Confirmed... Model 3 will have ludicrous mode

[brianman]

Do you need the large wheels to get performance/ludicrous?

Because that would suck.

It looks like you can configure a Model S with the smaller tires, but I'm not sure.

My P85D has 19s (Cyclones). I think you mean smaller wheels. By mass, the tires are "bigger" with 19" wheels than with 21" wheels.

 

[brianman]

Ludicrous mode ... doesn't it have a larger impact reducing 30-50, 50-70 or 60-100 mph passing times?

Increasing the power "at speed", and the duration that power is available for track use, seems like much better rationale for the upgrade than saving a few tenths to 60.

Agree.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Me too.

I'd be just fine if it can hold its own on the Mass Pike.

 

[juanmedina]

I hope they sell the M3 with some 18" lightweight wheels. Going 19"+ limits the tire selection and increases cost of tires dramatically...... and the rotational weight

 

[electracity]

I hope they sell the M3 with some 18" lightweight wheels. Going 19"+ limits the tire selection and increases cost of tires dramatically...... and the rotational weight

18" is probably standard for the reasons you state.

 

[juanmedina]

18" is probably standard for the reasons you state.

I want to get the PXXL M3 and I hope I have the option of choosing the size of wheels I desire.

 

[WarpedOne]

18" is probably standard for the reasons you state.

S is 19" standard, 21" upgrade.
X is 20" standard, 22" upgrade.
3 is x standard, 20" upgrade.

Solve for x.

 

[eisbock]

My P85D has 19s (Cyclones). I think you mean smaller wheels. By mass, the tires are "bigger" with 19" wheels than with 21" wheels.

Darn, I was hoping nobody caught that mistake. I was right the first time I said "wheels", but by the time I noticed the "tires" in the second part of my post, it was too late to edit!

 

[tga]

S is 19" standard, 21" upgrade.
X is 20" standard, 22" upgrade.
3 is x standard, 20" upgrade.

Solve for x.

Um, is it: -8πα ?

 

[gregincal]

Fast acceleration is certainly helpful. However, there are a number of other components such as tires, suspension, braking, and endurance which factor into competitive performance. Road course times are a good metric when evaluating sports car performance.

Except for electric cars. They suffer because the battery is not able to make the sustained output necessary to provide full acceleration for that amount of time. However, it says absolutely nothing about the tires, suspension and braking. I don't care just about 0-60 times, handling is extremely important to me because I drive a windy mountain road every day. However, I find track times to be a lousy way to compare handling performance between a BMW and Tesla for the above reason (I might drive the road at 60 mph, not two or three times that). Also, acceleration responsiveness is very important to me, and there my current Tesla is far better than my old BMW (I need to quickly overtake a car going uphill and don't need to downshift or wait for a turbo to spool up). I eagerly await results on Model 3 handling.

In summary, 0-60 times are not the be all and end all of performance measurements, but neither are track times.

 

[zenmaster]

My comment was in the context of the performance car market in general, regardless of whatever limitations an electric car may have.

 

[brianman]

S is 19" standard, 21" upgrade.
X is 20" standard, 22" upgrade.
3 is x standard, 20" upgrade.

Solve for x.

Nice summary.

 

[brianman]

I don't care just about 0-60 times, handling is extremely important to me because I drive a windy mountain road every day. However, I find track times to be a lousy way to compare handling performance between a BMW and Tesla for the above reason (I might drive the road at 60 mph, not two or three times that). Also, acceleration responsiveness is very important to me, and there my current Tesla is far better than my old BMW (I need to quickly overtake a car going uphill and don't need to downshift or wait for a turbo to spool up). I eagerly await results on Model 3 handling.

In summary, 0-60 times are not the be all and end all of performance measurements, but neither are track times.

Excellent discussion point. I wonder if there are any races, contests, courses, etc. that compare cars for this kind of usage. I would find it very interesting.

 

[gregincal]

My comment was in the context of the performance car market in general, regardless of whatever limitations an electric car may have.

I'm just arguing that the performance car market is broad. Track times matter to some people, but not everybody.

 

[zenmaster]

It's not really even arguable that road track time, i.e. both short and long, would be the primary, objectively revealing and meaningful metric for testing the performance capability of a "performance car". Even if this metric doesn't matter one bit to you personally. If you are talking about another type of car, i.e. luxury sedan, then other criteria like comfort may be more suitable, yes.

 

[S'toon]

Excellent discussion point. I wonder if there are any races, contests, courses, etc. that compare cars for this kind of usage. I would find it very interesting.

I don't know anything about racing, performance cars, and such. I do know that there's a Formula E race, which races electric cars. I don't know how the cars perform compared to the Formula 1.

Formula E - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Red Sage]

Except for electric cars. They suffer because the battery is not able to make the sustained output necessary to provide full acceleration for that amount of time. However, it says absolutely nothing about the tires, suspension and braking. I don't care just about 0-60 times, handling is extremely important to me because I drive a windy mountain road every day. However, I find track times to be a lousy way to compare handling performance between a BMW and Tesla for the above reason (I might drive the road at 60 mph, not two or three times that). Also, acceleration responsiveness is very important to me, and there my current Tesla is far better than my old BMW (I need to quickly overtake a car going uphill and don't need to downshift or wait for a turbo to spool up). I eagerly await results on Model 3 handling.

In summary, 0-60 times are not the be all and end all of performance measurements, but neither are track times.

A couple of decades ago, back when I used to read Car and Driver regularly, Csabre Csere wrote an article about 'Willingness Limits'. It was about how automotive journalists write about 'driving at the limit' all the time. He pointed out how personal bias either for or against a particular vehicle or series of cars from a manufacturer was exhibited in lap times. He noted that in a performance car comparison test staff journalists who really liked a Porsche 911 would get their best times using that car, no matter the competition. But, when an independent professional race car driver took the same course using all the same cars they had tested, his lap times were better than C&D staff members -- no matter the car. And his best times on the twisty road course were in cars that C&D rated low in terms of handling and driver confidence. Basically, when it came to 'The LIMIT' -- the only limitation was the driver, not the car.

I expect your willingness to overtake on an uphill climb is due to your assurance that your Tesla is up to the task, at maximum readiness in the Real World. I believe that though Tesla Motors targeted the BMW 3-Series initially, they will also pay close attention to other competitors in the market. Because time and again, in head-to-head comparison tests since 2012, the 3-Series has lost in that critical component of driving that has always weighed in their favor -- handling. I do hope that Tesla takes note of that shift when planning the driving dynamics of Model ☰.

Though it is from Motor Trend, you may like this video: