Thứ Tư, 28 tháng 12, 2016

300-plus kW inverter for M3 -- implies MS equivalent performance part 1

  • Jun 29, 2016
    Rashomon
  • Jun 29, 2016
    FirstSea
    "If we can make the inverter just half a percent more efficient, that�s half a percent less battery pack that we have to put in the car or half a percent more range that the customer gets..."

    If true, the small size of the basic battery is beginning to make sense now; a bigger battery could easily push over 300 miles.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    Adrien
  • Jun 29, 2016
    Evbwcaer
    Can somebody smarter than me fill me in as to why you would not have a DC motor for one of the motors in a dual motor?

    That way you can have a smaller, cheaper inverter and not use an inveter at all under low power demand conditions.....most conditions.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    MP3Mike
    I think for one Tesla wants to keep rare Earth metals used to a minimum. So you don't want to have large permanent magnets in a DC motor.

    It, also, might make it more difficult to synchronize the two motors, not to mention just making things more complicated.

    And finally the company is named Tesla which is a reference to the AC design used.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    juanmedina
    Great news. The definition of ludicrous is "so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous" IMO since the M3 is going to have ludicrous mode its 0-60 should be less than 4 seconds..... anything higher than that will not be considered ludicrous in my book
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    gavine
    DC motors have brushes...yuck. Also, they have lower RPM so you would need a transmission with gears. AC is the way to go.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    TEG
  • Jun 29, 2016
    trils0n
    Each type of electric motor has different characteristics (efficiency, cost, power density, control, etc). There are lots of different types of electric motors, and each make sense in different situations and applications. Tesla thinks the AC induction motor they use makes the most sense for their cars. It is efficient, allows very precise and accurate control, contains no rare earth permanent magnets, maintenance free, etc.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    garsh
  • Jun 29, 2016
    SageBrush
  • Jun 29, 2016
    zenmaster
    insane: < 4s, ludicrous: < 3s.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    trils0n
    300kW = ~402hp. Pretty close to my P85 (advertised as 416hp). Does 0-60 in 3.9-4.2 secs depending if I can get traction. Smaller, lighter Model 3 with same/similar power sounds wonderful.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I agree. I'm looking for 0-16 to be sub 3seconds.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Yes, Yes, Yes!!!!!!!
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    It sure does.

    This thread is Ludicrously good. I can't wait.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    zenmaster
    Was hoping for 1 hp for every 9lbs or better.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    Someone more familiar correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these specs just for the rear motor?

    the HP/weight ratio might very well get to your 9lbs/lb-ft in AWD.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    juanmedina
    100% agree.

    Now baby Jesus please don't let the M3 PXXL be more than $60k :D
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    wallet.dat
    I'd love for this to be a standard SLA, but I don't think the ModX achieves this.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    juanmedina
    Yeah but 3.2 seconds 0-60 for 5000lbs SUV is ludicrous
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    Swampgator
    Can one really infer performance based on the invertor specs? Over 300kw invertor still needs a battery that will feed it that much power, and also the motor size must mean something.
    I take this to mean that the power invertor will not be a limitation to performance.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    trils0n
    Yes that will be true if it is indeed a 300kW inverter. But Tesla is optimizing the Model 3 for manufacturablity and cost. Putting an overly large inverter in the vehicle if (any of its trim levels') battery cannot support it, or it's motor cannot accept that level of power seems wasteful.

    Plus it is basically the only clue we have (besides 0-60 target in base version), so wild speculation must occur.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    Rashomon
    You won't get the full performance with the smallest battery, I suspect, as battery power will likely be limiting. And the M3D may use a smaller motor/inverter at both ends for less weight and better efficiency, just as on the S.

    There's essentially no reason to design an inverter for more power than you intend a motor to deliver, unless you wanted to share it across platforms, and need the extra capacity for the more powerful platform. I don't think that's the case here, but I could see non-P MS's sharing some of these components with M3's.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    int32_t
    I'm not smarter than you. However, I can assure you that AC motors, which are for all intents and purposes the same as "brushless DC" or electronically commutated motors, are much much more efficient than brushed (mechanically commutated) motors. Three-phase AC motors (like the ones Tesla uses) can achieve 98%+ efficiency, whereas brushed DC motors get stuck in the 70-90% range. And brushes wear out, so you would have to replace the brushes after a certain number of km, just like you'd have to change your engine oil. Today's semiconductor tech allows for inverters to be at least 90% efficient, probably closer to 95%.
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    McHoffa
    If Tesla offers 3-ish seconds 0-60 for $65k or less I'll be in heaven
    �
  • Jun 29, 2016
    cronosx
    Since the new inverter is based on something made ad-hoc making different inverter-version could be easily done.
    And i agree that making a bigger motore + bigger inverter if the battery is not capable could be wateful.

    But i was just thinking.. if they make all the car with the same motor/inverter and when you give back the car from the leasing they could have 2 chance:
    - Resell as is it
    - Swap the battery with a new one more-capable battery, and sell the car as a ludicrus car if the customer want it just for 5k plus, so they get pratically a new car

    It all depend of how many will give back the car after the leasing, and how much it cost more for the inverter/motor to be standard, since standard means -> average less cost
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    sandpiper
    Yes - only one of the motors. For certain there would be a two motor car available that would have substantially more HP than this and probably provide something north of 600HP. I expect, as with the PXXD, that the car will be battery limited and not inverter / motor limited. In any case, the top end M3 will have perform at a ridiculous level.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    sandpiper
    Well.... the price ratios from the bottom end S, to the bottom end P90D, to the top end is P90DL are 166% and 216% respectively. if you have the same thing with the 3, that should imply a are bones PXXD M3 for 60-ish and the top end at around 75-80.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    DrivingTheFuture
    Implies even faster than Model S performance in my opinion...
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    JeffK
    There's no way around the Model S having more mass. If you don't artificially limit the motor size or battery output then the Model 3 should always be able to out accelerate a Model S.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    cronosx
    But the 3 probably will have smaller battery pack ( it's just a question of how much space you can have ) so, overall, the S would allways be faster since it can deliver more amp
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Yggdrasill
    I'm guessing the maximum plaid Roadster based on the Model 3 platform might include two of these 300 kW inverters, plus something like a 1 kWh/300 kW supercapacitor pack. With an 80 kWh battery, outputting 600 kW for up to 12 seconds at a time would be possible. This should allow the next generation Roadster to remain traction limited up to about 80 mph.

    The supercaps would kick in at 40 mph, then max out about 2 seconds later at 80 mph, then continue to provide max for about another 10 seconds. Sufficient to reach over 150 mph, at least.

    We'll see if Tesla comes with something similar for the Model 3. :)
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    lklundin
    A smaller battery pack will translate into less energy, but not necessarily less power while (close to) fully charged. So if Tesla want to, they can create a Model 3 with a Model S acceleration.

    PS. Back in March I actually guessed that Tesla would introduce for Model 3 and S/X a cheaper, more compact and efficient inverter:
    Model 3 "new technology" speculation
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    juanmedina
    This is a mass produced lower cost vehicle the deltas should be smaller.

    Elon has said that the dual motor cost less than 5K....

    Every 100lbs is equal to about 10hp. My guess is that the Model 3 will be 500lbs lighter than the model S
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Swampgator
    Model 3 will be 1000 pounds lighter than S. I know many on here doubt that. I would be glad to make a wager :)
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    DrivingTheFuture
    I keep negotiating my "must haves" in my mind... I think this is my list for now:

    1. Ultra White Seats ( $2,500 ?)
    2. High Fidelity Sound System ($2,500 ?)
    3. Autopilot Activated ( $ 1,500 ? )
    4. Supercharging Activated ( $ 1,500? )
    5. Performance Upgrade (this is the biggest variable on what this will cost to get near 3 second 0-60 ) $ ??????

    I'm actually hoping to accomplish all this for around 15k in upgrades... which after tax credit would bring my final cost down to $43,000 ish...
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    JeffK
    One of the engineers mentioned a 20% weight reduction and that makes it nearly 1000 lbs lighter.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    if they keep the option and pricing models the same, your Supercharging option price will be included in your Performance upgrade, by way of the bigger battery
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    cronosx
    They've found a balance between power/capacity in the cell, so for now this is a constant.
    The efficency of the inverter is also a constants, if they build a better inverter ( wich it seems they have done ) they will simply put the news inverter in the new model S, so this is again a constant.

    Yes, of course they can make a battery with a different power/capacity constants for the model 3, but it's unlikely since it probably would probably destroy the battery faster. for what?

    So, again, more space -> more capacity -> more power -> more performance.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    But until we know more about the battery for the Model 3, you're just making assumptions.

    Remember, new cells compared to the S/X battery, and it will be made at the Gigafactory.

    Maybe we'll learn more at the GF Grand Opening event July 29th.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    JeffK
    You're forgetting the constant in question is 1500 amps the smart fuse can deliver.... unless you up the voltage and reduce capacity you aren't going to push more power through there unless I'm mistaken.

    Same voltage and current on the Model 3 equals same power in a smaller package and therefore faster even if there's reduced capacity.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    cronosx
    Yes.. but it's a good assumptions.
    If the battery is a so-good upgrade they would port it to the model S, why not?
    The model S is not the roadster, it's here to remain, has a production line of her own etc..

    You can without problem use more fuse, this is not the real problem, the real problem is how much you can squeeze from a single cell. More cell -> less amps on every cell, it's simple as that.

    I'm not telling you that the model 3 can't get more power than what is capable the actual model S, i'm just stating that every upgrade you can make on the model 3, can be made on the S, since the S can support a bigger battery, the S will get more power.

    The point when this is not valid is when the capability of the battery is so good that the problem start to be the weight of the car itself. then.. and only then.. the model 3 can be faster than the model S.

    Just a late point.. the model 3 should have a better cd than the model S, but it's a factor like the weight.. i think there is a need of almost 5 years before the cd/weight could be a winning point for the model 3 against the model S
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    sandpiper
    The deltas are smaller in absolute terms, but they're possibly not smaller by proportion. It's all speculation of course, but take a look at any entry level luxury car. There is a huge difference between the entry level and fully loaded. I'd be very surprised if Tesla was different.

    At the top end they'll be competing with fully loaded 3-series. If Tesla is production constrained, as they most assuredly will be for the first while, then they would be nuts to charge less than what the competition gets for a competing vehicle. When it gets down to brass tacks Tesla has to become profitable. I suspect you will see VERY few $35,000 cars rolling off of the lot. And I expect that you will need to spend 60-70 for well equipped one. And I suspect that they will still sell like mad at that price.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Alketi
    You guys are awfully optimistic about sub-3 second 0-60 times.

    One of the engineers in the test drives was asked how fast the 3 was and said they're not releasing that just yet, but also hinted that the Model S will still be faster. [I can't remember the exact quote]

    I think it's very possible that they use a smaller motor for the 3, to save on cost, among other things. And, we know the top-end battery almost certainly won't be 90kWh.

    Let's say the top battery is 75kWh. I'm expecting a P75DL to clock in the 3.5-3.9 second range. If it's faster, I'll be ecstatic, but I'm tempering my expectations.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Adrien
    Yep, bigger cells won't provide higher voltage nor greater amp draw. Just like a D cell isn't going to perform better than a AAA cell, besides energy density. It's what worries me about using this new cell sizing
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Swampgator
    I believe there are lots of factors that go into the maximum power that can be sent to the motors.
    The internal resistance of the batteries and max voltage are 2 that have not been mentioned in this thread.
    Both of those will be improved for M3 no doubt.
    That said, those improvements could be translated into MS cell/pack production sometime in the next year. You may not be able to get much better 0-60 times as that is traction limited to some extent, but the Ms will be able to achieve better quarter mile times with better cell tech. This may be what we are seeing now with the increased output of the newest M S P90DL
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    JeffK
    If cooling is adequate then this point isn't as important as you'd imagine. The cells in the Model S 90DL discharge at under 6C whereas they are capable of at least 10C.

    I know what you want to be true, but if they don't limit the motor or battery in the model 3 they can always use a higher drain and get more performance out of the Model 3 every time. It's a matter of physics.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    DrivingTheFuture
    McHoffa and I were discussing "close to 3" second times, not sub...
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    McHoffa
    Yeah, I'm definitely not expecting sub 3, but 3.4 on a $65k ludicrous Model 3 would be awesome.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    DrivingTheFuture
    Now on the Ludicrous model I AM expecting a sub 3 second 0-60 time... you heard it here first folks ;)
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    McHoffa
    Well if you're right, and it's under $70k, I'm going to be extremely happy for my 40th birthday.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I wouldn't suspect that the 300KW inverter would be in the base model. With that in mind neither Tesla nor the buyer wanting the 300KW inverter would be thinking about trying to keep the car at $35K.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Absolutely. You are my hero. Sub 3's? Phenomenal.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    about $60K is what I'm hoping for.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    JeffK
    This probably depends how inexpensive they are to produce. Why design and build multiple when one size can fit all at lower cost than invertors for the Model S?
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    My 40th is March coming up. So I likely won't have the car until my 41st.

    My wife calls this my mid-life crisis-mobile.

    I told her it's my Halftime Celebration. :cool:
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    McHoffa
    It's my 40th birthday (also Christmas), 10th anniversary, mid life crisis, and first "fun" car, and probably my last "me driving" car. After that, 100% full autonomy will probably be normal. Since I was early in line and want lots of options, I am hoping I have it next fall.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    I'm checking off as many options as I can afford, which will HOPEFULLY be all of them....

    but yea, this car gets to "wear many hats".

    It's the fun car. It's the road trip car. It will be bigger than the Impreza, so it will be the taking friends out car.

    It will be my daily commuter. And it will probably be the car that demon spawn spends the most time in, should that come to pass....


    But, first and foremost, it will be mine, and she'll have to drive her Impreza and stare longingly at the M3.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I agree.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    aronth5
    I really don't care about the improvement in performance since it will already be quicker than any car I've owned in the last 30 years.
    If the improved converter helps range even by a very small amount that would be more important. A little more range here and there adds up.
    �
  • Jun 30, 2016
    R.S
    Basically three reasons, one is efficiency and two maintenance, which were already explained.

    Third is weight and size. A DC motor tends to be much heavier and bigger, for the same power. They are also more expensive to produce, at least compared to the induction motors Tesla uses. So while you might only need two thirds of the semiconductors, it really doesn't get much cheaper, if you want to keep the same performance.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    lklundin
    Fair enough. I expect a lot of people to choose the faster Model 3 variants over not only BMW M3/Audi (R)S4 but also over max-performance BMW 1/Audi 3/Golf/Seat/whatever, so you can think of this improvement in performance as something that will allow Tesla to sell the Model 3 in larger numbers, thereby making your Model 3 more economical.

    So it's a win-win (at the expense of the ICE makers).
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    While the Model 3 will be a great performing car, it's highly unlikely that the Model 3 will magically be able to meet the performance standards set by BMW's or Audi's performance models. Don't kid yourself about that. Tesla has produced nothing today that comes remotely close, unless you throw all meaningful performance metrics except for short bursts of accelerarion, out the window.
    The planned weight reduction will go a long way over the Model S, but without much better thermal mgmt - a revolutionary improvement would be required, suspension and braking improvements, I don't see the luxury-performance car market being concerned. Tesla is not going after that tiny segment, nor should they in order to appeal to the larger market and therefore to sell the most cars.

    In other words, unless Tesla has secretly addressed its car's performance shortcomings, they will fail to attract the vast majority of buyers wanting a performance car. It's that simple.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    It would seem that it would be cheaper for Tesla to produce the same motor for both cars. If they had to make 2 different motors....then it should be more expensive from the Tesla side....wouldn't it?
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    That's insane.

    The model S far exceeders BMW's and Audi's performance standards. Look at the customers responses. Lets let them speak. I'm one of them.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Swampgator
    If they follow the Model S formula, there will be a smaller front motor but a larger than base rear motor for the performance models.
    I think they will not use any motors from the Model S. Remember, this was clean slate design. They would want to make lighter, more powerful motors with easier manufacture (The model S copper still has manual touch points.)
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    lklundin
    Allow me to suggest that we reconvene when the Model 3 has been out for a couple of years. Although I am utterly unable to write history, I expect it to be kind to me.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    If the car is ( to some people ) designed slower and overall - less of a car than the Model S, they my question is .... Why? if its purely price then ok, but what other reasons would tesla have to produce a lesser car?
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Fair enough.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Jayc
    Will Tesla do a full racing circuit without overheating - NO
    Will Tesla do optimal range at 80MPH or above - NO
    Will Tesla corner like a track car - NO

    Will the above limitations matter to a majority of BMW and Audi buyers in everyday driving conditions - ABSOLUTELY NOT

    Its as simple as that :)
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    But who cares about that?

    99% of Teslas customers don't race on the full racing circuit
    99% of Teslas customers don't care about optimal range above 89MPH. ( neither does ICE perform best above 80mph )
    99% of Teslas customers have no need to corner like a track car.

    Tesla is in the business of selling cars to their target customer base. Their target customer base doesn't need to do those things. Including myself.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    lklundin
    I believe you are not actually in disagreement with the last two posters that you have replied to. :)
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    In fairness to BMW and Audi, comparing the performance and acceleration of a Model S to any ICE is like saying the Model T could go further distances without getting as tired as your horse would.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    R.S
    Well I guess it would make sense, if it doesn't make things too complicated, to share motors, but more important inverters. I do believe that we will see this new inverter for the Model S/X. Just because its cheaper. With the motor, it might be more difficult. Will it fit the model S, will they get the needed hp and torque?

    I don't think they will try to match it to the Model S/X needs, if it would mean that the 3 would cost more. To give you an example. If they saved $200 per S/X on the new motor, compared to the old one, but the 3 will be $30 more, than with a more "personalized" setup, they won't do it.

    The Model S will always have and need more power, so without going into 3 or 4 motor territory. It would be impossible to go with only one motor for all setups. But keeping up with development and producing only one motor is really low for a 500k a year car company. I guess they will still use two to three motors, maybe interchangeable, at least partly, between the S and the 3 platform.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    lklundin
    In my opinion a good metric for comparing a Tesla to pretty much any ICE, is the distance(*) covered before the ICE catches up with the Tesla.

    Even a VW Lupo 3L TDI with its 0-100 km/h of 14.5 s would eventually catch up with the Tesla (during supercharging).

    So with the exception of the dwindling set of ICE super-cars that can actually outrun the Tesla right from the rollout, this metric would provide a ranking for all ICE's in relation to a Tesla.

    (*) It could would equally useful to state the time it takes for the ICE to catch up. The ratio of this distance and time would correspond both cars' identical average speed, with the difference that the ICE at that point would be faster.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    cronosx
    Maybe a run from a fixed speed like 40km/h to 130km/h would be more fair, from a full stop an ice just can't compare..
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    JeffK
    Many ICEs are actually even worse from a rolling start than a full stop due to turbo lag.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Are we trying to give ICE cars a chance? Is that the objective here? LOL
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    well that would all depend on your approach to this "race".


    My A3 with ECU reflash can do 0-60 in the mid-4 second range, but staying flat-out on the pedal, I'd likely only get ~25mpg, meaning more stops for gas.

    However....if I stay out of the throttle and keep the revs down around 2200 at cruising speed, I can get 35mpg (depending on wind, terrain, temp, etc....).

    That's a range of close to 500 miles on a 14.5 gallon tank. I would pass the Tesla while it's charging at the ~280 mile mark, then it would pass me at 500, then I would pass it around 560....and we would just play leapfrog for however long the "race" is.

    Come to think of it....the Audi would likely win every race over 280 miles. It would only take minutes to fill the tank and get back to 400-500 miles of range, where the Tesla would need ~45 minutes to get 80% SoC.

    Clearly, we need faster Superchargers. :D
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    JeffK
    I want to give ICEs cars every chance they can get and then destroy them.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    cronosx
    That's the exact thing i was thinking.. we are just trying to give them a change of a fair game.
    But it seems is impossible.
    The only way they have to take a chance is for them to be at least 40% more powerfull, and this, maybe, could give them a fair chance..
    Now, if we really want to give them an advantage we could point to something like 200km/h where having a gear box can give them a good point.. but then, we are outside the "normal" usage of a car so who care? :D
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    cronosx
    Now.. this is really useless.
    My seat ibiza in this game could probably beat a ferrari since we put in the equation the need to refill.
    A ferrari going "normally" consume like 4 time my ibiza, and i've also the gpl tank, so i need to refill every about 900km or more :D
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    lklundin
    Right. I wasn't even kidding. Well maybe a little bit, but the metric holds for even the slowest ICE.

    I mean, it was widely publicized that someone drove their Tesla for 24 hours and managed to cover 2424 km.

    Big deal, the VW Lupo would have them beat in less than 24 hours.

    So there you have your metric, many expensive super-duper Turbo ICE cars catch up after about 10 - 12 seconds (on the order of a 1/4 mile) and at the other end of the spectrum you have your snail-like 3L car, that takes about a dozen hours to catch up (the Tesla may have to pass a couple of times, before leaving the ICE behind for good).
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    ModelNforNerd

    Oh, at flat-out speed.....I'd probably catch back up just before 1/4 mile. I was overthinking it. LOL
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    lklundin
    I am sorry, but I fixed a confusing typo in my post - after you quoted it... :-(
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    I was referring to the higher end performance models, not the bread-and-butter mainstream vehicles which Tesla is explictly going after. Of course Tesla can't come remotely close to that level of performance at the moment, otherwise they'd be track testing. The performance metrics aren't subjective.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    You are conflating "performance" with "acceleration".
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Jayc
    Performance and acceleration were in the same basket until Tesla came along and showed they could beat porsches and lambos at 0-60. Then the ICE crowd started to pretend it was not about 0-60 figures but top end and track performance.

    It is just a matter of time till someone does a proper track EV. One thing I can say is it will not come from an existing performance ICE brand but a totally new company dedicated to EVs meant for tracks. Tesla will not bother with such a niche segment as their sole target is to achieve mass EV adoption. If Tesla wanted they could have done a track car like no other but they are probably just not bothered at this time. Perhaps when Model 3 production belt is running smoothly they might consider Roadster version 2. One thing is clear, the EV revolution has just started and has a great untapped and undiscovered potential for improvement while the ICE crowd is a bit old and worn out with very little potential left for improvement - they don't realize that their time is over. I bet when Model T came along there were horse riders who tried to pretend that horses were better as they could jump over barriers while Model Ts could not.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    wycolo
    Since EVs today all seem settled on 400vdc power and 3 phase 400 cycle induction motors it is interesting, but not surprising, to realise that inverters from one maker can be substituted in another brand of EV. They all have buss bars emerging 120 degrees apart at one end for direct electrical connection into the motors, thus they all basically can 'fit' each other. The controller circuitry between accelerator pedal and inverter likewise is identical, the only requirement really is that current (power) levels either be matched or else serve as a new limiting factor to performance.

    So a Bolt inverter likely can run your M3 adequately and vice versa.
    --
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    JeffK
    Sacrilege, let us never speak of such things :eek:
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Hmmmm.... I really don't think so as I've watched Jack for the past year - explicitly speak of the Tesla subclip being vastly different than all other subclips....including inverters and motors.

    Jack Rickard
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I think its fair to state that acceleration is an integral part of performance. That's where the term 0-60 came from. Performance.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Amen
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Completely agree and that was also exactly my point.

    But people are also absolutely kidding themselves about 1) the actual limitations of EV tech and 2) the willingness of a new car company to bother investing in the small-return performance market. For those wanting a short dragstrip champion, they have that though.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Acceleration (as measured from stop or at speed) contributes to overall performance and in some cases can make up shortcomings in cornering ability. Of course if that acceleration is only available for a few minutes, then you're completely non competitve.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    I'm a drag race kind of guy. I only need 10 seconds or so of data. Anything beyond that is useless for me.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Personally I like sports cars, but also appreciate the acceleration ability of the Teslas. I'd gladly trade some of that accelerarion if it provided track competition and sheer driving fun in comparison to a performance car such as a BMW M3 or Audi RS or Mercedes AMG. I know enough about EVs to know that it probably won't happen for many years after the M3 is produced. Even the new roadster won't cut it.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    MP3Mike
    I thought the Bolt used a permanent magnet DC motor. Not an AC induction motor.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    wallet.dat
    Sorry, but it has never been about 0-60 stats, but now we're supposed to be accusing the ICE crowd of being dismissive of something they always were in the past? 0-60 has always been a marketing stat that has no use on any track that I'm aware of. And where else would you be doing racing than at the track?
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Rashomon
    That's a very good question. Inverterless DC motors have brushes, not a good thing in a long durability automotive motor, nor is there efficiency great. There's a class of motors knows as brushless DC motors, but these are really just a different name for PMAC (permanent magnet alternating current) motors with the inverter built-in. PMAC motors are generally substantially more efficient than Tesla's inductive motors, but it all depends where you operate on the efficiency map. At high power, they're much more efficient, but at very low power, inductive motors can actually be better. Tesla fits such over-powered motors that most of the time they run at a small percentage of their maximum power, and claims that inductive motors are actually better for this usage. This will vary between markets and application, as PMAC motors would certainly be better for autobahn use than inductive. Almost every other automaker is going with PMAC motors, in part because they're more power dense as well as generally efficient, and I suspect that Tesla will end there as well, at least for the front motor. Permanent magnets aren't cheap, though, and the Chinese tried to boost prices for rare earth magnets five years ago or so with export restrictions, so perhaps Tesla will keep walking their almost unique motor path.

    Current inverters can be 94-95 percent efficient, and designs with more efficient silicon-carbide or gallium-arsenide transistors can reach toward 98 percent efficiency. Those aren't really in really mass production yet, but expect to see a switch away from silicon power transistors over the next five years.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    ecarfan
    I would estimate the correct figures are closer to 99.9% of Tesla customers (and in that I include not just owners but prospective customers).
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Yes, Bingo.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Ok, I think you are forgetting the context that's being adressed. The performance versions of the cars Tesla is directly aiming to compete with are *already* perfectly suitable for the demands of track use (or twisty back roads at speed). One example would be a BMW M3 which, in that post, was highlighted as a car people would consider buying if not for the Model 3! The rationale seems to be that prospective buyers would choose the Model 3 over a performance car (i.e. Audi,BMW,Mercedes) because its drag strip times are better in comparison. Something doesn't compute there.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    JeffK
    You don't think a $60k Performance version Model 3 can compete with a BMW M3 on twisty back roads?

    They will be nearly the same weight, the Tesla will have a lower center of gravity and will be able to out accelerate the BMW M3 out of all the turns...
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Nope. The Model 3 would go into a limp mode after only a few miles.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    trils0n
    Plenty of former M car drivers here on the forums. They seem to enjoy their Teslas.

    FWIW, I used to love how BMWs drove. New ones drive differently than the cars of 15 yrs ago. I much prefer how my Tesla drives to a modern BMW (well and the old ones too, but it's much closer to the old ones).

    Limp mode seems to very much depend on speed. I've driven for over 30 miles up a twisty mountain road at ~1000wh/mile without seeing any limp mode (energy use graph off the screen), but speeds were rarely above 30-45. But similar energy use on a track (higher speeds) with will get limp mode pretty quickly. Never seen limp mode driving on the street, even with 3-4 times normal energy use.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    What makes you think that? The MS doesn't.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Of course it does.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Mine doesn't. Limp mode? I've not ever experienced that.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Yes it will, of course. The point is, loss of power happens very shortly after a period of heavy acceleration due to unabiding heat build up. This is a well-known fact and a critical reason why the Tesla is considered non competitive in the performance-car market. There you go. Other reasons would be lack of steering-road feedback and in the case of the Model S, of course very heavy with poor traction.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Maybe my MS is different than the versions you are talking about or maybe we are talking about 2 different things....but I have never experienced that. Hopefully I won't see it on my M3 either.

    Do you have a link explaining this situation?
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    Maybe Tesla did something in the last 2 years. That article is 2 years old. I have not experienced this with my 2016. Maybe that's why I haven't experienced this.

    I've certainly driven hard for over 10 minutes. Maybe Tesla did something different with the liquid that traverses through the batteries in the 2016.

    For example: look at the possibilities of how the M3 batter might be vastly different than the 2016 MS battery. This is an up to date link.
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/3983102-teslas-gigafactory-christmas-july
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    Well you aren't driving it under hard acceleration very long is the obvious answer!

    2013 Tesla Model S P85+ Long-Term Update 4 - Motor Trend

    "...Following our Mazda Raceway experience, two encounters had me re-thinking the situation. At a Supercharger station in Gilroy, I coincidentally spoke with a Tesla engineer and explained what had happened. �What you need to do is put the car in something like a big meat locker,� he suggested. �Cool it way down first.�..."
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    Garlan Garner
    That's not correct. I am driving under hard acceleration. That's the beauty of the car.

    Do you have a more recent article. Battery technology has changed tremendously since 2013. Telsas batteries are more efficient. Lighter and the battery assembly is cooler.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/3983102-teslas-gigafactory-christmas-july
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    skate_a_book
    Apologies for veering off the current discussion, but I recall someone (Consumer Reports or a gov't agency) showed during a tear down of a Model S some years ago there was still a surprising amount of empty space for a greater-sized battery. It comes down to cost though, which is why we do not yet have a 100+ Kwh battery available (other than the hacked badge image.) My thought is if truly lowered battery cost is realized through the Gigafactory the Model 3 will be revealed with an unexpected variety of battery sizes available up to or greater than 100 Kwh, which would provide Ludicrous Mode at a great cost. I have a limited understanding of electricity beyond the fact that plugging in my car makes it go (not really, but I'm working on it!), but wouldn't a very large battery be required to match Model S speeds if the Model 3's motors are going to be smaller?
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    zenmaster
    I wouldn't get hung up on size. With batteries you can have less overall size with higher density. With motors, it all depends on their power rating.
    �
  • Jul 1, 2016
    wycolo
    . . . the Tesla subclip being vastly different than all other subclips....including inverters and motors. [Garian Garner]

    Re: essential similarity of today's EV controllers/inverters/motors: <

    And my comment should have been about the Volt inverter rather than Bolt. But likely the Bolt's will be similar once it is introduced.
    --
    �
  • Jul 2, 2016
    lklundin
    Yes, recent data about the (lack of) overheating of the battery would indeed be interesting.

    Back in 2013 I drove a P85+ on the Autobahn until it was empty and was quickly "rewarded" with the yellow power-limiter line.

    With SoC at ca. 75% power was limited, maybe to 270kW (see attached photo, sorry for the poor quality). As can be seen from the Energy consumption graph, I had not been driving the car very hard.

    With SoC at ca. 50% power was even more limited, maybe to 160 kW (see below link, used to illustrate regenerative breaking on Wikipedia).

    Somewhere under the front hood a fan was audibly moving a lot of air, presumably trying to cool down the battery. It was at 10 in a September evening, so ambient temperature was at most 20C.

    For reference, with SoC at 0% (and no overheating) power was even more limited, maybe to 100 kW (see below link, used to illustrate range anxiety on Wikipedia).

    I did explain the problem in detail to Tesla in Munich, and they seemed genuinely puzzled, so I hope they looked closer at it.

    And maybe they fixed it.

    Does anybody have specific data from a more recent Model S?

    File:Tesla Model S P85+ 60 kW Regenerative Braking (cropped).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

    File:Tesla Model S P85+ dashboard with zero range (cropped).JPG - Wikimedia Commons
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)