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

[aronth5]

"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.

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.

 

[R.S]

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.

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.

 

[lklundin]

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.

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).

 

[zenmaster]

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).

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.

 

[Garlan Garner]

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.

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?

 

[Garlan Garner]

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.

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.

 

[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.)

 

[lklundin]

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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[Garlan Garner]

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.

Fair enough.

 

[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

 

[Garlan Garner]

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

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.

 

[lklundin]

But who cares about that?

I believe you are not actually in disagreement with the last two posters that you have replied to.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

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.

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.

 

[R.S]

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?

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.

 

[lklundin]

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.

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.

 

[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..

 

[JeffK]

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..

Many ICEs are actually even worse from a rolling start than a full stop due to turbo lag.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Many ICEs are actually even worse from a rolling start than a full stop due to turbo lag.

Are we trying to give ICE cars a chance? Is that the objective here? LOL

 

[ModelNforNerd]

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.

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.