SleeperService
Member
One I saw had the horsepower curve for both, but only showed the torque curve for the after.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
5% increase in power
- Thread starter Carotene
- Start date
One I saw had the horsepower curve for both, but only showed the torque curve for the after.
SleeperService
Member
If you don't have the update yet, YOU should gather a dataset with the accelerometer in your phone to compare. It's certainly more PRECISE than the camera method. The questions are really around its accuracy. It's pretty easy to do...
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I do plan to capture before and after with the VBOX. With 5mph intervals for timing. That hopefully should be good enough. It should be sensitive enough to pick up the acceleration differences you are apparently seeing.
SleeperService
Member
I'll be interested to see that as well. I am generally ready to believe my data (on my car, as a relative measure), the conditions were as identical as possible (if you look closely at the accelerometer data, you can see the same bumps in my test area in nearly the same places), temperature, SOC, etc. The car DOES feel faster at all speeds. I wish I'd recorded a few more runs before the update, but I wasn't expecting to see something unexpected (the apparent torque bump from 5-40 mph). Oh well. Probably nerding out a bit too much about it...no matter what, this car is FAST and FUN. 
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I'll be interested to see that as well. I am generally ready to believe my data (on my car, as a relative measure), the conditions were as identical as possible (if you look closely at the accelerometer data, you can see the same bumps in my test area in nearly the same places), temperature, SOC, etc. The car DOES feel faster at all speeds. I wish I'd recorded a few more runs before the update, but I wasn't expecting to see something unexpected (the apparent torque bump from 5-40 mph). Oh well. Probably nerding out a bit too much about it...no matter what, this car is FAST and FUN.
Yeah I noticed the identical bumps. Just wondered whether there was some sort of scaling issue or offset issue. I finally just downloaded your spreadsheet, though, and the timing is 100% consistent with the increased torque from 5-40mph (of course...since it's derived from the acceleration as I understand it). You're calculating 160ms improvement though (3.09s 0-60 not including rollout) which is more improvement than I have seen reported elsewhere.
How was the phone mounted? As you're subtracting the initial g-vector from the subsequently measured vectors, I guess I wonder what happens if the phone rotates. In a thought experiment, let's say the phone were completely reversed (so all the "at rest" vectors were reversed from your initial datapoint in the spreadsheet (B3->D3) ) as you slammed the accelerator (obviously this magnitude of shift could not physically happen - but in this thought experiment your method would result in a 2G additional vector added to the vehicle acceleration, wouldn't it?).
So could a slight shift in position from the start of the run maybe could introduce some error in the calculated acceleration vector? I'm not thinking about this carefully or doing diagrams or anything, I'm just wondering.
I'm hopeful your data is correct, to be clear!
SleeperService
Member
I've got the phone sitting in the dock (attached to power), so relatively well mounted I think. I agree that there is the potential for a change in orientation of the phone to cause an error, but I think it would show up as high frequency noise or an obvious offset in the graph if it were being bumped around in the mount. The other "vector changing" event would be if I were going from downhill to flat to uphill, but again, that would show up in both datasets since they were in identical locations.They all seem to be consistent (8.4, even at 50% SOC still shows the ~4% acceleration increase from 5-35), so I'm ready to (mostly) rule out that possibility. A very consistent ~4% offset seems like it is well above the noise/error floor, but...more data would need to be gathered to be sure it is actually statistically significant...and I can't gather any more 5.15 data! I think less credence should be given to the derived calculations (velocity, distance, 0-60, 0-100, etc.) due to potential for error doing the integrals from high frequency noise/bumps, whatever, but the raw acceleration data seems to be fairly definitive.
I have the LR AWD non-P....I finally got my 8.5 update yesterday that says I get the 5% increase for power/acceleration. The tesla.com website still shows the 0-60 for an AWD non-P at 4.5 seconds. Does that mean the increase happens after the 60 mph mark or are they just not updating the site numbers like they did for other versions of model 3?
diamond.g
Active Member
Some amazing individual on a Reddit was able to measure the energy. He, like us, has a non P AWD. The power increase is just over 8% and it happens after ~45MPH. 0-60 will only be slightly effected. Honestly I’m very happy as the 0-60 is a bragging thing but more power over 45mph is a useful thing. I thought the thing already overtook cars with the quickness. PS I’m STILL on 5.15. One of the 3% according to Teslafi. Update me!!!
SammichLover
Banned
In terms of dropping rotational inertia its tires, then wheels, and then rotors, in declining order of importance. Most of the rotational inertia in the tire comes from the tire belt/tread. Unfortunately I love the look of the 275 / 30 - 20 s on our car on the rear. We have two different model 3 Performance versions and two different sets of alloy wheels but having a larger tire at the rear looks great even if it's not all that functional on the track and hurts your acceleration. I don't know what the 18 in stock Aero non-performance rotors actually weigh. I heard conflicting weights about the Performance brake rotors but they're actually only 19.4 lb for the fronts and I think about 16.5 for the Rears.
Last edited:
Quite a few actually and I think there's a specific thread on that somewhere I just don't recall the name of it. Unfortunately, most of these runs were done at cooler temperatures. We need somebody running on a hot day to get 11.5.
Not too hard since I'm laid up with a bad back and I haven't even been able to put the rears on yet. But I can tell from a physical examination that compared to the original rotors they have way bigger channels and a curved vein structure. So I have to believe that between the bigger channels for heat convection and the fact that there's probably more air moving through the larger surface that they are going to get rid of heat significantly better than the stock rotors. I'll see if I can take some pictures. They're a pretty elegant item frankly. But then again they should be at five hundred bucks a pop
Sorry I may have passed on misinformation there. If you have track mode and your original top speed was 155 and now goes to 162. Not sure that that is terribly meaningful frankly certainly the extra horsepower which looks like it's about 20 to 22 horsepower for a long stretch of motor RPM and speed is more meaningful
Zcd1
Active Member
so far the best 1/8th mile is mine from what I seen at 7.399 that would still be a mid 11.6s. I think we would need some weight reduction or another update to get into the 11.5s
Similar threads
