[Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster!

[SageBrush]

Could you imagine if you put skinny hard tires on the model 3 too !? Kick that Prius Prime's butt.

Then put them on the Prime, too.

 

[voip-ninja]

It wouldn't be a non-operative thing.. it's for regen. All motors are also generators.

The 3 will have two smaller independent motors up front, one on each wheel. Also helps increase the frunk space. These will be used as regen for all cars.

When software unlocked they also become motors to make AWD cars. To avoid crying fowl later all purchased M3 from today forward will enjoy the AWD unlock option in future. That will create a second wave of revenue as that flows in.

By "denying AWD now" also keeps the base price down as well, in line with promise.

Talk about pulling stuff out of your rear-end. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that this is the case.

 

[JeffK]

I think it's always in the consumer's best interest if the public number is lower than the actual number.

 

[scottm]

Talk about pulling stuff out of your rear-end. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that this is the case.

.. you're right! edited my post to reflect speculation..

And reflected more on frunk sizes over the ages.

your quote of my post is now out of date

 

[KarenRei]

Could you imagine if you put skinny hard tires on the model 3 too !? Kick that Prius Prime's butt.

Heh, the main reason the Prime does well is because (sorry, SageBrush - I know you like it!) it's a small car. It's only a 4-seater, not a 5-seater, so it's significantly narrower (57,9" vs. 76,1"), which means a lower frontal area, which means less aero drag. Its drag coefficient is almost certainly higher than M3, but that's a major reduction in frontal area. Also, its short electric range means less battery weight, while the smaller size also cuts weight.

As for the "weird" aspect... I actually like... no, love... anything that's traditionally considered "weird" but reduces drag. I love sleek, low-drag forms. Shape it like an airplane and you have my heart. The Prius Prime, however, has its weirdness (sorry SageBrush... ) in its styling, factors with no bearing on drag. But, of course, people can disagree about looks!

There's no drag advantage to that "moustache" tail or those "gills" / "mandibles" on the front. No weight advantage. They just... wanted it to look like that for some reason. And some of the details are just strange. For example, the rear hatch actually contains carbon fibre**.... embossed with a carbon fibre pattern to make it look more "carbon fibery". That's like taking wood and painting wood grain onto it.

Again, though, I don't want to be too hard on it. I have nothing against 4 seaters - I drive a two seater right now! And going to 4 seats so you can narrow the vehicle does indeed reduce drag and mass - just not in as ideal of a manner as reducing Cd does (Cd is 0,25 according to Toyota).

** Cheapo loose fill or "reclaimed" CF rather than fabric. So it doesn't have the traditional CF look without embossing.

 

[voip-ninja]

.. you're right! edited my post to reflect speculation.. your quote of my post is now out of date

Okay, fair enough.

Let me know provide a more realistic synopsis on AWD for the production cars.

1. It's not ready yet.
2. It's not ready yet.
3. The reason for 1 & 2 is that they need a smaller lower powered motor for the front axle that is not ready yet. This also might necessitate slight redesign of the forward cargo storage area. Test mules very possibly used different motors and had a different front configuration.

 

[scottm]

Does the Prime rear glass really dip like that in the middle, or is that an optical illusion?
If it dips, I'm sorry to say, that is cool! Even if it does weird distortion thingies to your eyes looking out through the glass. But that's what backup cams are for.

And lets face it, as EV's get faster and faster ... whatever appears in the rear is less and less important because it's only getting further away.

Takes guts for any car maker, even ugly car makers, to go that far out on a limb. That's designer nerd cred right there. It's so weird it works. Well, that little bit of the design does.

 

[scaesare]

Sure, but he definitely has said previously that the M3 would not exceed 75 kWh. I think we can pretty definitely label that statement as false.

Well except that, unlike some of the earlier models, some of the more recent Model S packs have had total capacity above their stated capacity. The "70KWh" pack was actually ~71.4.

So I'm not sure I'd categorize the "75KWh" statement as a falsehood if it's around usable capacity.

 

[tracksyde]

Does the Prime rear glass really dip like that in the middle, or is that an optical illusion?
If it dips, I'm sorry to say, that is cool!

Yes it does dip.. and yeah, it is kinda cool. I thought they said they did it for aero? But I didnt follow the development too closely

 

[KarenRei]

Does the Prime rear glass really dip like that in the middle, or is that an optical illusion?

Yes, it really does, and I'm not sure why they do that except to try to scream "I'm different". It's not lowering the drag coefficient (if anything, it's making it worse). It's not lowering the frontal area because it doesn't extend all the way. It's almost certainly making the rear glass more expensive to manufacture. Just... odd. Like a giant stepped on the car.

The interior is sort of... think "Tesla if it were run by Fischer-Price":

Jalopnik (from where that picture comes from) had a rather humorous take on their test drive:

But then there’s the feel of the car while you drive. I took the Prime on some lovely, winding mountain roads, past so many NO TRESSPASSING signs, and let me tell you, it was a mind-scrambler.

I put my sunglasses on and gripped the rational, adequate wheel. I stomped on the go-pedal, and, since I was in EV mode, was rewarded with a hum so mild, so unobtrusive, it made me gasp in basic acknowledgement.

As I entered the first turn at a dizzying 28 mph, I felt those hard, efficiency tires not really grip, and, as I put on a second pair of sunglasses, felt the incredible lack of almost anything through the wheel.

This was a car that screams “I’m currently in motion!” as you drive. I watched my speed climb from 34 to 36 to 44 to a dizzying 47 MPH as I came into a long, gradual bend; I put a third pair of sunglasses on and, seeing almost nothing, let my body really feel the slight sensation of motion and hear the quiet drone of the A/C.

Again... obligatory... sorry, SageBrush

 

[JRoque]

Was that Prius in an major accident or is that how it actually looks?
(I guess I need to add: "sorry SageBrush")

 

[trm2]

Heh, the main reason the Prime does well is because (sorry, SageBrush - I know you like it!) it's a small car. It's only a 4-seater, not a 5-seater, so it's significantly narrower (57,9" vs. 76,1"), which means a lower frontal area, which means less aero drag. Its drag coefficient is almost certainly higher than M3, but that's a major reduction in frontal area. Also, its short electric range means less battery weight, while the smaller size also cuts weight.

As for the "weird" aspect... I actually like... no, love... anything that's traditionally considered "weird" but reduces drag. I love sleek, low-drag forms. Shape it like an airplane and you have my heart. The Prius Prime, however, has its weirdness (sorry SageBrush... ) in its styling, factors with no bearing on drag. But, of course, people can disagree about looks!

There's no drag advantage to that "moustache" tail or those "gills" / "mandibles" on the front. No weight advantage. They just... wanted it to look like that for some reason. And some of the details are just strange. For example, the rear hatch actually contains carbon fibre**.... embossed with a carbon fibre pattern to make it look more "carbon fibery". That's like taking wood and painting wood grain onto it.

Again, though, I don't want to be too hard on it. I have nothing against 4 seaters - I drive a two seater right now! And going to 4 seats so you can narrow the vehicle does indeed reduce drag and mass - just not in as ideal of a manner as reducing Cd does (Cd is 0,25 according to Toyota).

** Cheapo loose fill or "reclaimed" CF rather than fabric. So it doesn't have the traditional CF look without embossing.

The Prime is 57,9 high, the width is 69,3.

 

[voip-ninja]

Well except that, unlike some of the earlier models, some of the more recent Model S packs have had total capacity above their stated capacity. The "70KWh" pack was actually ~71.4.

So I'm not sure I'd categorize the "75KWh" statement as a falsehood if it's around usable capacity.

It might be part of their anti-selling strategy. They are really trying hard to downplay the Model 3 and I wouldn't put it by Musk to downplay even the battery capacity to avoid disrupting sales of Model-S/x.

 

[KarenRei]

The Prime is 57,9 high, the width is 69,3.

Well observed - I read the numbers in the wrong order. So 90% the width of M3. Which is still a very meaningful frontal area difference (and weight difference)

 

[apacheguy]

Well except that, unlike some of the earlier models, some of the more recent Model S packs have had total capacity above their stated capacity. The "70KWh" pack was actually ~71.4.

So I'm not sure I'd categorize the "75KWh" statement as a falsehood if it's around usable capacity.

Fine. But I still believe the correct descriptor for the long range pack is "about 80 kWh." It's certainly closer to 80 than 75.

 

[voip-ninja]

Fine. But I still believe the correct descriptor for the long range pack is "about 80 kWh." It's certainly closer to 80 than 75.

The hard data that was furnished to the EPA indicates it is definitely a slightly over 80 and not slightly over 75 kWh battery pack.

 

[KarenRei]

Fine. But I still believe the correct descriptor for the long range pack is "about 80 kWh." It's certainly closer to 80 than 75.

It's basically a rounding error - and always has been with Tesla. Here's Model S:

• Original 60 – ~61 kWh total capacity, ~58.5 kWh usable.
• 85/P85/85D/P85D – ~81.5 kWh total capacity, ~77.5 kWh usable
• 90D/P90D – ~85.8 kWh total capacity, 81.8 kWh usable
• Original 70 – ~71.2 kWh total capacity, 68.8 kWh usable
• 75/75D – 75 kWh total capacity, 72.6 kWh usable
• Software limited 60/60D – 62.4 kWh usable
• Software limited 70/70D – 65.9 kWh usable
• 100D/P100D – 102.4 kWh total capacity, 98.4 kWh usable.

Sometimes it's less, sometimes it's more....

 

[KarenRei]

The hard data that was furnished to the EPA indicates it is definitely a slightly over 80 and not slightly over 75 kWh battery pack.

Really? On the charge-depleting highway test, it had an average system voltage of 351 with a integrated amp hours (aka, scaled to match the voltage) of 221,81. That's 77,9kW. The recharge energy event is 89,41kWh, which would be 87% efficiency, which is certainly plausible.

 

[voip-ninja]

Really? On the charge-depleting highway test, it had an average system voltage of 351 with a integrated amp hours (aka, scaled to match the voltage) of 221,81. That's 77,9kW. The recharge energy event is 89,41kWh, which would be a 87% efficiency, which is certainly plausible.

I thought that with charging overhead it was calculated to be slightly over 80, but clearly you've been paying more attention to it than I have.

It is definitely closer to 80 than to 75.

 

[SageBrush]

Well observed - I read the numbers in the wrong order. So 90% the width of M3. Which is still a very meaningful frontal area difference (and weight difference)

The Prime width is ~ 95% of the Model 3;
The Cd is 0.24
... ...

Would you please get your basic facts straight before spouting off more nonsense ?
Even better, go sit in a car for a couple of minutes. If Iceland does not have the Prime, the regular 2017 Prius is quite similar. You do not have to buy the car, just stop being so bloody ignorant and merchant of BS.