Forums

How radical will the model 3 be?

How radical will the model 3 be?

How radical will the model 3 be? I saw a video of a gathering of model S owners at the detroit car show. In it Elon says that they plan for the model 3 to have a radical design. So the question is what aspects of the design will be radical? The power train? The driver assist?, the motor placements?, the body?, the ownership model?, the financing? The batteries?, the wheelbase?

What could he be thinking about?

Tesla coil charge connection?
4 motor drive system?
4 body types, coup, sedan, van, suv, all interchangeable on the one scalable drive sled.
Fully fly by wire?
Full screen HUD
Mini wings to reduce rolling resistance?
What might the Tesla team call radical?

Elon thinks he will have a first concept for model 3 in 2016.

ezrafairbanks | 22 gennaio 2015

I'm sure for the most part he intended the actual aesthetics of the car and its design language. But knowing Elon, we're all going to be surprised :D

David N | 23 gennaio 2015

I agree, I mean there's only so much you can do.
By the time Model III is available, most cars of that size will already have as standard equipment most of the hi tech options. What's left to wow us.
My guess is the overall package, interior space, interior storage, handling, range, acceleration and of course I'm sure it'll be an attractive design.
Couple years is a long time to wait.

carlgo2 | 23 gennaio 2015

Yes, only so much you can do per David N, except....

scroll

Falcon doors! Yes. Tesla has been spending years on these and by now must have it down cold. There might a "Falcon side" to where there is one large door to access all the seats.

This would be terrific on a smaller, shorter range car, one more likely to find itself in parking lots, in crowded environments, dropping kids off to school, grocery shopping and all that.

Cars with regular doors will seem very old fashioned and un-cool.

Too expensive? I don't think so in the age of robotic perfection and modern sheet metal forming.

This is the only radical thing I can think of that isn't expensive, at least in terms of body design which seems to be what Musk was talking about. He did not seem to be referring to magic batteries or exotic materials. Dual motors are expected at some point both in AWD capability which you pretty much have to offer these days, and for a super car configuration which is also needed for bragging rights and for me of course...so, Falcon doors it is.

Red Sage ca us | 23 gennaio 2015

If I were in charge (ain't you glad I'm not?) the Tesla Model ≡ would:
· Come standard with a 100 kWh battery pack.
· Come standard with dual motor AWD.
· Come standard with Supercharger access -- Free for LIFE!

AA_4_Tesla | 23 gennaio 2015

@Red Sage- Thats a 100 kWh battery with a smaller footprint correct?
(increased density and all that)

Changing the body styling so the car's drag coefficient is below 0.18 would change some things. (like improve the range!) But folks may not like the resulting look.

Otherwise, I think the autopilot will be an option instead of a feature and the four wheels will be able to rotate in place. So you can drive sideways and parallel park super easily.

Fly by wire would also be nice.

Red Sage ca us | 24 gennaio 2015

The overall length would be less than Model S. Wheelbase, track, width, & height would be only slightly smaller.

Grinnin'.VA | 24 gennaio 2015

@ Red Sage ca us | January 23, 2015

If I were in charge (ain't you glad I'm not?) the Tesla Model ≡ would:
· Come standard with a 100 kWh battery pack.
· Come standard with dual motor AWD.
· Come standard with Supercharger access -- Free for LIFE!

My opinions are:
· 100 kWh battery: Yes, indeed!
· Standard dual motor AWD: Likewise.
· Standard SC assess -- Free for LIFE!: Great if they can find a way to pay for it. However, I see no obvious, viable way to pay for it.

@AA_4_Tesla | January 23, 2015

Changing the body styling so the car's drag coefficient is below 0.18 would change some things.

IMO, there are more practical considerations which get in the way of a 0.18 drag coef. Things like driver/passenger comfort, space for luggage, etc.

Otherwise, I think the autopilot will be an option instead of a feature and the four wheels will be able to rotate in place. So you can drive sideways and parallel park super easily.

Grinnin'.VA | 24 gennaio 2015

Sorry, in my last post I failed to include my comments about:
"Otherwise, I think the autopilot will be an option instead of a feature and the four wheels will be able to rotate in place."

IMO,
1. Autopilot sensors will be standard because they support cosst-effective safety features and the software is marginally almost free.
2. Making the rear wheels turn to help steer the car is neither easy, nor inexpensive. Therefore, I don't expect to see this in the M3.

Go Tesla!

Red Sage ca us | 24 gennaio 2015

Grinnin' Ron protested mildly, "Great if they can find a way to pay for it. However, I see no obvious, viable way to pay for it."

Prepaid. Included. No further, or additional charges. Free for LIFE!

Easily done, and already explained at length, multiple times. Each sale of a Tesla Motors vehicle literally 'pays it forward' to cover future buyers' use of the Supercharger network. That is what I can see.

Scrith | 24 gennaio 2015

Four motors would allow the wheels to rotate 90 degrees for super parking and u-turns, plus it would probably increase efficiency and potentially save weight (due to lack of differentials) and increase efficiency (smaller motors plus precise application of power per wheel).

Brian H | 24 gennaio 2015

Wishlists including costly features and modifications are silly. This will be a car half MS' cost, not double.

Model ☰ | 25 gennaio 2015

Changing the body styling so the car's drag coefficient is below 0.18 would change some things. (like improve the range!) But folks may not like the resulting look.

And this is exactly what I expect Elon had in mind when he talked about "radical". Well, not necessarily exactly 0.18, but well below what TMS has.

But with that said, I would love this to be true:
There might a "Falcon side" to where there is one large door to access all the seats.

Remnant | 25 gennaio 2015

@ Brian H | January 24, 2015

<< Wishlists including costly features and modifications are silly. >>

Naturally, but many are unlikely to stay costly into 2017 and later.

At any rate, we cannot talk about "radical" design changes, if they do not include:

A lighter, 100-120 kWh, rapid-recharging battery.

Smaller, lighter, less-costly yet powerful motors, in a Quad configuration, combined with electronic torque and braking vectoring.

Electronic innovations that have become common options or standard features in popular ICE and hybrid cars produced by other car makers, such as G4, or HUD.

Svenssons | 25 gennaio 2015

Some people seems to dream that the Model 3 will be a super-Model S for half the price.

It is just dreaming to think that Model 3 will have a 100-120 kWh battery. Model 3 will cost much less than Model S. It will be smaller, weigh less and will probably use newer technology for the battery (possibly the same as in Model X). The battery will probably be lighter and maybe charge a little bit faster after half-charged batteries than on Model S today. This does not mean it will have a 100-120 kWh battery. A battery of 50-60 kWh will probably give the Model 3 about the same range as Model S 85 kWh.

4 drive trains will be more expensive than 1 drive train. It will have a smaller drive train than on Model S, maybe only the front engine that is on Model S 85D. Model 3 is not the model for testing out new technology. It's purpose is to reach the mass market with cheaper price but still with good range.

Grinnin'.VA | 25 gennaio 2015

@ Red Sage ca us | January 24, 2015

Grinnin' Ron protested mildly, "Great if they can find a way to pay for it. However, I see no obvious, viable way to pay for it."

Prepaid. Included. No further, or additional charges. Free for LIFE!

Easily done, and already explained at length, multiple times.

IMO, you have NEVER posted a viable description of how Tesla could fulfill this promise. Repeating the mere fact that you believe something many times adds no credibility to your claim. You have failed to respond with a set of assumptions and calculations that make sense backing up your claim. I presume that's because you can't do that. We simply disagree.

I'd like to make you an offer: If you quit posting claims of "Free for LIFE!" SC charging, I'll quit posting my disagreement with such claims. However, if you continue such postings, I'll probably continue posting comments disagreeing with your claim. What's the benefit of continuing this ad infinitum?

Brian H | 25 gennaio 2015

Grinnin';
Your qvetsching about paying for SC for Free seems to come down to being unwilling to allocate $2K of the selling price to the SC program. Which implies a detailed understanding of components, design and costs. Which you do not have. Ease off.

Näky | 25 gennaio 2015

Ron, cars lifetime miles estimate 200k. From which 10% SC charging rest home, destination etc. charging. 20000 miles uses about 8000 kWh of electricity, thats about worth $1000. Other half of prepayment goes to infra. Goog enough simplified calculation?

Grinnin'.VA | 25 gennaio 2015

@ Brian H | January 25, 2015

Grinnin'; Your qvetsching about paying for SC for Free seems to come down to being unwilling to allocate $2K of the selling price to the SC program.

Wrong. I willingly bought an MS, knowing that Tesla intended to spend about $2k from my purchase price to help pay for the SC system.

@Näky | January 25, 2015

From which 10% SC charging rest home, destination etc. charging. 20000 miles uses about 8000 kWh of electricity, thats about worth $1000. Other half of prepayment goes to infra. Goog enough simplified calculation?

IMO, that's roughly right. My calculations indicate that as Tesla sells hundreds of thousands and then millions of cars, that's about right: The SC system (capital + operating expense) will require about $2k per car. That's applies to all models - MS, MX and M3 combined.

Red claims that only $525 per M3 will be needed to pay for their SC service. His explanation for that is that $525 would be about 10% of the gross margin per M3. Which has nothing to do with the cost of the SC system required to provide normal service for the M3s.

I expect M3 buyers to be more price-sensitive than MS buyers. Most MS buyers can afford the $2k bundled into the price of the car. IMO, most M3 buyers will find such a $2k fee more of a challenge. Either it gets added into the price of the car, or Tesla takes it out of its margin. There simply is no free beer or free SC charging possible. Someone has to pay for it.

Red Sage ca us | 25 gennaio 2015

Uh... Never? Hmmm... Once again, for the record:

I could always be wrong. But my gut feeling is that in a world where perhaps 100,000,000 new vehicles are sold per year, if annual growth in sales of Supercharger capable EVs were to attain even 1% of that total per annum, it will be enough to support the usage of Superchargers at no additional charge. Whether you look at it as the percentage of cars that use Superchargers regularly, or the expected miles driven on Superchargers per car per year, or the total cost of electricity per year in a worst case scenario for the entire Supercharger network, I think the numbers are favorable as long as Tesla Motors sales grow to at least 1,000,000 vehicles per year.

As for the cost per Model ≡ vehicle... I have already explained how I came to the number $525. It represents 10% of the difference between the build cost and the sale price, assuming a 15% gross margin. But since the base car will cost half as much as Model S, I may concede that perhaps the amount should be 20% of the gross profit, or $1,050 instead.

That is the base version though. I think that there might be an intermediate trim level at $42,900 that had an 18% margin... And a top-of-the-line edition at $49,900 with a 25% margin. Thus, you get a $7,722 margin on one, and a $12,475 margin on the other. This results in a $1,550 or $2,500 contribution to the Supercharger fund, respectively, if you take 20% of gross profits for that function per car. Naturally, that goes back down to $775 and $1,250 at 10%.

OK. So let's presume the distribution of buyers for Model ≡ was something like: Base, 60%; Intermediate, 30%; and Maximum, 10%.

What if annual sales proceeded in this manner:
2017 35,000
2018 140,000
2019 280,000
2020 500,000
That's 955,000 on the road by January 1, 2021. Not at all bad.
MODEL ≡ SUPERCHARGER FUNDS RAISED
TRIM QUANTITY 20% GP 10% GP
60% 573,000 601,650,000 300,825,000
30% 286,000 443,300,000 221,650,000
10% 95,500 238,750,000 119,375,000
So, nearly a million sold, and anywhere from $641,850,000 to $1,283,700,000 raised to pay for Supercharger access. Remember, my theory is that the building of Superchargers, and the costs associated with maintenance and administration, is handled by sales of Model S and Model X. The funds from Model ≡ sales would only go toward energizing costs.

But how much will the electricity cost? Let's have a look...

We'll presume the typical stop at a Supercharger would add 60 kWh of energy. If there were only an 85% efficiency in the transfer, then roughly ~71 kWh per charge might be pulled from the grid. That is what Tesla Motors would be billed for by a utility.

Currently the US average is around 13.5¢ per kWh for residential power. So at home this amount of electricity might cost ~$9.59 for you to use.

If the cost were at 25¢ per kWh, that is $17.75... And $35.50 at 50¢ per kWh.

I really doubt that Tesla Motors pays that much.
TOTAL NUMBER OF CHARGES ENABLED
¢/kWh 71 kWh 10% GP 20% GP
50¢ $35.50 18,080,281 36,160,563
25¢ $17.75 36,160,563 72,321,126
10¢ $7.10 90,401,408 180,802,816
7¢ $4.97 129,144,869 258,289,738
3¢ $2.13 303,338,028 602,676,056
Worst case, around 18 million vehicles could be charged at least once. The less Tesla Motors has to pay per kWh, the more cars can be charged. That's why it is so awesome that solar panels are being installed at more locations, along with stationary battery backup. It not only lowers the cost per kWh, but could eventually provide positive cash flow by selling power to the grid.

At 10¢ per kWh, as many as 90,401,408 charges would be possible with less than one million cars sold. Most people are not going to use Superchargers 90 times during ownership. Certainly not on a monthly or yearly basis, filling from empty. A few would, but those would undoubtedly be statistical outliers.

vgarbutt | 25 gennaio 2015

Free supercharger access for life. That means original owners, second and even third owners!!!!!!!

When Tesla is selling half a million a year, at 2 grand apiece, there is no way they could even spend that much on superchargers in a year. So it would be a profit center for most businesses. Unless you are Elon musk, anyways. 2000 X 500,000 = 1,000,000,000. That's a billion i think. A YEAR!

But in 2017-18, there will be Tons of superchargers on our continent, maybe 600 or more. Right about when the density in the urban will be increased.

At some point, the network will be saturated and all that they will need to pay for is the maintenance and energy costs.

At that point, the cost per car for its use of the network might be quite low, maybe even a few hundred.

500 X 500,000= 250,000,000? 250 million a year sounds a bit low. Hmmm.

Ill let you guys do the numbers im too busy.

grega | 25 gennaio 2015

Oh damn, the thread stopped being about radical model 3 and became about superchargers-for-life.

What a pity. We've already had the same arguments in the other thread (which thread was that, can we just link to it and move the argument there?!)

grega | 25 gennaio 2015

I saw some show on the Model S on Discovery Science today, a few years old no doubt. They mentioned that the Frunk storage was a bonus that gave the car a talking point and differentiation, while also allowing a longer wheelbase that they wanted, a more streamlined shape, and the impression of power (since a stunted nose makes people think "small engine").

Seeing the show was coincidental timing, but that comment has me wondering how that would translate to a Model 3.
* Long wheelbase is beneficial... put the wheels as far forward and backward as possible - is it even possible to keep the same wheel positions as the Model S but shorten the car?
* illusion of power. Are there other ways of doing that? I don't like the look of smaller front wheels and bigger back wheels but perhaps a subtle size difference could also allow front tyres to be less drag while (not as big a difference in size as the Nissan blade glider)
* A small nose will say "lower power" but no-nose might say "no engine"... a nice talking point too, and bigger cabin room. Can't see doing that without significantly increasing drag though.

Red Sage ca us | 26 gennaio 2015

Longer wheelbase on a shorter car -- I've mentioned this a few times already.

Illusion of power -- Stylistically this is accomplished with a wedge shape and swoopy lines all the time.

Short nose -- ICE vehicles are becoming caricatures of themselves due to all the ducts, scoops, and massive intakes that adorn them. Lexus and Toyota front end designs make AUDI and Subaru cars look wholly modest in comparison these days. I think something more tasteful is in order from Tesla Motors.

grega | 26 gennaio 2015

@Redsage, you know this isn't a competition? :) A simple "Yes I agree and think we'll see that" is fine in this context.

"Illusion of power -- Stylistically this is accomplished with a wedge shape and swoopy lines all the time.".

Do you really find that wedge shapes and swoopy lines give an illusion of power? The prius comes to mind, and I don't find it giving off that visual impression personally. Tesla obviously thought it was worth making the Model S bonnet larger to give that impression (but that's a "traditional" look, and we're talking about something new).

What are you saying about Short noses?

As I said I think it'd give the impression of lower power which you wouldn't want. That's the train of thought that came from watching the Model S spot - but the space savings (and larger interior that it provides) will be tempting even so. Having no nose at all wouldn't have the negative connotation of lower power if it looked like there was no room for an engine at all, and would have a bigger cabin - so I could see that attempted, but I can't imagine how to pull it off without looking like a block (and also having drag).

Grinnin'.VA | 26 gennaio 2015

@ Red Sage ca us | January 25, 2015

Uh... Never? Hmmm... Once again, for the record:

Since your post isn't about the topic of this thread, I'll reply to it on an appropriate thread. It may take me a day or two to analyze your numbers.

Ron

Red Sage ca us | 26 gennaio 2015

Radical. That means different things dependent upon the application at hand. As I've already noted at length, I believe the most radical concept to arise out of the Tesla Model ≡ launch will be that Supercharger access will be included, at all trim levels, for the life of the car.

To the dismay of some, and the rampant joy of those such as myself, the Model ≡ will be extraordinary. It will present radical styling, radical performance, radical range, radical utility, and radical affordability at every trim level and in multiple configurations. It will be... Glorious!

There are those who would prefer Tesla Motors presented us with down-to-Earth, practical, reliable cars for their Generation III offerings... Just like everyone else's cars... That just happened to be powered by electricity.

I would point out Tesla Motors doesn't have time for that strategy. One only has to look at sales charts for the past 25 years. The top ten invariably include the badges that read: Accord, Civic, Corolla, and Camry along with a rotisserie of Taurus, Fusion, Escort, Focus, Lumina, Malibu, Cavalier, Cobalt, Cruze... Whichever Ford or Chevrolet nametag is most in fashion. In recent years the Altima has gained perennial status among the top ten.

But those are all from brands that have existed for over 40 years in North America. People routinely buy the same brands in the highest numbers, even when similarly capable vehicles that are just as reliable and at times more affordable can be had instead. Hence, the relative stagnation in US sales experienced by Mazda, Subaru, and Volkswagen, even when their cars might be chosen as best in class by multiple automotive publications.

Newcomers like Yugo, Daewoo, and Daihatsu came and went in the past 25 years. They all attempted to attain a foothold in the affordable, practical range of the market, without success. Hyundai, and its sister company Kia, would surely have suffered a similar fate, if not for generous support from a larger parent firm, combined with efforts by the Korean government.

Today, Hyundai and Kia have bested many long established players among the top twenty in US sales. In 2014 Hyundai Elantra and Sonata each made the top ten, while Kia Optima and Soul were #14 and #15, respectively. But that took a full 25 years after the introduction of the long defunct, Hyundai Excel, which debuted with Yugo as a rival.

I say again: Tesla Motors cannot wait that long. The Model ≡ must be an immediately desirable, incredibly compelling, entirely unforgettable vehicle from the outset. It cannot be boring, commonplace, or ordinary in its styling, functionality, or driving experience. It cannot fall into the generic realm of unidentifiable vehicles that are collectively referred to as, "Oh, it's just a rental"

So, on the radical scale, which would you really prefer to own:
· 2020 Tesla Justarental Naysayer
· 2017 Tesla Model ≡ P135D Sedan

grega | 26 gennaio 2015

You're mistaking desire with possibility.

I look forward to seeing an amazing car that is also affordable. When I say they'll have to decide what's included and what's not its due to the reality of life, not wanting an inferior experience.

Predicting the future correctly requires accounting for what's possible, understanding that everything has a cost that needs to be accounted for.

grega | 26 gennaio 2015

Hey can I check on this concept:
.... if a Model S has a drag co-efficient of 2.4, and they could make a car with the same frontal area with a drag co-efficient of 1.2, does that double the highway range on the same battery size?

I believe it doesn't, mainly due to the rolling resistance? (only this??) - I'd like to understand the other factors I need to consider.

(I know also the drag co-efficient has to be multiplied by the frontal area, so a smaller car will have less wind resistance even if the drag co-efficient is the same).

Red Sage ca us | 26 gennaio 2015

Oh, it's just a rental...

.

9aaur

Red Sage ca us | 26 gennaio 2015

Oh, it's just a concept car...

.

llgag

Remnant | 26 gennaio 2015

@ Svenssons (January 25, 2015)

<< Some people seems to dream that the Model 3 will be a super-Model S for half the price. >>

That's a 2015 perspective applied to a 2017, or even 2018, automobile. It doesn't quite reflect the Tesla goal of competitiveness and mass appeal of the MΞ.

The point is that what looks like a super-MS in 2015 is likely to be barely up to the expectation of the average driver in 2017 or 2018. Remember the passenger side rearview mirror was an option a few years back. Same for that side's automatic power window. When hybrids appeared on the streets, they had an electric motor used to aid the ICE from time to time, now many hybrids have two and three electric motors which get involved in the direct drive of the traction wheels, even without ICE participation for a number of miles, as well as in regenerative braking and torque vectoring.

The same is true about BEVs, including Tesla, which has obviously made progress which we praise, yet some of us get so pumped up with delight that we deny there also is progress elsewhere, which might diminish the stature of Tesla's achievements unless it is wise enough to offer additional innovations to the buyers of 2017 and 2018. Wherefore, its MΞ plans should include such innovations already, and I'm not referring to "short nose" and "illusions of power" but to substantive battery and power train innovations that address the range, convenience, and price concerns that continue to hold back the BEV spread.

The Quad Motor configuration is a strong case in point, because torque and braking vectoring represent a huge improvement in AWD technology, which requires autonomous traction motors in the four corners of the drive train. Besides, the heavy and friction-laden mechanical differentials are obviously a throwback to the ICE era and are good to go.

Let me join Red Sage ca us (January 26, 2015) in his thoughtful opinion that:

<< Tesla Motors cannot wait that long. The Model Ξ must be an immediately desirable, incredibly compelling, entirely unforgettable vehicle from the outset. It cannot be boring, commonplace, or ordinary in its styling, functionality, or driving experience. It cannot fall into the generic realm of unidentifiable vehicles that are collectively referred to as, "Oh, it's just a rental" >>

carlgo2 | 26 gennaio 2015

Musk did present the parameters: $35K and 200 mile range and coming in a couple of years. That kind of leaves out much chance for something too exotic in any way except shape perhaps.

I stick with my falcon doors prediction. And of course I will predict what I want, as will we all.

I want:

An SUV silhouette with Falcon doors, about the size of a mid-sized SUV with all of that space and utility and vision, 200 mile range at real highway speeds (not the silly 55 mph example Tesla unfortunately provides). Under $50K with all options, under $60K with the D option!

That is all radical as far as I am concerned. The magical stuff...ain't happening.

I do want Superchargers, or swappers, in thousands of locations along highways everywhere, in cities, at destinations. It will be radical if that happens and the whole extension cord and trickle charger thing goes away. Far away.

Svenssons | 26 gennaio 2015

@Remnant: 2017 is only two years from now. M3 will be a mass produced car with no new untested essential technology. The Roadster, MS and MX have been or will be (MX) the test platform for the M3. Elon have said this numerous times. The car will have 200 miles range. The M3 is about 30% smaller car compared to MS and will have less weight than MS. New lighter batteries and size helps it to be lighter. A 50 kWh battery will be enough for 200 miles.

The M3 will however be revolutionary and more radical compared to other $35k cars (BEV or ICE) but it will however not be a Super-MS. It will probably be SC-capable but not free for life. Elon have never said the M3 will be free to charge for life.

grega | 26 gennaio 2015

@Remnant. A good post for pushing the think outside the box. I don't entirely agree though.

You wrote: Wherefore, its MΞ plans should include such innovations already, and I'm not referring to "short nose" and "illusions of power" but to substantive battery and power train innovations that address the range, convenience, and price concerns that continue to hold back the BEV spread.

Yes their car should not be considered from a 2014 perspective. But the illusion of power speaks to Tesla's understanding that they are also trying to provide a specific impression, regardless of what goes on beneath. I very much doubt they would make an ugly car that performs brilliantly, they want people to have a relationship with their car. And yet reduced drag would increase the highway range significantly while not changing city range. The look with a short nose is linked to the obvious flipside of having a larger cabin area, which will appeal to many people.

Agreed about the principle though and it's a good reminder. To borrow an Apple analogy, they're skating to where the puck will be, not where it is now.

Brian H | 27 gennaio 2015

A short nose shrinks the crumple zone and degrades safety. Not happening.

Red Sage ca us | 27 gennaio 2015

Tesla Motors will not offer a Generation III vehicle along the lines of these...

Sebring-Vanguard CitiCar

Ford Focus Electric

Chevrolet Spark EV

Remnant wrote, "Wherefore, its MΞ plans should include such innovations already, and I'm not referring to 'short nose' and 'illusions of power' but to substantive battery and power train innovations that address the range, convenience, and price concerns that continue to hold back the BEV spread."

Agreed. Everything about Model S and Model X is in preparation for the Model ☰. There is no reason to spend so much time investigation so many different technologies without the intent to make them available to the masses as well. If you spend some time at the websites for Mercedes-Benz, AUDI, BMW, Cadillac, Lexus, Infiniti, Acura... It becomes rather obvious that a baseline minimum for performance and creature comforts must be present for the Model ☰ to fit in with its contemporaries, and another level of valuable content should be on hand to stand out from the crowd. The sooner superior EV technologies can be developed, tested, and brought to market for Model S and Model X, the more likely they will be ready at the outset for implementation in Model ☰. Anyone that expects the Model ☰ to be substantially inferior in any way to the Model S of today will be sorely disappointed.

.

jlkpu

laska08 | 4 giugno 2015

I think something like this would be good design for model 3:

https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipOR40eKuR_YzbP3TD98OsztPI7BV4d1-ONC...

Brian H | 4 giugno 2015

About 4 clicks forward:

laska08 | 4 giugno 2015

I think after something like the eclipse above for model 3 design, a good move would go for the Honda Odysey type design for a minivan, and then a pickup:

https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipPQIOmZGVWS-5JHiAfC4wOiJwYqmGWn8uaJ...

Red Sage ca us | 5 giugno 2015

The Toyota A-BAT Concept showed promise. I would blatantly steal a lot of the ideas shown in its design. Though I would make it full sized truck rather than a 'compact pickup'.

carlgo2 | 5 giugno 2015

I still say one big falcon door per side. Probably a crossover configuration. Fast, extremely practical and with the expected range.

Styling can be slick without being weird. Tesla cannot afford an odd car dud.

This is a radical combination of attributes but not exotic. This is after all an relatively affordable car.

I would make a better prediction if i could win a free Model 3.

naftalir | 6 giugno 2015

amazing!

naftalir | 6 giugno 2015

sick

naftalir | 6 giugno 2015

dope

naftalir | 6 giugno 2015

beautiful

naftalir | 6 giugno 2015

test

naftalir | 6 giugno 2015

test

naftalir | 6 giugno 2015

test

georgehawley.fl.us | 6 giugno 2015

@carlgo +1 on style/feature requirements. Tesla will have only one bullet for the Model ≡ . They have to get a bulls-eye on the first shot.

@BrianH +1 on cost requirements. Let's engage in some wild speculation based on 1.GF battery cells 30 % more efficient and 30% less expensive than today's 18650s.

Today the 85 kWh pack weighs about 1200 pounds with 7104 cells that in aggregate weigh about 750 pounds.
With a proportionately smaller case and plumbing a 50 kWh pack with cells that are 30% more efficient than today could weigh as little as 650 pounds. If the rest of the Model &#8801 weighs 30% less than the comparable battery less Model S, the weight of the Model ≡ could be as low as 3150 pounds, about 2/3 that of its bigger sibling. This would drop the energy consumed by rolling friction to about 90 wh/mile. With just the same drag as the MS, the M≡ could burn as little as 220 or so wh/mile. With 50 kWh useable capacity the M≡ could get up to 225 miles at 65. Reserving 10% gets you down to 200. A 50 kWh pack could charge up pretty fast at a Supercharger, I think. Especially if the new cells can accept more than today's 4 amps per cell charging current.

Let's assume that Tesla's cost for an 85 kWh pack today is $2/kWh (optimistic but only Tesla really knows) or $17K total. For an $85K S85 with .27 gross margin the rest of the car costs about $45K to build. Let's say the M≡ costs 30% less to build than the MS or $31.5K. Let's also say that an 85 kWh pack with GF cells costs 30% less or about $12K. Let's pop a 50 kWh pack of these cells into the M≡ for about $5K. Total cost to build this highly hypothetical M≡comes to about $36.5K/.73= $50K price. Hmm. $35K doesn't look feasible with these assumptions. Maybe they can get it into the $45K area.

Any takers? 0-60 in 4.5 seconds anyone? Very safe and functional car with nice styling?

georgehawley.fl.us | 6 giugno 2015

BTW the 2016 BMW model 3 wagon has an MSRP of about $47K, suitably equipped.

Pages