So when can we expect to see this bump? My M3 RWD is only a couple of months old but yet I've already seen a drop in range of 5 miles, not an increase of 10.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
So when can we expect to see this bump? My M3 RWD is only a couple of months old but yet I've already seen a drop in range of 5 miles, not an increase of 10.
One reason hard acceleration is less efficient than gradual acceleration in a BEV is related to the internal resistance of the battery and wiring compared to the inverter/motor. At higher rates of acceleration, and hence higher current flows from the battery due to lower effective resistance of the inverter/motor, the internal resistance of the battery composes a larger share of the total circuit resistance. Resistance to current flow is what consumes power, and if the battery's share of the total circuit resistance is relatively larger, it will consumer relatively more of the power in the creation of heat.
Don't forget switching losses, copper losses are not your only major source of inefficiency. At extremely light loads, switching losses will be your dominant form of losses, plus whatever the quiescent current is to power the motor controller circuitry. The combination of switching and copper losses are why your peak efficiency is somewhere in between minimal load, and maximum load.
It should also be noted that according to Tesla this ONLY applies to M3s made after 10/16/19. That was the response that I got when I asked Tesla why my M3 didn't show that range increase. My M3 is only a couple of months old yet I'm seeing a DECREASE in chargeable range. Instead of 240, I get 235 or less. And I just took delivery in late August. Although the 250 would be a nice perk, I certainly would like to get the 240 that it is rated and owners are promised.
I know I read the article and was like, where is the actual information on how the did it.
Here’s how they did it.
(Invisible letters)
and that’s how Elon and Tesla increase the range with out increasing battery life.
end of story.
Brought to you by
Teslatmc staff
This post indicating a hardware-only manufacturing change (say more efficient inverter design) seems to
contradict post #17, implementation via a software/firmware bump. I'm revisiting this thread because of the recent
(for $$) acceleration boost via software. Might a 4% range roost (310 -> 322 miles for AWD) still be possible,
but is now being similarly "monetized"?
When you accelerate hard, more current is demanded by the motor, and this current has to flow through the battery, connecting wires, and motor windings, which all possess resistance. The power losses due to current flow through any resistance is proportional to the current squared. P=I^2 *R. So the power loss (a.k.a. inefficiency) is not just higher, but also proportionally higher at higher accelerations.
Re-thinking "monetization" for a range boost -- this may not be worth it to Tesla unless many overpay for it.
Practically, over the warranted lifetime of 120,000 miles, 4% or 4800 extra miles would be about 15 "fill-ups". I
supercharge-only at approximately $0.30 per kWh, so that would be a $340 boost for me, less for most who
charge at home for significantly less. Acceleration freaks who lay out $2K are more the "impulse buy" types.
Aside from that, I haven't seen anything to disambiguate weather this is a manufacturing boost for recent
AWD M3s or a (future) software boost.
Similar threads
