the public would take to that just yet. Then again there are many things assumed impractical before might be possible in the very near future.