I couldn't stop feeling like this page is nothing else but a promotion for "Model S" which is "superior and now" rather than the other car which is "inferior and 1 year later". Price would've been the biggest (and only) reason for "Model 3" but it's not shown on the page. Added extra details for "Model 3" is a nice trick to boost virality of the promotion aimed at its target audience -- potential Model 3 buyers. Well done, Tesla marketing. Well done.
I think this is in reaction to the confusion over Model 3 being the "next version" of the Model S. People might be holding off on buying the S because they think that the 3 is better.
When asked why he named it Model 3 in that thread, his response was: "Because I was a dumb idiot and didn't realize at the time that it would cause confusion".
Someone needs to put together a history of vehicle naming conventions. Like things in the military, it's kind of fascinating how things wind up getting called what they do.
This might be just about the most awkward product marketing page I've come across in my memory. I personally probably will never be able to afford a model S. So I'd essentially be their market for the 3. But looking at how they talk about it, they've pretty much unsold me on it. The worst is this paragraph:
"Model 3 is designed and built as a mass market, affordable electric vehicle. Although it will be our newest vehicle, Model 3 is not “Version 3” or the most advanced Tesla. Like Model S, it is designed to be the safest car in its class."
The actual sales page for the Model 3, https://www.tesla.com/model3, does a much better job at selling it. It could be argued that anyone looking for a comparison page between the two models would be someone considering the Model S, in which case it makes sense for them to focus on upselling it. In other words, you're not the audience for that page.
That's exactly what it is. They have more than enough reservations for the Model 3 at this point, and have no reason to try for more until they work through most of the backlog. For someone looking at a Tesla, they would much rather get $70,000+ from them now than $35,000+ from them in a year or two. Add to this the fact that a lot of people have apparently managed to interpret Model 3 as an upgrade to Model S and you get a page like this.
"For someone looking at a Tesla, they would much rather get $70,000+ from them now than $35,000+ from them in a year or two."
If they want to sell more Model S, perhaps they should go check out a bottom of the line, zero options 3series/A4/CClass and see if they can bring their interior details and quality up, from below, to match those lower end cars.
Also, style and taste continue to march on ... large flat panels in your face, circa 2005, were a sign of luxury and sophistication. In 2017 it is the absence of panel displays that are a sign of luxury and sophistication.
They're not particularly competitive on the interior front, for a variety of reasons.
1) They're still selling as many model S vehicles as thye can make. Perhaps the market will soften after Model 3 introduction or increase on Tesla's manufacturing capacity.
2) Any heavy add-on increases the weight of the vehicle and decreases the rated distance on a single electric charge. From their point of view it's better to let the aftermarket for interior accessories to develop, as then any add-on is at owner's discretion.
3) People who shop on interior will still go to their local Mercedes, BMW or Lexus dealer. Even other luxury brands (Infiniti, Cadillac, Acura) have had a tough time competing with decades of experience.
I don't think 1) is entirely true. The fact that they're pushing the S over the 3 like this would suggest that they wouldn't sell out their full production capacity naturally. Of course, it's far easier to put up a couple of web pages than to redesign the car, and they have a long way to go before they have to think about such radical changes.
Yeah. I reserved the Model 3 a while ago, but I've been leaning more and more toward just canceling it and getting a Model S. Even though I can afford it, it's just a lot of money for someone like me who isn't really a "car person" anyway.
That's what is terrific about the Model S. One does not have to be a 'car person' to really appreciate that vehicle. I would say that if you are already considering it, go ahead and get the S. You will most certainly not regret it.
I'm not a car person and I appreciate why people like high-end cars. I had a lot of fun a couple years back tooling around BMW's track inSouth Carolina. However, because I'm not a car person, I also can't see paying $100K for a car given other ways I could spend the money.
You generally don't need to be a car person to appreciate a luxury vehicle. Not sure how the model S is different from any other luxury vehicle, who's target audience is not car people, but just people with higher disposable income for cars.
You could get a used Model S for a little more than a new Model 3. The autopilot won't be as good, but it will have better performance and free supercharging. Plus it's already available.
Power windows and air conditioning are standard in practically every car now, right? I just got a 2017 Honda Civic EX (lowest end) which is ~$20000 and it how power windows and AC
So are auto transmissions, but some trim levels for some models don't have them. Another poster in this thread claimed that a TESLA sales rep cited no passenger-side AC in the Model 3.
The point of trim is bundling useless overpriced crap you don't want to pay for with stuff that you do want to pay for. This is a huge money-maker for auto manufacturers, and I would be shocked if TESLA takes a pro-customer position on it.
This is almost disgustingly obvious. There are no prices listed on the page, and as far as I can tell they are comparing a base Model 3 to the highest-spec Model S. It screams "oh yeah we've got that Model 3 thing, but you can't buy it for 14 months. look at this really cool Model S!"
I think the whole point of it is to say "The Model 3 is NOT the next-gen Model S." The problem with the naming scheme (that Elon admitted was dumb) is that people assume it's the next version. In reality the Model S is a BMW, while the Model 3 is a Ford. They aren't even the same class of car.
Even calling the Model S a BMW is stretching given, for the price, how bad the interior is, how average the performance is (outside of the P100D), and how poor their customer support and QA is.
Tesla has no comparison in the auto industry. The Model S is a $35k upcharge, minimum, over comparable traditional automobiles, just for the electric powertrain. The Model 3 might get that number down to $15k. Nothing we've seen about the Model 3 looks like it should start at $35k, beside the hype around electric powertrain.
My question is: Who can get that number down to $5k first? Tesla? Or BMW, Toyota, or GM?
What are you talking about. There are a ton of musk fanboys here.
He says that we'll have fully self driving cars this year, astronauts on Mars in 2022, human comouter nueral interface in 2025, and a settlement with cheap tunnels ok Mars in 2030.
These guys are going to have a decade of disappointment and hyperbole thrown at them.
The thing is, I don't even think that's an issue. Some people just want a Tesla. They don't care what model it is. Until the 3,they would have had to get the super. And some did. Now a lot of those same people will just get the 3. They're perceived as being equal in terms of Tesla-Ness, which is what Tesla buyers seem to care most about. So how is the S supposed to maintain its sales when now it has to compete with the 3?
Tesla has to convince people that they actual want an S. Not just want a Tesla.
That wasn't their public intention, but you have to believe it was talked about given that the BMW 3 is, depending on the year, the best selling luxury sport sedan in the world.
I think this is a nice comparison. Obviously the S is going to be better but maybe some people are confused and see the model 3 as being the successor. This puts it into better perspective.
This page shows both the model S and the model 3 side by side:
Car length: 196.0" vs 184.4"
0-60mph Acceleration: as quick as 2.3s vs 5.6s
Range: 249-335 Miles Range (EPA) vs 215+ Miles Range
Supercharging: Free Unlimited Supercharging vs Pay Per Use Supercharging
Passengers: Seating for 5 Adults + 2 Children vs Seating for 5 Adults
Cargo: 30 cu ft Front & Rear Trunk Cargo Volume vs 14 cu ft Front & Rear Trunk Cargo Volume
Displays: Driver Display + 17" Touchscreen vs 15" Center Touchscreen
Customization: 1,500+ configurations vs <100 configurations
Delivery timing: 30 Days or less vs 1+ year
The relevant info will be on the center screen. Center instrument clusters aren't that uncommon. Priuses have them, for example, and they're pretty popular.
Almost every vehicle, even budget sub-compacts, have driver displays now. The utilization of that display varies from nigh useless (odometer, oil minders, etc.) to very useful (navigational directions, at-a-glance music selection via steering wheel based controls, etc.).
Removing this display from the Model 3 seems like a design choice intended to artificially distinguish and demote the Model 3 from the Model S.
Not artificially, but to keep the cost of the car at target. Nobody makes a car cheaper by removing the wheels, you have to nickel and dime where you can. A single display saves money.
Lest we not forget, Tesla is likely to lose money on the base Model 3.
At $35K, Tesla is entering the world of the C class, the 3 class, and competing with that by 'nickel and diming' doesn't seem the wisest idea when you look beyond the "electric" aspect.
Hell, even the S has been criticized for it's shoddy interior construction quality that more resembles a Ford Escape than a $100K Audi.
Probably more reasonable to compare it to other electric cars in its price range - the Chevy Bolt and the Nissan Leaf. Neither of these cars have particularly luxurious dashboards, interiors, or other extras.
Both the Chevy Bolt and the Nissan Leaf have two displays, a driver display and a center display. Further, the driver displays are particularly large and robust, even when compared to more expensive vehicles. The Tesla Model 3 completely lacks the driver display.
And the Bolt has it's base model listed at $37.5k vs $35k for the Model 3. There's also a pretty clear difference in... style here. The Bolt is Mr. Practical and the Model 3 is Mr. Fun. Pretending that these two cars are the same thing is absurd, they happen to have one thing in common: they are both electrics.
But I'm not going to compare a Volkswagon Bug to a Ford Mustang just because they both have combustion engines.
How many people do you think would rather have a tiny cramped display crammed in the hole of the steering wheel (and often partially occluded depending on user height, seat, and steering wheel position) vs a nice clear 15" display that both people in front and see?
That's something that I hadn't considered. Have we received confirmation that the Model 3 will be available with the optional full suite of self-driving sensors?
On the Model S, this includes two high-priced options:
1. Enhanced Autopilot ($5000) quadruples the number of cameras from 1 to 4 and adds 12 ultrasonic sonar sensors and additional computing power to crunch the data.
2. Full Self-Driving Capability ($3000) doubles the number of cameras from 4 to 8.
>It's a design choice toward a self-driving world, where instantaneous road notifications are less important to a person in a car than they are today.
People sure are willing to reach with their rationalizations.
You might be right. But consider that, maybe, Tesla has to remove what they can because they now realize that making a $35k EV without losing piles of money is very, very, difficult.
I agree with this, but cost savings and forward thinking design aren't mutually exclusive. I think the constraints of the former make the latter even more evident. Most cars with only one screen provide a driver's display. So why did Tesla choose a center display instead? I think it's because in the world they see coming, the center screen will be more useful.
If it is ever going to be used under human control, particularly on public highways, it needs basic information displayed in a proper above-the-wheel driver display, especially speed information.
You wouldn't want that info in a self-driving car for the same reason you don't want that info when you hop in an Uber or a Lyft. When you aren't driving, it's not useful.
That world may be five years away, but Tesla claims the Model 3 you buy this year will be fully self-driving, so it stands to reason they'd design it with that future in mind.
I wonder if there will be aftermarket driver displays. If all the data you need is on the CAN bus, should be just a question of mounting points and power wiring.
I joined the Model 3 wait list the day it opened and I'm really looking forward to getting one. The biggest concern I have so far is the lack of driver display.
Dunno, I'd prefer a nice clear 15" screen over every in car display I've ever seen (except for the model S 17). Being larger and visible at all times is pretty nice. Doubly so with a passenger that's helping out can handle nav duties.
Generally I look at fuel levels rarely, tach almost never (and doubly irrelevant if you can't shift gears), and speedometer only occasionally since I'm usually just pacing traffic.
Anything else normally on the dash display is often a tiny small icon that's hard to see. Was that a check engine light? An upshift light? Oh, is one of the doors open?
Several production cars have a centre speedometer, Minis for one. I've seen digital centered dashtop speedos in other mass market cars too... I just can't recall them at the moment.
I have used a GPS speedo on my screenmounted device for years, and looking down and forwards for my speed seems unnatural now.
Which Prius? 2007 had it available in the deep well with a mirrored display over the steering wheel, not in the centre (http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/1f0271de306e45aab983f8c2c6e0f6ad/2...)
Later models had either that or a heads up display on the windshield.
Hunh, so I'm assuming then that the prius must have some changes there, or it's just not sold...
As I knew someone that owned a 2012 prius that has literally nothing behind the driver's wheel (along with my wife's old saturn, but I'm almost positive that wasn't sold in europe).
Actually now that i'm thinking about it, it seems about 30% of the cars in my life have had the main dash cluster in the center of the car!
> Hunh, so I'm assuming then that the prius must have some changes there
The Prius has an above-the-wheel driver display (source: I drive one, and have been in every generation of Prius sold in the US, and my wife drives a Prius C) in addition to the center console touchscreen.
It's higher, and nearer the centerline, than the old behind the wheel displays, but that is to allow your eyes to not come as far from the road in looking at it.
That's quite different (in a sense, diametrically opposed) from having the only display be a center-console touchscreen that isn't above the wheel.
Well to be completely honest the screen on the Model 3 [0] looks to be about the same height as the dash cluster on the Prius [1]. Or at least it's close enough that the shorter half of the population won't notice.
But again, either way I'm confident that Tesla is going to be within regulation. They are already getting so much scrutiny/bikeshedding about the center display, I can't imagine them not following the required laws. With so much attention on it, it'd be silly to have it all get fucked up by not having the screen positioned a few inches differently.
> Well to be completely honest the screen on the Model 3 [0] looks to be about the same height as the dash cluster on the Prius [1].
It's not a similar eyeline (it's maybe only a little lower, but also not as far back from the driver; you are looking down toward the wheel not at the road past the wheel to see that display.)
> But again, either way I'm confident that Tesla is going to be within regulation.
"Not in violation of the law" is a pretty low bar, but, yes, I'm quite sure anywhere they actually deliver the Model 3 it will probably clear that bar, at least for obvious things like display position.
> But again, either way I'm confident that Tesla is going to be within regulation. They are already getting so much scrutiny/bikeshedding about the center display, I can't imagine them not following the required laws. With so much attention on it, it'd be silly to have it all get fucked up by not having the screen positioned a few inches differently.
Considering Tesla has actually lobbied to a few European governments to change the law, it seems like they try to attack the problem from that side instead of actually fixing it on the hardware side.
The example shown has speedometer and other info on a display above the wheel and on the driver side, which is a driver display. Yes, it's near the centerline, but it's at a place the driver naturally can view it with a very small change in eyeliner from the road (or in peripheral vision while watching the road) not a centered display level with the wheel like the console display on the Model 3.
For german customers all the current gen EVs(Bolt/i3/Leaf/Ioniq) with a topspeed of 140-150km/h are to my opinion not really save to drive on the Autobahn as you don't have some speed buffer to overtake someone who's driving 120-130km/h fast enough.
If Tesla manages to give the Model 3 a top-speed of 200km/h that would be a game-changer and make it a viable car for me. The Model S is viable in that regard, just too expensive for me personally.
As many people seem to take issue with my statement that I find it less safe if I don't have the option to overtake quickly someone who is doing 120-130km/h, i'd like to describe a situation which I notice at least once a week on the Autobahn:
I'm going 130-150 in the center lane, normal traffic flow speed. Someone in front of me in the center lane goes 130, but drives rather unsafely, serves to the left and right, brakes hard, is clearly not used to driving on the autobahn or their car (usually 90s or early 2000s small hatchbacks like a Ford Fiesta) is at the limits of what it can do. I'm behind that car and deem it unsafe to drive behind someone like that for longer periods of time, so intend to overtake. If the driver in front of me goes somewhere between 130-140km/h which is usually the case as this is the topspeed ceiling for many 45PS small hatchbacks, i HAVE to drive somewhere between 150-180km/h to quickly overtake that car without sitting too long on the left lane.
The problem gets worse when the car in front has truck pulling out in front of him because the truck wants to overtake another truck, with a 10km/h difference because its uphill (a blood boiling situation for many experienced Autobahn driver).
Because the acceleration of the small hatchback is rather slow, many drivers of such cars want to conserve momentum, so they change lanes very quickly in such situations, where they suddenly are driving 120-130km/h on the left lane, where cars are shooting by at 180-220km/h which are then breaking rapidly, sometimes on the level of emergency breaking. EVs, having physics on their side, could have much greater acceleration, making that split second decision those drivers take favor the safer option in the future.
I see this too often to not care about it, and have driven one of those small hatchbacks myself when I was younger.
And well, the Autopilot is a great feature, but I'm not yet willing to bet my families life on it for longer stretches than i'm focused. Having tested it on the Autobahn, I found it hard after a while to keep the focus on the same level as I would have it driving myself.
I had to convert units to miles per hour to get a handle on the situation. For others in my boat:
You're going 80-93 mph in the center lane, and the unsafe driver impeding you is going 80 mph. In order to overtake this erratic driver, you need to move to the left lane and accelerate to 93-110 mph. The trouble is, on the Autobahn, drivers in the left lane are usually traveling at speeds of 110-137 mph, and often times even higher, up to 200 mph.
With those numbers in mind, I can entirely see your point. Early morning traffic in Dallas flows at 80-85 mph in the left lane. People don't always treat the left lane as a "fast lane" or a "passing lane." Some people cruise at 50 mph without a care for the speed of traffic around them. In order to merged into traffic in the middle lane while rapidly approaching the dangerously slow car in front of me, I sometimes have to accelerate to 90-100 mph.
I was reading a traffic study that showed that the single factor that contributes the most to traffic accidents is delta-speed. That is, the |relative speed| of the vehicle in comparison to the average speed of traffic. If traffic is flowing at 75 mph, a car traveling at 85 mph (10 delta) is less dangerous that a car traveling at 50 mph (25 delta). My anecdotal evidence confirms this. Slow drivers are often scared, timid, inexperienced, oblivious, and unpredictable. They'll change lanes without regard for the speed of anyone around them. They cause faster drivers to rapidly change lanes around them. They cause road rage incidents and reckless driving.
Anyway, I went off on a tangent, but I agree with what you're saying.
Yes, 320km/h is a rare sight. Happens though, a Veyron once blew past me while i was going 180 in the center lane at night. It felt like I was standing still.
No, the 180-200 mph was an observation that I added. I've seen Mercedes AMGs, M3s, M5s, RS6 Avants, R8s, Porsche Turbos, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, motorcycles, and similar performance vehicles doing 180-200 mph on the Autobahn. In person and in videos posted to forums.
I don't get it. I used to drive a Mercedes 200D (W123) for some years, and 112 km/h was my preferred speed. Overtaking a truck does take some planning if I don't want to be an obstacle on the left lane, but you know, at that speed I had a lot of time to plan :-)
(For the others: that car is from 1978 or so; I had two models, one with 55 hp and one with 60 hp, both Diesel. The car is ridulously heavy at 1.8 tons or so, and so you really don't want to be in a position where you have to accelerate quickly -- it just can't do it.)
I hate to break it to you, but if you enter the left-most lane of the autobahn doing 112 km/h, you DO NOT have enough time to plan. There could be a vehicle doing 250 km/h overtaking you in the left lane, behind a curve, and you wouldn't even see them until they rear-ended you doing 2x your speed...
Elementary traffic rules still apply, and driving far above the "recommended speed" ("Richtgeschwindigkeit") of 130km/h puts extra burden of care on you. You have to expect people driving speeds around that.
Sure, but that thinking won't help you if you're the guy that someone crashes into because you can't go faster on the left lane... You might be in the right, but I'd wager the mortician won't care.
I really liked going 112 km/h with that 200D, but I also had faster cars. 200 km/h is my personal speed limit: the car might be able to go faster, but I can't.
It's the responsibility of the fast driver to make sure they don't crash into anything. And if the road (autobahn) has a curve in it and I can't see far enough, I have to slow down.
So when I'm the slow guy, it's my responsibility to look in the rear mirror to see if there is a car coming from behind, and if there is, of course I don't switch to the left lane.
I would also avoid switching to the left lane just behind a curve. But there is also great responsibility on the fast driver to make sure that they are able to stop.
As far as I know, not that many accidents on the autobahn where the fast driver rear-ends the slow one.
been safely driving a van with 140km/h top-speed on the autobahn just fine for years - there might be a correlation between the maximum speed of a car and the owners inability to drive safely, but the explanation is probably more a psychological than a technical one ..
your mindset is quite common among german car makers though, maybe the reason they are unable to offer competitive answers to a technologically rather boring challenge - bringing down the price for electronic vehicles by mass production
I have spent a lot of time driving a van with similar speed limitations around Germany as well. I agree completely. While it was frustrating as an American growing up hearing about the autobahn, it was still faster than I would drive in America.
It would only be unsafe if you attempted to pass people inappropriately (and spent too much time in the left lane). This is a driver issue, not a car issue.
As someone that loves to drive fast (hell, I am forced to drive a Prius right now and 195km/h is the norm, where possible), I have to agree with bemused.
If you can't do 100 reliably (I drove a lot of Citroen 2CVs) the Autobahn sucks, because now busses and some trucks try to overtake you.
If you can do 120 you're fine. You might not be fast and probably stay on the right/middle lane, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with that speed.
EVs have boatloads of torque available, so they can generally propel you near the top speed in reasonable time before it plateaus, and more often than not the problem isn't so much on the mechanical power side of things but on the electrical power storage and delivery one (heat, battery wear). So it's entirely unlike a 2CV which can't go fast and can't go halfway near top speed quick because the two values are directly tied to mechanical power delivery. An EV with a 145kph top speed says nigh about its acceleration profile.
EVs have boatloads of torque at low speeds. The challenge with Teslas on the autobahn is that they have one gear, which reduces their top speed and torque at high speeds compared to a multi-gear transmission.
Well that really depends how you drive / how the cars accelerate. I've experienced being on the autobahn and not being able to overtake because I can't accelerate fast enough (turbocharger on my car had broken, pedal to the floor and was only managing 120-130). I wouldn't however class it as dangerous. I find acceleration perhaps more important as the car has to be able to speed up enough to merge onto the autobahn safely before the merge lane comes to an end.
When you just have to say 'My car can only do 120-130 so I will only drive 120-130'. 130km/h is also the 'recommended top speed' for the autobahn so these cars should really have no problem.
I won't disagree that in the reasonably priced EVs you're not going to be speeding down the left lane overtaking everyone. For that you need a Model S / Model X / i8 at the moment.
Even if you aren't the sort to accelerate heavily most of the time, it's useful to have the ability. I've been in a handful of situations where quick acceleration has saved me from a potentially fatal outcome. Both instances involved things falling from flatbed trailers that would gone through my windshield like a hot knife through butter. One was a large poly storage tank whose strap broke, bouncing off the trailer and into traffic before going off the side of a bridge (it was surprisingly bouncy); the other involved square steel tubes that weren't secured in a niche under the trailer. They slid out the side as I was overtaking the truck at the end of a gradual turn on the interstate just as I was coming beside them. In both instances, because of how things played out, slowing--the normal impulse--would have likely put me right smack in their way.
Stupid truck operators who don't know how to secure things aside, even in normal traffic it's useful. Just look at most on-ramps in the US compared to on the autobahn. Even most of the longer ones can require quick acceleration to safely merge. Especially in traffic. I still remember my first trip to LA and the shit rental car I had the "pleasure" of driving. Had I gotten out and pushed, I'd probably have gotten up to the speed of traffic faster. That said, the Model 3 at a 5.6 second 0-60 time is above average. It might not be a match for the higher-end Model S variants, but most people won't have any issues with it.
I'm confident that it will go 200km/h - but you will run out of battery quite fast at those speeds (in much less than an hour), as it's obviously a lot less efficient.
No, at least not for me: My plan is buying the Model 3 and then engaging the autopilot in such a case - and just travel behind whoever is driving with 130 km/h in front of me.
So for me - a reliable autopilot for the Autobahn is much more important than the top speed.
No its about following the rest of the traffic. In the unlimited sections, traffic is 130++ km/h (up to 200-250 in overtaking lane), So if you are slower, changing lanes, overtaking etc. becomes less safe.
One thing I noticed last year when driving in France for the first time, compared to the UK was that there was a much greater difference in speed between the lanes. I imagine the difference would be even greater on the Autobahn. In the UK, the motorways have a speed limit of 70mph, and most people actually do it - very large vehicles are limited to 60mph. So emerging from the left lane to go around something slow only involves adding 10mph or so. In France, the right lane is often limited by a lorry going at 90km/h, while the left lane is at 130km/h. Emerging to go around something (if you have the misfortune of having to slow down behind the lorry because the left lane is busy) involves adding 40km/h to your speed before the next car in the left lane catches up, which involves a lot more power to do safely.
That's something different. Of course there are loads of people speeding too.
One other thing I notice is that different motorways in the UK have different characters. On some, yes people do tend to stick to the limit, and on others not so much. I haven't spotted a correlation yet with the locations of speed cameras.
You can just stay in the slow lane if that's a problem. And doing 130 km/h in the middle lane is perfectly acceptable, people can just overtake you by using the fast lane.
I've never had the problem OP mentions, on the Autobahn...
Wait, I'm not with the GP and don't think you NEED to overtake people at 130.. Why would you?
But I don't think you can't overtake safely and be fast. It depends on the situation and is, in my opinion, quite common. Most people drive sane, 130 or 200.
You don't have to but some people like to arrive earlier and drive faster. And many people I know don't like following other cars, so they'd rather overtake and drive 130 km/h in front of the other car than behind. This, however, changes with autopilot.
Driving faster on the autobahn (or any freeway/highway) will not get you to your destination much faster. The total transit time is impacted the most by city/local traffic and such. Unless you are on a 500km journey you are not saving much time going 180 (rather than 140) on the autobahn.
This is actually incorrect. When you ask a German how far away another city is, their first question will be: "What kind of car do you drive?"
The biggest difference is that in Germany, the speeds are more sustained. In the US, cars generally drive in whatever lane they feel like, so your speed is constantly changing. So even a difference of 180 vs 140 will be significant. (and it could easily be 200 instead of 120).
This is untrue. Are you seriously attempting to use a colloquial joke as some sort of evidence?
While Germans are a bit more conscious of driving in the left lane when not passing, what you are saying neither makes sense, nor is it applicable, especially in any amount of traffic.
It also totally discounts the vast amount of road construction and maintenance that Germans continually do on their roadways (infrastructure maintenance is a big deal). The construction alone, especially in Hessen/Rhineland Pfalz vastly impacts travel times in ways going 40kmph faster could never attempt to approach.
I've driven plenty in both the US and Germany and the road etiquette in Germany is light years ahead of the US.
If I choose to drive 120/130 on the autobahn I have a much higher chance of doing so continually than if I choose to drive 75 Mph on an Interstate highway in the US.
I'll give you my anecdotal evidence from last year's trip to Germany. I took a ~550 km trip, and while I don't have actual GPS data from my trip on hand, I do remember that I was able to drive roughly one third of the way in sections with no speed limit and no traffic/construction.
For 2/3 of the way my average speed (including traffic and construction) was 122, so that took 3 hours. For the rest (1/3) of the way I was able to travel with unlimited speed. Traveling 183 km at 183 km/h (average) vs. 122 km/h saved 30 minutes of my trip.
I'm absolutely relying on anecdotal evidence. But I spent more than a decade on tour with a band driving vans all over the US and Europe. I've been on almost every stretch of highway in Germany and America many, many times, and I was extremely familiar with travel times between cities in all seasons and conditions. So yes, still anecdotal evidence, but a whole lot of experience behind it.
Obviously construction (anywhere) affects travel time. But in the US the highways have more exits, cops running radar, and there's ALWAYS someone going slowly in the left lane. Unless you're in the western desert states, it's pretty hard to maintain a steady speed. By contrast, everyone in Germany knows how to drive, and everyone follows the rules about keeping right and passing left.
What are you comparing it to? In contrary, German cars in the US are expensive. My co-workers in the US would not believe that in Europe a German car such as BMW or Mercedes is commonly the first car of many young men have.
Not a new one of course, but the ones in the 2000€ price range. Those do come with problems, but my friends were eager to fix them. Still, from around dozen of my friends who did purchase a car after getting a license, around ten ended up buying BMW, VW or Mercedes. As far as I can tell the reason was availability of replacement parts.
Germany is not some mythical land of cheap fast cars. We have the same 10 year old 3 series with 80k miles on the clock for $5000 here, too. But maybe we just are also aware that the most expensive German car in the world is a cheap one.
The top speed of the 60 kWh model S is 210 km/h, and the model 3 should have a battery of 50-55 kWh. If it were a model S, that would put it's top speed at 195-203 km/h, but the model 3 is smaller and lighter, so the stop speed should be close to 210 km/h.
If you're one of the people who put down the $1K refundable deposit, how do you feel about this page? I understand they're trying to push Model S sales, but don't do it at the expense of customers willing to wait years and put a hefty deposit down.
This strikes me as a rare misplay by Tesla. The Model 3 comes with a glass roof standard so it's conveniently left out of the premium options section -- that's pretty misleading. By the tone of the spec table, you'd think a well-equipped Corolla will be competitive with the Model 3.
I'm one of those people. I think the deposit was put down in a moment of excitement, which has since died down quite a bit. Not only am I one of those people who gave them a deposit, I'm also likely one of those people who they meant to target: I drive a BMW 3-series, which would be the Model 3's main competitor.
Now given all that, this display made me really not excited about the Model 3. Electric car is nice but that's the only thing the Model 3 has going for it when compared to the 3 series. I don't see them emphasizing self driving and the acceleration is kind of just par for course, which shouldn't be the case for an electric car. Given Tesla's reputation for a Spartan interior, what am I getting out of it other than it being electric? The way I see it, I'm better off waiting a few more years to see if things improve. My current 328i has given me 5 years of good driving and no headache at all. Better integrating with smartphones would be great but the latest 3-series offers that as an option already.
So I have to wonder, why a Model 3 over a 3-series?
Personally I could never drive a ICE car when an equivalent electric vehicle presented itself. I would never forgive myself. Everyone needs to get to electric cars as soon as possible or we cook and die here on Earth. It makes the arguments about the interior seem really tone deaf. Again, personally.
EDIT: Autopilot and constant software updates are huge.
I think your response is a bit narrow and takes my response out of context. It also ignores a number of other issues to make electric cars look better than they really are.
1. Electric cars use a lot of copper and lithium. Mining of both are horribly polluting. The worst EPA superfund site is a former copper mine. Lithium mining is also pretty bad. However they are at least localized.
Electric cars still need power, most of which still comes from carbon emitting sources. Until the world switches to renewables, electric cars still generate carbon indirectly. California and other areas are much better about this but Tesla Model 3 customers don't all live in CA.
2. I was trying to answer the initial question from the perspective of a potential customer of the Model 3. If someone is as passionate about the carbon emitting issue as you, they can already do that with Nissan Leaf, BMW i3, or Chevy Volt. They don't need to wait nor pay more for the the Tesla Model 3. So within that context, the other things that make BM3 3-series what it is matters. These things include the interior, etc.
3. BMW already do updates over the air but not nearly at the rate that Tesla does. Tesla really has embraced software whereas other carmakers treat it as an overhead. I really hate how Autopilot is presented. It's not really self-driving because they keep telling you to be involved in the driving process. Until they can confidently say it's completely autonomous, it's more of a novelty than an useful feature.
Edited: Kudos for being so passionate about the issue. It does matter to me and which is why I still haven't completely dismissed the Model 3 as a choice.
Hey thanks for the reply. Sounds like you've also thought quite a bit about this. I'd like to offer my thoughts on your numbered points.
For 1, you're right, we have to mine minerals to get these cars to work. I'm not really sure how much more polluting the production of Lithium and copper is compared to steel, but I assume it's bad. However in the long term I assume most of those polluting mining processes could be electric, could they not? The point is that long term you could make mining those minerals completely clean.
For 2, you're right there are plenty of electric cars you can buy right now. And obviously Tesla interiors aren't terrific, we all know that. The main reason I would choose Tesla is that EVs are their bread and butter. Chevy and Nissan have an interest in keeping ICE cars going, so supporting them doesn't align with the goal of making all cars electric long term.
For 3, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with Tesla being a software company where other companies see software as a cost center. As far as the autopilot goes, you should cut Tesla a little bit of slack, because while their software is not true-to-the-name autopilot, they are also limited by regulators with how much freedom they can give the driver to rely on the software. So in many places where autopilot falls short of being true autopilot, it's likely due to regulators holding them back.
So that's my take on things. I'm in my early 20s, and I take you to be a gen Xer. You know, as an aside, I am really disheartened by Gen X's lack of passion for climate change, no offense to you. I love HackerNews but I get a little sad when I see people blow it off. I strongly believe that how we handle this climate disaster will define humanity's fate in the 21st century, but coming here people seem very relaxed about the whole thing. Oh well. Cheers.
Haha. Not really, I'm actually a millenial (on the older end of the spectrum though). I can see what you may think I'm Gen X though. It may surprise you to know that I'm actually an environmentalist as well. I was definitely more active and passionate about it when I was younger. Time and other priorities have dulled my passion over time -- regrettably.
To be fair on #1, even considering the entire supply chain and lifecycle of an EV vs ICE, the EV comes out WAY ahead of the ICE in terms of carbon impact. Even better if you have solar panels on your roof, or live in a place like California that has a significant amount of renewables in the main grid.
As someone who uses the autopilot v1 constantly, for me it really isn't a novelty feature. Driving 6-7 hours on motorway/highway, the car drives 80-90% of the way. Yes, I have to pay attention and supervise the car, but I am definitely less tired at the end of the drive.
That's a really good insight. Having never experienced that, I would have never imagined how the middle ground between full attention and complete autonomous driving could be a good place. That's definitely something for me to keep in mind.
"EDIT: Autopilot and constant software updates are huge."
Huge, unknown unknowns and huge attack surface, respectively.
Look, as the owner of an Audi A8 that had all kinds of MMI/Nav/Audio bugs, I very, very much appreciate the idea of frequent and iterative software updates - they were desperately needed.
Never once did I ever wish they were provided automatically, over a network connection. Never once did I wish the car even had a network connection.
A lot of hard lessons are going to be learned over the next decade. I would prefer that people learned these lessons with their idiotic wifi refrigerators and not on public roads.
Do they really think they can succeed with that? A Civic is a LOT cheaper than a Model 3. If Tesla can drive Model 3's price to be competitive with the Civic, then they really, really deserve a lot of accolade. A world with electric Civics would be a huge step forward for the world.
Just because you like driving doesn't mean it won't see something before you do. 12 or so cameras, ultrasound, and radar might well draw attention to something before you'd notice it otherwise. Even 0.5 seconds warning might well significantly decrease the severity of a crash or even avoid it.
The move obvious example is when a car two cars in front of a tesla had an accident and the telsa warned about it before most people would have noticed.
Meh. I put down a deposit because I wanted to keep my options open and if I didn't I probably wouldn't be able to get one before Tesla runs out of tax credits. When it comes out, we'll see what the actual specs are.
My main concerns about the Model 3 are that 1) I don't like the privacy and security implications of an always-on Internet connection, 2) it is yet to be seen how open Tesla is about service/maintenance documentation for the Model 3, and 3) I have some doubts about whether I'll like looking over to the right to see the instruments.
Tesla's model 3 versus model S page doesn't give me any insight into any of those concerns.
I have put down the deposit and don't really care until final unveiling. I understand their goals in upselling Model 3 reservation holders.
I don't really mind that the $1000 is holding my position in line at Tesla. Otherwise it would sit useless in my bank account.
It is a bit depressing how they downsell the Model 3, but I'm hoping it's just their weird strategy. If some people pull their deposits then even better, I can get my car sooner :P
But I definitely won't be buying before test driving it.
I waited in line to reserve a model 3. Pretty disappointed by the news lately.
It's pretty much a given that the first release will have some problems but add onto that the complete bareness of the model 3 base model and I'm scratching my head whether this is worth it.
If it's going to be close to 50k for a model 3 with autopilot I'm probably going to cancel. EVs are nice but I don't have loads of cash to throw at them.
I lined up pre-reveal to put my preorder in but I've already basically decided it's not for me. Looks kind of bland and the interior appears like it might be ridiculously spartan and the 4wd and performance versions are quite a way off, and their build quality will probably leave a lot to be desired for a while.
Tesla is just desperately trying to push Model S sales this quarter. That's probably also why they added back free supercharging to the Model S recently.
Model S supercharging for new vehicles is free only "with referral" - if the owner induces someone else to buy a vehicle too (tracked via a referral code). They didn't add back free supercharging as part of the original purchase.
I believe most Tesla YouTube videos include referral links as owners get a monetary kickback for the referral. It wouldn't surprise me if enthusiasts that haven't bought a Model S yet are going to go through one of those links as opposed to an outright purchase from the website, especially if the supercharging limits are known.
Yeah. This quarter and next quarter are going to have abysmal sales. I think they are desperately trying to make their earnings reports look better to prevent a sell off.
I was at a Tesla dealership the other day, and the "sales associate" or whatever they call them was really pushing me away from the Model 3. He said, "Think of it like an electric Civic. It has no luxury features. The dashboard is a flat board like a picnic table. It has no speedometer or any gauges in front of the driver (it's all on the touchscreen in the middle). It doesn't have air conditioning on the passenger side, or even a glove box. The entire $30K of the car is for the battery."
It almost made me want to pull my Model 3 reservation.
I suspect they are trying to exaggerate not having a dual zone climate system. So sure there's cool air in the interior for all 5 seats, but not a separate zone for the front seat passenger.
Go look at the interior options and features (and materials and fit+finish) of any mid-range luxury car (5series, E-Class, A6) and the Model S comes nowhere near in terms of luxuries and amenities and functions. Never mind the actual high end cars that the Model S is supposedly competing with (7Series, S-Class, A8).
They play it off as a very modern, minimal aesthetic but they're not fooling anyone - the interior is sparse and cheap and poorly executed.
What's unbelievable? I was in the market for a Mini Countryman and the Mini rep was pushing me away from it and warning me that it was underpowered. I could see people having a certain expectation of Minis being zippy cars. It's not ideal, but better than selling someone a car they don't want.
Or is it unbelievable that salespeople tell the truth when they aren't on commission? :)
As an operations person, I love how lean this car program is. They really stripped the car program down to just the necessary components and options to hit the price point they want. By limiting complexity I think they'll have the best shot at achieving the huge undertaking of scaling car production.
I will happily be wrong about this, but isn't a lead time of a year for a "mass market" vehicle a bit of an ask. Last time I bought a car the "lead time" was a week.
Well, in this case its just the pre-orders being so insanely high that there is a huge backlog. And the pre-orders are so high, because there is basically no competition to the Model 3.
But if you order a car with a custom configuration 2-4 months are quite usual, and even the big car manufacturers sometimes cannot match demand. The Golf 5 Variant had 11 months of delivery times for a while (VW had not made a Golf Variant for some years at that point of time).
I bought a car 2 months ago, and if you wanted to change even the simpler thing the delivery time went to 1+ month. This was for the best selling brand of cars in Spain that delivers almost 500.000 cars a year.
It really depends what you order, a colleague of mine had a build to order Mercedes as a company car and had to wait 6 months until he could pick it up in Sindelfingen.
It really does depend, yeah. I've been eyeing the Volvo S90 since they came out, so I went to their concept store in Stockholm around Christmas time last year and put together a configuration that seemed nice. Estimated delivery date of the 2017 model I built would have been sometime this fall, I think they said 9 months. I imagine the 2018 model is backed up even more.
Any time I've bought a new car I've had some optional extras and that has meant a delivery time of at least two months (VW or Skoda), through to three months for an Audi or four months for a BMW.
This is why I'm buying a Chevy Bolt this weekend. My current lease is up and the Bolt is here right now. No reservations and wait lists. The Model 3 looks great, but the process to get one seems geared only people that really like Tesla, not someone like me that doesn't really care about cars.
The supercharger network is impressive, for sure. But here in the Northeast there are enough CCS DC Fast charging stations available for use and more on the way, making the couple of times I do 200+ mile road trips each year not a big deal. 99% of the time I will be using a Level 2 EVSE at home, just like the Tesla folks will. Appearance-wise, I just don't care much because I've never been into sports cars. I think the Bolt is cute and the hatchback style makes it a good family car which is exactly what I was looking for. For those that like sexy sports cars and wouldn't be caught dead in a car that might as well come with those stick family stickers on the rear windshield, Tesla is the clear winner.
If given the choice I prefer a non-powered trunk opening. Opening and closing a trunk provides no hardship for me, and doing it myself is much faster than waiting for a mechanism.
>If given the choice I prefer a non-powered trunk opening
Being able to pop your trunk (and have it open) on your approach to the car is actually quite convenient. I didn't think much of it until I had the option. I wouldn't call it a deal-breaker though.
Are you in a race to get going? I can't see you being in your seat, buckled and engine started before the mechanism closing? Not being snarky, it's just not that compelling a reason - to me.
Seems that many people think that the Model 3 is the 'new' and 'best' car. They are constantly point out that if people want the best Tesla car it is still the Model S.
>Although it will be our newest vehicle, Model 3 is not “Version 3” or the most advanced Tesla. Like Model S, it is designed to be the safest car in its class.
Tesla is facing a potential big problem. New buyers are holding off and are waiting to see the final specs and price of the Model 3. This could harm a lot Tesla sales until Elon Musk reveals to the public the Model 3.
I also believe Tesla did a mistake by naming the Model with a number. In the mind of many people, 3 is what comes after 1 and 2 (S & X). People are used to this because of the iPhone naming convention.
Tesla is reaffirming that the Model 3, despite its name, is not a version 3. It will be the entry level of the brand and if people want to buy the best performing car that Tesla can produce, they should buy a S or a X now.
I disagree. While there may be some that are holding off, they will know the specs in the next couple of months. At that time those people will be queued up and either buy the S,X or the 3, and totals sales wont be impacted at all
I don't think anyone who is serious about spending 70k+ on a car is going to be swayed by the model name. They're likely looking deep into the details and comparisons.
Is it normal for a car company to make a luxury model and an economic model that looks so similar?
I'm wondering if that's one of the reasons they feel the need to put up this comparison: they're not differentiating much on external looks, so they have to make it really clear that they're differentiating on features.
Virtually all near-luxury to luxury manufacturers do exactly this.
For these two Tesla models in particular, the headlights and trunk line are key differences between the 3 and S, and are clearly identified by enthusiasts. But the majority of the design is part of the brand's consistent motif, making them look very similar to laypeople.
To laypeople, the BMW 3 looks nearly identical to the 5; the A3 looks nearly identical to the A6; the C-class looks nearly identical to the E-class; the ATS looks nearly identical to the CTS; the XE looks nearly identical to the XF; and so on.
I'm not sure how normal it is. BMW does it, Mercedes does it to an extent, Audi does it, etc... American and Japanese brands seem to do something similar by using different brands, i.e. Nissan and Infiniti.
There is a misconception that the Model 3 is the most advanced Tesla model simply because it is the newest Tesla model. This was cannibalizing the sales of the Model S more than Tesla expected it to. Buyer who could afford a Model S or Model X were waiting for the Model 3 because they were under the mistaken belief that the Model 3 would offer all the newest, cutting edge technologies and self-driving capabilities.
As Musk said via Twitter, the Model S is on Gen. 4, and continues to offer the most advanced technologies.
That said, most people are waiting for the Model 3 because they can't (or do want to) afford a $100,000-$165,000 (with the self-driving packages) vehicle.
The only other $100k+ car I've ever driven is a Range Rover. So I'm not an expert, but I feel like the Model S is considerably "more for the money". Faster acceleration, no gas, large screen, etc. I realize that's not why people buy Range Rovers, but my point is that even with most things being subjective, you can't reasonably call a Model S "a complete rip-off".
Depends on how many long trips you will realistically take. With my Leaf we charge it at home 95% of the time or more. Even though there are free chargers available to us in our area, it's not worth using them. Charging at home happens while the car is in the garage overnight and it's super cheap, so going at all out of my way to use a free public charger is not worth it. We basically only use them when they are in parking lots we were already going to park in.
In my London situation, 80% of my journeys will be within 20 miles.
However, I don't have a garage or even a house. I park on the street and I would need at least 1 weekly trip to some charging station.
In the 5% times I go over that distance, I will need to stop to charge when leaving and coming back ( considering I have never driven in the direction of a SuperCharger, so the only one available is in London )
So well, it was already a stretch to adapt my lifestyle to accomodate a Tesla, this missing feature is like a mail from Musk explaining me I'm definitively not the target demographic for his car.
Accepted, I wouldn't want to be solely dependant on a supercharger. I'm not even sure I need a supercharger. Has to be home-charging for me.
It's possible, at this point in time, that maybe you aren't the demographic. I wouldn't blame Musk for that, really. More of an city infrastructure issue. I mean, I don't see a huge push towards generic charging points all over the city despite things moving in that direction.
There was some green deal thing a year or two ago where they were subsidising charging points at home ... of course, they scrapped that ... I guess that wouldn't help you anyway.
Maybe you're better off with a hybrid and get a Tesla when either the city charging situation improves or your home situation changes.
> I mean, I don't see a huge push towards generic charging points all over the city despite things moving in that direction.
In London at least, the push is to get less car on the road, regardless if they are electric or not. There is no need to encourage electric adoption, only discourage cars and discourage more the one that are not electric.
I had a breakdown earlier this year and managed just fine over 2 months without the car. We fixed it because there is just no convenient way to go see the family or move children around easily and safely.
The fix for that however is probably coming from a combination of Uber-like services and automated car rental ( as long as they get to your home and back to the rental lot, you can manage the rest of the way ), rather than personal car ownership electric or otherwise.
We are not quite there yet, but considering my last car lasted me 15 years and counting, if I have a next one, it will be my last.
edit: BTW, no blaming Musk. It's not his fault if his products are desirable outside his target demographic.
Average travel time seems to be about 25 minutes in the US (https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf) so I suspect that for most of the driving that people actually do the Model 3 will be more than adequate. The problem is what counts as a day trip in the US is much further than in the UK. Of course you could just rent an ICE car for longer journeys. I have a colleague in Raleigh NC who rents a car when he drives to Florida (long weekend, not day trip) even though he has a perfectly good car of his own. His reasoning is that he can often get special offers so it is cheap, reduced wear an tear on his own vehicle, and if an incident occurs he won't have much to do and no impact on his car insurance.
But then for a lot of people in London (although maybe not in your case?) they won't have easy access to a charger at home, so public chargers might be the easiest way.
I think musk dropped the ball here. A decontented 35-40k model 3 should be available. They should also allow you to option the price up for luxury and performance like the A4/S4/RS4 or 320/328/335/m3. That should make this vehicle both profitable and more aspirational.
Paid for supercharging, where I live, is still cheaper than petrol. Filling at home is about 1/5 of the price per km compared to an BMW 330i. If I would have to do paid for supercharging it would still be less than half of the price for a petrol km. [1]
Superchargers should still be cheaper than gas. If I recall correctly, Elon stated they weren't looking to make a profit but rather to recoup their investment in Supercharger infrastructure.
Option 1: Autopilot isn't where Tesla wants it, and they are trying hard to get it up to snuff, since so much has been made about how far ahead of everyone else Tesla is.
Option 2: In the opinion of a Tesla analyst who works for a bank that underwrote Tesla capital raises, it's a strategic move because the Autopilot is so awesome that it will eat away at Model S sales, though the mechanism by which that happens is unclear. And of course, Elon Musk is known for keeping things close to the chest.
I mean, it could be option 2, but I know where I'd put my money.
