backtop


Print 72 comment(s) - last by inperfectdarkn.. on Jul 22 at 10:12 AM

Ford cockblocked the Model E name

We’ve been hearing about Tesla Motors’ follow-up to the Model S and Model X for quite some time. The car, which was previously known as the Model E, is being aimed at a mainstream audience with a price point below $40,000.
 
In an interview today with Auto Express, Tesla CEO Elon Musk officially confirmed the vehicle and its name: the Model III. Staying true to his flippant nature, Musk explained the reasoning behind the name (which he blames on Ford).

“We had the Model S for sedan and X for crossover SUV, then a friend asked what we were going to call the third car,” Musk explained. “So I said we had the model S and X, we might as well have the E.”


Tesla Model S
 
But Musk says that Ford put its foot down and said that it couldn’t use the Model E name, adding, “I thought this is crazy, Ford’s trying to kill sex!” Musk relented and settled on calling the car the Model III.

To reach the sub-$40,000 price tag, the Model III will likely abandon a mostly aluminum unibody (as seen in the Model S) for a unibody constructed primarily of steel. Musk is also hoping that improved battery chemistry (along with economies of scale brought by its planned Gigafactory) will allow it to offer an affordable battery pack that is capable of giving the Model III a driving range of 200+ miles. For comparison, the base Model S has a driving range of 208 miles while the top-ranging variant has a driving range of 265 miles.

The Model III will be unveiled to the public in 2016, while deliveries will commence the following year.


Tesla Roadster 2.5

On one final note, Musk hasn’t forgotten about the [discontinued] Roadster, which helped kick off Tesla Motors’ automotive efforts back in 2008. That vehicle features a driving range of 245 miles, but Musk hopes to offer an upgraded battery pack in the near future that will boost the range to 400 miles.

Sources: Auto Express, Tesla Motors via Twitter



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So now you have
By Nightbird321 on 7/15/2014 11:17:52 PM , Rating: 5
S3X




RE: So now you have
By inperfectdarkness on 7/16/2014 2:33:17 AM , Rating: 1
This is BS, plain and simple. It's like GM claiming that no one else can use the letters "GTO" on a vehicle. Ferrari did it first, then Mitsubish, Noble, etc. Didn't stop Toyota from using "TRD 3000GT" even though Mitsubishi was already using "3000GT".

Here's the kicker:

We're talking about stuff that's OVER A CENTURY OLD!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ford_vehicles

If I'm reading this correctly, the "model F"was produced in 1906-1907. Ford hasn't used "model" labels for--what in copyright law--we call an ETERNITY.

Ford can suck it.


RE: So now you have
By BZDTemp on 7/16/2014 5:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
There is loads of that around. The reason the Porsche 911 wasn't named 901 is that Peugeot has(has?) got the rights for three-digit numbers with a zero in the middle.


RE: So now you have
By Helbore on 7/16/2014 7:03:41 PM , Rating: 3
Is this true? I thought the whole reason Intel abandoned the numbered processors after the 486 was because they were told you can't trademark a number.

From what I recall, Intel sued AMD for breaching their trademark and naming their CPUs AM486, but the court ruled that a number alone is not something that can be trademarked. Hence the upcoming 586 being renamed the Pentium.

If that's true, then I cannot see how Peugeot could trademark every number with a zero in the middle - even among other car manufacturers.


RE: So now you have
By PrinceGaz on 7/17/2014 12:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the real* reason is because NexGen trademarked "80586" before Intel did, quite rightly reasoning that they were likely to use that after 8086, 80186, 80286, 80386, and 80486. Not wanting to violate NexGen's trademark, Intel were forced to think up a new name for their 80586 chip and decided to call it a "Pentium". Thet then faced a dilemma when it came to naming their next processor as the logical choices of "Hexium" or "Sexium" but they felt that would give peop0le the wrong idea about what it was for, so they called it a Pentium II instead. Having done that, Pentium III and Pentium 4 were natural follow up names.

Peugeot do indeed hold international rights for all automobile names including a three-digit number which has a "0" as the second digit*
.

* the entire content of this paragraph is utter bollocks


RE: So now you have
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2014 7:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
Oh how I wished you owned the trademark to something people wanted to infringe on. But you don't.


RE: So now you have
By clarkn0va on 7/16/2014 1:38:34 PM , Rating: 3
Trademarks make sense for preventing somebody from cashing in on brand value that you have built.

Let's say I build a great car and call it the Model E, and the market adores it and is willing to throw money at it. Then you come along and build something similar, say some other car, and call it the Model E, then your actions will have a direct effect on the value of my brand, for better or for worse. Trademark is designed to prevent your actions from impacting the value of my brand.

For Ford to claim trademark infringement by Tesla for calling their product a Model E (speaking in a practical sense rather than a strictly legal perspective), then Ford should have to demonstrate that their trademark is somehow being impacted by the act. They obviously can't claim that sales of their own Model E would be hurt by this, but perhaps they could make a case that memorabilia, web site hits, museum visits, etc. would be impacted.

In any case, it's silly to imply hypocrisy on the part of the GP when you can't possibly compare the case of a 100-year-old case of alleged trademark infringement to your hypothetical daydreaming.


RE: So now you have
By JediJeb on 7/17/2014 5:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
Trademarks are the reason Ford never sold a Mustang in Germany. In the 60's the Mustang was marketed in German at the T5 because a bicycle company in Germany held the Mustang trademark for their products.


RE: So now you have
By tayb on 7/16/2014 6:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh how I wish you ran a business and wanted to name your product something that hasn't existed in your field for over a century. Trademarks should expire no more than 10 years after the end of life of a product. The fact that a trademark exists indefinitely despite a product not existing with that name is insane and an indictment on the stupidity of the PTO system in American.

The fact that you think a century old trademark on a non-existent product is acceptable is an indictment on your sanity as well.


RE: So now you have
By Alexvrb on 7/16/2014 7:52:50 PM , Rating: 3
What defines "end of life"? When the last one rolls off the assembly line? When you can no longer obtain a pair of OEM emblems? That's quite ambiguous, and 10 years isn't enough either way.

I think if they (the manufacturer) no longer offer parts for it and it hasn't seen a new model in ~40 years, that would be quite reasonable - and it would have protected Tesla in this case.


RE: So now you have
By fxnick on 7/16/2014 8:29:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's like GM claiming that no one else can use the letters "GTO" on a vehicle.


I'm sure GM does claim that.
Do you see any non-GM "GTO"s around?


RE: So now you have
RE: So now you have
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 10:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
/sigh

Let's use some common sense here for a minute. American trademark and copyright laws are NOT international.

Cars made in Japan and Italy, are not subject to those restrictions.


RE: So now you have
RE: So now you have
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 11:23:58 AM , Rating: 1
Please explain to me how a court in Detroit USA, is going to prevent Ferrari in Italy from naming a racecar F-150. Really think about it.

The car won't even RACE in America. Formula 1 doesn't come here, right?

This is nothing but a publicity stunt. Ford cannot claim world-wide ownership of a copyright filed in America.


RE: So now you have
By Qapa on 7/16/14, Rating: 0
RE: So now you have
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2014 11:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
There are Formula 1 races in the U.S.

http://www.formula1.com/races/in_detail/united_sta...


RE: So now you have
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 1:27:37 PM , Rating: 1
Okay but again, missing the point. Maybe Ford could even get that car banned from racing here, I don't know.

But my point was Ford cannot get an American court to tell an Italian-based car manufacturer, what they can and cannot name their vehicles.

PS. sorry for the flub, I'm not a huge car racing fan.


RE: So now you have
By ritualm on 7/16/2014 3:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
my point was Ford cannot get an American court to tell an Italian-based car manufacturer, what they can and cannot name their vehicles

Since when do US courts obey international law?

They don't - unless those laws align with their political interests.


RE: So now you have
By JediJeb on 7/17/2014 6:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ford had to call the original Mustang a T5 to sell it in Germany in the 60's because a German bicycle company owned the Mustang trademark there. I can see them forcing Ferrari to change the name if Ford actually sells F150s in Italy, but if not then they could not enforce the trademark.


RE: So now you have
By Spuke on 7/16/2014 12:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
There is a F1 race in the states. BTW, I'm a huge F1 fan. Just thought I'd throw that out there.


RE: So now you have
By gixser on 7/16/2014 1:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
RE: So now you have
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2014 8:34:07 AM , Rating: 3
The original Ferrari 250 GTO came before the Pontiac GTO...


RE: So now you have
By inperfectdarkness on 7/22/2014 10:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
And that's what's REALLY ironic about that whole debacle. Well that, and the fact that the original Pontiac "goat" (it doesn't actually deserve the letters "GTO" because it in no way lived up to them), was little more than a drag-racing car in street form. It couldn't handle for piss.

Yet the TRUE "GTO's" of history, those that are true grand tourers with handling, speed, looks etc...are all forgotten while the Pontiac remains a nostalgic zenith.


RE: So now you have
By Mint on 7/16/2014 8:53:45 AM , Rating: 2
Calm down. He's just joking around. Yeah, maybe Ford wasn't happy, but Tesla could have easily won a court case. This is mainly a marketing decision.

Tesla relies on word of mouth for advertising right now, and will milk that train as long as they can, so they benefit from a simple naming system that identifies the latest version (for their mainstream line at least). It's like iPhone 3, 4, 5, etc.


RE: So now you have
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2014 10:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it's not the first time that Ford has gotten crabby about names. They threw a hissy fit over Ferrari naming its racecar the F150 to celebrate 150 years of Italy's unification.

Like someone would confuse an F1 car with a full-size pickup ;)


RE: So now you have
By amanojaku on 7/16/2014 10:14:25 AM , Rating: 3
"Imagine my surprise and utter disappointment when I ordered a truck, but got a race car instead."

-Said no man EVER


RE: So now you have
By okashira on 7/16/2014 12:26:36 PM , Rating: 3
You must have never lived in Texas.


RE: So now you have
By Spuke on 7/16/2014 12:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Imagine my surprise and utter disappointment when I ordered a truck, but got a race car instead."

-Said no man EVER
There is a rash of funny going around the internet today.


RE: So now you have
By sorry dog on 7/16/2014 1:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
And also not letting Toyota name the T100 successor T150 under threat of law suit... so it was named Tundra instead.


RE: So now you have
By McGaiden on 7/17/14, Rating: -1
If true, my next car.
By peterrushkin on 7/16/2014 12:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Musk hopes to offer an upgraded battery pack in the near future that will boost the range to 400 miles."

If this is the case, this will be my next car. I'm more than liquid enough to buy it. I'm just waiting so that it'll do all my days driving on a single charge!




RE: If true, my next car.
By geekman1024 on 7/16/2014 2:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
Erm, you drive 400 miles daily? Wow!


RE: If true, my next car.
By atechfan on 7/16/2014 9:29:06 AM , Rating: 2
You don't have to drive that distance every single day for it to be useful, but yes, many people quite regularly travel 300-400 miles in a day.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/2014 1:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's the uncertainty of EV's people don't like.

Let's say I AM making a 400 mile round trip. I know I can do that in my car. I know I can gas up anywhere. I have that certainty.

Now what if I own an EV. Do I know that I can plug my car in at the hotel that night? Nope. Do I know where the Supercharger station is, or even if there IS one along my route? No.

So I don't have the same ABSOLUTE certainty that I can make my trip in the EV. And that's the problem.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Mint on 7/16/2014 3:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why the mainstream solution will be PHEV, where you stick a $2000 generator onto an EV, like the i3 has (yes, it's a $4k option right now, but that's BMW, and in volume $2k is easily doable).

But Tesla would have a hard time scaling to even 5% of the world market in 15 years, and I can easily see that many people being okay with pure EVs if there's a sufficient charging network. So it's unlikely Tesla will bother with PHEV.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/14, Rating: 0
RE: If true, my next car.
By snhoj on 7/16/2014 9:09:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Then PHEV vehicles need to be WAY more appealing. I'm not interested in the added cost, complexity, and headache of plugging in my car for a measly 20 or 30 miles of electric range.


I'm sure they will become more appealing in time. I’m intrigued by the idea of a serial hybrid with individual drives and motors for each wheel and a micro turbine alternator as a range extender.

Individual control of each wheel will create many new possibilities in terms of improvements to vehicle dynamics and stability. Such a vehicle could use differential torque at the wheels as well as deflection of the steering wheels to produce the angular acceleration required to rotate the vehicle in turns. It could even go as far as applying negative torque to the inside wheels via regen. Using all four wheels and not just the steering pair to produce the forces required will produce a much sharper response time to control inputs.

Maybe use of a triple spool, high pressure ratio, simple cycle turbine for compactness, efficiency, and light weight for the range extender. Turbines can have amazing power density and compactness (if you don’t need a recuperater, hence the simple cycle) and can be qualified to run on a variety of fuels. They can also have reasonable efficiency within a narrow operating band.

Having significant vehicle components that don’t need to be placed in the vehicle foot print so that they can be mechanically connected will allow a distinct packaging and weight placement advantage but only if the vehicle is designed from the ground up as an electric drive vehicle. Heavy components could be placed for low center of gravity and low polar moment of inertia about the vertical axis. It’s easier to run wires through a passenger compartment than a driveshaft without encroaching on space and comfort. The flexibility in terms of vehicle lay out and styling is thus far unrealized.

I don't get why plugging a car in is such a headache. I park my car in the garage at night anyway so it would be literally less than 20 seconds to plug it in.

Added cost and measly electric range are tied together via battery cost. You can have low cost or range. 25 miles of electric only range would work for me but 11 miles would be a poor fit. A daily 25 miles would take care of about 90% of my driving needs and significantly lower my running costs. I don't know how typical that would be.


RE: If true, my next car.
By snhoj on 7/16/2014 9:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then PHEV vehicles need to be WAY more appealing. I'm not interested in the added cost, complexity, and headache of plugging in my car for a measly 20 or 30 miles of electric range.


I'm sure they will become more appealing in time. I’m intrigued by the idea of a serial hybrid with individual drives and motors for each wheel and a micro turbine alternator as a range extender.

Individual control of each wheel will create many new possibilities in terms of improvements to vehicle dynamics and stability. Such a vehicle could use differential torque at the wheels as well as deflection of the steering wheels to produce the angular acceleration required to rotate the vehicle in turns. It could even go as far as applying negative torque to the inside wheels via regen. Using all four wheels and not just the steering pair to produce the forces required will produce a much sharper response time to control inputs.

Maybe use of a triple spool, high pressure ratio, simple cycle turbine for compactness, efficiency, and light weight for the range extender. Turbines can have amazing power density and compactness (if you don’t need a recuperater, hence the simple cycle) and can be qualified to run on a variety of fuels. They can also have reasonable efficiency within a narrow operating band.

Having significant vehicle components that don’t need to be placed in the vehicle foot print so that they can be mechanically connected will allow a distinct packaging and weight placement advantage but only if the vehicle is designed from the ground up as an electric drive vehicle. Heavy components could be placed for low center of gravity and low polar moment of inertia about the vertical axis. It’s easier to run wires through a passenger compartment than a driveshaft without encroaching on space and comfort. The flexibility in terms of vehicle lay out and styling is thus far unrealized.

I don't get why plugging a car in is such a headache. I park my car in the garage at night anyway so it would be literally less than 20 seconds to plug it in.

Added cost and measly electric range are tied together via battery cost. You can have low cost or range. 25 miles of electric only range would work for me but 11 miles would be a poor fit. A daily 25 miles would take care of about 90% of my driving needs and significantly lower my running costs. I don't know how typical that would be.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Milliamp on 7/17/2014 2:39:18 AM , Rating: 2
Your situation is extremely typical. ~70% of commutes are under 15 miles each way and the average trip in an automobile is just under 6 miles. 30 miles of EV range is enough to cover the majority of driving.

As battery prices get cheaper over the next couple years the added costs of beefing up the battery for PHEV will be recoupled in fuel savings in just 2 or 3 years at which point it won't make sense to make a hybrid that isn't PHEV.

PHEV will more that double the average gas mileage of a regular hybrid in real world driving and electric is much cheaper.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Visual on 7/17/2014 5:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
over the next couple years

more like over the next couple of decades, unfortunately...


RE: If true, my next car.
By Milliamp on 7/16/2014 10:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer77,

PHEV is really no more complex than just hybrid and Chevy Volt for instance with only ~38 miles of EV range averages 900 miles/tank in real world driving (like 100 MPG).

You are probably wrong more often than almost everyone else here combined. Every time you post people are downvoting you and telling you how wrong you are.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Spuke on 7/17/2014 5:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's right most of the time. He appears to be wrong because of lot of people here are fanboys and don't care to see reality. He doesn't need to say anything really as the market agrees with him for the most part.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autos...


RE: If true, my next car.
By Mint on 7/17/2014 2:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
The BMW i3 REx (gasoline range extender) has 72 miles EV range, not 30. That's what I think is the future, but they have to stop making EVs "unique". Could you see BMW selling the i3 if it was gas powered? Same with Nissan's uglyass LEAF, which they say they'll change next gen.

30-mile PHEVs should not have huge cost over regular hybrids, as the extra battery cost is less than the federal tax credit now. We'll see more competition in the next couple years, as lots of plugins are coming. Plenty from VW group, including the VW Golf and Audi A3.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Spuke on 7/17/2014 5:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plenty from VW group, including the VW Golf and Audi A3.
I think a regular car designed from the ground up for hybrid/PHEV use would be MUCH more palatable to people. Price might still keep them away though.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 7/16/2014 10:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
I would reckon it being somewhere in the area of $25-30k on top of the cost of a preowned Roadster (which I think are running in the $65k range?). Presumably the architecture of the updated battery will enable supercharging support as well, and hopefully the motor is also upgraded at the same time.


RE: If true, my next car.
By titanmiller on 7/16/2014 11:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
It would be absolutely incredible if upgraded Roadsters could use the supercharger network.


RE: If true, my next car.
By Spuke on 7/16/2014 1:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Roadsters were over $100k new.


Roadster vs S
By mik123 on 7/15/14, Rating: 0
RE: Roadster vs S
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/15/2014 11:17:43 PM , Rating: 5
Model S weighs 4600 lbs
Roadster weighs 2700 lbs

That would explain at least some of it :)


RE: Roadster vs S
By mik123 on 7/16/14, Rating: -1
RE: Roadster vs S
By flyingpants1 on 7/16/2014 12:29:35 AM , Rating: 2
You're not making sense dude.

They just increased the density of the pack on the Roadster, that's all.


RE: Roadster vs S
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2014 12:36:16 AM , Rating: 5
The base Tesla Model S has a 302hp electric motor and a 60 kWh battery
The Roadster has a 288hp electric motor and a 53 kWh battery

The significant weight advantage of the Roadster more than offsets its slightly reduced battery capacity, inferior battery chemistry, and likely inferior electric motor design when it comes to maximum EV range. Weight is a serious buzzkill when it comes to efficiency.

Throw a more energy-dense battery pack in the [relatively] lightweight Roadster and it’s easy to see why they can get 400 miles of range out it.


RE: Roadster vs S
By mik123 on 7/16/2014 4:21:03 PM , Rating: 1
I assumed the battery in S is much larger than the battery in Roadster. That's why I compared them to a tablet and a phone. If it's not, than it makes no sense. Why would they put a similar battery in a car that is almost a ton heavier?

Does no one here see the absurdity of these specs? I mean, you add 2,000 pounds to a car, and the battery stays the same?


RE: Roadster vs S
By m51 on 7/16/2014 1:31:41 AM , Rating: 2
Rolling resistance, and braking and acceleration losses all scale directly with vehicle mass.
Rolling resistance is the dominant energy loss, Air drag doesn't catch up to rolling losses until highway speeds and is fairly minor up to 40 mph.


RE: Roadster vs S
By Samus on 7/16/2014 4:09:23 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly, since when does a phone need to deal with wind resistance, rolling resistance and G-force having an effect on their battery performance.

That has got to be the most ignorant analogy I've ever heard.


RE: Roadster vs S
By Visual on 7/16/2014 3:23:37 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, because the ipad and galaxy use their battery for moving their weight around, exactly...


RE: Roadster vs S
By atechfan on 7/16/2014 9:26:03 AM , Rating: 4
I was not aware that your phone had electric motors to propel it, therefor being subjected to momentum to overcome, which is increased by mass.


RE: Roadster vs S
By Reclaimer77 on 7/16/14, Rating: 0
RE: Roadster vs S
By amanojaku on 7/16/2014 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
I must be the only person who assumed he was talking about the power required to drive a larger display. If he's not, then I don't know what he was thinking.

Not that the analogy holds up there, either. Yeah, the iPad has a significantly larger screen than the S4. It also has a battery over three times the size of the S4's. And the S4 has FOUR cores at 1.2GHz/1.6GHz or 1.9GHz flat with 2GiB of RAM, while the Air has TWO cores at a fixed 1.4GHz and 1GiB. It's no surprise that a device with more battery storage and fewer power-hungry electronics (the Air) would have better battery life.


Aluminum vs Steel cost differential?
By DukeN on 7/16/2014 10:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
How much of a difference really is to be gained by going Steel vs Aluminum unibody?

Is it significantly past the hundreds into the dozens of thousands? Because I can't see this as tangible, unless the cost is in the equipment used to mold/frame/fit the aluminum vs steel.




RE: Aluminum vs Steel cost differential?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/16/2014 10:56:43 AM , Rating: 3
Let's put it this way.

How many cars on the road are constructed primarily of aluminum? Not many.
How many cars on the road are constructed primarily of steel? A craptonne.

There is no question that aluminum is MUCH more expensive to produce, shape, and repair than steel. Ford is just now becoming the first mainstream automaker to produce a vehicle body primarily out of aluminum ('15 F-150). They're doing it to stay ahead of the curve with looming government regulations, but they can also do it because:

1) They have a massive scale with F-150 production
2) They can absorb some of the higher costs of aluminum due to the incredibly high profit margins of full-size pickups.


By JediJeb on 7/17/2014 6:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
The old Shelby Cobra's were made with aluminum bodies back in the 60's. If you notice those had large smooth curves instead of the sharp knife edge shapes of most modern vehicles. Steel is easier to form with sharp bends than aluminum which also adds to the price when using aluminum.


By snhoj on 7/17/2014 7:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) They have a massive scale with F-150 production
2) They can absorb some of the higher costs of aluminum due to the incredibly high profit margins of full-size pickups.


Also the F-150 is not a unibody and the frame won’t be aluminum. If you look at the S-N curves for aluminum and steel there is no clear plateau for the aluminum as there is for steel. So a stress endurance limit is more difficult to come up with for aluminum. Metal fatigue is more difficult to design for with aluminum and fatigue life is unlikely to be infinite as it can be with steel. The lower strength of aluminum combined with its stress endurance limit being a lower percentage of ultimate stress, the structural parts of an aluminum bodied car are likely to be designed for much lower stresses (read more aluminum and heavier sections) than the structural parts of a steel bodied car. So the lower density of aluminum is not going to produce a commensurate reduction in the weight of the vehicle body. With the F-150 the majority of the structural parts are still steel so Ford can neatly avoid the problem.


But...
By Gunbuster on 7/16/2014 8:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
If you say Model III with a speech impediment it could sound like Model T and then be infringing Ford again!!!




RE: But...
By Flunk on 7/16/2014 9:05:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised Ford didn't copyright Models A-Z.


RE: But...
By clarkn0va on 7/16/2014 2:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised they didn't trademark speech impediments.


Getting Closer...
By Griffinhart on 7/16/2014 12:28:34 PM , Rating: 3
200+ Mile range hits the mark for decent range. It's far better than the ~60 miles that a lot of the current "mainstream" electrics get.

$40K is still a bit high for mainstream though. It's not that far off either. $30K or less is the average price of a new car in the US. Subsidies help make it closer to that number, but ideally, $30K without subsidies will make it mainstream, IMHO.




RE: Getting Closer...
By Milliamp on 7/16/2014 7:23:38 PM , Rating: 3
You have to measure 5 year cost of ownership instead of sticker price. It is MUCH cheaper to charge an electric car than to buy gasoline (like $5 vs $50 in this case).

If you drive the national average of 15,000 miles/year you save about $1500/year in fuel costs or $7,500 over 5 years so especially after the $7500 tax credit the EV ends up being cheaper. To compete with a $40k EV over 5 years a gasoline based car would need to cost closer to $25k.

Sure not all people are smart enough to look at cost of ownership rather than sticker price but those people have always had the rest of society make their decisions for them anyway.


Weight Watchers
By coburn_c on 7/16/2014 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Steel body and 200+ miles.. it's gonna weigh 3 tons.




RE: Weight Watchers
By snhoj on 7/21/2014 4:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
There are some examples of the difference between the weight of an aluminium bodied vehicle and a steel bodied vehicle. The Ford P2000 was basically a Taurus with an aluminium body. The body in white for the P2000 is 183kg and for the Taurus is 398kg. For a lot of vehicles the construction in aluminium shaved about 200kg.

The roadsters 240 mile battery weight was about 350kg for the cells or 450kg all up with the enclosure, cooling system, and battery management. Model S has 7104 cells at 54gm per cell that’s 383kg of cells plus say 100kg of battery management cooling and enclosure.

Model S is rated at 320 miles by Tesla so 200 miles range is 62.5% so total battery would shrink from 483kg to 302kg in the model III for 200 miles range or less by 179 kg. Roughly what the weight penalty of moving to steel would be. I believe that the model III is also supposed to be a smaller vehicle than the Model S. It should be about a 3 series BMW in size I think.

I’m sure that Tesla is banking on further cell development before the release of the model III increasing cell energy density and lowering cost just as they did with the Model S. This should help reduce weight further. I expect it to weigh less than the Model S despite its steel body.


Who cares..
By dwhapham on 7/16/2014 11:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
While it may be mildly annoying, there is approximately 8,456,234,245,543,213 ways to arrange alphanumeric characters which include numeric 2 digits.. Let's put things in perspective here..




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki