Does anyone know the hardware differences between the P3D and 3D?

[ulrichw]

Does the hardware difference actually matter?
[...]
1 second cost a lot of money on any car when you are in the 4s getting down to the 3s.

I think it does matter because it illustrates a way the "game" may change as EVs start to proliferate.

Our expectations on price vs. acceleration have been set by ICE cars. ICEs are extremely complicated machines with a delicate interplay of mechanics, materials, computer control, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. It is *difficult* to wring performance from an ICE.

Electric motors, on the other hand, are dirt-simple by comparison. There's much less cost involved in building a high-power electric motor, nor are the tradeoffs as severe with scale.

My non-expert understanding is that the main limiting factor to the power output of EVs these days is the battery - specifically the discharge rate the battery can handle without suffering degradation.

The interesting thing about this is that the battery's safe power output is proportional to the size of the battery - a bigger battery can support more power. This has a very interesting implication, because it ties performance and practicality together: A practical EV is an EV with a long range - a long range requires a large battery - a large battery is capable of higher discharge rates - higher discharge rates mean more power.

This means that any car manufacturer that builds a practical EV has the ability, with relatively small investments in the rest of the powertrain, to generate a high-performance EV.

Right now, Tesla dominates to a degree that they can use software limitation of acceleration to create differentiation. But what happens if their competitors come out with similar packages and don't software limit? I believe they'll be forced to respond.

 

[Quickturtle]

I couldn't agree more with Ulrich

 

[Quickturtle]

I also wonder about legal issues involved: i.e. if I can prove that the software limitation implemented by the manufacturer is not necessary (if they sell identical hardware without the same software limitation), I might have a case for unlocking the hardware capability of my car without voiding the warranty.

 

[Knightshade]

YouTuber Ingineerix says that's true.

No, he didn't.

He said the SOFTWARE listed 800a for RWD and 500 (rear) for AWD. He then just outright guesses at how a P would work since the software didn't even mention it at the time.

That tells you literally nothing about the hardware differences. It could simply be a software limit in order to make the AWD slower than the P.

He hasn't seen or torn down an AWD or P unit yet.

 

[Knightshade]

I also wonder about legal issues involved: i.e. if I can prove that the software limitation implemented by the manufacturer is not necessary (if they sell identical hardware without the same software limitation), I might have a case for unlocking the hardware capability of my car without voiding the warranty.

Not really.

They charge more for the unlocked one. That money covers increased warranty expense.

See also the Intel chips that are unlocked from the factory but cost more for doing so (and thus the higher failure rate from overclock is covered by the higher cost).

 

[PhatCat]

There is this mysterious wording from my Model 3 configuration page (bolding mine).


Model 3 Performance includes:

• Quicker acceleration: 0-60 mph in 3.5s
• Top speed: up to 155 mph
• Premium Black Interior
• Additional upgrades, exclusive to Performance

 

[Quickturtle]

There is this mysterious wording from my Model 3 configuration page (bolding mine).


Model 3 Performance includes:

• Quicker acceleration: 0-60 mph in 3.5s
• Top speed: up to 155 mph
• Premium Black Interior
• Additional upgrades, exclusive to Performance

That upgrade is the line in the firmware code base:

reduce_power = False # set to True for regular AWD model

 

[Knightshade]

There is this mysterious wording from my Model 3 configuration page (bolding mine).


Model 3 Performance includes:

• Quicker acceleration: 0-60 mph in 3.5s
• Top speed: up to 155 mph
• Premium Black Interior
• Additional upgrades, exclusive to Performance

Yeah, that's talking about the option to buy the $5000 Performance pack for the bigger brakes, spoiler, pedals (and that's where the 155 top speed comes from too)

 

[MXWing]

I think it does matter because it illustrates a way the "game" may change as EVs start to proliferate.

Our expectations on price vs. acceleration have been set by ICE cars. ICEs are extremely complicated machines with a delicate interplay of mechanics, materials, computer control, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. It is *difficult* to wring performance from an ICE.

Electric motors, on the other hand, are dirt-simple by comparison. There's much less cost involved in building a high-power electric motor, nor are the tradeoffs as severe with scale.

My non-expert understanding is that the main limiting factor to the power output of EVs these days is the battery - specifically the discharge rate the battery can handle without suffering degradation.

The interesting thing about this is that the battery's safe power output is proportional to the size of the battery - a bigger battery can support more power. This has a very interesting implication, because it ties performance and practicality together: A practical EV is an EV with a long range - a long range requires a large battery - a large battery is capable of higher discharge rates - higher discharge rates mean more power.

This means that any car manufacturer that builds a practical EV has the ability, with relatively small investments in the rest of the powertrain, to generate a high-performance EV.

Right now, Tesla dominates to a degree that they can use software limitation of acceleration to create differentiation. But what happens if their competitors come out with similar packages and don't software limit? I believe they'll be forced to respond.

It's not easy to wring gigantic battery packs. No one would 1.) Need a gigafactory or 2.) Everyone would have gigafactories.

No doubt the Bolt in theory can at least be as fast as the RWD Model 3.
Question is... for how long. And then how to recharge quickly after expending all those electrons? Checkmate.

Everyone needs to get into their heads that Tesla has to recoup that $9000/minute cash burn somehow. If people are willing to pay $11,000 to flip one bit from 0 to 1, than Tesla has the stewardship and responsibility to do so. If the willingness to pay is $20,000 - great! Tesla achieves sustainability even faster.

Even though Tesla has every responsibility to their shareholders, it's actually pretty impossible to "rip anyone off" when you are in the negative.

Do you know how Tesla can sell $64K Model 3s if the $53K Models also run 3.5 0-60? I would love to hire you at any price if you can solve that problem.

 

[MXWing]

I also wonder about legal issues involved: i.e. if I can prove that the software limitation implemented by the manufacturer is not necessary (if they sell identical hardware without the same software limitation), I might have a case for unlocking the hardware capability of my car without voiding the warranty.

I got your back! I have plenty of arguments we can use to try and justify stealing from Tesla!

WE paid for it, WE own it. Possession is 9/10ths if the law!

Even if the technical challenges were overcome you’d have to live with the moral consequences. Though that’s a non factor for some I suppose.

 

[Quickturtle]

I got your back! I have plenty of arguments we can use to try and justify stealing from Tesla!

WE paid for it, WE own it. Possession is 9/10ths if the law!

Even if the technical challenges were overcome you’d have to live with the moral consequences. Though that’s a non factor for some I suppose.

Good points. I want Tesla to succeed. I just don't understand why they could not have built two different engines to create a more real differentiation. Chances are it would have driven up sales for the performance model too. But I'm probably wrong which is why they did it the way they did it.

 

[Knightshade]

Good points. I want Tesla to succeed. I just don't understand why they could not have built two different engines to create a more real differentiation. Chances are it would have driven up sales for the performance model too. But I'm probably wrong which is why they did it the way they did it.

It would've cost considerably more to build entirely different drive units- not just development, but supply chain, factory manufacturing logistics, etc.

Versus a software limit which is free.

 

[MXWing]

Good points. I want Tesla to succeed. I just don't understand why they could not have built two different engines to create a more real differentiation. Chances are it would have driven up sales for the performance model too. But I'm probably wrong which is why they did it the way they did it.

Good natured response to my less than kindest possible reply. Thank you.

We’d need an expert in electric motors to chime in but my theory is Tesla built the best motor they could while factoring in mass production. Any trade off in squeezing in a different design wasn’t worth the production and integration headache.

I might even theorize the P Model 3 is still nerfed to its max potential. Reasons being is range would fall under 300 miles and would eat into P Model S if it was truly unleashed.

Model 3 P is already in SP85 territory. P100D territory eats into sales of 130K car.

Tesla “double burn in time” could be needed or could be just to make people feel better about a software unlock but it really serves Tesla to have enough production consistency to have everything be P Caliber and down-clock.

Tesla semis are supposed to be multiple Model 3 motors. If every motor was actually good for P performance it would make production easier for everything.

I had gotten a Model X 60D. I don’t think Tesla was counting on too many people paying 9K after the fact to make it 75D. It just didn’t make sense for them to make a new battery pack that held 60KW. Not sure if it’s a perfect analogy but trying to find precedence of Tesla doing this elsewhere.

Oh Model X built 6 months after mine had a 0-60 of one second faster.

Tesla through their kindness upgraded mine and others post sales to match that.

 

[Quickturtle]

I guess one way to justify the hacking would be accepting voided warranty. Basically you pay $11k extra to have your PM3 drivetrain insured by Tesla. If you are willing to pay for repairs yourself, get the regular AWD and hack it. Which is what I think I will do if I order one.

 

[MXWing]

I guess one way to justify the hacking would be accepting voided warranty. Basically you pay $11k extra to have your PM3 drivetrain insured by Tesla. If you are willing to pay for repairs yourself, get the regular AWD and hack it. Which is what I think I will do if I order one.

Trust me and finance that extra 11K over 4 years if needed. Not a rabbit hole worth going into.

 

[brianman]

I might even theorize the P Model 3 is still nerfed to its max potential. Reasons being is range would fall under 300 miles and would eat into P Model S if it was truly unleashed.

Model 3 P is already in SP85 territory. P100D territory eats into sales of 130K car.

I keep hearing this argument, and I still have trouble buying it. Setting that aside for a moment..

I have a P100D and am getting 3P. So they should "uncork" my 3P then right?

It's not like there is an S upgrade they can sell me -- every change to newer S P100Ds since I took delivery has been a downgrade (ventilated seats -- though they came back, unlimited supercharging, prepaid connectivity).

 

[ulrichw]

I keep hearing this argument, and I still have trouble buying it. [...]

It's worth doing a thought experiment here. The maximum discharge rate of the battery pack has been described as the primary limiting factor for performance.

Since discharge rate is a function of the size of the battery, we can use a P100D as a comparison.

The P100D clearly will be able to produce more power, but it also weighs more.

Let's do some arithmetic:
Model 3 battery capacity: 75 kWh
P100D battery capacity: 100 kWh
Model 3P weight: 4000 lbs
P100D weight: 4941 lbs

Ratio of battery capacity: .75
Ratio of car weight: .81

Therefore Model 3 performance could be roughly 92.5% of the P100D's (assuming, again, battery capacity is limiting factor).

So - there is some evidence that the 3P could be a little faster than it is, but it doesn't seem like it would beat a P100D. Still, a model 3 with closer performance to the P100D might muddy Tesla's (in my opinion misguided) positioning of the P100D as the performance flagship of their line.

 

[brianman]

Therefore Model 3 performance could be roughly 92.5% of the P100D's (assuming, again, battery capacity is limiting factor).

Can you elaborate on the calculation that led to 92.5%? The rest of your numbers were clear.

 

[Swampgator]

It's worth doing a thought experiment here. The maximum discharge rate of the battery pack has been described as the primary limiting factor for performance.

Since discharge rate is a function of the size of the battery, we can use a P100D as a comparison.

The P100D clearly will be able to produce more power, but it also weighs more.

Let's do some arithmetic:
Model 3 battery capacity: 75 kWh
P100D battery capacity: 100 kWh
Model 3P weight: 4000 lbs
P100D weight: 4941 lbs

Ratio of battery capacity: .75
Ratio of car weight: .81

Therefore Model 3 performance could be roughly 92.5% of the P100D's (assuming, again, battery capacity is limiting factor).

So - there is some evidence that the 3P could be a little faster than it is, but it doesn't seem like it would beat a P100D. Still, a model 3 with closer performance to the P100D might muddy Tesla's (in my opinion misguided) positioning of the P100D as the performance flagship of their line.

The 2170 cells have a higher C rate than 18650 cells. Therefore a simple capacity calculation cannot account for this advantage.

 

[ulrichw]

Can you elaborate on the calculation that led to 92.5%? The rest of your numbers were clear.

Sorry - I skipped a step.

This is effectively the ratio of power to weight ratios, taking by dividing the battery capacity (power) ratio (.75) by the car weight capacity (.81).

The battery capacity ratio is a proxy for the ratio of power, given my initial assumption that power is proportional to battery capacity.