Hi, i live in Quebec and i'm about 325 000th on the model 3 reservation list.
What would happen if i have an ongoing lease with another car manufacturer when my model 3 is ready?
How can you tell what your number in the list is? Or just based on the date you ordered?
also, how would we know? Your lease arrangement is your business not Tesla's. Also, and perhaps you weren't aware of this, but whenever the time comes for you to configure your car, meaning actually ordering it, you will have the option to select when you want it delivered. Look at the MS or MX page, the earliest you can receive a new one is late May. Nothing says you have to take delivery then. You can select August.
So, just wait until you come to that bridge and then request a delivery month that lines up with the termination of your existing lease.
@david.jones24 : On 11th april, i received the confirmation of the reservation, a few minutes after a product specialist from Tesla Montreal told me that the number of reservation passed 325 000. Yeah its just an estimate.
@jordanrichard : Ok thanks.
My MS pre-delivery motor vehicle purchase agreement is now nearly four years old, but with respect to taking delivery it says this: "We will notify you when your vehicle is ready for delivery, and, unless we are in breach of this Agreement, you hereby agree to schedule and take delivery of your vehicle within 30 days of such notification." Can anyone with a more recent PMVPA or MVPA comment as to whether that "within 30 days" requirement is still there.
PS. I'm aware the MS ordering page gives you a delivery preference month, I'm just curious how much of a window you still have once notified.
"Delivery. We will notify you in advance of the date your Vehicle is expected to be ready for delivery at your local Tesla Service Center, or other location as we may otherwise agree to, and unless we are in breach of this Agreement, you hereby agree to schedule and take delivery of your Vehicle within one week of this date. If you are unable to take delivery within the specified period, please contact us to request additional time, which we may grant at our sole discretion. "
That's from late 2014, but I never heard of Tesla deciding not to let a person take the car and for Tesla to keep the deposit. In real life, you work with the DS to set up a delivery time, and I think most people have the ability to change the delivery date on line up to a point. If they haven't started building the car yet, they won't much care. They will work with customers to come up with a reasonable date, and what they really care about is that they don't want the car coming out of the factory and going to a Service Center to just sit there and take up space. Tesla would have been more than happy to postpone my delivery because they were so swamped at the time. I wanted it as soon as possible.
You can delay configuring and ordering when you are sent your invitation but other than that they expect you to date delivery when your car is completed. As the prior poster indicated they have limited space at the Service Centers and do you really want your new car sitting out on a lot in the weather for a couple of months.
I really doubt they will meet the December deadline probably more like late spring or early summer and this would be for prior Tesla Owners purchasing Model 3 with almost all options, an $80k car. So unless you are a current owner and going to be purchasing a maxed out Model 3 you may have to add another year to your lease.
I think that when people say Tesla won't make the deadline, they are extrapolating rather than looking at the factors that caused Tesla's delays. The Model S was delayed about six months. It was their first vehicle built from the ground up and needed a factory configured from scratch. The Model X had a much bigger delay, but that might have been avoidable had Tesla not made it so complex and insisted on falcon wing doors and the types of seats used.
With the Model 3, Tesla will be in a much better position to negotiate with suppliers and have multiple suppliers. For example, the seats will be more conventional than with the Model X, and going to a supplier and saying they have 400,000 reservations will put them in a better position than saying they are building a new car and expect to get over 10,000 sales (which the press kept saying wouldn't happen,)
If you start off with the notion that Tesla won't repeat the mistakes of the Model X, and that the Model 3 won't be engineered to be too complex to build, and that Tesla has already built the prototypes, then you'd expect the delay to be no more than it was with the Model S. But this time around, they aren't configuring the factory from scratch and they have much of the equipment in place already. They upgraded their paint facility, for example, to support 500,000 cars and that was a while ago. They are in a much better position now than they were when they started off with the Model S. It will come down to keeping on schedule with the design, and I'm sure they have a built in cushion for unanticipated delays. If nothing goes wrong, I'd expect them to be ahead of schedule. If they have an anticipated level of problems, I'd expect them to be on time.
Tesla also has the ability to put cars on the road before the software is final. They did that with autopilot. They wanted to make sure that the major autopilot features were ready by the time the Model X came out, and they pretty much were, but they could have released the Model X anyway and added the software features down the road.
The only argument I see that supports Tesla being late is "they have a history of it." But it's not the history that counts. It's the reason for the history.
The only 'mistake' that I expect Tesla Motors may repeat is thinking that people will be satisfied with 'enough' battery pack capacity instead of the 'most' that is made available. I would be rather disappointed if the highest capacity battery pack for Model ☰ were less than what is currently available for Model S and Model X, even if it delivered a similar maximum range. A 90 kWh battery pack would be acceptable, a 100 kWh or more capacity would be exceptional. Elon and JB should not be afraid to offer much greater range for Model ☰ than on Generation II vehicles. They should be fearless, as I expect will be the case with Model ☰ Performance variants.
"If you start off with the notion that Tesla won't repeat the mistakes of the Model X"
Yup. I expect nothing less than *all new* mistakes from Tesla.
I really expect that the max range Model ≡ will be limited by available space, or possibly some other engineering constraint. I doubt there is room for a 100 kWh pack. That might well be the entire floor 4 inches thicker. 20%-40% larger might be reasonable. 70 kWh would be comparable to what they do with the Model S.
Thank you kindly.
topher: When the Model S arrived, its battery pack held about 40% more energy than the capacity of the Tesla Roadster battery pack, using fewer 18650 battery cells. The technology had advanced that much over the course of four or five years. I expect that a similar process will have happened since 2012 by the release of Model ☰.
If the difference between 2012 and 2017 is only a 30% improvement by volume... Then an 85 kWh battery pack could occupy only 70% the space as before. And a 100 kWh battery pack could be installed in only 82% of the volume for a 2012 85 kWh battery pack. That's pretty close to the 20% volume difference that Tesla Motors has strived for with Model ☰ as compared to Model S. And a 90 kWh battery pack would occupy only 74% as much volume as an 85 kWh battery pack from 2012.
So, no... I'm not being overzealous here at all. There is plenty of space, even in a smaller Generation III vehicle, to include as much battery pack capacity as is currently available for Model S and Model X. This is why I focus on capacity instead of the phrase 'bigger battery pack' as others tend to use. The real question is whether my hopes for improved energy density come through, and if Elon and JB choose to maximize the potential for range through smaller capacities and greater system efficiency and/or filling the battery pack with as many battery cells as it could possibly hold.
That depends on the customer. I have a Model S. With a Model 3, I don't think it's likely that I will take long trips. If I get the smallest available battery or the largest one, I might never see the difference.
Where the superchargers are can be more important than how big the battery gets. The longest trip I'm likely to take is about 450 miles a day. I'd likely end up making the same number of stops that I'd make now. Since there's a supercharger in Buttonwillow, I can now go to SoCal perhaps with a single stop. A bigger battery wouldn't likely change anything because I'd probably still get up the next morning to charge while I'm having breakfast. A 90 instead of an 85 might take the word "perhaps" out of the above sentence, but knowing my wife, if I stop for 10-15 minutes at Tejon Ranch, she won't be back to the car from using the restroom or grabbing a snack by the time the car says I'm ready to leave, so I'd end up being there anyway.
All things being equal, I'd prefer a 90 or even a 100 kWh battery for a car I'm likely to take on trips. But if Tesla gets batteries up to about 120 kWh for something like the Model S, I can't conceive of a bigger battery ever making a difference in my life under any circumstances.
That's the case for (some) people will be satisfied with 'enough' battery pack capacity. The case for the 'most' is that I can't charge in my garage, drive about 40 miles a day, and want to be able to go to the mall once a week to charge, but might need to skip a day depending on circumstances. If I can charge at the mall, and eat for less than the price of a tank of gas, a Tesla would be a better deal. If a 120kWh battery could get me 400 miles on a Model S, that would meet my needs. If it could fit in a Model 3 and get me even farther, so much the better. I'd still prefer a 500+ mile battery, but chances are that I'd prefer to save the money.
Infrastructure will change. Parking spaces for apartments and condos will end up with charging capability. More and more shopping centers will have chargers. A shopping center with a huge parking lot might find that adding 20 superchargers will generate extra revenue in the millions per year. And the notion of taking up extra space will be less of a concern as there are more EVs because that will free up other spaces. When that happens, every competitor will want to add superchargers.
Haggy: +21! Very well said.
My own situation is that if I were to take a road trip in a Model ☰, I might well be in the car alone, or with a single co-pilot. I could probably drive around 800 miles per day with ease. And with rest stops while Supercharging, may well be able to go 1,200 or so. The most I'd have in the car for a road trip greater than 500 miles one way is three people including the driver. I think the Supercharger stops would be welcome with four occupants on trips under 500 miles one way. I'd try very hard to keep a full load of five passengers as an option only on treks under 150 miles one way. Did I mention I really like to drive?
I don't have a Wife or kids to accommodate. Though I might transport Nieces and Nephews from time-to-time -- as long as they are beyond booster seat age/height/weight ranges. Uncle Ron's Rules of: 1) no food or drink; 2) no diaper changing; and 3) no baby seats stand firm.
I read that the next gen battery pack for the S would be 120KW that is using 12 modules.
the 3 has 8 modules so I think the 80 KW will be the upgraded capacity good for 300 miles on the days you are not smoking the local supercars . the standard packs were supposed to be 44 to 50KW 215+miles on a 3.
the cells will be a bit larger but are expected to fit the current module-carriers.
ed: We'll see. I tend to avoid reading articles written by members of the League of Lowered Expectations regarding Model ☰. A lot of Tesla Enthusiasts refer to predictions/prognostications found at [SINKING ANCHOR] written by a guy named Randy Carlson (?). I don't go to that website anymore if properly forewarned. But his writing does seem reasonable, if rather restrained. I am the resident Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Certified Apologist Fanboy here. So, I would rather hope that the sheer MAGNITUDE of what Tesla Motors will deliver with Model ☰ is well beyond tradition and possibly into the range of utter insanity, with a strong potential toward severe ludicrosity. Yes, I know I may be wrong. So...? We'll see.
Backing up, I am starting with the assumption that the current base level Model ≡ is filling the floor battery compartment. And that the Model S is similar. So there might be some extra room used in the S, that can be used in a similar way with the Model ≡. If the base level packs are only taking up 50% of the room in the floor, then I am wrong.
Some have said, I'm not sure if this is true or not, that the 60 kWh battery pack had 'dummy' cells in some modules to act as 'ballast'. I've always found that theory strange, since the 60 kWh version of the Model S weighed quite a bit less than the Model S 85. My guess is that they were simply empty modules installed alongside fully populated ones in the casing. I think the physical case for the Generation II battery pack is the same size and shape regardless of the number of active modules within it.
When the 90 kWh battery pack first arrived, I remember someone stated that only a single module within the 85 kWh battery pack was upgraded to reach that capacity. I have no idea where I came across that notation. I've looked, but it seems I never made a bookmark to the discussion, and I cannot find it via web search.
Since then, every discussion I have seen has said that Tesla Motors increased the capacity from 85 kWh to 90 kWh by using a new formulation of battery cells through the entire battery pack. At first, that seemed like it might be true... But then I thought, the 85 kWh battery pack has 16 modules in it. If 5 kWh were added to the battery pack by changing all the battery cells, that means that Tesla Motors decided it was worth it to release a new battery cell design that increased capacity by 0.3125 kWh, or 312.5 Wh per module. That really isn't very much...
My thought is that isn't the case at all. I expect that one or two modules in the 90 kWh battery pack use new battery cells, but all the rest use the original formulation from 2012. If it was two modules, then instead of having a 5.3125 kWh capacity per module, they were increased to 7.8125 kWh each. If it was one module, then it was increased to 10.3125 kWh.
Here is why that is important:
- Using two modules at a time to increase capacity by 5 kWh increments, Tesla Motors can gradually increase maximum capacity as they see fit... Going from 90 kWh to 100 kWh by adding four more of the new type of modules... Then increasing to 120 kWh by adding eight more modules to max out the Model S and Model X by filling the entire battery pack with the new formulation.
- Using one module at a time to increase capacity by 5 kWh increments, Tesla Motors can gradually increase maximum capacity to as much as 165 kWh by filling all 16 modules with the new type of battery cell for use in Model S and Model X.
- And for the sake of argument, if it is four modules to add 5 kWh, the maximum would be 105 kWh.
I doubt such shenanigans will be necessary for Model ☰. It will be using a newer formulation from the outset, along with a new battery cell configuration. These combined improvements will allow a lot more energy to be stored in less space. It will weigh less as well. However many modules Tesla Motors decides to use for each capacity of Model ☰ in total, the car will be very capable.
The Model 3 should have a wheelbase of at least 114" compared to the 116.2" of the Model S. They can fit a 100 kWh battery if they wanted to. Would it be worth it though? Does the Model 3 need a 0-60 of less than 2.5s? Is it a good idea for the fully loaded Model 3 to have a price tag of $100k?
Though I have predicted that Model ☰ would have a wheelbase in the 113"-to-114" range for most of the past two years, it is imperative to realize it will not use the same battery packs as Generation II vehicles, Model S and Model X at all.
A 100 kWh battery pack would absolutely be worth it, because the car would likely end up with a better cruising range than the BMW M3 (316 miles), AUDI S4 (338 miles), Cadillac ATS-V (304 miles), and possibly even Mercedes-AMG C63 S (360 miles).
The top-of-the-line Performance variant of the Tesla Model ☰ definitely needs to have a 0-60 MPH time that is a full half second quicker than its nearest gas-guzzling competitor -- and if they are really slow -- a full second faster for good measure.
A fully loaded Model ☰ will be an absolute BARGAIN when compared to the cost of a fully loaded BMW M3, coming in at least $20,000 less expensive at worst.
First what we really know: The model S/X battery pack 85/90 has 16 modules, completely full. There is no room for added cells. Extra capacity is achieved by newer cell design. The 60/70 use 14 modules and those modules were not full (at least in the 60). I also very much doubt the idea that spare slots were filled with something. Really makes no sense at all on a car where every pound matters.
Now to the 3: The #1 objective is to meet the price target. To do that requires a smaller car that is more efficient. You also want less batteries to save more money. Less batteries also mean less weight. Less pack weight means the frame and all the related components have less stress and can further reduce the cost.
It's still not clear that Tesla will have more than one capacity pack, but I'd guess it's a fairly good bet. The larger this pack size/weight becomes, forces other costs to escollate, even on the cheapest variant. Now you need more structure to hold the larger battery, bigger brakes, beefier suspension, and so on. There are unlikely to be two completely different designs, so as you offer a larger battery (in weight and size), you have to make the base car more expensive. To me a 100 kW pack in the 3 is crazy talk, especially considering it doesn't exist (yet).
I think the base pack will be in the 50-55 kW range and a optional pack in the 60-70 kW range. These don't mean poor performance, the car is more efficient in many ways, so a smaller pack than the S can still get you great range and performance.
@Red: You may be overthinking things. Panasonic run-of-the-mill 18650 cells hold 3.6 amp-hours of charge and operate at a nominal 3.6 volts providing a capacity of about 13 wh. A 6 % increase is about .8 wh. It is likely for the sake of uniformity and simplicity that they changed over to 100% use of the enhanced cells at some point and that the 90 kWh pack is simply the 85 kWh pack with 7,104 of the enhanced 18650s.
@Tap: +1. 55 kWh is my vote for the standard pack. 20% lighter, 20% less air friction~4 miles per kWh, rated. Q.E.D.
If I was working on the charge control system for a car, and my boss told me that they were going to put two *different* kinds of batteries, at varying ratios, I would get out my "your making my life difficult for no reason" device. Charging on both AC and DC, different voltages, different currents, different frequencies, different pack sizes, heat and cold considerations, temperature adjustments, all make things complicated enough.
Oh, and 7104 X 13 = 92 kWh. Close enough.
I've had vehicles in the past where I paid extra for a towing package that included a wiring harness, larger rotors and brakes, and a larger 12V battery. It added a few hundred dollars to the cost. I don't think the suspension changed, but if it did the change was rolled into the modest price increase. It's easy to slap on different rotors and use different calipers and pads for otherwise similar vehicles. It would be possible for Tesla to require the air suspension for the larger battery if that one is more robust no matter what, or require the spring suspension for that matter if they wanted to.
The disadvantage to making any of those components different is that it would rule out physical battery upgrades without making related changes, but I don't think that would be much of an issue.
All I need is a 400 pound 1.21 gigawatt pack and the lightning rod quick charger.
And being a reasonable customer if they can not deliver it yesterday then I might be willing to settle for the day before!.
@ed: come down to Florida some summer afternoon, tie a kite to your car, and you will receive your charge "soon".
Take a look at what the maximum range would be if the Tesla Model ☰ only had 75% of the range of performance variants of other cars in the segment.
228 -- Cadillac ATS-V (304 miles)
237 -- BMW M3 (316 miles)
254 -- AUDI S4 (338 miles)
270 -- Mercedes-AMG C63 S (360 miles)
I think most of us here think that spread of ranges, 228-to-270 miles, is more-or-less what they expect to see from the Model ☰. My point is that this is Tesla Motors' long awaited Generation III series of vehicles. They are the cars that Elon Musk foresaw ten years ago as the iteration of technology that would finally match the perceived ease-of-use for ICE vehicles. I would be more surprised that he chose to settle for 75% as an initial maximum, as opposed to at least matching the least of these competitors in range. And I would prefer the 304-to-360 mile spread were approached, and aggressively so.
Let's say the goal was to match the Cadillac ATS-V at 304 miles range. If operational efficiency is 194 Wh per mile on average, you could travel 304 miles on only a 58,976 Wh capacity, ~59 kWh. At 240 Wh per mile that distance would be covered using 72,960 Wh, ~73 kWh. At 270 Wh per mile you would use 82,080 Wh, ~82 kWh. At 300 Wh per mile 91,200 Wh, 91.2 kWh. 330 Wh per mile gets you to 100,320 Wh, 100.3 kWh expended energy.
I expect there is a precise balance of Range, Performance, and Capacity that will allow the needed efficiency to provide a version of Model ☰ with no compromises compared to its contemporaries.
@TeslaTap, Quote: "It's still not clear that Tesla will have more than one capacity pack, but I'd guess it's a fairly good bet."
I think we actually have seen Musk say this specifically.
Quote: "The larger this pack size/weight becomes, forces other costs to escollate, even on the cheapest variant. Now you need more structure to hold the larger battery, bigger brakes, beefier suspension, and so on."
I've seen a couple of people say this kind of thing, about a bigger pack needing bigger brakes, suspension, even modified frame for the huge extra weight. What bollocks! That all seems ridiculous to me. I mean, we're not talking about an extra thousand pounds. The Model S had 60 and 85kwh, which had a weight difference of what? A hundred and some pounds? Two hundred? That's basically the weight of the driver. A car doesn't need huge structural changes for that little a weight difference. Same with the Model 3. Base will be around 50-60kwh, and they may have something around 90-ish or 100. So maybe it's 2 or 3 hundred pounds different on battery pack weight? Still nothing requiring big structural changes in the car.
If the larger cell packs go in all model 3's they may very well be 10Kwh per module with 8 module slots.
70kw range and Perf.
@Rocky - Since it is generally accepted the base model is going to be in the 50-55 kW range, talk of a 100-120 kW pack on the 3 is crazy talk. The pack weight could easily double and the added structure to hold it would also go up (I have no idea how much). This is not trival. Now I'm sure Tesla could design the car for an extra 500-1000 lbs of dead weight, but it would adds significant cost to the base model and reduce the range. Tires and brakes also get more expensive.
I do expect a larger pack than the base model, but perhaps in the 65-75 kW range. Anyway, it's my view of it, and I'd be happy to be wrong on it. I don't have enough information to make a detailed technical analysis to confirm how accurate I may be - it's only my best guess.
As for battery weight, the current 85 pack is 1323 lbs. A 50 kW pack might be 778 lbs, and a 100 kW pack (with the same cells) might be 1556 lbs. So the car would have to handle this extra 778 lbs. There will be some weight reduction with potentially improved cells, but it's not clear how much yet.
Rocky_H: Please note that in Tesla Motors' design scheme for the skateboard platform, the battery pack itself is a stressed member of the system. Because the entire frame of the car is engineered to operate to peak efficiency in conjunction with the battery pack, significant changes to the battery pack may effect the ability of the vehicle to survive crash testing in a predictable fashion. Knowing the minimum and maximum expected weight of the battery pack can affect those calculations of potential results.
The point is that Tesla Motors wants their cars to be survivable for passengers even in situations that the Government doesn't require. The 5-Star safety rating means that there is only a 10% chance of serious or life threatening injury for passengers. I get the impression that Tesla wants to reduce that to 5% or less in every single crash test, on every vehicle they offer. Elon Musk is not kidding when he says that safety is a priority for the company.
So, yeah... There is a high possibility of cascading adjustments in design for their cars based upon battery pack volume and weight. That doesn't mean they won't just pick a maximum and minimum and insure the design is satisfactory no matter which is used.
The current MS uses 16 modules.
the M3 only has room for 8 shown in the unveiling. so the weight is close to half if the 18160? cells are used.
in the unveiling Elon said M3 will have New battery chemistry and IIRC new cell size. Gigafactory was to make 18160? for powerwall/powerpack and a new car 10% larger cell with 30% better storage so 20175? then the cells will weigh 10% more than half the MS weight.