No timeline has been given.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tesla Model 3 will be revealed on March 31st
- Thread starter mcfrank
- Start date
- Status
No timeline has been given.
iceblade997
Member
Excellent post. They themselves have said that their main mission isn't so much to become the premier electric car manufacturer or to make tons of money. Their main mission is to show that electric cars can be a viable alternative to ICE cars, and to force other automakers to start building electric vehicles en masse, thus helping people move to sustainable transport.
https://www.teslamotors.com/about
325m won't take them as far as you think...
You should email that other article to adam.jonas@morganstanley.com if you really think it didn't occur to him to look into their manufacturing processes.
If you'll notice, the article I linked was a summary of Jonas' opinion using quotes. The full analysis is probably something you have to pay money for.
I believe they could do 100k model s's a year (assuming no more screw ups like the one that slowed down s/x production last quarter), but they will be making an entirely new car that shares almost no parts with their existing models.
I'm not even being a big pessimist here. I believe they can achieve their pre-announcement production target of 500k by 2020. I do have doubts about any acceleration they may be planning after the extremely high number of pre-orders, though.
If they continue past trends of making the more expensive versions first, I seriously think that for a base model 3, a day 1 pre-orderer won't see his car until 2019 and a week 2 pre-orderer won't see it until 2020. I could totally be wrong and tesla could blow my tits off by making something like 30k 3's in 2017, 200k in 2018 and 400k in 2019. Who knows. I do know that I'm going to stop posting in this thread because we probably aren't going to find out anything concrete for a year.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm not going to lie when I say that one of many reasons I want a Tesla is just so I can never have to deal with scummy car dealerships ever again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMWmYJOa-BM&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMWmYJOa-BM&feature=youtu.be
RastaMentality
Banned
It comes standard so it is free.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The Supercharger capability in the hardware is free. It's still undecided if there will be a fee for Model 3 to use a Supercharger station.
Model S and X have free unlimited Supercharger access included because they are expensive cars and there aren't very many of them. The Supercharger problem is two-fold, first the Superchargers do cost money to build and maintain and second there will be a lot of Model 3's soon (hopefully) and that will increase the amount of usage. Plus if Supercharger is free and unlimited, Model 3-owning cheapskates will inevitably try to do all their charging at Superchargers to save on their electricity bills, placing further stress on the network and also causing waits and lines at Supercharger stations. Supercharger isn't for your everyday charging which you should be doing at home or at destination charging stations, it's for people on a trip of some sort driving distances further than 200 miles. Unless you put a fee on it, many people won't understand this.
Similarly, the hardware for Autopilot is free, and the safety functions of Autopilot are included. To upgrade to the convenience features of Autopilot will carry an additional charge. You're basically paying to unlock the Autopilot's full function, it's the equivalent of on-disc DLC for your car.
Model S and X have free unlimited Supercharger access included because they are expensive cars and there aren't very many of them. The Supercharger problem is two-fold, first the Superchargers do cost money to build and maintain and second there will be a lot of Model 3's soon (hopefully) and that will increase the amount of usage. Plus if Supercharger is free and unlimited, Model 3-owning cheapskates will inevitably try to do all their charging at Superchargers to save on their electricity bills, placing further stress on the network and also causing waits and lines at Supercharger stations. Supercharger isn't for your everyday charging which you should be doing at home or at destination charging stations, it's for people on a trip of some sort driving distances further than 200 miles. Unless you put a fee on it, many people won't understand this.
Similarly, the hardware for Autopilot is free, and the safety functions of Autopilot are included. To upgrade to the convenience features of Autopilot will carry an additional charge. You're basically paying to unlock the Autopilot's full function, it's the equivalent of on-disc DLC for your car.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
There's really no way that supercharging can remain free while still increasing the amount of Teslas on the road and keeping the wait times to a minimum. If you're going to quintiple the amount of cars you have the on the road, doubling the amount of superchargers isn't going to cut it.
jellies_two
Member
supercharging won't be free for the base model 3.
neither will auto-pilot.
or anything else they can plausible make an option.
Definitely not. Every bit of good news they had available, they have handed over already.
neither will auto-pilot.
or anything else they can plausible make an option.
Definitely not. Every bit of good news they had available, they have handed over already.
Are people forgetting you can charge your car at home? I would argue that it's the main reason someone would buy a EV. Superchargers would be more of a nice to have when in a pinch, or to top up on a road trip.
Though it still stucks for people in condos/apartments/no garages, etc.
Though it still stucks for people in condos/apartments/no garages, etc.
metareferential
Member
Here in Switzerland we have quite a number of parking zones where you can charge your EV. Same in many other euro-countries.
AstroNut325
Member
I plan to rarely use super chargers. I will mostly charge at home.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Chevy Cobalt vs. Tesla Model S at highway speeds head-on. The Cobalt driver got on the wrong side of the freeway and was going the wrong way. This is the equivalent of running head-on into a wall at 130+ mph.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/4dwe4k/tesla_saves_another_life/
The Cobalt driver was killed instantly. The Tesla driver walked away with minor injuries.
I drive a Ford Explorer and I'm used to being the bigger car on the road. I've always wondered about the safety I would be giving up by going to a smaller car like a Model 3. These sorts of stories at least make me feel like Tesla takes safety seriously.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/4dwe4k/tesla_saves_another_life/
The Cobalt driver was killed instantly. The Tesla driver walked away with minor injuries.
I drive a Ford Explorer and I'm used to being the bigger car on the road. I've always wondered about the safety I would be giving up by going to a smaller car like a Model 3. These sorts of stories at least make me feel like Tesla takes safety seriously.
Shadow2222
Member
That's here in Columbus! That's insane how the person in the Tesla was practically fine.
BlastProcessing
Member
Safety becomes a lot simpler when you don't have to contend with a ≈500 pound lump of metal directly in front of the passengers.
TheAbsolution
Member
To be fair, a 2008 Cobalt wasn't exactly one of the safer cars on the road when it was made. Safety technology has come such a long way in 9 years.
Not to downplay the Tesla, but... that's more or less what happens when your car is almost twice as heavy as the other one...
But the absence of an engine sure helps, the danger on EVs are more the batteries.
On a side note, did Tesla develop the chassis and overal safety structure (e.g. deformations zones) of their car on their own? I always assumed not, and that's why their cars look (from the form) like in ICE, even though the absence of an engine gives much more liberties for the design.
Tesla S weights between 4600 and 5000 lbs, so basically when you hit Model S, it is as if you are hitting big SUV.
Model 3 should be also heavy - not 4600 but still reasonable. So for it to score well on the test, it will have to be pretty good since it is heavy.
Since Model 3 is newer, and tests are stricter here in Europe now since Tesla S was tested, it is likely that Model 3 will have even better crash structure than Model S.
If Tesla wants to build 500k vehicles in 2020, next year is probably the last one they have a chance to start investing either in CA plant and/or some other plants... It takes around 3 years to build a plant and get it running to full capacity. Not to mention that they seriously need to increase number of their dealerships and SC's if they want to sell 10x more vehicles per year. These are pretty expensive and that will probably cost them more money than building plants.
I dont think they need to do 500k cars per year by 2020 anyway. What they need to do is be profitable, so hit that number whatever it is.
Doing $60k version first makes sense... $60k isnt that much for what this car is offering anway. It is luxury vehicle, it is not supposed to solve world's problems - they need to make serious profits in order to have money to expand and invest more in R&D.
I dont think people need to be too worried about them delivering vehicles in some reasonable time limit... they can get more investors to give them money since Tesla has great PR and people love them. As long as they can prove to them that they will be profitable, they will get the money.
BlastProcessing
Member
The original Tesla Roadster was a Lotus chassis, but i beleive everything else has been in house. I think the traditional look of the cars is just a design decision. It feels like they want to avoid having cars that look weird or overtly futuristic.
They also have to conform to NHTSA crash and pedestrian impact regulations, so that probably also limits the design into traditional parameters somewhat.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Yeah, I was curious about that because of a Reddit comment and looked it up, I had no idea the Model S was such a heavy car considering it's relative size. It has to be the batteries that make it so heavy. The Model S is actually 300-800 lbs heavier than my Ford Explorer, a mid-size SUV!
Well, if I can't be the tallest car on the road, I'll settle for being the heaviest. What's interesting is because the batteries are on the bottom of the car in the "skateboard" assembly, the car has a very rigid base and that gives it much higher rigidity than a normal car.
The Wikipedia entry for the 2005-08 Chevy Cobalt notes that it has the highest fatality rate of any car in it's class. Colliding the Cobalt with the Model S might as well have been crashing it into an tank. A car which is very flimsy like the Cobalt just crumples like a tin can when it collides with something so heavy and rigid.
Valkyr Junkie
Member
No it's not.
brochiller
Member
I think a good remedy for the Supercharger issue that I saw somewhere else would be to make them free 100+ miles away from your home. This would prevent people from just driving down the road and abusing them because they're close by, but it would also allow for freedom to go wherever they want, which is the purpose of Superchargers in the first place.
Let's not forget too that Musk said they would be doubling the number of Superchargers and quadrupling the number of destination chargers by the end of next year.
Septimus Prime
Member
I think the idea was to design cars that look nice and distinct but are still easily recognizable as cars (as opposed to weird-looking alternative fuel vehicles, like Prius, i3, etc.) so people would actually buy them and drive them.
In exact terms, of course not. In rough numbers, yeah, you take the speed from one car and add it to the other to find impact speed.
RustyNails
Member
I have a question about battery degradation. How long is the battery supposed to last in Model 3? I've read that an average battery lifespan in Model S is 8 years and after that it costs $12k to replace it with an 85kwh battery. Shelling $12k every 8 years to keep your car running doesn't sound fun 
Maybe economies of scale will help lower the cost now that there is a gigafactory?I have a question about battery degradation. How long is the battery supposed to last in Model 3? I've read that an average battery lifespan in Model S is 8 years and after that it costs $12k to replace it with an 85kwh battery. Shelling $12k every 8 years to keep your car running doesn't sound fun
Although I have a hunch that most people buying a $40k car won't keep it for 8 plus years. Would be curious to see a paper or something that correlates car price and ownership time
In head on collisions it's actually closer to the average of the two cars speeds. Say each car is going 50mph in a head on collision, both experience a force like they ran into a wall at 50mph, not 100 mph.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
BlastProcessing
Member
I have a question about battery degradation. How long is the battery supposed to last in Model 3? I've read that an average battery lifespan in Model S is 8 years and after that it costs $12k to replace it with an 85kwh battery. Shelling $12k every 8 years to keep your car running doesn't sound fun
I don't know the specifics, but when a car battery degrades, those cells are still useful for other applications so you should be able to sell the old battery for something. What the market does with all these old batteries is one of the things that I am looking forward to keeping an eye on.
I really like the SSD analogy.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This was pretty interesting, I never knew this.
Reading the comments, it assumes both cars are the same though. If you run a car going 50 mph into a tank going 50 mph in the opposite direction, the tank won't be scratched but the car will be destroyed. This is probably the more relevant point with the collision between the Cobalt and the Model S, that while the force is shared between the two colliding objects, if one object is significantly heavier than the other, conservation of momentum will now apply rather dramatically.
I would be interested in seeing two Tesla Model S run into each other at 50 mph now and compare that to running one into the Cobalt.
Yep, that'd be great. Cameras that lead to an image merely being projected, HUD style, onto the windows.
Or a hologram, for those moments when the windows are down. You know, let's just take it all the way.
Crash safety isn't really about rigidity it's about crumbling in the correct way. Tesla have a huge advantage on this not having to figure out how to crumble the engine under the passengers in a safe way. Instead they have a couple feet of space they can use to stop the incoming object in head on collisions.
Well that's interesting to know. Cheers.
Unknown Soldier
Member
In this case, the rigidity of the Tesla had implications for the crash safety of the Cobalt though. It's interesting to realize that the relative weight and rigidity of the Tesla was probably never considered when engineering the collision safety of ICE vehicles on the road today. There was another accident where a Model S drifted into oncoming traffic in California, this one was the Tesla driver's fault, he ran headlong into a Honda Accord causing a classic 40% overlap IIHS collision and basically cut the car in half killing both people inside.
While crumple zones are important for front and rear impact collisions, rigidity is super important for side impact collisions, where the passengers are right next to the impact. There's nowhere for the car to crumple when a Chevy Silverado T-bones you doing 50 mph.
Rigidity is actually a bad thing in a crash. If the chasis is too rigid, it can't get deformed. Deforming the chasis takes energy away from the crash. A rigid frame can't defoem, so it gives the crash eneregy completely through to the passengers and the colliding car.
But the tesla has two other advantages aside its weight: it center of gravity is very low, and there's no engine that could go flying around.
Yeah no, the main difference is that a wall is a) inamovible and rigid and b) probably heavier than the car.
Speed plays a huge role in damages in a collision, but so does the relative weight and rigidity. That's why if you're driving a smart, you better hope you never get into an accident.
Or to sum it roughly up: calculating the relative speed lets you determine the total energy involved in the crash. Looking at the relative weight and rigidity, you can see where this energy is going.
Here's some crash test footage of the Model S. You can see how important the battery is for preventing side intrusion. The extra area for the crumple zone in the front is also a huge plus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Al3IUHt9Wc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2FMfv-CSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Al3IUHt9Wc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2FMfv-CSc
Is that because you live in a rich as hell area?
Well my commute goes from roughly where Amazon is to downtown Microsoft. There are a disproportionate number of BMW is and Aston Martins too.
Technosteve
Banned
An electric subaru outback would probably outsell the corolla in certain states
kinda wish he hadn't turned on image stabilize
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked