Hence why I said "usable" which can vary from person to person. =) Personally I think for the driver starters like a 16 year old the parent might even prefer a limited range and that would be a perfect market.
I agree with much of what you are saying and have made most of these points already. I think our disconnect is because I have not done a good job in making my point. Here is another attempt: I am not saying in anyway CT will have the same or better efficiency than 3 in normal driving condition (which is likely how rated consumption you are referencing is measured). I am trying to see under ideal condition by how much we can shrink the gap between the two. in other words, I expect that gap to be much larger when CT has the vault open and driving 90 mph with off road tires than it is with road tires, vault closed at 40 mph on a smooth road. It is good to know exactly what that optimum condition is so when a supercharger you were counting on is out of order, you can stretch your CT‘s range to make it to the next one.
You must have grown up in a different world if you know kids being given Tesla's for their first cars. Back in my day everyone drove shit boxes they could get from someone in their family and the range limiter was how much pocket money you did or didn't have to get gas and your range ended when you didn't have any money to get gas. Then you had to call someone, preferably not your parents who would shame you, to come bail you out with a gas can.
I do apologize if I am not being clear as I am future forward looking with my comments.
I am not sure there is going to be anything so special about a 20-25 year old Tesla. In fact 20 years from now or so with the steady to rapid decline of ICE vehicles it could very well be the first car a teen gets, i.e. the available shit box at that time.
Ahh that makes sense. I misunderstood it to mean a ct for a current 16 yr old!I do apologize if I am not being clear as I am future forward looking with my comments.
...And some of those would be luxury cars in their former lives. I know someone who drives a hand-me-down salvage title BMW because it's only worth about a thousand bucks. But it's nearly thirty years old.
In 20 years kids wouldn’t want the hand me down CTs because the neuralink chip in their head requires much less energy (bitcoin) to teleport them to that underground club on the other side of the globe.I do apologize if I am not being clear as I am future forward looking with my comments.
Efficiency can be defined in several ways. The relevant definition here is in terms of the amount of energy it takes to travel a unit distance. The more juice it takes to go a mile the less efficient the vehicle is. Just as MPG are higher for ICE sedans than they are for big pickups so Wh/mi for the 3 will be less (note that MPG and Wh/mi are reciprocals) for the M3 than the CT. This is reflected overall through the rated consumption numbers which are smaller for the M3 than for the CT. The rated consumption is not determined for a particular set of driving conditions but rather over a mix of driving conditions blending urban and highway driving and, in my experience, reflect what I can expect on the road. This depends on how, where and when I drive. Even so there is substantial deviation on short trips (as the data I posted in No. 38 shows). On longer trips, where one is, presumably, driving faster, consumption is expected to be higher as drag emerges as the predominant load but note from the plot that one occasionally sees lower consumption on a long trip. There is always a reason for this such as an overall negative grade or a tailwind. Such things are beyond the control of the driver.
Ceteris paribus you can't any more than you can shrink the gap in MPG between a Ford 150 and a VW beetle.
It certainly will be. Ninety mph will eat your battery in any BEV but will, proportionally eat it faster in the CT because Cd*A is going to be bigger in the CT than in a sedan. It's a truck!
The "optimum" condition is driving at a constant 45 mph down hill on smooth road with a nice tailwind. That doesn't happen often (but I have arrived at destination with more in the battery than I set out with and a predicted range of 999 miles). What you need to know is what to expect on a real drive. To do this you must consider several factors but you start with the rated consumption. Monday last I drove from Ogden to Thetford Mines, a distance of 94.65 miles so I begin by estimating that I will use 94.65*.282 = 26.6913 kWh or about 27% of my battery because my rated consumption is 282 Wh/mi. I actually used 25.44kWh on that drive (so that the consumption was 269 Wh/mi). Thus the gods smiled upon me that day. Now if the road from here to there were freeway with a speed limit of 80 mpH I wouldn't use 282 Wh/mi in my planning but some appreciably larger number. If it had been or was raining I'd use 383 Wh/mi etc. But I know my car and how it performs in various weather conditions. You don't know these things about the CT so really the best you can do at this point to compare the CT to the 3 is put a trip or trips into ABRP and run them with M3 and then again with the CT.
In most parts of the CONUS this just isn't a problem. But there are places where it can be. And we don't always limit our driving to the CONUS. There is no SC in Thetford Mines (it's in Canada). The nearest one is pretty far away. So sometimes you do need to have a pretty good idea as to how much SoC you'll have on board at your destination. ABRP will give you a pretty good prediction but more significant is that the truck itself will give you a very good picture of charge condition as you go in real time. If the consumption display shows that you will not make it to your intended next charging stop the first thing to do is slow down. If you are driving at 80 mph this will help a lot. If you are driving at 55, not so much. Then look for an alternative charging spot. This may not be a SC but there is usally somewhere you can charge even though it be a puny J1772 at a Chevy dealer or town hall. Although they are expensive at $400 I have a CHAdeMO adapter in the frunk at all times. I've only used it once in the US but in Canada I charge more from 50 kW CHAdeMO chargers than from SC.
