D impact on 0-60

[Pieter Knispel]

Hi all,

Elon said the base model with go 0-60 in under 6 seconds, is there any speculation on what the impact of dual motors might be on this timing?

I'd love to get the performance upgrade, I just don't think I can rationalize it, and so am looking for any thoughts on whether or not the dual motors will decrease the base 0-60 time substantially, or just by a hair?!

Thanks!

 

[McHoffa]

difference between a MS 70 and 70D is 5.5 seconds to 5.2 seconds, but moving up to a 90D (not performance) brings it down to 4.2 seconds

 

[JeffK]

I'd imagine to be competitive at the $40,000 price point it'd be in the 4 sec range.

 

[Northrop]

The 0-60 are limited by traction if you break it down to the technical level. The cells can take ALLOT more in burst performance then a ludicrous launch. I bet the motors can too, to be large enough to handle a continuous load at highway speeds. Then there are software involved. As in what time does Tesla want you to get. The cells used does 20A per cell if you divide 1500A as the fuse are said to be by the number of cells in parallell. Thats not even 6C discharge. They can do 10C with ease. Thats 2500Amps in total or 70% more than a P90DL. For a 0-60 burst that will be perfectly fine as per cell level.

The P85+ did it in low 4sec too just as the 90D. But the 90D can do it every day in many not so perfect conditions, where the RWD car needs a dry and warm road.

With that said, I just wanted to say that calculating from what the current models do based on battery size are not any good. I bet we can se a 55kWh pack beat a 70 or 70D or even the 90D/100D. It all depends on what Tesla thinks are suitable acceleration levels to give you.

 

[JeffK]

We've been promised Ludicrous... I hope it's truly ludicrous .

 

[DoubleDownOn9]

Dual motors will give you a real world advantage on traction no matter what (it'll just feel faster). I can't imagine they would give you a 2.8 second car for anywhere close to $50k. My expectation is that for $42k you'd get a dual motor car that will do about 5.5 seconds. Ludicrous upgrade will probably be $7500 and get you in the 4.5 second range. If you want max performance you'll probably have to mix dual motors, ludicrous, suspension, and larger battery option and you'll end up paying well over $50k.

 

[JeffK]

People at the launch felt that the awd models were far better than 0-60 in 6 secs and Elon mentioned production AWD will be "a lot faster" and that's "production" not necessarily performance models.

If Ludicrous was only 4.5 seconds then it's not competitive at that price point as I can cite other cars with better times for less money. Elon said this was going to be the best car you can buy at this price point.

 

[N5329K]

You don't suppose that the drive system "issues" Model S owners seem to have a lot of might be related to putting the car's 0-60 time on a high pedestal?
Robin

 

[Audrey]

All of the launch day test rides were done in dual motor models. It was definitely less than 6 seconds, but I don't know that they hit 60 in every ride. Sounds like a good excuse to rewatch those ride videos...

 

[Pieter Knispel]

Thanks so much everyone, appreciate your thoughts and input!

 

[EXOTIC1]

1/4 mile speed is all i'm concerned with
0-60 is a bit overrated
hoping to see mid 12's with ludicrous

 

[ZAKEEUS]

Dual motors will give you a real world advantage on traction no matter what (it'll just feel faster). I can't imagine they would give you a 2.8 second car for anywhere close to $50k. My expectation is that for $42k you'd get a dual motor car that will do about 5.5 seconds. Ludicrous upgrade will probably be $7500 and get you in the 4.5 second range. If you want max performance you'll probably have to mix dual motors, ludicrous, suspension, and larger battery option and you'll end up paying well over $50k.

Musk has tweeted that the dual motor option will be cheaper than the Model S upgrade price. So $39k or less for dual motors.

 

[Alketi]

People at the launch felt that the awd models were far better than 0-60 in 6 secs and Elon mentioned production AWD will be "a lot faster" and that's "production" not necessarily performance models.

If Ludicrous was only 4.5 seconds then it's not competitive at that price point as I can cite other cars with better times for less money. Elon said this was going to be the best car you can buy at this price point.

I personally think Ludicrous will be 3.5-3.9s -- but I'll be ecstatic with anything faster. Sub 3s would be amazing, but I'm not expecting it. At something like 2.6s they would have bragging rights over almost anything imaginable and the free marketing/trickle-down effect would probably be incalculable.

But my gut sees something more like the following:

Base: 5.7s
AWD: 5.3s
P: 4.4s
L: 3.8s

 

[Lunarx]

3.8s 0-60 is fast, but not worthy of the name "Ludicrous".

A base model Corvette can do 3.8s.
Even a lowly Camaro SS will do 3.9s.
Let's not even mention the Camaro ZL1, which will be out Q4 2016.

Ludicrous will need to be 3.3s or better.
Ideally 2.9, if they want real bragging rights (which is the whole point).

 

[Northrop]

1/4 mile speed is all i'm concerned with
0-60 is a bit overrated
hoping to see mid 12's with ludicrous

Yeah, 0-60 is overrated. As I mentioned above you can do incredible 0-60, but not keep the power continuous. Would Tesla want to make a car that does 0-60 in 2.3sec but 1/4 mile in mid 15's? Probably not, and I remember the RWD model S being talked about to loose the acceleration pretty quick efter 60mph. The D does better and the DL even more.

I think we will se software limits way before mechanical limits to make the car as fast as it can be, still being pleasant to drive with a smooth acceleration all the way.

 

[R.S]

Accelleration is something undeterminable for us right now. It just depends on too many factors.

There is traction, but that might be the smallest factor in the low performance cars. As long as it doesn't break for the RWD car, making it AWD doesn't improve anything.

Then there is the motor. That really depends on how many different motors Tesla wants to produce. The base AWD could consist of two smaller motors, or they could use the base RWD motor twice, but with lower rated inverters, or they could have a smaller one at the front and the base motor at the back. It really depends on what is most cost effective. If the D ends up with a higher power curve, or at least a higher base torque, it might accelerate faster.

But there is always the battery. How much power can it deliver? We don't know. There are cells that can handle 10C and there are those that struggle with 1C. And thats the difference between a supercar and a slow car, when we take 55kW as a basis.

So as you see, we just can't say. I guess Tesla will do what every other manufacturer would and steadily increase power with the price you pay. The base models won't ever run on their full potential, just as they do with the Model S, but they will at least try to match BMW MB and Audi.

 

[JeffK]

making it AWD doesn't improve anything.

...except traction... it improves traction (especially in different weather conditions). The computer needs to do less work to maintain traction with AWD. Yet it's true if traction doesn't break for RWD it won't for AWD but who wants torque that low...

 

[Booga]

3.8s 0-60 is fast, but not worthy of the name "Ludicrous".

A base model Corvette can do 3.8s.
Even a lowly Camaro SS will do 3.9s.
Let's not even mention the Camaro ZL1, which will be out Q4 2016.

Ludicrous will need to be 3.3s or better.
Ideally 2.9, if they want real bragging rights (which is the whole point).

Lol. Depends on who you're catering to. I think that for most any person on public roads, they can get away with anything under 4 and be just fine.

This is something I've been torn on - I race karts with a team at a track, and so I love my speed and g-forces. But I can't replicate what I experience on the track on public roads. It's simply unsafe and unfair to put others at risk. It's different when you're at a race track and know what you're signing up for.

Tesla's are not track cars. I'm sure someone could prove me wrong, but on a track, you learn to expect to do decent repairs on a regular basis. Tesla's, in my opinion, are more like sporty luxury cars. You just need enough power for that 1 time in every commute that you want to experience some g-forces, and then you get it. It's not meant, in my honest opinion, to be the best option for performance. It is highly capable, no doubt about it, but I think if you're actually into racing, you need a dedicated car or vehicle to accomplish that goal.

Just my 2 cents.

I will personally even be happy with a 6-7 second 0-60 if it means I can get AWD slightly cheaper. They won't offer this many options, but I don't need more acceleration than that on public roads. I want the Model 3 for many reasons and performance beyond "reasonable" is very low on the priority list.

 

[JeffK]

I don't know that I'd pay a premium over the regular AWD version for "just fine"

This car quite literally has to kick ass and take names to show the superiority of electrics and what they're capable of.

 

[McHoffa]

My guesses based on a Model S

base Model S 70 - 5.5 seconds
base Model 3 (55?) - "under 6", so let's say 5.8

S 70D - 5.2 seconds
3 55D - 5.5 seconds

S 90D - 4.2 seconds
3 75D - 4.5 seconds

S P90D - 3.1 seconds
3 P75D - 3.4 seconds

S P90DL - 2.8 seconds
3 P75DL - 3.1 seconds

Though by then they could push the top end S down to 2.6 and make a 3 with 2.9