5% increase in power

[AlanSubie4Life]

So 473 HP/495 torque now?

Not necessarily. They only mention HP, which just means a little higher peak current draw from the battery. They could just extend the flat torque curve a bit to higher speed and add to peak HP with no increase in “peak” torque. Based on the minimal improvements in stated 0-60 times going from 5.1s to 5s (for the LR or whatever), I suspect only peak HP is increased (which for the P3D would only change behavior above 45mph or so, where peak HP is currently reached). But we will see!

If they were to increase torque by 5% from 0mph to around 47mph (~ the new speed where peak HP is first reached), and roll torque off after that as they must to maintain constant HP as speed continues to increase, on the other hand, I’d expect nearly a 5% improvement. But they are probably not doing this.

 

[caskater47]

Where does the info about track mode for stealth in 2019.4 come from?

You can find it in another thread. Myself and multiple others got confirmation directly from Tesla Customer Service that it will be in the 2019.4 update.

 

[SammichLover]

Not necessarily. They only mention HP, which just means a little higher peak current draw from the battery. They could just extend the flat torque curve a bit to higher speed and add to peak HP with no increase in “peak” torque. Based on the minimal improvements in stated 0-60 times going from 5.1s to 5s (for the LR or whatever), I suspect only peak HP is increased (which for the P3D would only change behavior above 45mph or so, where peak HP is currently reached). But we will see!

If they were to increase torque by 5% from 0mph to around 47mph (~ the new speed where peak HP is first reached), and roll torque off after that as they must to maintain constant HP as speed continues to increase, on the other hand, I’d expect nearly a 5% improvement. But they are probably not doing this.

If it is not raising the max torque but instead sliding it out to 5% higher revs then it should show up in 30-70 times, which is really a more "useful" place for it anyway. If it is the case hopefully they keep the same slope on the decline. This may make sense as to why the P's top end is now 162mph, they just slide the whole graph sideways by 5% mph or something? Because 155/162 = 4.3%

 

[stickman]

Wonder when this will actually happen. I’m still on 2018.50.6 :/

 

[MagnusMako]

Wonder when this will actually happen. I’m still on 2018.50.6 :/

March 15th software release per Elon.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

This may make sense as to why the P's top end is now 162mph, they just slide the whole graph sideways by 5% mph or something? Because 155/162 = 4.3%

Maybe. I know nothing about it and have not tried to calculate the aerodynamic losses at 155mph to see whether top speed is limited by air resistance combined with dropping HP, and that is where they “tie”, or whether they just limit it in order to limit max RPM. It may be that HP drops off more steeply and the reason for the higher max speed is simply a change to rev limit. Like I said, I have absolutely no idea.

I do agree that it’s likely that there is probably going to be a little bit more power available in the useful 45-70mph range, but honestly, the way I try to drive on public roads, power is not something I have found lacking so far.

 

[Zoomit]

Any 155mph limit can easily be assumed to be an arbitrary limit to match the German 250kph limit. They probably just removed that limit due to increased confidence in motor performance at high rpm.

 

[SammichLover]

but honestly, the way I try to drive on public roads

I also don't expect it to see much noticeable use there, because I'm told by people that have measured I'm 30-70 in 3.6 sec with the P sub 3 sec. I'm generally not one to fully unfurl the Model 3 on public roads, so don't use that all that often and when doing so I'm already walking by other vehicles like they'll standing still and focused finding on the next [unplanned] reason that I'll need to let up and maybe even get on the friction brakes.

In my opinion it is only when you put the clock on it, or measuring indirectly via peak speed on a fixed segment of road between speed limiting turns, and repeatedly doing that that this will become noticeable.

 

[Sophias_dad]

Any 155mph limit can easily be assumed to be an arbitrary limit to match the German 250kph limit. They probably just removed that limit due to increased confidence in motor performance at high rpm.

Exactly... the increase in power needed for 162 over 155 is much more than 5%, since power increases with the CUBE of speed...

In fact, its (162/155)^3 = 1.1417 ........ about 14%

 

[dfwatt]

Not necessarily. They only mention HP, which just means a little higher peak current draw from the battery. They could just extend the flat torque curve a bit to higher speed and add to peak HP with no increase in “peak” torque. Based on the minimal improvements in stated 0-60 times going from 5.1s to 5s (for the LR or whatever), I suspect only peak HP is increased (which for the P3D would only change behavior above 45mph or so, where peak HP is currently reached). But we will see!

If they were to increase torque by 5% from 0mph to around 47mph (~ the new speed where peak HP is first reached), and roll torque off after that as they must to maintain constant HP as speed continues to increase, on the other hand, I’d expect nearly a 5% improvement. But they are probably not doing this.

I think that's the correct default assumption - just push peak torque out a bit on the RPM curve. But we don't know, and an interesting question is how are they doing this? Inverter tune up? Is this affecting both motors, or just the permanent magnet one?

Are you sure? Why not an increase for the P3D-?

I suspect it will get some kind of speed increase. But we are all just guessing here without someone proving increased output. I see new dyno testing by someone shortly after this update comes out.

 

[dfwatt]

Any 155mph limit can easily be assumed to be an arbitrary limit to match the German 250kph limit. They probably just removed that limit due to increased confidence in motor performance at high rpm.

At 160 mph, I would estimate that your consumption rate is ~750-800 watt hours per mile (based on simply doubling your consumption rate for each doubling of speed, from 40mph at 190 watt-hrs/mi.) This would give you a range of less than 100 miles, but at that speed, who cares? you just need SC every 80 miles, with stop every half hour!

 

[PhaseWhite]

According to this previously posted P3D dyno result this 5% peak power bump could put peak HP and Torque at 487 hp and 521 ft/lb
these numbers are measured at the wheels, so it's already over the claimed 450hp that Tesla advertised for P3D and even higher after this bump.

 

[dfwatt]

According to this previously posted P3D dyno result this 5% peak power bump could put peak HP and Torque at 487 hp and 521 ft/lb
these numbers are measured at the wheels, so it's already over the claimed 450hp that Tesla advertised for P3D and even higher after this bump.

Yes and because the transmission losses in a direct drive system that lacks the awkward and energy gobbling 90-degree torque translation in traditional drivetrains are way less (compared to 17 to 25% in an all wheel drive system like the Audi S4) this means that effectively the car is putting out the equivalent of 575 horsepower at least. No wonder it dropkicks ICE cars 0 to 60 - although some of that of course is the instant on torque of electric motors, and of course the much flatter horsepower curve of electric motors compared to the peaky curve of internal combustion engines is what allows an absence of transmission in the first place. All these are advantage Tesla, even before you get to the question of how manufacturers compete with a product that is getting better with age.

 

[Zoomit]

Exactly... the increase in power needed for 162 over 155 is much more than 5%, since power increases with the CUBE of speed...

In fact, its (162/155)^3 = 1.1417 ........ about 14%

This is correct. My Model 3 LR energy consumption model says the steady state power requirement goes from 151 kW to 171 kW between 155 and 162 mph. (974 Wh/mi to 1053 Wh/mi) That a 13% increase. Total constant speed range decreases from 96 mi to 88 mi, if that power output could be maintained for 33 minutes.

The big caveat for these results is that they are way outside of the calibrated range and some of the simplifying assumptions probably don't hold up well, like tire rolling resistance being linear with speed.

But clearly a 5% power bump doesn't push the car from 155 to 162 mph.

 

[Zoomit]

Per Paul Heutiner's 2/28/19 Tesla Call Transcript [00:24:15], Elon stated:

"The top speed increase is essentially we'd electroral electronically limited the Model 3 Performance to 155 miles per hour or it's - that was not a physical limit but electronic limit - after a lot of testing, we now feel we can increase that limit by 10 kilometers per hour or seven miles per hour. And that just ends up being at RPM increase in the motors so that the two motors just spin faster I think they're going somewhere in order of 19,000 RPM."

 

[derekmw]

I was just thinking to myself the other day...what does this car need? 20hp.

I think tesla should only allow this power increase WHEN you put a sticker on...so that finally there can be truth to stickers adding 5hp. So to get to the 20hp, you have to add 4 stickers around the car...

 

[Glamisduner]

I also don't expect it to see much noticeable use there, because I'm told by people that have measured I'm 30-70 in 3.6 sec with the P sub 3 sec. I'm generally not one to fully unfurl the Model 3 on public roads, so don't use that all that often and when doing so I'm already walking by other vehicles like they'll standing still and focused finding on the next [unplanned] reason that I'll need to let up and maybe even get on the friction brakes.

In my opinion it is only when you put the clock on it, or measuring indirectly via peak speed on a fixed segment of road between speed limiting turns, and repeatedly doing that that this will become noticeable.

I unfurled my P3D- yesterday on an AMG that wanted to be first down the freeway on ramp He thought he was going to show off!

 

[dfwatt]

I unfurled my P3D- yesterday on an AMG that wanted to be first down the freeway on ramp He thought he was going to show off!

that's a mismatch. Why don't you pick on somebody your own size like a good used Ferrari or Porsche 911 Turbo previous gen?

 

[Glamisduner]

that's a mismatch. Why don't you pick on somebody your own size like a good used Ferrari or Porsche 911 Turbo previous gen?

but, but, they started it

 

[dfwatt]

Exactly... the increase in power needed for 162 over 155 is much more than 5%, since power increases with the CUBE of speed...

In fact, its (162/155)^3 = 1.1417 ........ about 14%

Curious what your source is for that because I actually every physics textbook that I've ever consulted about this says that your power consumption is proportional to the square of your velocity cuz most of it is actually drag. And that's proportional to Velocity squared not cubed. Has data against the cubed supposition, I can measure my Watt hours per mile at 40 miles an hour and depending on temperature at somewhere between 180 and 190 Watt hours per mile and it is exactly doubled at 80 miles per hour. This is not possible if your formula is correct.