Jul 1, 2016
Garlan Garner It has been said by Mr Elon M. that there is definitely going to be a Ludicrous mode on the M3. Some have concluded in their minds that Ludicrous means sub 3 second 0-60 times.
Mr. Elon M. has also said that the distance for the M3 will exceed 200 miles per charge. He has also stated in a recent conference that 300 miles per charge is fully achievable.
If perhaps there is an option for a much more powerful battery ( when it comes time for configuration ) - Where might you want a battery enhancement directed ? Acceleration? or Distance?�
Jul 1, 2016
Gunn For me it has to be distance, the M3 will already be quick (quicker than my current car) and I'm planning a lot of cross country traveling so i need the range.
The estimated 215 is already on par with a full tank of my current (or at least when I choose to fill up), but to get closer to 250 even with it at 90% full would be great. And I have heard from some MS owners that their predicted is a conservative estimate so it depends on how you drive and where (50/50 for regeneration).�
Jul 1, 2016
Boourns I'll get the non-performance version of the biggest battery, i.e., the Model 3 equivalent of the 90D. It will be a very quick car in its own right (4.x 0-60 is plenty fast to have fun and way beyond the threshold of my wife yelling at me), and you will also benefit from the longest range.�
Jul 1, 2016
eSpiritIV If they have a stripped down M3 with Ludicrous mode ill do that. If they dont and you have to buy a "package" with a bunch of other bells and whistles, ill have a hard decision. I plan for a commuter car, and if i travel, there will be plenty of superchargers to support my trips�
Jul 1, 2016
jkk_ Yeah, what you said.�
Jul 1, 2016
zenmaster Why do you think the choice is between one or the other? Aren't they orthogonal? One is in chemistry the other is in thermal mgmt?�
Jul 1, 2016
Garlan Garner I've been informed that either can be limited by software. I have been informed by those who are rebuilding subclips of the MS that they have gotten their MS 0-16 time below 2 seconds. They have also easily gotten their MS above 300 miles per charge. In other words....both options appear to be software controlled not hardware controlled.�
Jul 1, 2016
BluestarE3 Just about anything accelerates faster than my Gen 1 Prius, so range is more important for me, given a choice.
�
Jul 1, 2016
JeffK I would like both... and a side of technology with that. Go ahead and throw in some looks too.
I want to have my cake and eat it too.�
Jul 1, 2016
ChadS I don't think it's a meaningful choice between one or the other, especially not in terms of the battery. The acceleration is currently a side effect of the distance. Tesla picks their batteries for energy density to get max range; but a big energy-dense battery still provides lots of power.
The acceleration of the S and X is limited by power from the battery. Tesla could select more power-dense batteries if they were trying to optimize for power, but they are not even though the existing motors could make use of it. They even give you the option of buying a cheaper long-distance version of the car that doesn't even take advantage of the power the battery already offers; you only buy the high-performance version if that is important to you.
To get top acceleration you need more than just the big battery. You need big motors, AWD, a very capable inverter, sticky tires, etc. Tesla gives you the choice of buying a base car with the big battery, or a souped up P90D with AWD, upgraded motors and upgraded inverter to take advantage of all the power the batteries can provide. Doing so greatly increases the attention paid to the company, improves the way consumers think about EVs, and greatly improves Tesla's profit margin - all without requiring owners to pay for it (you can just buy a 90D without the big motor and inverter - they do require you to get AWD with the big battery, but that's largely a packaging assumption - if you want max range you want AWD because it improves range, likely because of front/back gearing differences).
As energy densities increase, Tesla will provide cars with bigger batteries that offer more range. They will also be able to be quicker as a side effect (wrt batteries) if you pay extra for the right gear.�
Jul 1, 2016
WileyTheMan I think my thoughts have already been reflected here. Range is #1 for me. Knowing speed will be a fortuitous side-effect is pretty cool!�
Jul 1, 2016
S'toon Base model is faster'n my current car, so I'd go for distance.�
Jul 1, 2016
int32_t We know it's going to be at least under six seconds, so I'd like the most range there is.�
Jul 1, 2016
alseTrick I don't care about acceleration at all. I'd gladly take a 6.5 second 60 speed in exchange for 300 miles. And I don't even make many road trips, so the distance upgrade isn't even that necessary. I don't race other vehicles on tracks or streets and I don't drive through traffic and city roads like an a-hole. I don't need or want "high performance".
Heck, I'd take prius level performance (whatever it is). That's how little I care about acceleration.
�
Jul 1, 2016
aronth5 This.....
These are all very smart people�
Jul 1, 2016
Garlan Garner Very interesting vote so far. I thought it would be much more even. I have to stand almost alone and say. I voted for acceleration. Ludicrous. 200 miles per charge is more than enough for me.�
Jul 1, 2016
McHoffa My current car is over 10 seconds 0-60, so base will be better by a lot. I want range first, and then as much increase in acceleration as I can afford, because this will be my first fun car, and maybe my last if true 100% autonomy is really here in the next 5-7 years.�
Jul 1, 2016
Nubo The mutual exclusion isn't nearly as clear-cut as the poll assumes. There might be some push-pull at the boundaries, where peak acceleration makes huge current demands and possibly there is some compromise between current-delivery capacity and storage capacity and longevity. But I think you can get some fine acceleration without making the batteries break much of a sweat.
That being said, I have no need for a 3-second 0-60 vehicle, and both society and myself are probably better off if I do not have one.
The question might be better put: how much acceleration is acceptable to you and how much do you prefer? For me, 8 or 9 seconds is perfectly fine; if I could pick I'd probably end up on the high side of 6. I'm old enough to remember when 0-60 in 10 seconds was sports-car territory.�
Jul 1, 2016
Garlan Garner Fair enough.�
Jul 1, 2016
zenmaster 4 seconds is acceptable, but I'd prefer 3.�
Jul 1, 2016
Garlan Garner Exactly. I wouldn't mind sub 3's either. 2.x... I can't wait. lol�
Jul 1, 2016
AoneOne What about an option for faster charging? For many people, that's probably more important than more range or acceleration.�
Jul 1, 2016
zenmaster I dunno. I'd say most people just plug it in over night and not need to worry about it. Faster charging would be most desirable for long distance trips which don't occur all that often. This is despite some people's claims that the extra relaxation the SC stops afford makes the long distance trips that much more pleasant. lol!�
Jul 1, 2016
jelloslug Distance. That makes mid trip charging less of a need.�
Jul 2, 2016
garsh If we could double the range (400-600 miles) and halve the supercharging time (15-20 minutes for 0-80% battery), then gasoline cars would lose their one last remaining advantage over electric cars.�
Jul 2, 2016
EaglesPDX AWD on the new P60D increases the range. If you select just the AWD option the range increases from 201 to 218. It appears to be because it uses two smaller motors instead of one larger motor. And acceleration increases from 5.5 seconds to 5.2 seconds.
If Tesla reduced the AWD acceleration to 8 seconds using smaller AWD motors, what would the increased in range be, if any?�
Jul 2, 2016
JeffK Depends on the type of driving you do... if you accelerate once to get on a freeway or you accelerate many times in city traffic..
You can always set the tesla on Valet mode to reduce power used... you'll get your 8 secs 0-60mph without Tesla having to change a thing.�
Jul 2, 2016
EaglesPDX The AWD P60D getting greater range and faster acceleration with smaller motors had nothing to do with type of driving and was based on the baseline parameters uses to determine range and acceleration.
I think the thread is more about building the car to affect the baselines of acceleration and range vs. how to drive to increase range, the topic of another thread perhaps.�
Jul 2, 2016
JeffK The type of driving has everything to do with the range you get from the same equipment. My point is you can have both range and acceleration and limit via software when you want range and unlock it when you want more acceleration and decreased range.
In my opinion, it's better to have it and not use it vs not have it at all.
As to the 60D getting better range and faster acceleration you first have to take into account the configuration for the dual motor setup has more horsepower. Under ideal road conditions, RWD vs AWD will accelerate the same with the same hp. Then range difference is 8 miles due to better efficiency of the dual motor setup.
60D vs 60D on valet mode and you'll probably get more range due to less power draw during acceleration.
Basically, I'll take the best performing model and adjust the range myself as needed.�
Jul 2, 2016
EXOTIC1 3.5 or 2.8 doesn't matter when it's in that range of times
show me that it'll run hi 10's very low 11's
0-60 is very overrated these days�
Jul 2, 2016
jbrush Distance will be my preference and where I plan on spending extra money, but faster charging might outweigh the need. Yes, stopping would be a pain, but if it's no longer than stopping to grab gas and use the bathroom it doesn't change the experience much.�
Jul 2, 2016
EaglesPDX No doubt but this thread is about the build of the car for range or acceleration. Not how to drive it to get better range which would be an interesting thread you should start. As with the hybrids when they first came out, there may be different techniques to use with EV's to maximize range.
As for this thread on vehicle construction for baseliness of acceleration or range, most would like the Tesla 3 designed for range. The question is what would that design look like (apparently two smaller motors get better range than one large motor) and how would it affect acceleration. Would two smaller motors providing AWD (what gets the range boost in the P60D) sized for 8.0 secs to 60 vs. 5.2 seconds yield a longer range.�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner I wish I could frame this response. This is perfect.�
Jul 2, 2016
zenmaster I don't get it. The OP is presumably aware that range vs power is still controlled by driver demand, just like in an ICE vehicle, but is suggesting that battery tech somehow creates a significant tradeoff between the two.�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner True.
Let me explain.
I watch hours of videos of people like Jack reverse engineer the MS's subclips. Initially it was perplexing to learn that Tesla limited access to the full battery via software between versions. Performance is not fully dependent on driver discipline. Of course performance can be altered by driver discipline, but not "fully". Software updates set the standard for the car and then the driver can do with it can within the software's set parameters.
Just like the valet mode. Software affects the cars distance and acceleration. For example, I could probably exceed 300 miles per charge in valet mode. As a driver, I can mimic the valet mode and exceed 300 miles per charge myself.
But here's the kicker......
Lets say for example: Tesla limits all cars to valet mode. Same Battery, Same Motors. They could tout that the MS WILL get 300 miles per charge. Of course acceleration would be NILL.
Now lets say for example: Tesla directly ties the battery to the motors through software - like the ludicrous (new fuse, etc) mode. and touts 2.3 second 0-60 times, Going Ludicrous does not require a new battery or a new motor...... Its primarily a fuse changout and some software.
Its not simply about driver discipline. Tesla's software is intricately involved in what you can do with the car. Performance or Distance�
Jul 2, 2016
N5329K With Jack, you have no choice but to spend hours.
Robin�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner
Absolutely. He is great. Its amazing the amount of money he has spent doing this. I'm glad he got the Tesla parking brake issue done. Now he can sell a full subclip or drive unit and recoup some of his expenses.�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner
Let me say this also.
I "believe" that if you order "Ludicrous" you get access to ALL of the battery even if you never use "Ludicrous". If you order the Acceleration / Performance package and drive in Valet mode....you might get 350 miles per charge. I've never driven very efficiently so I wouldn't know. I'm not sure I'm willing to drive in Valet mode for 350 miles to prove it. LOL.�
Jul 2, 2016
dhanson865 On the single and dual motor versions of the car both can be a choice of gear ratio (with less down side on the dual motor version). One end of the scale is low acceleration but better cruising efficiency. The other end of the scale is worse cruising efficiency but better acceleration.
While they can gain on both by choosing a sweet spot inbetwen the extremes there is room to slide somewhat to either side of the sweet spot.
Currently a Model S60 (75 kWh pack software limited) is listed at 5.5 seconds 0-60 and 210 miles range. Dual motor of the same car is 5.2 seconds 0-60 and 218 miles range.
Both of those data points exceed my minimum expectation and significantly exceed my need.
If it allows them to drop the price noticeably to skew towards range I have no problem with 0-60 climbing up to 5.9 seconds single motor and 5.7 seconds dual motor. Heck I wouldn't mind if the base trim was 7 seconds 0-60 but I know that just isn't in the cards.
The EV model is just too efficient at low speeds with all that torque. Tesla just won't leave that on the table. So I expect stronger acceleration than I need and I have to remind Tesla that I want range and reliability and am willing to give up some acceleration.�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner
ARRGGHHH you are killing me. LOL
The more acceleration the better. You can always use more acceleration ( Cowbell ).�
Jul 2, 2016
dhanson865 Which is a good attitude to some extent but. I'll take the most efficient setup and then decide if I want to drive it more efficiently or if I want to launch full pedal.
I can count on one hand the number of times in my life I would have needed to use the full speed of even the slowest Tesla.
I have no desire to take a Tesla over 120 mph, I'll likely never take it over 100. I'd very very rarely ever take it over 90. I could see my self regularly using 80 on a downhill occasionally.
The gearing in the car has to be set to allow that maximum speed. Whatever it is set to also affects maximum acceleration and my efficiency at 50 mph steady state.
I'd rather they focus on efficiency at or below the speed limit so that I get better range. Top speed and acceleration will still be better than I need even if they do that.�
Jul 2, 2016
dhanson865 I can understand if you have a fever and need to order the bigger pack, performance motor, and ludicrous mode as the only cure to your fever.
I'm just saying there is a non performance rear motor option, and a smaller pack option, and I won't be ordering Ludicrous mode.
Don't fear the reaper...�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner Gotcha...thanks. I "do" have the fever.�
Jul 2, 2016
S'toon What for?
Doesn't seem all that practical.�
Jul 2, 2016
Snowcat Every time I read something like this I think of "The Fast and the Furious" where they have this ongoing thing: "You still owe me a 10 second car ...". It's hilarious to watch those movies again and you'r all like: "a 10 second car, really? That slow??"
EDIT: apparently they mean a 10 second 1/4 mile car so you can ignore this�
Jul 2, 2016
JeffK The gearing, as is, already allows for that quick acceleration AND a top speed of over 100 mph. I'd say the gearing should be left alone.
haha he's refering to 10 sec 1/4 mile which even the P90D ludicrous can't do.�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner
Practical? Maybe not. Fun? Absolutely.
If I pay $35K and up for something....it would not be practical to get something I don't want.�
Jul 2, 2016
Snowcat Ah, that clarifies a lot! Me not so good at street-racer-speak�
Jul 2, 2016
182RG Safely, in a track environment? Or racing between stop lights, merging into traffic from on ramps, or being a general nuisance on public roads?
The question is can you use more acceleration in a responsible way? There needs to be a limit, or this will be Tesla's next PR disaster. Silently running over someone crossing the street.
I'll take 300 mile range, with the acceleration of my un-modified S5 or slower.�
Jul 2, 2016
EaglesPDX I think most drivers would take range over accleration especially in the case of the Tesla 3 with a family car that gets to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds but only 218 miles of range. Cutting that to 8 seconds to get a 350 mile range which be a huge boost to sales. As would reducing the dangerous acceleration levels. No parent would want their inexperienced kid driving off in a 5.2 sec. car. Nothing good would happen.�
Jul 2, 2016
S'toon If I wanted fun, but not practical, I'd be looking at getting a used Roadster. All due respect to Bonnie, but a 2 seater car, without supercharging capacity or luggage space, isn't practical. But it's reportedly very fun to drive.�
Jul 2, 2016
JeffK I don't understand why that would be a huge boost in sales... if you want a 0-60 in 8 seconds car just turn on valet mode like we've already discussed. Your range will increase accordingly. You can do that with any Model S/X even today. Why in the world would they purposely make it slower for all people when that decision can be left up to the buyer.�
Jul 2, 2016
Red Sage The awesome thing about Tesla Motors is that they give you both, and the ability to choose for yourself. You control the distance you can travel with the long, skinny pedal on the right. What you do with your right foot determines the range you will achieve. And, if you decide to reach 60 MPH in 38 seconds instead of only 3.8 seconds, you can.
I believe that Insane means sub-3.5 second times to 60 MPH. I expect that Ludicrous will mean perhaps and additional 0.5 seconds quicker to that speed. Or rather, check the 0-60 MPH metric for a BMW M3. Subtract 0.5 seconds from that to get Insane. Subtract 1.0 seconds from the M3 to get Ludicrous. Subtract another .75 seconds or so to get Maximum Plaid velocity.�
Jul 2, 2016
Garlan Garner That's exactly what MS drivers said. That's why I'm glad it was an option. You don't have to buy it .. and at the same time....everyone else can.�
Jul 2, 2016
EaglesPDX Because range and charging place and charging time are major sales drags for EV's even Teslas. Increasing the max range to 300 miles for the T3 would be huge.
You keep saying using "Valet Mode", is there something from Tesla that says using Valet mode increases range? You may have it backwards in that accelerating at greater than 8/60 decreases range. I would guess the Tesla official ranges are not based on any 5.2/60 sessions.�
Jul 2, 2016
Lem89 I think AWD will boost its acceleration performance. If so Ludicrous moves to the bottom of the features list as I need AWD for the snow anyways. There are just other compelling features besides Ludicrous such as Autopilot and Supercharging and Pano roof that would make the car unique and functional instead of just fast.�
Jul 2, 2016
ZAKEEUS Well since we already know it will be a sub 6 second car which is a lot faster than my current car, I would go for distance. I do plan on getting dual motors and the bigger battery so I'm hoping for both acceleration and range.�
Jul 2, 2016
jerry33 The only way valet mode will increase range is if you have a very heavy foot.
Tesla ranges are based on EPA except where they are based on sustained speed.�
Jul 2, 2016
JeffK Yes, he's referring to limiting acceleration in order to gain range.
A performance model with ludicrous can deliver nearly 500 kW at full throttle so to add perspective valet mode limits you to 80 kW.
Valet mode give you a 0-60mph in around 8.2 seconds.�
Jul 2, 2016
EaglesPDX I would agree which is why it made no sense that "Valet Mode" would increase the range.
When people say "increase the range" they mean the cars rated range. To do that for the T3 would mean some physical change to the motors or battery to have a big effect on the stated prototype range of 215 miles.�
Jul 2, 2016
JeffK The EPA range would increase if you software limited the power output without physical changes to the car. It's not like an ICE where there's only a really narrow range of efficiency.�
Jul 3, 2016
EaglesPDX The power output was already limited for the EPA tests, no 5.5 0-60's. The range is per the EPA test parameters. You can't go slower or faster for the EPA tests that's why they are a baseline of compariso.
In order to increase the range, there will have to some engineering change such as battery or motor size/qty/type.�
Jul 3, 2016
David_Cary Well - the EPA does get on it I believe. Fastest is 8.46 mph/sec. That is 7 sec 0-60. So software limiting to 8 sec 0-60 would actually improve EPA range a very small amount.
Not in any meaningful way of course but technically...
But the topic was about designing the battery, not necessarily the software. And the tiny benefit in limiting acceleration in software isn't really relevant.
Now - there are real battery compromises to be made. But in general (my understanding) is that discharge and charge rates are going to be pretty much the same design criteria. So you could make a slower car but then it would charge slower and no one wants that (on a road trip). You also lose regen - which will change range a bit - real and EPA.
Now $$$ vs acceleration - that is clearly an issues. And that is easy to deal with - as they do now with $$$ optional increased performance. But if you take a car comparable to a S60 but make it lighter and smaller and shrink the battery - you still wind up just under 6 sec 0-60. You must use the original S60's numbers since the software reduced S75 is not fair. So low 5's is probably not going to be the base but it does depend on how much weight is dropped and the final battery size.
As the battery gets bigger, the potential to accelerate faster goes up. But there really isn't a significant design trade off. The base car will be faster than most cars. And it will have the EV factor where real world, it is much faster. (quiet, no rev, minimal efficiency tradeoff). But you will unlikely get a 6 sec car (ie it will be much faster) when you get the battery - even if you wanted to save $500 dollars to do it. All the motors and inverters will probably be the same for manufacturing efficiency. So acceleration will be no increased manufacturing cost.
The end result - lots of slow drivers with fast cars. Not a big deal. We can only hope they learn to drive faster..... I dream of better traffic flow with everyone driving Model 3's.�
Jul 3, 2016
Jayc Now this is what I don't understand, why do we have to choose performance vs range for an EV? Let the car be equipped for medium i.e. sub 6 sec 0-60 performance but those who want to maximize on range can drive sensibly. It is not like there is a significant advantage to be had by making inverters and motor even smaller. This differs from ICE where we have no option but downsize engine capacity to achieve the best mpg compromise.�
Jul 3, 2016
angelarm1110 kind of a moot point really, since Elon so aptly put it, "at Tesla we don't make slow cars"�
Jul 3, 2016
JeffK Exactly, I mean if you guys want a slow EV you can always get a Chevy Bolt. It's going to have a 60kWh battery and oh wait only 200 miles of range. Poor GM.�
Jul 3, 2016
zenmaster And then there is reality: P85D does 8:50 BTG on the Nurburgring � /r/teslamotors�
Jul 3, 2016
EaglesPDX The same is likely true on electric motors, you still have a mass to energize and smaller motor, smaller mass less power to energize it. What was interesting was that the two small motors for AWD increased the range by almost 4% in the P60.
Likely smaller motors would increase the range while lowering acceleration.�
Jul 3, 2016
JeffK In the words of Elon:
�
Jul 3, 2016
jkk_ Off topic - why do you keep referring as P60? The Performance variant is not available with the 60kWh (labeled) battery.
�
Jul 3, 2016
David99 I think it was obvious that the majority would go for range rather than performance. In reality these two things are not exclusive and with current battery technology more capacity comes with greater performance.�
Jul 3, 2016
EaglesPDX I would guess the tradeoff is going to be smaller motors overall which would lower the power and acceleration but still provide excellent performance and towing.
Tesla has been obsessed with the acceleration, I think, in part due to slow hybrids and perception of EV as slow. Tesla can back off a bit now, go with reasonable acceleration for the family and increase the range.�
Jul 3, 2016
Red Sage Once again... Limiting maximum acceleration will not produce a significant increase in range. If a particular configuration of a Tesla Motors product will get an EPA rated range of 250 miles... Changing its acceleration profile will not magically increase the EPA rated range to 350 miles instead.
There are those who are certain they would be perfectly satisfied with a fully electric car that performed like a Toyota Camry LE. Cool. Please explain that to Toyota. I'm sure they'll get right on that for you... In about fifteen or twenty years.
Tesla Motors does not build slow cars. Traditional automobile companies that build fully electric compliance cars with limited capacity battery packs of 24 kWh or less also limit their acceleration profile so that they do not get to 60 MPH in less than seven seconds. They also tend to limit the top speed of those vehicles, sometimes to as low as 65 MPH and rarely to exceed even 100 MPH. Further, they limit the performance profile further, by derating their electric motors to far less than their maximum achievable output. I believe that the 'NO COMPROMISES' tagline from Tesla Motors refers to these artificial limits that traditional automobile manufacturers have chosen to regularly place on their compliance EVs.
Changing the first three or four seconds of acceleration will not allow a car to drive at a constant speed on the highway for hours more on end. What really matters is the average energy consumption per mile. That is the type of systematic improvement that Tesla Motors will deliver for their Generation III vehicles. You'll be able to drive long distances. You will be able to have fun doing so.�
Jul 3, 2016
JeffK I agree with Red Sage, also if you look at JB Straubel's original blog post on the matter he doesn't talk about range at all but the trade off between acceleration and top speed. With the dual motor setup you can have the best of both worlds.�
Jul 3, 2016
2018 Steve If I can get closer to 300 miles with 0-60 in 6 seconds then I will be ecstatic!! Warning, mileage is very dependent on how often one uses the throttle and how far down one pushes it!!�
Jul 3, 2016
CarlitoDoc Distance baby.....just like S3X !!!�
Jul 3, 2016
JeffK Performance is as important as distance when it comes to that.�
Jul 3, 2016
timk225 As Elon said at the Model 3 reveal - "At Tesla we don't make slow cars". And if I am spending $35K plus, I want at least 5.4 or better!
My Challenger R/T does 0-60 in 5.1 to 5.3, according to its performance pages in the dash, depending on how good I hit it. I'd like my single motor base battery Model 3 to have similar times.
I used to have a 2005 Neon that did an amazing 17.7 @ 77 in the 1/4 mile, and it was in the 11.0 to 11.5 second 0-60 range. Fine for L.A. traffic, but it is SLOW in my idea of normal driving.
How hard would it be to have a range / acceleration switch on the touch screen that really does something significant? Doesn't the Model S have something like that?�
Jul 3, 2016
JeffK You mean your right foot
The Model S has a range mode that reduces the Air Conditioning power consumption. You can use your foot to adjust how much you accelerate. see page 70 of the Model S owners manual https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/Model-S-Owners-Manual.pdf�
Jul 4, 2016
SpiceWare When I bought my first S2000 I noticed I stopped becoming annoyed at catching red lights, provided I was first in line, due to the acceleration off the line when the light turned green. As such, I'm also one of the few who voted for acceleration.
I suspect the range of a tricked out Model 3 will be comparable to the range I have now with my S2000 and its small gas tank. I tend to refill every 220 miles or so when driving locally and 240 on road trips.�
Jul 4, 2016
EaglesPDX Smaller motors front and rear would likely increase range. We see 8% increase in range increase on the 60D doing that so making the motors smaller to a 8 sec/60 mph could possibly see a 30% range increase. Getting range on the T3 to 300 miles, 150 miles towing 5,000# hits a sweet spot. It makes the T3 the true American family car that Tesla says they want it to be.�
Jul 4, 2016
jkk_ Somehow this thread turned from "which aspect of battery development should be focused on" in to "how should we make the cars worse"
Edit: by "make worse" I don't mean that having more range would be a bad thing. What I mean is that it should be attained by making other aspect of the car worse.�
Jul 4, 2016
dhanson865 don't worry, anything they do that will make me happy by making the car more efficient won't make the car bad in any way. Your worse is only vs a car that doesn't exist. It will be what they make it,
They won't make it one thing and then listen to someone else and make it another. They'll make it better than any gas car, hands down.�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner Thanks SpiceWare. I'm with you 1000%�
Jul 4, 2016
SageBrush This is a tough choice because I like my cars to have under 12 second 0-60 times.
Oh, wait. Nevermind�
Jul 4, 2016
Garlan Garner Under 12 seconds? I can do that on my bike. LOL�
Jul 5, 2016
pinski I voted acceleration, but it really depends on the gulf between the two. Meaning, if I can get one with a 300 mile range, but it means it only accelerates to 60 in ten seconds, I wouldn't want it at all. Conversely, if I could have a Model 3 that accelerated to 60 in four seconds, but only had 100 miles of range, I wouldn't want it either.
In a greater likelihood, if I was faced with choosing a six-second Model 3 with a 250 mile range versus a four-second Model 3 with a 200 mile range, I'd probably be happier with the extra range. However, if this thing doesn't move, it's a non-starter for me.�
Jul 5, 2016
JeffK All I want for Christmas is a sub 3 second 300+ mile car...�
Jul 5, 2016
Garlan Garner Sounds like a nice Christmas gift. You will probably be able to ask for it for 2 more Christmases.
Its going to be a tremendously long wait to get our M3's delivered.�
Jul 5, 2016
SpiceWare From this it sounds like you get both, just not at the same time:
�
Jul 5, 2016
Garlan Garner That should have been my 3rd poll option.
- both but not at the same time or switchable�
Jul 5, 2016
Booga Give me the range. I don't need a high top end speed nor do I need fast acceleration - I'm coming from a Honda Civic and so anything Tesla produces will be a huge upgrade. I care more about charging convenience than anything else, and range is a big factor for the convenience. 300 miles of stated capacity means I can get to 240 miles of range with a supercharger in a short amount of time.
I don't yet know what my charging situation will be (condo association) and so at least for a while, I may use other charging locations like at work.�
Jul 5, 2016
Garlan Garner I wonder if people just don't care to vote....or are there only 200 or so people that frequent this M3 forum.�
Jul 5, 2016
Booga I doubt the results would change dramatically even with more votes - most people are clearly looking for range.�
Jul 5, 2016
Garlan Garner Maybe, However I wonder what the vote would be if the either/or scenario was changed to both/and. - essentially "switchable"�
Jul 5, 2016
EaglesPDX Your choice will likely not be so stark. The perfectly adequate 0-60/8 sec of my Subaru Legacy would likely translate to 300 mile range in T3.
Range is the over riding factor people site for not buying an EV.�
Jul 6, 2016
JeffK That's because they don't realize that they probably don't drive more than that max range per day. If they go on vacation they can always use the charging networks or hotels with charging stations. It's a good thing to get out of the car every few hours when driving long distance.
(Now that's discounting the < 200mi crap range golf carts err "EV"s. Ranges like 40 mi is not going to cut it)
As Americans, it's our culture to always want more even if we don't need it. We'll come to a point rather quickly where we have enough range and anything more might lead to diminishing returns.�
Jul 6, 2016
zenmaster I still don't understand the poll as the tradeoff is primarily controlled by accelerator pedal angle. Ultimate power is software limited for component safety or longetivity - not for range compromise. Tesla already markets a fast acceleration option, using some higher rated componets, which they will also produce for the Model 3. So you have presented a false dichotomy as far as some would be tech development tradeoff.�
Jul 6, 2016
Garlan Garner What does that have to do with the vote?�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer @EaglesPDX I think you're deluding yourself. Even as much as a 25% gain (loss?) in acceleration and motor weight will only translate to like 5% weight loss of the entire vehicle, and like a 5% range improvement. That's not going to take a 215 mile range vehicle to 300. It will take it to 225. The battery itself is the overriding factor.
I voted range, because a 215 mile range is more like 150 mile range in normal around town driving. Worse in inclement weather. But I sure do love the instant acceleration of the Model X. As opposed to what a lot of you seem to think, fast acceleration isn't just for beating people off the line or being an a-hole in traffic (though you can definitely do both of those too if you're so inclined). It's amazingly helpful for merging into fast, busy traffic with little runway. Or for safely and quickly getting around the a-holes going 20 under the speed limit because they think driving fast is for jerks. Does an average driver need need Ludicrous, or performance level acceleration? Heck no. Do they even need sub-6 second 0-60? I dunno. Does anyone need 155mph top speed? Hells no. Maybe on the autobon. I do know that you can't compare ICE times to EVs, though. The acceleration curve is just too different. And has been pointed out time and again, having a battery capable of delivering 300+ mile range also means it's capable of delivering ludicrous level acceleration - given appropriate motors. Scale back a little on the motors to something that still efficiently uses the electricity, and you still get acceleration that is beyond what the majority of the population ever thought they would have. It's just the nature of how electric motors work. Purposely handicap the motor much more, and you'll be back to ICE level acceleration 0-30 or so but won't be able to get up to 75mph on the freeway.
Oh, and one last thought - for an EV, the torque that powers acceleration is also what makes towing great. If you plan to tow effectively, then you're going to end up with much more non-towing acceleration than you would normally use.�
Jul 6, 2016
Booga A part of the difference is that not everyone is able to charge as frequently as we might like.
I'm hoping to have a charging spot installed at my home (a condo, which I own, and am on the board of the HOA for), but if it runs me $4-5k, I might have to pass. In that case, I'll either find another way to charge (maybe at an alternative parking location close enough to work) or even just get used to going somewhere for an hour once or twice a week while my car charges at a chademo or supercharger location. The more common they become, the less of an issue this will be, but until then, there is still some work required on my part.
For my situation, the difference between 200 miles and, just for discussion's sake, say 300 miles or even 400 miles of range is huge. If the car had a 400 mile range, it would be no discussion - I could charge once a week to 80% or 85% and not worry about range. With 300 miles of range, I'll realistically need to charge twice in order to be able to make the trips I want to. At 200 miles of range, I'm extremely limited, especially in the winter when temperatures are often in the single digits (fahrenheit).
I'm an early adopter of technologies in general and definitely enjoy my "toys" and so I'll make this work no matter what it takes, but the math of $5,000 to get a charging location is a part of why I'm not entirely sure yet if I can get a full charge at home. If I had that, it would be less of an issue. (Though I still think 300 miles of range for my weather conditions is needed, because of battery degradation over 10 years and because winter weather can be pretty brutal)�
Jul 6, 2016
EaglesPDX Tesla disagrees with your view as Teslas biggest reason for success is that it went for the 250 mile range vs. 100 mile range of Leafs and others.
Skiing in cold weather for me is 125 miles with very frequent issues of traffic jams, snow and ice that crush range. 200 mile range for that trip is inadequate. It's not a "per day" but it is 30 days a year.
Smaller motors (less acceleration but greater range) and lower weight (greater range) are key to the T3 being a car the family car Tesla want it to be.
In every study of consumer behavior, the range of the EV's is key to the buying decision.�
Jul 6, 2016
JeffK If the rumors from before the launch are true then we know there might be a sub 4 second 300 mi model.�
Jul 6, 2016
EaglesPDX Then Tesla is "deluding us" as smaller motors translate to 8% range gains.
Because EV motors are so perfect for towing with instant high torque at low speed the drop in the HP leaves huge amount of torque for towing.�
Jul 6, 2016
JeffK No, quite the opposite actually. Elon, himself, is the one who made the quote about "enough" miles and diminishing returns. He was saying that to satisfy the majority of people a 200-300 mile range car would be fine. He said, that they could make a 500 mile range car now but the cost and added weight, when you typically aren't going to use that range, makes it not worth it.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer Okay 8%. That's still 8%, not the nearly 50% you're claiming jumping from 200 to 300 just by tweaking the motor.
Isn't that what I just said? Instant high torque at low speeds means great for towing, and great for acceleration.�
Jul 6, 2016
EaglesPDX It is 8% demonstrating small change in the motors has big effect on range. If Tesla further reduces motor size it could maintain the 5,000 tow rating and gain the range that is the most important feature for people buying EV's.�
Jul 6, 2016
JeffK Where does this 8% come from and how do you know it's not due to the power balancing which is done between front and rear motors in software in the dual motor setup?
Let's examine range per charge from the widget on the Tesla website.
60 vs 60D at 65mph at 70 degrees.
Range is 219 vs 225
225/219 = 1.027 so 2.7% turn the AC on and it drops to 2.4%�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer And here's the delusion. You have no evidence that the existing differences between a performance motor and a regular motor is "small". And if a similar (or 4x) "decrease" will give you a linear graph increasing range. And if lowering the torque so much to get better range would even allow the car to achieve highway speeds.
Remember, a Model S 60D, 70D, 75D, and 90D all have the same motors. It's more power from the battery that allows the 90D to have better acceleration. The P90D has a much larger motor, sacrificing weight and/or efficiency for a bit of range.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer Here let me help: 0-60 acceleration - My Nissan Leaf Forum
A Nissan Leaf. Respectable EV, but much smaller battery than a Tesla. 0-30 times matching premium cars. After that, it peters out, and can't make it to 100mph --- ever. Comments say they feel power was being limited even at low speeds. A bigger battery to get more range would inherently allow more power. And it's not like Nissan was optimizing for speed. In order to build a viable EV for range, you get acceleration as a side effect. Artificially stunting the acceleration would maybe allow more range - if you're okay with a top speed of 40mph!
Range, top speed, and acceleration are all positively correlated on an EV. Sure you can still make minor trade offs to get a bit more performance in exchange for range (a P90D), but that's less than 10%. To push performance further, you need a bigger battery, which increases your range. Or you need multiple motors to be able to even apply more force to the axles and the road. Which again gives you better range by only applying force usefully. This is in contrast to ICEs where generally better performance requires a negative correlation with efficiency. They can't control where the force goes, and have a very narrow range of optimum efficiency. So outside those ranges, there are huge amounts of waste. Multiple gears attempts to adapt that small range of efficiency to a larger range. EVs don't need them (or the decision has been made that the additional complexity isn't worth the gains). Did you know the original Tesla Roadster was supposed to have two gears, so that it could have awesome acceleration and a higher top speed? But they kept tearing the gears apart when shifting, so they just shipped them software locked to a single gear.�
Jul 6, 2016
Garlan Garner Delusions?
I suppose I'm above average - because I need it. . LOL
I know....that the answer for me is YES. thank you very much Tesla
Pardon the interruption, but I need to raise my hand again and say.....YES!!!!!
What kind of language is this that you speak. I don't understand a word of that sentence. I would give up both my trunk and my frunk if that could allow me 2 additional motors. Hmmm what's a word for... double Ludicrous?
Towing? If I tow anything....its going to be my broken heart if this car is slow and lethargic.�
Jul 6, 2016
Garlan Garner I like you JeffK. I love those numbers. Sub 4? excellent. Can I hear 3?�
Jul 6, 2016
JeffK This is actually a misconception that runs rampant on these forums. You don't need a bigger battery capacity to push performance. You simply need a higher amp draw, better cooling. This is simply the way Tesla has marketed the cars. The larger capacity battery packs happen to have higher voltage.
Compared to a P90DL the Zombie 222, for example, has much quicker acceleration (sub 2 second), much faster top speed (177mph+), and the battery capacity is very small. It can provide 400v at 3840 amps for 10 seconds.�
Jul 6, 2016
zenmaster So perhaps you meant to say, are you going to drive the car hard or not?�
Jul 6, 2016
EaglesPDX Your dishonest post No. 111 above contains no quotes from me but rather fictional quotes you made up and attribute to me. That you need to lie and then respond to your own lies, the old strawman argument, demonstrates even you think your views have no basis in fact so you create fictions.�
Jul 6, 2016
SpiceWare Say what? #111 contains a bunch of quotes from ccutrer, not you. Not only does each quote begin with ccutrer said:, but you can click on the red arrow to get back to ccutrer's post:
Is your browser hiding that or something?
The @EaglesPDX is in the original post as ccutrer directed that reply to you, though it only shows up one time and not before each statement.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer You are completely correct. To get more performance, you need more power (as in, rate of delivery of energy). Power (in Watts or Kilowatts) is volts times amps. So to get more power, you need to raise either voltage or amperage. You can raise voltage by having a differently designed battery chemistry (like a Zombie 222 as you mention), that can push energy out of the battery faster. I'm not a battery expert, but I expect that different battery chemistries have different properties, including discharge rate, and longevity at different discharge rates. The other way to get more overall power (and the basis for the misconception/simplification) is by adding more of the same battery cells in series to raise the voltage, or more in parallel to raise the amperage. As I understand it (again, not a battery expert), the Tesla batteries are a constant ~400V, and they vary amperage to draw power in and out. Up to absurd amperages - my power meter on Model X 90D goes up to 300kW - which is 750A (300,000/400). To put that into perspective - a VERY LARGE home has a 400A service (at 240V). Most newer homes have a 125A-200A service. And you are almost never anywhere close to a full draw on that. I'm guessing 350-400V DC must be some sort of sweet spot for some reason, cause my solar panels with power optimizers (SolarEdge) work at 350-400V, and the Tesla PowerWall is also in that same voltage range.
tl;dr: no, you don't necessarily need a big battery to be able to get power out faster. But having a bigger battery does mean the ability to pull power out faster - if you have larger wiring to handle more amps, and a motor that can take more amps and/or volts.�
Jul 6, 2016
JeffK the 90 kWh (and 85kWh) battery is 400V and I know the older 60kWh battery was only 350V. I'm not sure about the newly released one.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer So small differences, but still in the same ballpark.�
Jul 6, 2016
ccutrer Holy freaking crap! 3840A?! I didn't even see that number at first glance. The whole point of Ludicrous is to replace a fuse to be able to safely carry more amperage between the battery that can produce it and the motor that can use it. But even that is only like 1700A, isn't it? I suppose for a time limited burst it's doable, but for a continuous draw I can't even imagine how thick of a cable you would need!�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét