Tesla's Long-Awaited, Lower-Priced Model 3 to Arrive Friday | Hacker News Reader

Tesla's Long-Awaited, Lower-Priced Model 3 to Arrive Friday

npr.org

179 pointsgs7116 comments

20,000 cars per month by December is an incredibly ambitious goal. If achieved, they have a very good chance of getting their 500,000 cars in 2018, something that virtually everyone (including myself) thought could not be done.

So two things:

1) If you don't have a dog in this race, wait and see if Tesla really does achieve these goals. Outrageous claims require strong evidence.

2) If you're a competitor, now is not the time to fold your arms, look down your nose, and say it can't be done. Tesla has a 50/50 (30% chance? 60% chance?) chance of eating your lunch, so it's a gamble to assume they won't succeed. And if you're a luxury car maker, you don't need me to tell you that as the Model S is already eating your (high profit margin) lunch: "Tesla’s Model S outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US" https://electrek.co/2017/05/26/tesls-model-s-leading-us-larg...

If you're a competitor, you really have only one option: assume Tesla will succeed and so try to compete like hell.

> Tesla’s Model S outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US

Those cars are not even in the same class, of course Tesla would outsell them. Compare sales of the model S in Germany with the C class, BMW 3 (or maybe the 5) and just forget about Porsche.

Other cars you could compare it with are larger sedans of the premium variety Japanese manufacturers (Toyota -> Lexus, Nissan -> Infinity).

I'm really happy to see Tesla make moves but if you're going to make comparisons it helps if they're apples to apples otherwise you just make Tesla look bad.

Downvoters are encouraged to spend some time behind the wheel of an S class (even a 10 year old one will do) and then to go drive a Tesla for a bit.

And yet, by all appearances, the Model S /is/ cutting into S-class sales.

Whether the experience is exactly the same or not is irrelevant. If you're a luxury car maker, you're already feeling this; it's not a hypothetical.

>If you're a luxury car maker, you're already feeling this..

I am not sure. If I want a luxury car, I am going to get a Porsche.

End of story.

I'd be very curious to see actual data about this. I'm not sure one way or the other. Most of the Model S owners I know are people who previously would not have considered buying a car in that price range, so they weren't really potential S Class customers. It's amazing to me how many friends who used to drive Toyotas or at most low-end BMWs and Audis are now spending nearly $100K to get a Tesla. At the same time, the people I know who have cars like the S Class or 7 Series tend to value their refinement and interior quality, which the Model S doesn't really match yet. It doesn't seem like many of them have made the switch (a few have a Model S as an additional car rather than a replacement).

In my world it seems like Tesla has successfully brought a bunch of new buyers to a higher price point, without seriously tempting many of the people who were already buying in that price range. But obviously this is just based on anecdotes and my limited view of the world. So I'd love to see real data about who is buying these cars, and how many of them would have otherwise bought something like an S Class.

Someone over on the Tesla forums was aggregating S/7 series sales from public records and they was a significant and sustained drop since the S was introduced.

Discussion around something similar...

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6dj815/tesla_m...

That's about the 3 series, which matches my experience better. A 3 series is a much cheaper car than the Model S (or 7 Series or S Class). I have no doubt that people who had 3 Series are now considering Teslas, and much credit to Tesla for creating a product that convinces these people to spend so much more money.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/mercedes-benz-s-class-s...

Except S-Class sales went up in 2013 and skyrocketed in 2014. Overall it seems like the introduction of a new model by Mercedes had far more effect than the Model S and then it fell off because it got older. 7-Series sales were probably also mostly affected by an ageing car.

I know of at least one tesla owner who was definitely someone would would buy an S Class

You keep claiming these things. Do you have any shred of evidence? Because from the numbers we in the industry are seeing, it doesn't seem to be the case.

Not sure why you're downvoted, you're right.

Tesla S starts at $57K.

- Mercedes S starts at $97K - Panamera starts at $86K - 6/7 series start at $81K/$83K.

You're right, you're looking at mid-range Audis and the like. But having been in a 2016 S and several Audis the interior quality is hugely different. The Audi feels great, and the S felt like my eight year old Altima.

I don't want to sound like a hater - the Tesla is a lot of fun to drive, and I like electric, but still.

It depends which Model S you buy though.

It's possible to spec one well north of 100k (isn't a P100D around 140ish?), at which point comparisons to S-classes and 7 series and so on surely must cross the minds of some buyers. I completely agree regarding cabin quality though.

Looking at the price range just reinforces that they're not in the same class:

Telsa S: $57-140k

Mercedes S-Class: $97-226k

That's a 70% increase at the bottom and 60% at the top.

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2017/cost-to-own/ https://www.edmunds.com/mercedes-benz/s-class/2017/cost-to-o...

  2017 Tesla Model S Average Price Paid $86,200
  2017 Mercedes-Benz S-Class Average Price Paid $98,958

Which is just under 15%.

That's misleading.

For the S class: "Based on S 550e Plug-In Hybrid with options".

As soon as you select any other model:

* S550 - $108,506

* S63 - $196,496

* S65 - $241,129

* others - $180K, $230K.

So the S-Class is "for the base model" but using it as a litmus for the S class range is no different to only looking at the Model S 60, at $68K.

"April 16th, 2017 will be the last day to order the Model S 60 and 60D."

https://electrek.co/2017/03/17/tesla-discontinuing-model-s-6...

So, the S 60 does not exist anymore. Further the other models are not electric cars.

"Like the W221 S500, the W222 S-Class will be powered by a more powerful twin-turbo V8 producing 455 hp (339 kW) while the S600 will carry a twin-turbo V12. There is also a diesel-powered S350 BlueTEC version, a hybrid S400 with a 20-kilowatt electric motor and 306 hp (228 kW) V6 engine, a diesel-electric hybrid S300 BlueTEC. A S500 Plug-in Hybrid was later introduced at the Frankfurt Motor Show (IAA) with a market release of 2014 and claimed a 3 litres/100 km mileage, a CO2 rating of 69 g/km and up to 30 km of emissions free driving. The S500 Plug-In hybrid is fitted with a 329 hp (245 kW) 3-litre V6 and an 80-kilowatt electric motor.[25][26] AMG fettered S63 (V8 bi-turbo) and S65 (V12 bi-turbo) LWB sedans are also on offer. All S-Class models will come with a 7-speed automatic transmission.[27]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_S-Class

I would say price ranges are more reliable.

Also since there's no dealers, Edmunds simply just copied MSRP, which also is incorrect TBH because it is not the price for basic model without upgrades.

That's just sticker price, many of those cars get sold at a a minor price premium to a ~30% discount.

Which is why the monthly sales are all over the map:

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/porsche/porsche-pa...

  2016
  January 336 February 293 March 334 April 371 
  2017
  January 35 February 28 March 554 April 1098  <Likely discounts

     <Likely discounts

Or you know they just introduced a new model...

EU sales show very different trends. http://carsalesbase.com/european-car-sales-data/Porsche/Pors...

January 2016: 227 vs 2017: 660

Yeah, because it takes time to get the cars to the US-

"Class" is not determined exclusively by price point as much as automotive magazines assert that is the only delineation.

It's going to put people in or out of a price tier, but how many people that can afford both are going "oh no, that's just below the price tier I want to buy into".

Sure that's a subtle piece of the puzzle, not a conscious decision.

When you look at the other pieces, like features and performance, the Model S is on par with the rest of the luxury sedans or better. Mercedes, BMW, Porsche, Bentley, Rolls, etc.

> When you look at the other pieces, like features and performance

Yeah, have you compared say "cabin quality" to a Bentley or Rolls? That's another piece that falls way short. Even to a C/E Mercedes.

Door handles being ... problematic, etc, are things that push the S from being "on par" with those cars you name.

Honestly if you think door handles are what push a Mercedes off of "par", then I don't have a response as this seems like a debate about what's subjective and/or important....

I've actually worked at luxury car dealers, I don't find Bentley or Rolls cabin quality to be better than a Mercedes, and I've driven all of them around at least once. Automotive engineering doesn't precisely follow the price curve.

Bentlty and Rolls are covered in a lot more veneer and aesthetics.

They get away with it because they put in monster engines to push their giant hyper-insulated boxes pretty quickly in a straight line and that's about all. The s class is designed to a slightly different specification.

> I don't find Bentley or Rolls cabin quality to be better than a Mercedes

I've only been in a Bentley once, and I think you misunderstand. The quality of -either- a Bentley, Rolls, Mercedes, Audi or whatever, all of those, far exceeds the Model S, which is more akin in cabin quality to my old Altima.

I did, I thought you meant the S class, although my rides in a couple of different trim levels of the Model S didn't leave me with that impression.

I would agree with you as far as aesthetic preference goes, but if you view this as an objective metric similar to cabin space, audio/onboard computer performance, etc. then I would disagree.

The Telsa Model S starts at $70, not $57K. You're quoting the "after estimated savings price" which includes the tax credit (a debatable inclusion) and the savings in fuel over five years (ridiculous to include in a cross-class comparison).

Seems much closer in price to your parent's list than your list, though the reality is it's somewhere in the middle:

    3 Series - $33,450 (-34,550)
    C Class - $39,500 (-28,500)
    5 Series - $51,200 (-16,800)
    Model S - $68,000
    6 Series - $77,600 (+9,600)
    Porsche Panamera - $78,100 (+10,100)
    7 Series - $81,500 (+13,500)
    S Class - $96,600 (+28,600)

Edit: With the US federal tax credit of $7,500, it comes down closer to the bottom list, but still in the middle.

Being competitors is not just a question of price. How many people buying a Tesla have considered buying a Mercedes S Class? How many people buying a Mercedes S Class have considered buying a Tesla?

If you make the same comparison for the EU the differences will be much (much!) larger due to various taxes. Especially for cars with larger displacements. In NL for instance the cheapest Panamera is 109000 Euro.

GP is also using the same marketing trick used by Apple. Sell huge numbers of an anemic product lineup and trumpet those figures against single models from market leaders whose aggregate sales across 20 models dwarf sales of 2 models from Tesla/Apple.

He should have used the E-Class/5-Series/A6 segment, not one below. Then the price difference after incentives is a bit over 10k. While going up market the difference can be more than twice that much.

Maybe you're getting downvoted because there's more than one way to define "in the same class"? Just a thought.

I've always wondered to what extent "traditional" luxury car makers have one hand tied behind their backs competing with Tesla in the electric market thanks to still having to support "legacy" technology like the internal combustion engine.

The major German marques often seem to be investing in shared platforms for next generation models that support combustion and electric drive options, but it strikes me that a platform for a combustion based car has to support a ton of things the electric one often doesn't - combustion engines have typically needed much larger/complex gear boxes and drive train in general, plus all the big firewalls needed to keep engine fires out of the cabin and so on. A purely electric car company like Tesla can presumably build out its platform technology without having to worry about a lot of these things. I'd guess you can even build more cabin space for a vehicle of the same size and so on thanks to eliminating many of them. I wonder if shared platforms can leave in otherwise artificial constraints on the electric version for compatibility reasons?

Yes, a whole bunch of sunk costs.

The internal combustion engine is fantastically cheap for what it entails. It's as complicated as a bloody rocket engine, but an entire vehicle can be bought for a few months California rent. It took literally trillions to engineer it to what we have today. Companies don't want to abandon that investment.

And yet... That's what they'll have to do. The electric car will be so much cheaper to make (and is so much cheaper to operate and maintain) due to its fundamental simplicity that as soon as battery costs get lower, nearly everyone will be forced to transition to electric.

As far as I can tell, the internal combustion engine and related components are not the most expensive part of a modern car to build or maintain. Suspension, braking, tires, electronics, drivetrain and interior features are the parts of a car that typically increase the cost the most. They're also the parts that get the most wear and tear, and the parts that are the most expensive to replace. And they're all still present on a fully electric car. A modern internal combustion engine will last the life of every other component of the vehicle with basically no maintenance, other than an oil change every 5-10K miles. And if it ever does fail, you can get a complete replacement engine for less than the cost of a suspension system or a few hours of a shop diagnosing a computer issue.

Tesla was recently replacing $10,000 electric motors on their Model S because they were wearing out under normal usage - some customers got 3 or 4 of them, if I remember correctly. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101153_two-thirds-of-ea...

Brakes and drivetrain are either much simpler or experience far less wear on an electric car.

And your point about how good internal combustion engines are for the price is exactly what I said earlier. It's pretty amazing that we HAVE been able to make ICEs so cheap and (relatively) reliable, considering how complex they are with so many moving parts.

The fact that Tesla had teething issues with their early electric motors does not change the fact that fundamentally, brushless electric motors are simpler, more wear resistant than internal combustion engines in principle by a huge margin.

Tesla isn't the only one who will be able to take advantage of the simplicity of a pure electric drivetrain.

Yup. I can't even imagine how cheap, efficient and reliable electric motors will become after the kind of engineering effort applied to ICEs is applied to them.

Electric motors are already ~90% efficient and far more reliable than IC engines, so there's not much gain to be had there.

Advances would be more likely to come in the form of reduced weight (better magnets for PM motors, e.g.) and durability.

After all, it's not like we haven't been using electric motors for roughly the same amount of time as we have IC engines. Heck, most of us own way more electric motors than IC -- kitchen appliances, HVAC, computer drive motors, laundry equipment. Even the car usually has a dozen or two electric motors in it compared to one IC engine. :-)

They build platform across a lot of models shared between various brands of the same group. So what they lose supporting gas and electric, they (could) win it back with a diversity of models and form factors.

Also it is not before the next generation of cars (i.e. 10 years) that the bulk of their sales could really be mainly electric. (the world is not like California. A lot of people interested like me simply can't get an electric car - not even because of lifestyle, just because of infrastructure) In the meanwhile they will need to provide hybrid or simpler hybrid.

And traditional constructor are experienced at designing roomy interiors. Designing a single interior across a range is probably more a win than a loss.

BTW it seems that nowadays every constructor has some model ready to commercialise either in 2018 or 2019. Will be interesting to see if they really can hit their target and what Tesla competition is really looking like. Interesting times.

BMW tried a dedicated electric, the i3, with a pretty daring design inside and out. Sales were not good, unfortunately. http://www.bmwblog.com/2017/04/07/heres-last-years-bmw-i3-sa...

Note that Tesla's goal isn't 500,000 cars in 2018, but rather a production rate of 500,000/year by the end of 2018. In other words, they're aiming for ~10,000 cars in the last week of December, and probably less before that.

This is easier than actually producing 500,000 cars in 2018, of course, so that just makes it all the more likely they'll get there. Will be really interesting to see how they fare in the next two years or so.

Assuming they meet 20,000/month in December 2017 as Musk says and ~40,000/month in December 2018 as you say, then linearly extrapolating between the two would still get you about 350-400k per year. Same order of magnitude.

And it seems likely if they can achieve 20,000/month in December 2017 they will be able to double that in 12 months.

I would expect them to double it faster, actually.

I think there's an aspirational piece too. Without looking, do you know the names of the CEOs of any other car manufacturer?

So are you going to buy a car from one of them.. or the guy who is going to take us to Mars?

Which Vision do you want to be a part of?

I'm not speaking for everyone but the CEO's vision really doesn't affect my decision to buy a car. I'm personally more fond of 'luxury' cars so I'd go for an S-class unless I already own one and am buying a 'fun' car.

> And if you're a luxury car maker, you don't need me to tell you that as the Model S is already eating your (high profit margin) lunch: "Tesla’s Model S outsells Mercedes S-Class, Porsche Panamera, and BMW 6/7 Series combined in the US" https://electrek.co/2017/05/26/tesls-model-s-leading-us-larg....

Ah, electrek, the personal blog of an early Tesla investor. Great source. (not) This kind of statistic primarily serves as an example of how you can massage numbers to get the narrative you want.

> Musk also tweeted that production would increase "exponentially," with 100 cars in August, more than 1,500 in September and 20,000 per month in December.

Finally, someone who says things will grow exponentially and actually means it!

I just worry how many cars they'll be producing in 5 years time.

Forget global warming, the real danger is the entire Earth being turned into paperclips^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Model 3s.

The U.S. $7500 tax credit for buying electric cars is cut in half two quarters after a manufacturer hits 200,000 units. Two quarters later it is cut to 25 percent, and at the start of the sixth quarter after the limit is reached, the credit disappears completely.

I wonder if enough people know about this to produce pressure to buy Model 3's quickly?

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/how-does-the-electric-ca...

Tesla is planning deliveries to maximize the amount of owners who can receive a credit.

Estimated phase out schedule: http://i.imgur.com/D3AoD18.png

There's definitely a ton of discussion about the credit in the Tesla fan community, with reservation holders speculating and worrying about whether they'll be able to obtain the full credit.

I don't think buying pressure matters too much at this point, though. It'll be a while before they can build enough for buyers to be the limiting factor. The tax credit will probably start phasing out while they're still production-limited.

It's arriving Friday and they still haven't released official photos of the interior nor have any options configurations. Really odd way to launch a vehicle.

https://www.tesla.com/model3

The very first car comes off the line on Friday. The first deliveries are at the end of the month. First deliveries to the general public (i.e. not employees or specially chosen VIP customers) are still a couple of months out.

This is how they did the Model X. They had a reveal event, and at the end of that event they delivered the first six units on stage. Mere mortals didn't start getting theirs until quite a bit later.

The first model 3's won't have any extra options, Musk made that clear a while ago by discussing the wrong release of the X with too many options that ended up backing up the deliveries.

But they haven't even officially shown off the interior at all. The car hasn't been fully shown, even in its one configuration.

Why is that a problem? They've gotten a ton of Model 3 reservations before people even knew what it looked like. These are faith buyers.

Because Tesla still wants to exist in 10 years. If they disappoint eager buyers now it could be the last Tesla they'll buy. Next time they have to decide, most car companies will have a fully electric range.

There are some unofficial photos of the interior [1]. Its severely lacking, with a large screen just tacked on to the dashboard with no interface whatsoever. Musk says model 3 will be a smaller, less advanced version of the flagship S [2].

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201...

http://bgr.com/2017/03/24/tesla-model-3-release-video-musk-o...

I just wonder, how much bandwidth these cars send home (Tesla HQ) as learning data.

Also curious about this. Tesla has the ability to to hoard millions of hours of driving experience per year. Data seems to trump all in ML applications so far and Tesla definitely has the most available to harvest.

At the same time, Tesla is primarily video based and it is likely quite difficult to call home with gigabytes of video every night.

That's pretty clearly part of the long term play

And I hope we can end this stuff where companies take training data produced by civilians for free, and then keep it secret.

If you use data given to you by your users, you should have to release it into the public domain.

Is it possible to disable reporting? If, say, I'm not thrilled by idea telling the guys from Tesla where I'm heading to?

Yes

How? Even Tesla's with autopilot equipped (but not purchased) capture data.

You get a chance to decide if you want to send the data to them.

According to this link[0] posted above:

"Of course, the bandwidth varies based on what network it’s being sent from – meaning that some owners can track their home network, but not the data sent from the in-car cellular connection, which is covered by Tesla and managed by AT&T in the US."

[0]https://electrek.co/2017/06/14/tesla-autopilot-data-floodgat...

I am actually super intrigued to see how the launch of the Model 3 affects this practice from a legal standpoint. Currently, Tesla's high priced cars are fairly niche, and a lot of their practices fall under people's radar. Issues like right to repair, the active tracking of every car, etc. are pretty concerning from an ownership standpoint.

With buyers who may be less apt to replace their car every couple years, and a larger volume of buyers in general, I am kind of expecting more of Tesla's practices to get tested in court.

From a privacy standpoint, Tesla's 'learning data' is arguably a big deal, and from my understanding, something you currently can't shut off, even if you possess the title of ownership to the vehicle.

I'm pretty sure you can pop the SIM card out if you really don't want your data going back to the mothership.

Right to repair is an interesting angle. They've made noises about opening things up to help with the influx of cars that the Model 3 will bring. Let's hope they follow through.

This explains how the learning works in general: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/insideHPC/tesla-accelerate...

This one contains graphs of the bandwidth consumed if you allow them to upload: https://www.google.com/amp/s/electrek.co/2017/06/14/tesla-au...

Grats to them. Really curious what the configuration of the cars to be delivered on the 28th are. Also will be very interesting over the next year with two 200+ "affordable" EVs on the market and another pair to be announced in September if those early adopters on this end of the market will think of their purchases a few months down the road

The configuration is a really good question. The website doesn't allow any customization right now because it's so early -- so I assume these 30 initial shipments are people who've been in contact with Tesla directly about being the first batch.

Elon has said in the past that too much customization really put a damper on Model X, so I wouldn't be surprised if these are all nearly identical except for color. There's also no all wheel drive model yet (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/845284390397665280) and therefore no "performance" option either.

Yeah, from what I am hearing the initial batches will only have a few options:

- Wheels

- Paint

- "Autopilot"

According to the article wheels and paint are the only options. However auto pilot is probably a software only option at this point in time, not affecting the build complexity, so you might be right about that too.

I think they said there would be about 70 possible configurations for the Model 3 initially. The Model S/X have something like a million possible configurations. I'd speculate that these first 30 are identical and fully loaded (at least, fully loaded relative to the initial options available), as that's what they've done with previous models. On the other hand, they're really pushing to have their own employees buy the first cars they make, so maybe they'll aim for cheaper options instead.

Even if they hit their production targets, everything hinges on how well and how soon they can get their autnomous feature to work. If Google gets theirs to work and into a production car before Tesla does it will be tough for Tesla. Until then the stock will have good momentum.

Why will it be tough for them? They will be able to figure it out 6 months later. Google can't make that much money in the short term in the grand scheme of this potential market.

I don't agree with this analysis. The Model 3 is a superior mass market electric car to almost all competitors (only the Chevy Bolt is comparable on cost and range).

Autonomous driving will be a game changer, but it's also vitally important for Tesla to capture the electric vehicle mass market.

The Volt is a more practical competitor to the Model 3, which is part of why I dropped my model 3 reservation for a 2017.

Other reasons include a lackluster test drive of a Model S and my increasing skepticism of Tesla's practices as a company (aggressively selling cars before adding new features at a completely random cadence but claiming model years are unnecessary, promises like AP2 parity, QC failures at 20k cars over several months while also planning to make 20k cars a month, etc.)

But I digress, 40-50 mile range on EV only mode means most people can complete their commutes on EV only with a Volt. I charge at work and at home, so I can get 50 miles to work, 50 miles by lunch, and another 50 miles to go home.

A Volt specced out like mine has a Mobileye sensor for lane keeping assist, ACC, an interior not as needlessly spartan as the 3, 0-30 times slightly faster than last year's Model S 85, and a hatchback.

After driving the Volt I'm really saddened that GM won't push the Volt more. Not a single Model 3 reservation I know wouldn't be better served by a Volt, but most of them had no idea about stuff like the improved 50 mile range. Some even write it off as a hybrid (which it technically is, but they think 1-2 mile range, not 50)

The volt is a great car, just wish they made a cool looking one.

The Gen 2 looks pretty modern. I don't know if it qualifies as cool (I think it does but I bought it already so I'm biased), but it's pleasant to look at and not-Aztec-like the way the Gen 1 was.

Given the recent stories behind the scenes of Musk's companies... I can't help but imagine that there are hundreds of almost broken, spent, and exhausted young people (many of them very low paid "interns") who have been working for peanuts making this happen.

I really wonder how the top-speed is on those cars in their various configurations. For me this is the deal breaker on all other "affordable" solutions thus far.

The top-speed is really a prime concern for choosing your car?

Interesting. Do you live in a no-speed-limit jurisdiction, such as Germany?

I do live in Germany, and it is a concern for me.

The VW e-up costs 22k EUR and has a top speed of 130 km/h, the BMW i3 full electric version w/o range extender costs about 35k EUR and has a top speed of 150 km/h.

This performance would be fine if I bought a car under 10k EUR but not for this price.

A car that can only drive at 130 km/h would be turn-off in many regions where the legal speed limit is lesser. There is such a thing as overtaking other cars safely (e.g. overtaking a car that drives 100 km/h on a 120 km/h road in Sweden).

Yeah I guess I assumed that basically every modern car can go at least 120km/h

I have an i3. The top speed is fine; I can do 90mph here in the US, but you probably don't want to. Driving an EV you start to realize how much energy it takes to maintain high speeds, due to wind resistance. I can drive a full 100 miles on a charge at 75mph, but if I tried to drive the same distance at 90mph, I'd probably only get 60 miles. Wind resistance makes a huge difference to EVs.

Just adding more data:

The 2017 Volt (Opel Ampera-e) has a top speed of about 160 km/h / 100 mph for 35k EUR, $33k USD

Pretty sure the Model 3 can acheive this, if not be faster, since this is just the norm and not 'fast'.

Forgot to add - I do 80-85 mph 128-136 kmh 5 days a week on my Volt

Same here, I do bursts of 120-130kmh highway driving every day and occasionally go higher.

But I usually switch into Hold mode (turns on the combustion engine) so I don't waste too much battery.

To be honest, the extra torque of an electric engine makes slow speeds seem faster. When I was in my diesel VW I found myself at 140-150km/h quite often by accident. In the Volt I'm comfortable going slower because it "feels" faster somehow.

My 2017 is speed limited to 101 mph. It gets to that speed pretty uneventfully, but I've heard the low rolling resistance tires are only rated for 100 mph so GM limited it to 100. I'm curious if a dealer could remove the limit if you changed the tires, but I don't think anyone has bothered

Yes, I live in Germany. I have the same discussion roughly every month on HN[1]. No I'm not a reckless driver, I'm a family father that tries his best to drive safely. Just going 120km/h on the Autobahn in Germany is often times not the safest way.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14423002

You conjure a scenario where you're behind an unsafe driver who's going 130 km/h on the center lane, and you want to overtake him to get some distance from the source of danger. Can't do this if your car is only capable of driving at up to 130-140 km/h, true.

The obvious -- and also the safest, in any car -- solution: just slow down. Switch to the right lane which invariably runs at around 80 to 90 km/h. Your nemesis will distance themselves at >30 km/h.

Maybe stay on the right lane at <100 km/h in general, overtaking trucks only when necessary, giving you ample room for acceleration in case you need it. It's a lot more energy efficient, anway. And presumably safer, too.

I don't think any car I've ever owned has spent more than a minute or two at its top rated speed. Even acceleration is only important up to a minimum to get along in traffic. Even in Germany where cars are allowed to go pretty quick in some areas hardly any of them go at or near their rated top speed.

True, because it takes long to actually get to that speed.

But imagine if you'd like to drive 160 km/h on the highway all the time, you probably need a car that has a rated top speed of at least 180 km/h.

Most of the (gas engine) cars sold today can go 180.

Most of the high end cars will go 225 or 249 (legal limit enforced by the engine firmware, also related to what the tires the car is sold standard with can handle).

A small car doing 180 will not live long.

I once had my little Honda CRX almost up to 110 mph on an empty highway one late night in Nevada. (I might've made it with a tailwind!) Pretty exciting. Not something I'd want to do for an extended period of time. Car journalist David E. Davis claimed he had fun driving the same car on the Autobahn, however.

CRX is a car that is quite frequently modded the crap out of because the engine is capable of substantially more HP than it puts out standard, you'll also find these engines in many other custom builds (super popular in souped up classic minis for instance).

They'll definitely go fast (even in the standard setup) but I'd really hate to have anything unexpected happen at those speeds. Even in a larger and more stable car that would be taking your chances but in a CRX you'd be in little pieces all over the road, just a deer would make you really wish you were somewhere else.

I've driven a little Daihatsu Copen (660 CC, 63 HP, a bit over 800 Kg), which was a ton of fun to drive and would go quite fast (on the GPS about 175), it's mere inches off the ground so it feels much faster still. But I always realized that I'm playing the lottery when doing that.

Coming back from Poland to NL one night through Germany I came upon a bunch kids in their CRX's going flat out on the autobahn, I could keep up with them easily because of the better handling of the Copen but on the straights they definitely had the advantage. Wicked fast for such small cars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daihatsu_Copen

Well, crap, TIL, Daihatsu made the Ford Ghia Barchetta! Jealous!

I was taking golfs and fiestas to 180 all the time. Even faster downhill. Never any problems.

You'd be surprised, here in the poorer European countries where high-power engines are taxed, and speed limit enforcement lax, you constantly see 100HP sedans with 4 people and luggage cruising the highways above 150km/h. Engines do not really suffer since you're not going flat-out all the time

Then you would also buy a high end car. Model S, perhaps??

An 125HP car of normal weight (on American landbarge or anything) surpasses 180km/h and can easily maintain a cruising speed of 160km/h with tolerable noise, but mediocre fuel consumption.

Going 160km/h is easy with most cars. Problem is that it increases fuel consumption significantly so won't really be an option with an electric car (currently).

This is a little different for electric cars, though. Have a look at their current top speeds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_currentl...

Many max out at only ~130 km/h (~80 mph), most don’t reach 150 km/h (90 mph).

The models described in the wiki table are also the maximum power versions of those cars. There are lower versions which don’t even get to this velocity.

I don't think that matters much. 130km/hour is enough for top speed in most countries. With gasoline powered cars you simply need a higher top speed if you want the ability to swiftly accelerate to that 130km/hour.

Problem is that a 130km/h rated car will only get 110km/h uphill. That's when it becomes annoying.

130 is the maximum speed in most countries, Germany excepted in Europe, in most states in the US it's 55 Mph, 70 or 85 (Texas, the exception), so only in Texas or Germany would you run into the situation where your car can't go the legal limit, but it is still more than capable of achieving the minimum speed, and in fact that speed at which the vast majority of the traffic moves.

Slower than 130 km/h would be a problem.

but when the speed limit is 70mph, everyone goes ~80mph... and it is probably not a good thing to always go at your car's maximum rated speed, you can't speed up to pass someone for example... (Assuming that the model 3 would have a lower than 130mph limit to differentiate it from its more expensive siblings.)

The model 3 will have a top in excess of 140 mph according to 'reliable sources'. I don't think you're going to have issues trying to go 80 mph.

We should find out at the end of the month, but I'd be surprised if it was much lower than the 130MPH top speed of the slowest Model S. (Ignoring the 40, which was an outlier in many ways.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com