All Tesla Models will get Range/Power increase (not just SR+) of 5%

[whatthe2]

I prefer One Pedal Parking, so I leave creep on.

I feel that I can feather the gas just as well as the brake for parking, so I leave creep off.

 

[Celledral]

I'm going to guess 170kW for the SR+ as max Supercharging speed. 250kW * (240*209)/(310*234) = 173kW (very approximate)

Guess we will see. Maybe they'll just call it 150kW for now.

150kW is my best guess too. 170kW+ will be icing on the cake.

 

[TimothyHW3]

150kW is my best guess too. 170kW+ will be icing on the cake.

I really doubt they will do 150kW. 150kW is the max at Supercharger V2 now and you actually get 145kW or so on an LR.
150kW will be almost 3x C-value (3x the kWh of the battery). This is an equivalent of LR doing 210kW, which we know it kind of does already, for a short while at least.
170kW will be 3.4x or about 260kW on an LR.

But the smaller battery of the SR+ will be more stressed out and filled faster so even if they allow 150kW it will be from 15-25% or something like that. This is like a small cup being filled very, very fast. You are bound to spill something out of the cup (cells not being equalliy charged)

Plus they want to differentiate both cars so if they change anything it will be 120kW, but let's see.

 

[Feathermerchan]

With the higher C-rate charging I think the problem is more internal resistance of the battery causing heating.
The early model airplane LiPos were limited to 1C charging and 4C discharge. They got a little warm charging and a lot warm discharging. Today they are o much better you can charge any of them at 2C and many at 5C. They do not get warm. We typically fly for about 6 min with reserve so almost 10C discharge and they only get warm never really hot. This is even 6S packs so a lot of cells packed together. We have only ourselves for thermal management.
So I expect the cells in cars to get much better too.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

I really doubt they will do 150kW. 150kW is the max at Supercharger V2 now and you actually get 145kW or so on an LR.
150kW will be almost 3x C-value (3x the kWh of the battery). This is an equivalent of LR doing 210kW, which we know it kind of does already, for a short while at least.
170kW will be 3.4x or about 260kW on an LR.

But the smaller battery of the SR+ will be more stressed out and filled faster so even if they allow 150kW it will be from 15-25% or something like that. This is like a small cup being filled very, very fast. You are bound to spill something out of the cup (cells not being equalliy charged)

Plus they want to differentiate both cars so if they change anything it will be 120kW, but let's see.

As I said, just rough numbers (more precisely it looks like the limit would be about 31/46*250kW = 168kW). These are just the predicted peak rates; of course they won't last long, starting to drop at 30% SoC or whatever - plenty of graphs around here to give us a very good idea of when it would start to ramp down. The LR is already at about 3.2C peak.

They may want to differentiate the cars, but they also presumably want to maximize throughput at Superchargers especially in Southern California. At least I hope so!

 

[TimothyHW3]

I would set my bets on 120kW , if anything, but who knows.

 

[happyzod]

Would probably follow the Long ranged curves proportionally.

 

[Candleflame]

I feel that I can feather the gas just as well as the brake for parking, so I leave creep off.

i initially was a bit sceptic regarding parking because you do not have a clutch you can use as an auxillary gas pedal with the right foot on the brake. but with the model 3 it is just not needed with creep off. parks smoothly every time.

 

[brianman]

I'm talking about physics. The potential energy that can be harvested as rpm approaches zero goes so low (and is obviously zero at no speed) that you can no longer apply significant stopping force. You end up slowing the last little bit from just friction (with the ground, in the drive train, etc). This isn't something that software can magically change.

I can't read the non-English release notes and apparently the translations are awful too.

I'm suspecting (hoping?) that the feature being discussed is that the vehicle comes to a halt without touching the brake pedal. Some people are calling this "stopping via regen" and you're (perhaps pedantically) arguing that it would really by "stopping via regen + friction". As long as it's the underlined, I think most people don't really care to be linguistically accurate.

 

[brianman]

better still, the brake pedal should first ramp up regen and only after that use the friction brakes.

I think your user experience is accurate, but your "how" is wrong.

Unless you're managing 2-foot driving (which the firmware currently doesn't like), your foot is effectively only one pedal at a time. If it's on the brake pedal, then the accelerator is not depressed and thus the maximum regen the car is willing to apply (affected by SOC, temperature, perhaps safety concerns regarding uphill/downhill in firmware coding, etc.) is already applied. Pushing the brake pedal thus doesn't "ramp up" the regen, because the regen is already ramped up.

 

[Kognos]

Nice try to put the thread back on topic. Doubt you will be successful, but kudos!

AFAIK, there was nothing in the conference call or since then about what the SR/SR+ charging speed improvement will be.

And people are going to be sorely disappointed if they think the range increase will be commensurate with the power increase. It won't be. (Prepared to eat my hat if it is.)

There are highly technical and intelligent people on this forum that have speculated that the next bump or the highest safe range for SR+ charging would be somewhere around 120-125. I don't know where those threads exist, but I remember reading them and those numbers. As always, I'm thankful for any incremental boosts we get.

And as long as it's safe to go higher, that would be awesome.

 

[groovyd]

Other than doing is is inefficient and stupid compared to using the friction brakes (which is exactly how they already do this exact thing when using TACC)? Nope, no reason at all.




Then your belief is mistaken.

You can actually see/feel the brake pedal move if you're paying attention to it.

except the impact of the difference in 'efficiency' at speeds under 5mph isn't really significant at all taking all factors into account. you might lose what a half mile range through light motor braking a hundred times? One reason to use the motors instead of the brakes is to provide a smoother transition to stopping and less brake wear as alluded to by Elon..

 

[Occar]

except the impact of the difference in 'efficiency' at speeds under 5mph isn't really significant at all taking all factors into account. you might lose what a half mile range through light motor braking a hundred times? One reason to use the motors instead of the brakes is to provide a smoother transition to stopping and less brake wear as alluded to by Elon..

It would be no smoother. It would waste energy. The wear on the brakes at low speeds is so negligible that if that's all they were used for, they'd not need replaced for the life of the car. If they did this, then they would have to arbitrarily apply the brakes during higher speeds to keep them clean so that they actually worked well, immediately if you needed them. All in all this is a horrible idea with no benefits and tons of downsides.

This idea is on par with the horrible "let's make the road a solar panel" idea that kept being floated around a few years back. No benefit over the alternative (dedicated solar panels that didn't have tons of vehicles causing wear and covering them with dirt) and tons of drawbacks.

 

[cOoTeR]

Maybe I missed it but does anyone know how much power and torque the Model 3s make now? The last I heard the Model 3 Performance was 460hp (ish) and 470ft/lbs (ish). But I think that was before the last 5% power increase.

If that's the case then I think currently the Model 3 Performance is around 483hp and around 494ft/lbs.

So another increase of 5% would put the Model 3 Performance around 507hp and 518hp at the wheels. That's crazy, I can't wait!

 

[ICUDoc]

the vehicle comes to a halt without touching the brake pedal.
"stopping via regen"
"stopping via regen + friction"

brianman, I think you have interpreted the argument correctly. The point to ME is, however, that "stopping via regen" sounds like it is going to save more energy than the other option. At the end of the day, we will find out when everyone gets the upgrade and we can all report range, or range-change.

 

[DigAdrenaline]

I've read tons of accounts from people who say it absolutely does throttle regen back in low traction conditions.

I think your user experience is accurate, but your "how" is wrong.

Unless you're managing 2-foot driving (which the firmware currently doesn't like), your foot is effectively only one pedal at a time. If it's on the brake pedal, then the accelerator is not depressed and thus the maximum regen the car is willing to apply (affected by SOC, temperature, perhaps safety concerns regarding uphill/downhill in firmware coding, etc.) is already applied. Pushing the brake pedal thus doesn't "ramp up" the regen, because the regen is already ramped up.

Unless regen is set to low because the roads are icy (which is many months of the year where I live.)

 

[TimothyHW3]

I actually like that I have to hit the break pedal to a halt below 5km/h. I have 35% regen according to ScanMyTesla even though the car has less regen than similar EVs. I am at a point that when I sometimes hit the breaks they kind of give a sound. So hitting the break or halt break(longer hit on the break) will at least give the pedals a little work. I have heard the breaks rusting rather than needing to be replaced through wear, so a little bit of wear while halting is ok. My Gas breaks lasted for 70,000km so I guess I can at least double that unless they rust before that.

Besides, the car regens up to about 5km/h, only below you have to hit the break pedal to halt. This will barely be of any significance to range or regen, but I have heard many people complaining or even not considering Model 3, because their older EV stopped with one pedal(Kona, Leaf, Kia etc.)

Maybe it is just a marketing thing again, to give these people less reasons to complain (they are almost out of reasons already)

 

[Zcd1]

Maybe I missed it but does anyone know how much power and torque the Model 3s make now?...

Original rating was 450 hp/474 lb ft, so yes, should be ~500 hp/520 lb ft with the pending update

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

[URL='https://electrek.co/2019/10/26/tesla-update-power-automatic-navigation-more/']Tesla releases update with more power, automatic navigation, and more
https://electrek.co/2019/10/26/tesla-update-power-automatic-navigation-more/[/URL]

 

[groovyd]

It would be no smoother. It would waste energy. The wear on the brakes at low speeds is so negligible that if that's all they were used for, they'd not need replaced for the life of the car. If they did this, then they would have to arbitrarily apply the brakes during higher speeds to keep them clean so that they actually worked well, immediately if you needed them. All in all this is a horrible idea with no benefits and tons of downsides.

This idea is on par with the horrible "let's make the road a solar panel" idea that kept being floated around a few years back. No benefit over the alternative (dedicated solar panels that didn't have tons of vehicles causing wear and covering them with dirt) and tons of drawbacks.

lol... exaggerate much? Elon did say it reduces the wear on the brakes and improves drive feel, those two things for sure would result if the motor was used for braking under 5mph.