Jul 6, 2016
Garlan Garner You would need a cable the size of your leg. Of course you could havlve the size of the cable by stranding it because current predominantly flows on the outside rim of wires not the inside.�
Jul 6, 2016
dgpcolorado I drive the slowest Tesla made and it has more acceleration than I need. I can snap my passengers back in their seats while going uphill and it definitely gets their attention. But is that really useful? I can pass cars at highway speeds very easily without even coming close to flooring the accelerator. Why would I want more than that? So I can show off at stoplights? So I can take the car to a drag strip? I don't get the fascination of some here with 3 or 4 second 0-60 times. Sub 6 seconds is plenty quick enough for me.
I'll take the extra range, even if it is just 10% or so. I'll take as a given that "Tesla doesn't make slow cars" � my plain old S60 certainly isn't "slow" � so I'd much rather have a Model 3 that was designed for range than a Ludicrous version, even if the latter was at no extra cost.�
Jul 6, 2016
EaglesPDX Sure looks to be my name in front of EVERY STATEMENT attributing it to me.
If ccutrer was having a conversation with himself (as he is, making up statements with my name attached in every case) and replying to himself no need for my name at all much less in front of every statement.
If ccutrer wants to be honest simply remove my name from the quotes.�
Jul 6, 2016
JeffK Ludicrous mode uses 1500 amps ...
Mitch Medford has videos about his upgrades to the zombie 222�
Jul 6, 2016
SpiceWare The quoting mechanism used by this forum makes it extremely clear on who's being quoted. Here's something I said being quoted by you:
Here's something you said being quoted by me:
And everything that was quoted Garlan Garner in #111 was said by ccutrer:
�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer @EaglesPDX: before you start accusing others of lying, you should try some reading comprehension. Post #111 was @Garlan Garner quoting me in post #100, in which I addressed you. Post #111 reads "ccutrer said: [to] @EaglesPDX...". He broke up my post into multiple quotes approximately by sentence so that he could give a finer grained reaction. He then distributed (to use a mathematical term) the "[to] @EaglesPDX" into each of the subquotes, so as not to lose the context that I had been addressing you the whole time (though you are correct that I intended only the first sentence to address you, and then rest as mostly talking to myself -- I do that a lot for the benefit of other readers of the forum, expounding upon things in case they do not have the context of the conversation, or the technical details being discussed).
Then again, fine details do not appear to be your strong point. You have been caught stating multiple false things as fact -- and not just by me: you stated a Model X 90D has 294 miles of EPA range; in reality it has 257 miles, and Model S 90D has 294. You referred to a S P60D; no such model has ever been produced by Tesla; Performance models have always been restricted to the largest battery sizes (80 and 90). You implied that Tesla or Elon (I can't remember which - and right here I'm going to be lazy and not look it up ---- but point out that I'm not 100% sure) stated that most people will immediately upgrade to a larger battery on the Model 3 for a price of $42,000; the actual quote said that they expect the average (note average, not "most") price to be $42,000, and no specification of which options will get people to the price point.
If you're not going to be bothered to go look up exact quotes or numbers, then you should add a disclaimer or doubtful adjective to your statement. For example, when I was discussing the maximum amperage draw from a Tesla battery with the Ludicrous mode versus the Zombie 222, I knew I was in the correct range at 1500-1700 or so, but I couldn't remember the exact number. And I didn't bother looking it up exactly, since the exact number wasn't relevant to the conversation. 1500 and 1700 are both "about" half or less of the 3840 quoted for a Zombie 222. But you'll notice I explicitly called out "that is only like 1700A, isn't it?", making it obvious that I wasn't sure, and leaving it as an exercise for the reader to look up the exact number if they wished -- which @JeffK did do, and enlightened all of us.
A little bit less self-confidence may do you some good in these forums. Stating everything as absolute fact, and berating other users for disagreeing makes people less likely to want to interact with you (sadly - I recognize that is pretty much what I'm doing to you at the moment - with the olive branch coming up next). I honestly feel you bring up good points, and I enjoy seeing others viewpoints and situations. I hope that I'm able to admit when I'm wrong (as I did about a larger battery not being a necessary precondition to better performance), and able to continue to have constructive conversations. I also remember that asynchronous textual conversation can never capture nuances of human communication that a live, in-person conversation has (though it does allow more thought out, reasoned responses with less emotional putting-your-foot-in-your-mouth; this post has been re-read and edited about three times before posting). There can always be misunderstandings about why someone said something, or how that was perceived (I feel like this happened in the Base Features thread - we were actually both saying the same thing, but speaking right past each other, coming from a slightly different point of view).
Anyhow, I hope we can have less bickering and blaming in the future, and more conversation about the topic at hand: acceleration vs. range, who wants what, is it even a necessary compromise, etc.�
Jul 6, 2016
zenmaster It's not infallible and has made mistakes in posts I've replied to.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer Heh, and I just got hit by the asynchronous communication problem - @SpiceWare posted beautiful screenshots of what I was describing in the first paragraph of my previous post, while I was writing a big boring thing mostly talking to myself yet again
�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer Indeed, there are often mistakes. The one I didn't realize for a while is that custom trimming of the quoted post can often result in the quote block extending to include the response. I used to completely ignore such posts, thinking the responder just clicked Post Reply accidentally without typing anything. I finally realized I need to scan the bottom of the quoted portion to look for new content.�
Jul 6, 2016
Garlan Garner I don't know who is talking to who about what.
Maybe my confusion is keeping me from being insulted. LOL
Anywhoo... Acceleration is holding on to its marketshare in the voting.�
Jul 6, 2016
EaglesPDX Right you are, it was @Garlan Garner who was lying not @ccutrer to whom I apologize.
Seems clear he was attributing the quotes to me, putting my name in front of the quotes when nothing in his message was mine. ZERO point in putting my name in quotes six times and then replying to them since nothing in the message was a quote of mine unless one was being purposely misleading. If he wants to be honest and fix his "mistake:, he can certainly remove my name since my comments are not in any of the quote boxes.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer Sigh.�
Jul 6, 2016
EaglesPDX Apologies @ccutrer, it was @Garlan Garner's message where he attributes someone else's quotes to me.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer I sighed because two people have tried to explain it, and you still didn't get it. It was @Garlan Garner's post quoting me addressing you. He is not trying to attribute the quotes to you.�
Jul 7, 2016
EaglesPDX I sighed because it was @Garlan Garner making it appear you were attributing phony quotes to me. Instead it was @Garlan Garner's fabrication, not yours.�
Jul 7, 2016
Garlan Garner I suppose I'm having trouble understanding what people are saying because I'm ignoring someone in this thread.
maybe this is happening because I'm quoting folks and not replying. When quoting double responses...maybe its getting screwed up. I don't know. I just cut and paste quote headers when I edit a reply. Anyway...I'm glad we are having so much fun with the topic.
Anywhoo. Still looks like Acceleration is trying to hold on to its 13% market share of the vote. LOL�
Jul 7, 2016
ummgood I voted for acceleration based on the assumption it would be about a 10% hit to the range IF I get the performance model. I am willing to give up the 10% of the range on the performance model to get some wicked acceleration. Honestly this car is probably my last hurrah before I have 3 kids go into college. I can afford it now and after all 3 get through college then I'll probably be too old and worn out to have any more fun in life so I might as well live it now.
I keep looking back and wishing I would have had a more performance car earlier in life. I have a neighbor down the street that just bought a '70 Stingray with a 454 in it as a hobby car. He is probably early to mid 30's. Part of me wishes I would have done the same. I don't want to look back at my Tesla purchase and wish I would have gotten the performance model so I am going to get it even if I have to burn 10 miles of range or so. Of course this is all assuming that the Model 3 numbers have the same pros/cons as the Model S performance package.
Once I get all my kids through college then I'll probably go Buick shopping.�
Jul 7, 2016
SpiceWare I've not encountered that, though I did click the red arrows and in these instances the quoting worked as expected.
At this point I don't know if EaglesPDX is being willfully ignorant in order to stir up conflict, or if he truly does not comprehend what I showed in reply 125.�
Jul 7, 2016
Garlan Garner Buick shopping? I thought that once you go EV you never go back.�
Jul 7, 2016
JeffK Nooo, don't give up on life so easily. You're not THAT old.�
Jul 7, 2016
Red Sage Yeah... the Zombie 222 also has a range so short, they won't quote it (50 miles, if you're lucky). This is even worse than the Mercedes-AMG SLS Electric Drive and Rimac Concept One which don't even manage half the range of the Tesla Roadster, but cost anywhere from 4-to-8 times as much. The Zombie 222 is as much a guzzler of electrons as a Mustang is a guzzler of gasoline. Trust that when Tesla Motors releases a sub-2.5 second car, it will also have a 200+ mile range as well. That is a good thing.�
Jul 7, 2016
Red Sage The good news is that all Tesla Motors products are 'designed for range'.�
Jul 7, 2016
Red Sage EaglesPDX: I believe that what someone is attempting to communicate is that the pretty red up arrow (?) next to someone's name in the header of a quoted passage is a link that directs you to the original post that is being quoted, so that it may be read in context.�
Jul 7, 2016
Mark C To add a slightly different concern here, how will we know the price of admission for any of the options? IOW, if asked, "Would you like to upgrade to the bigger battery?, click here" and/or "Would you like the really high output version?, click here." Will I know what the items cost before I click here?
I ask this because I decided to look at configuring a Model S on the Tesla site to get a "feel" for how it was done and noted that when I added options, I saw no evidence of how much more I was spending. Maybe you could use the logic, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it," but I would like to know if my upgrade paint color costs $495, which I'd pay, or $1795, which would make me uncheck that selection, and so on until I hit the end of my budget.
Or, did I make a mistake in what I was doing on configuring? I did stop before I needed to have them e-mail me a quote, just in case some zealous employee wanted to occasionally ping me to see if I was ready to order my new S.�
Jul 7, 2016
Booga Try changing your payment method to cash purchase and you'll see how it impacts your purchase price.�
Jul 7, 2016
ummgood Are you using a computer or tablet/phone? On the computer if you click on an upgrade the price is next to the item after you click on it. For example wheels are $4500. Paint is $1000 etc... Also if you click on the cash tab to the right you can see the total cost go up/down based on how you click.�
Jul 7, 2016
dgpcolorado And they are all 'designed for performance' too!
The performance of a sub 6 second base model is plenty quick enough for me so I'd rather have increased range. Where the OP's question misses the mark is that the enhancements would come from such things as motor size (power) and gearing, not a difference in the battery pack, although one could design a battery to boost performance at the cost of reduced range.
I suggest that those who haven't driven a Tesla before take a test drive and have the Tesla representative dial the car down to base S performance (yes, they can do that). Or take a drive in an S60 if you know anyone with one. You might end up surprised how quick the base model really is. The friends who have driven my car certainly were impressed.�
Jul 7, 2016
JeffK See the problem here is the general public will always ask about ludicrous mode. When you say you don't have it there might be some semblance of disappointment and a slight loss of any bad ass street cred you may have accrued.�
Jul 7, 2016
ccutrer I had this happen yesterday. At lunch two teenagers walked by and started taking pictures of my X right as I was walking out. They asked "is this a P85D?" I just laughed and said "no, but it's still plenty fast." I didn't bother explaining that the X was never built in an 85kWh configuration, cause obviously they didn't know the difference between an S and an X, just that Teslas are fast. I could have said whatever I wanted about it performance wise, and they still would have been drooling. Now, my coworkers that want an S or X themselves... They know the difference.�
Jul 7, 2016
EaglesPDX As someone on his third Last Hurrah, don't sell out too early or wait too long. If someone doesn't need the range and wants the acceleration, nothing provides it better than a Tesla and the T3 will do its part to provide.�
Jul 8, 2016
ummgood Thanks!
Honestly after my kids are out of college my plan is to sell my house in the burbs (because it is way too much maintenance) and then buy something in the city center. My hope is to go from 3600sq ft down to 1200sq ft. Then we'll consolidate down to one car. After my kids get out of college I'll walk to work because I work downtown and my wife can have the car if she needs it. So my next car will probably have to be something she'll be willing to drive. Personally I am hoping she'll fall in love with my Model 3 but by then we'll probably be looking at a small CUV because she likes bigger cars and the Model 3 will probably not be high enough for her taste.�
Jul 10, 2016
Luke42 Our Mazda5 has a 0-60 time of around 9 seconds. It's plenty fast for my purposes.
The announced 6-second 0-60 time for the base Model 3 will be fun sometimes, but I'll rarely use it.
I'd rather have a long range than fast acceleration.�
Jul 10, 2016
Booga This is exactly it. I'm coming from an even slower Honda Civic. The additional acceleration is great and the instant torque is one thing I really enjoy about electric vehicles, but I don't need any more acceleration. Increased range is going to give me flexibility to drive my car, which is sporty, but is not a sports car. The flexibility allows me to make long road trips with ease (the ability to skip superchargers, stop wherever I want for meals, etc.) and just need to think about charging less often.
As another post mentioned in this thread, this might be driven by motor choice and gearing - I would prefer choices that will maximize range without sacrificing acceleration too much.�
Jul 10, 2016
Red Sage Once again... All of Tesla Motors' vehicles will be long range. Those ranges will only grow as time goes by. You don't have to choose between acceleration and range, despite the query that started this thread.
Your actual choice is based upon what speed you would like to drive at for long distances. The first four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine seconds of acceleration will have far less effect on your range than the speed you set the cruise control at. Set it to 80, 90, or 100 MPH and your range will be significantly less than if you drove at 70, 60, or 50 MPH instead. That is due to the increase in wind resistance, which cannot be avoided, as it increases substantially with speed.
I would love to be able to set the cruise control at 85 MPH and be then cover 500-to-530 highway miles before having to stop to 'refuel'. Of course, only one ICE vehicle I've ever owned was capable of that type of range, so I know I can get by with quite a bit less. If we presume that would be around 370-to-430 Wh per mile of energy consumption... We are talking about from 185 kWh to 228 kWh expended to cover the distance. Somehow, I think we won't be seeing a battery pack offered in the 230 kWh to 285 kWh range for well over a decade -- beyond 2030 at least. So, the reality is that I won't be able to do that for some time.
Yes, the Model ? will be a very aerodynamically slippery car. That doesn't change the fact that driving at speed is what reduces range by the greatest amount. You want to go further, in any car, drive slower. All the official crash safety tests conducted around the world are at 45 MPH or less anyway. Of course, the grand majority of fatal car crashes in the US take place at less than 40 MPH as well... And, as speed limits have been increased nationwide, highway fatalities have gone down.
So, I suggest that those who want 'more range' commit to driving at around 5 MPH below the posted speed limit. The great thing about acceleration in a Tesla Motors vehicle is that you can choose to do it anyway you want. The car may be capable of 0-to-60 MPH in under 6 seconds... But you can still do it in 9 seconds or more if you prefer. If you want to drive it like a Civic, LEAF, or Corolla? You can. No one is stopping you. Least of all, Tesla Motors.�
Jul 10, 2016
CHG-ON Acceleration. Duh.
What else do I live for?�
Jul 10, 2016
Red Sage You already have all the flexibility you need. It exists in your ankle, heel, and toe. How you decide to apply the GO Pedal on the right determines your range. That is the choice that lies before you. That has always been the case. The difference really is that with an electric car, the distance you cover -- either way -- is further for the energy you expend.
Most people realize this after they own a Tesla Motors product. Range is not really a problem at all. Charging on he road is not a chore. And really, once the available energy reserve exceeds the equivalent of four gallons of gasoline, at around 135 kWh or so... and maybe as little as 120 kWh...? I hope that these discussions will end, once and for all, for anyone who drives at actual, posted speed limits.�
Jul 10, 2016
EaglesPDX Nope. The car has a range based upon standards that allow comparison which are posted online at FuelEconomy.gov.
Tesla current ranges are posted there and buy Tesla on their website. T3 is currently set for a base rating of 218 mile range. Hopefully their will be a battery upgrade for the 250 range, what I would consider a minimum.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner Great statement.�
Jul 11, 2016
JeffK You misunderstand the post by Red Sage. Those numbers are based on a strict set of tests done by the EPA. they are NOT necessarily a representation of the range you will get. If you think otherwise then you should explain this:
Norwegian hypermiler drives Tesla 452 miles on a single charge�
Jul 11, 2016
Booga You're probably right about this and so I can't comment too much until I actually get my Tesla next year, but I agree on the driver being a big impact on actual distance covered between charges. In highway travel, this ability is a little limited, because you want to be going with the traffic to avoid an accident by going too slow to conserve power though.�
Jul 11, 2016
ccutrer This never seems to stop Prius owners from going 10-15mph slower in the express lanes in Salt Lake area than surrounding traffic</jab>
<grumble grumble that just because you qualify to use a special lane, doesn't necessarily mean you should use it>�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner Maybe there should be a poll: How much range/distance is enough?�
Jul 11, 2016
JeffK My prius goes to 107mph don't ask how I know that�
Jul 11, 2016
Red Sage Git 'er done.
I think that people want to continue the old, automatic, bad habit, of 'filling up' the instant the needle points at 1/4 tank remaining. They want to use only about 75% of their potential range before 'refueling'. I prefer to drive as if I "Don' need no steenkin' fuel!"
I have always paid very close attention to the consumption rate of my cars. So, I know just how far I can keep driving even after the orange light of doom comes on. Passengers tend to be much more anxious than I am to stop for gas (or a smoke break, or a lavatory break) than I ever am. So far, I've been right every time, and I've never run out of fuel on the road.
So, I expect that if done right, I'll be pulling into a Supercharger station with between 10% and 15% State of Charge remaining when on the road. Sometimes, maybe even as low as 5%. People keep asking for a 500 mile battery, but don't want to admit that they would end up refueling when they had no less than 20%, or 100 miles of range remaining all the time.
If I understand Elon Musk and JB Straubel correctly, they see that as a waste. For instance, if the car has a 500 mile range, and you know you would never actually drive more than 350 miles at a stretch...? You probably don't actually need a 500 mile battery. You would be just fine with a 380-to-400 mile range instead. They speak of a 'sweet spot' being 300-to-350 miles of 'Real World' range.
Even so, I believe that eventually, in an attempt to make sure that Naysayers must [SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM], electric vehicles will have tremendous range. That will require advances in technology that allow higher capacity to be stored in less physical space, and much lower weight, at extreme low cost. Even at 150 kWh to 170 kWh capacities, electric cars will be more-or-less on par with the best ICE offerings, even if a bit less than hybrids when it comes to range. And I expect those capacities will be available well within ten years. Before 2030 the range of electric vehicles will eclipse anything of reason offered in an ICE.�
Jul 11, 2016
ccutrer More evidence that the actual limits of the vehicle are less important than how you drive it.
Also, impressive -- that's faster than I've ever gone (or plan to go) with my X!�
Jul 11, 2016
Jayc Surely the battery cost and weight per kW is a main factor into this "sweet spot" function and as such, it is more of a moving point rather than a static one with the movement driven by battery technology advancement. Or in other words, when someone refers to a sweet spot, they are implicitly considering a target year or current state of the art.�
Jul 11, 2016
Red Sage Cost, weight, and availability. Yes. Elon and JB often speak in terms of realities, things that are actually achievable, though Naysayers claim they are instead preaching of pie-in-the-sky possibilities. I believe that even their most conservative prognostications are far beyond what others consider probable. Elon and JB are much more aware of the challenges they face than are their detractors.�
Jul 11, 2016
Mark C I see, now that I clicked on the cash tab, pricing is presented with the options, where the default setting is for a Lease, so it gives monthly payments.
Thanks!�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner I just wonder.... I the M3 was known to have a range of 500+ miles per charge....if everyone responding would now say..... 500 miles is enough. Or are people mile mongers? I want more, more, more, more....�
Jul 11, 2016
jelloslug Honestly, a solid 350 miles of range in most weather conditions would satisfy me completely.�
Jul 11, 2016
Hayden 300 miles in all weather conditions.�
Jul 11, 2016
M0DEL� Pushed it out of an airplane???
Just kidding ... also a Prius owner. But only had mine up to 102 - had to test that the 3rd digit on the ODO display actually worked.�
Jul 11, 2016
jkk_ Nothing to add.
Edit: actually, yeah, something to add: in all weather conditions with reasonable speed, 75mph (~120km/h) would be nice but I'd take 62mph (~100km/h) happily as "reasonable speed."�
Jul 11, 2016
Booga I couldn't say it any better myself.�
Jul 11, 2016
JeffK I'm pretty sure there had to have been a tailwind�
Jul 11, 2016
Bruin1996 I am going for the "Ludicrous" performance Model 3 so I am voting for acceleration. I already had a Model S 90D for longer range travel and more seating.. the Model 3 will be primarily for commuting and local driving.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner So.... Tesla is less than 90 miles per charge away.
I think that by the time the M3 comes out....300 per charge will be very close to reality.�
Jul 11, 2016
Booga Maybe I misunderstand the person you quoted, but I would think that in all weather conditions would imply even driving in some amount of snow with the heat on... The 300 miles of range would likely be an EPA rating that is even higher, maybe 350-375.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner Tell you what....I'll raise you 100. Now will you guys vote for Ludicrius?
Tesla Roadster gets a range increase to a truly crazy 400 miles maximum�
Jul 11, 2016
alseTrick I'd GLADLY take an 8-second 0-60 in order to get 30% more range. GLADLY. That would make the car unquestionably better. 0-60 is not an important feature in a car.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner I'm glad Tesla disagrees. ie Ludicrous.�
Jul 11, 2016
alseTrick There's a reason it's not a base feature; because it's not important.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner What are you referring to? Distance or acceleration?
I believe a base version of anything is likely to keep the price down for those who don't want to buy it. It has nothing to do with importance.
You want to go further...buy that option.
You want to go faster quicker...buy that option.�
Jul 11, 2016
alseTrick Important features are included in the base model. It serves no practical purpose. It serves no safety purpose.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner Not quite sure who said that it was important or not. Not quite sure who cares.
You want what you want. I want both. Both of which are important enough for Tesla to produce because they sell.
If this thread is not important to you...fine. Let the rest of us discuss distance and performance.
The thread is 10 pages long. Its important to somebody.�
Jul 11, 2016
ccutrer You didn't mention what you would take the 8-second time in exchange for. Is that a 30% decrease in 0-60 time?
I'm sure almost all people would agree with you. You're saying you want to go from a 5.6 to 8.0 0-60 in exchange for 279.5 miles of range instead of 215. The problem is that that's not even an option we have. First, looking at the actual acceleration vs. range graph, we only know one point - on a Model S, to go from a 4.2 to 3.1 0-60 time (a 26% improvement, costs you 8.8% of range (294 to 270). Actually, we know two points. Going from 3.1 to 2.8 (Ludicrous mode; an improvement of 10% from a P90D) costs you 0% in range. That's right, acceleration is "free" in terms of EPA range, for this one datapoint. And these two points are already at the very high end of "how much faster can we push this thing." We just have no idea how much range could be gained if the motor, inverter, battery, and gear ratios were all perfectly sized to meet 8.0s 0-60, and no better. I suspect it's less than a 5% improvement (226m) on the stated 215m range of a base 3 doing a 6.0 0-60. Maybe even smaller.
Yes, Elon likes fast cars. But that's only partially why the Model 3 will be a fast car. It's just so danged easy to make the car fast when you've already designed and built high efficiency batteries, inverters, and motors in order to allow efficient long range travel, with quick recharging, that why would you not?!
Don't forget that the number one factor affecting range is how fast you drive. If you're going 90mph constantly, your battery will be dead very quick, regardless of if you got to 90 in 5 seconds or 5 minutes. If you drive 35mph constantly, it will last a very long time, even if your initial accelleration was in 1.5s.�
Jul 11, 2016
JeffK Florida has no shortage of superchargers... why do you need the extra range?
Besides that, I'm sure they will offer a model with the quick acceleration AND your 30% more range.
I'm not sure I understand why this thread is still active ... your choices are between acceleration and top speed not acceleration vs range. Acceleration vs top speed is a matter of gearing.�
Jul 11, 2016
alseTrick I don't "need" it. Given the hypothetical choice, I'd give up acceleration for increased range.
The thread title specifically says "If you had a choice between acceleration or distance". It doesn't say top speed. Regardless, my thoughts on top speed mirror those on acceleration.�
Jul 11, 2016
dgpcolorado More like 450-500 miles EPA. Cold air, cold tires, heater running, highway speeds? Or pushing through snow plus heater use? It can easily take 450 to 500 Wh/mile in such conditions.
I'd be content with a more reasonable 180-200 miles in all weather conditions. If the weather is very poor I am much less likely to take a long trip anyway. And that range is more than enough for routine local driving in winter conditions.�
Jul 11, 2016
ccutrer Okay, yes, you answered the OP's question. And I'm cursing @Garlan Garner for asking such a broken question now�
Jul 11, 2016
alseTrick I'm not following what you mean in your first two sentences.
As for the last 3 sentences, they were in direct response to a comment another person made and need to be considered in that context.�
Jul 11, 2016
alseTrick Once again you don't understand another person's comment.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner Not playing that game.�
Jul 11, 2016
ccutrer You said you'd take a 30% increase in range for an 8s 0-60. I was specifically pointing out the non-linearity of the range vs. accelleration trade off, so was asking if that 30% range increase was from a 30% 0-60 hit, and if you expected that trend to continue with 30% range increases/30% 0-60 time decreases for any given starting value of range and 0-60.
But really at this point, this thread is a dead horse. Everyone wants more range. In preference to accelleration, even, if that were to be the case (which it mostly is not). Garlan wants lots of accelleration. Lots of people don't care what the acceleration is cause no matter what it will be much quicker than previous cars they've owned. Lather, rinse, repeat.�
Jul 11, 2016
Garlan Garner Not so fast there ccurter... Maybe I need a new thread for this...but I might get my acceleration votes from all of the distance people here if the M3 follows the path of the roadster.
Tesla Roadster getting upgrade to 400-mile range - Roadshow
So far folks are saying that if they get their 300+ range....then acceleration would get their vote.
I kinda opened this thread knowing that 400 miles was on the horizon. LOL�
Jul 11, 2016
ccutrer So what's your follow up question? "Assuming Tesla has already satisfied whatever your unquenchable thirst for range is, would you rather they focused on being able to charge it faster, or accelerate faster?" Yet another trade off that isn't actually a trade off. But I had to have a trade off, cause who's going to say "no" to "Tesla already makes an infinite range EV. Should they stop making it faster?" (Oh wait, people actually will say "no" to that).
I think that once they've completely resolved any range issues, they keep working on battery tech to make it cheaper, and lighter. Lighter also means cheaper (need less energy to move the same vehicle), so that's a double whammy.�
Jul 12, 2016
Garlan Garner Folllowup question:
Now that you have your range...Ludicrous anyone?
(as I let the thread fade off into the distance.........)�
Jul 12, 2016
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Distance
It implies energy density increases, and that would allow boxier vehicles to be electrified. It could also allow smaller vehicles to be electrified more. But I think that cost will be a greater constraint, and for small cars, I think that in the long term a significant proportion of sales will be shorter range BEV. Energy density increases would also make electric motorcycles more practical.
I think that Tesla will be wholly focused on cost and part of that really demands an increase in density, since material and logistic costs are reduced.�
Jul 12, 2016
JeffK Range is already pretty decent 2016 Electric Motorcycle Model Line || ZERO MOTORCYCLES�
Jul 12, 2016
EaglesPDX Tesla to date tends to contradict all that going with sleek and range. Adjusting the motors and how the battery power is used so that a regular (8 sec/60 mph) acceleration is the base would likely greatly increase the range.
As for the 2nd most important factor after increasing range, that would be improving recharge time.�
Jul 12, 2016
Luke42 Ludicrous mode is an option, and one i plan to forgo.
Seriously, any car that can take a 2nd generation Prius at a stoplight has more acceleration than I need. (We owned a 2nd generation Prius for 12 years.)
I'm sure I'll enjoy the extra acceleration that the Model 3 provides now and then, but I don't need it and I don't plan to pay extra for more.�
Jul 12, 2016
JeffK No, it's true that higher energy densities allow higher boxier vehicles to be electrified. The higher energy density is needed to get ranges equivalent to what the sleeker designs get today.
The other sentence about adjusting the motors isn't really going to add a significant real world range and is therefore not worth doing. As previously stated you can accelerate more slowly whenever you want.�
Jul 12, 2016
EaglesPDX It allows lower, wider, shorter, taller vehicles to be electrified. In other words it's meaningless to the point of which is preferable speed or range.�
Jul 12, 2016
JeffK The coefficient of drag on a vehicle has everything to do with range...�
Jul 13, 2016
Red Sage I think that: 1) people will always want more; and 2) Elon will always want to show off -- by offering MORE.
At some point, range will be so much higher on a fully electric car that even a Prius with a 25 gallon fuel reserve would trail behind by 50%.
For me? Something between 2,500 and 6,000 miles range would probably be... enough. But Imagine a time when cars roll out of Fremont displaying a 60,000 mile available range.�
Jul 13, 2016
Red Sage Once again, that isn't how it works. You would also have a MAXIMUM speed of 60 MPH. And you can do that anyway. Just don't stomp on the GO Pedal. Apply acceleration as quickly or slowly as you like, don't exceed 60 MPH, and you will probably be able to travel 300 miles. If you want to drive 90+ MPH, up a 6% grade, through hub-deep snow, in sub-freezing temperatures, with a 60 MPH headwind for 300 miles, both ways...? You are out of luck without an incredibly higher capacity battery pack. You aren't going to magically 'get 30% more range' by varying the acceleration profile from sub-3 seconds to plus-8 seconds, without any other concessions.�
Jul 13, 2016
EaglesPDX But the issue raised and commented was about energy "density" not wind resistance.�
Jul 13, 2016
Red Sage Exacto-FRIGGIN-mundo!�
Jul 13, 2016
JeffK Boxier vehicles by definition have a higher wind resistance... hence higher energy densities are needed to both keep the weight down and allow those types of vehicles the range today's vehicles have. Whether it's a semi-truck, pickup truck, or a big child molester van, everything will benefit from higher energy densities.�
Jul 13, 2016
Red Sage Given the hypothetical choice: There is no spoon.
![[?IMG]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vKGHE1Z3N74eENzS0rt6QK1u7sBoRXrfPcsQXRtWBV_TwJthmdPCiJd23F8U5fnwkliOL4tYlvLyOQDFzgWWeE0NOic7q6Am-7mm9jcxv9_cDPCsmyDhqbR4PJ2WFEyBN21ewbrAKPfb8WjDw_r_qAeP5NqA=s0-d)
�
Jul 13, 2016
Red Sage Am I the only person who automatically drives at least 20 MPH less than the posted limit during inclement weather? In my experience with snow, even doing 45 MPH on the highway was a lot faster than the people pulled over to the shoulder, or sitting in the ditch.�
Jul 13, 2016
ccutrer Depends on how inclement, but no. And typically I'm watching my mirrors (and reverse camera this upcoming winter!) for the idiots behind me that forget that the coefficient of friction is highly reduced in wet conditions. I've actually discussed with some friends that I wish Tesla had automatic emergency scoot-forward, to avoid getting rear-ended!�
Jul 13, 2016
Red Sage Heh. This is sort of a chicken and egg situation, only in a logarithmic matrix with several different degrees of chickens and levels of eggs. Sort of a multi-dimensions tug of war. From my point of view, Tesla Motors will completely resolve range issues by making battery technology less expensive and more energy dense, so that vehicles can weigh less. It is all part of the same equation, which also includes temperature controls, state of charge cycles, and shock resistance.�
Jul 13, 2016
EaglesPDX Amazing facts we learned in grade school...but again...nothing to do with the comment about higher energy density batteries increasing range which applies to all vehicles.
in case of T3 and the desire for more range over greater acceleration one would have to assume the battery is constant so the greater range would come from smaller, more efficient motors and controls geared toward range that would not give as great an acceleration but would give greater range.�
Jul 13, 2016
Red Sage Interesting. People seem to complain about the current form of automatic scoot-forward, where the car on Autopilot seeks to 'close the gap' in traffic a bit more aggressively than they would prefer. It seems they would prefer there was an automatic back off instead -- so that the car slows in traffic at a quicker rate, thereby leaving a greater gap between your own vehicle and slower moving, or stopped, traffic ahead of you. In most situations, I rather agree with Enzo Ferrari, "What's behind you, doesn't matter."
To me, inclement weather is anything without several miles of visibility and temperatures substantially over 75� Fahrenheit. To put it another way? Heavy fog, heavy rain, heavy sleet, hail, gusting winds, standing water, black ice, snowdrifts -- all of these pass for inclement weather in my mind. I learned that on most freeway interchanges and offramps, the yellow/amber warning signs for lower speeds can be ignored here in California -- unless it is raining. If the orange sign says '35', you can typically take the turn at 50 or more (without frightening the passengers TOO much). But in the rain, it is best to go ahead and throttle down to the 35 MPH recommendation. Driving across I-40 in Tennessee, I learned that regardless of conditions you should ALWAYS obey the warning signs. Their offramps are much shorter and steeper, so you can get into trouble REAL quick.�
Jul 14, 2016
dgpcolorado One should slow down in snow but typically the savings in drag from slower speeds is more than made up for by the increased energy to push through snow. A lot depends on the amount and type of snow. Warm wet snow can be slick and heavy to push through. Very cold* dry snow often makes for decent traction IME. But there is no way I am going to take a 300+ mile road trip if roads are snow packed; I can wait for better weather.
I mostly drive clear roads even in winter but temperatures around 20�F (-7�C) are common here and really increase energy usage due to increased drag, rolling resistance, heater use, and the like. And it gets worse with cold mornings below 0�F (-18�C). The coldest I can recall was about -22�F (-30�C), which is probably no big deal to someone in Minnesota, Canada, or Alaska.
"Real world" range depends a lot on what sort of conditions one is assuming!
* For me, "very cold" is when the snow is "squeaky cold" (about 9�F or less). Walking on squeaky cold snow is one of life's joys! It also makes for good skiing.�
Jul 14, 2016
Garlan Garner Sounds logical to me.�
Jul 14, 2016
Automaton Without both range and acceleration, I would not buy any car. If all I wanted was range, I would have bought a Volt since it has an ICE backup to cover long trips. Or the Bolt... I think that's the newest slow ugly American electric car with decent range? However, that thing is slower than snot. If all I wanted was speed, I did almost buy a Subaru WRX. The WRX gets terrible gas mileage though, and the sales guys don't allow WRX test drives, so I swore off the WRX. I have driven slow cars (7s+ 0-60mph) up until my current car because that's all I could afford. My current car does 0-60 in 4.9s, which is plenty fast for me and I wouldn't want to go noticeably slower than that. I'm hoping the dual motor Model3 can come close. It's not about racing or speeding. I typically cruise along with the flow of traffic around me. It's about maneuverability in respect to other cars when needed and a little bit of onramp fun here and there. If I theoretically had to sacrifice a little range (while still remaining comfortably usable) to get acceptable acceleration, I would be ok with that.�
Jul 14, 2016
Jersey Shore Tom That's one slow car! Sneeze Travels 100 mph�
Jul 14, 2016
Garlan Garner That's disgusting. I'm glad my M3 is going to have the biohazard filter built in.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét