Saw a MS with those new ugly wheel covers recently. I'm curious if anyone knows how much range those add, just to see if the ugliness is even justified.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
How much range do the ugly wheels add?
- Thread starter Cheburashka
- Start date
Aggmeister2010
Active Member
So, I went from 19's with eco 245/45 tires to 22's with sticky 295/25 tires. I didn't really notice any major range/efficiency change over a year of observing.
It's like that old Top Gear M3 vs Prius test.....Your efficiency is MUCH more influenced by smooth application of power than your wheels/tires.
Motors (ICE or DC/AC) like to be run at constant speeds. You use far more power accelerating and adding speed than you do maintaining constant speed and load. And with single-gear EVs, the faster you go, the more energy it takes to keep the motor spinning at that rate.
So, just keep that in mind when you drive and forget about buying ugly wheels to save 2 miles of range a week. No use in spending thousands on new wheels when you can just make the most of what you have. Be sure you're smooth onto the power, maintain consistent speed and throttle application, and avoid goosing it.
It's like that old Top Gear M3 vs Prius test.....Your efficiency is MUCH more influenced by smooth application of power than your wheels/tires.
Motors (ICE or DC/AC) like to be run at constant speeds. You use far more power accelerating and adding speed than you do maintaining constant speed and load. And with single-gear EVs, the faster you go, the more energy it takes to keep the motor spinning at that rate.
So, just keep that in mind when you drive and forget about buying ugly wheels to save 2 miles of range a week. No use in spending thousands on new wheels when you can just make the most of what you have. Be sure you're smooth onto the power, maintain consistent speed and throttle application, and avoid goosing it.
Well heres my anecdote which is completely opposite of what you just said. my driving pattern didn't change but the range tanked about 5% going from 19" slipstreams to 21" turbines. This is consistent with others on the forums and thats probably more than "2 miles of range a week" which is odd to give someone a very arbitrary unit of measurement. If he drives only 40 miles a week then that statement would be true, but we cant assume he only drives 40 miles in a week. Also the range would be much more noticeable over long distances in a single day, as 5% that could be an extra 20 miles to the next charger.
Back to the issue on hand, I believe the 400 mile tesla was only able to be achieved with software updates and the new aero wheels, so it may add some range over the standard slipstreams, but how much I don't know. What was the range increase on the model 3 aero's on and off, does anyone remember off the top of their head?
Aggmeister2010
Active Member
Fair enough, each person will have their own findings in their own environment - but my range and consumption legitimately didn't change. Granted, my 22's are very light (much much lighter than the factory 21s).
OP asked a casual question, and i provided a casual answer. Obviously 2 miles a week isn't a scientific answer, and was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But, fair enough - if you only drive 4 miles a week and you lose 2 miles from the larger wheels/tires, that's a 50% loss for you.
So, in other words: I drive about 250 miles per week, and when I was tracking average consumption given my driving style, I didn't notice a significant drop in range whatsoever. 2 miles of loss in 250 miles could just be a bit of extra headwind on one leg of a commute to work.
Last edited:
I noticed a significant wh/m improvement when I changed my turbines for slipstreams for a while. Went from 335 to 300 and consistently in the 290’s even. Went back to arachnids and I average 340 or so. Definitely makes a difference, but the tradeoff on looks is extreme. Model S needs big wheels to look good in my opinion.
I think the “new ugly wheels/hubcap things” should be banned from ever appearing on a Tesla, let alone a Model S. If anyone desperate for an extra 15 miles in range, while driving a Model S, you should be driving a Prius!
Tires are a HUGE factor, they dictate rolling resistance.
Aero wheels matter at speed so one person who averages 45mph might see no change and the other who spends a bunch of time over 70mph will see a change.
Aero wheels matter at speed so one person who averages 45mph might see no change and the other who spends a bunch of time over 70mph will see a change.
i dont think they look ugly.. just.. normal. the original model S aero wheels are ugly though, but so ugly that they are totally a collectors item and i would absolutely buy them when someone sells them again
wait holdup. your ARACHNIDS were worst than your turbines? I think it could be the tires are too new on the arachnids which create a more sticky road grip.
O
Or you could be like the huge number of folks here who are wrong about your fixation on wheel weight.
Arachnids come with sticky performance rubber and compromise aerodynamics compared to slipstreams or turbines.
ICE see greater gains from reduced wheel weight due to a lack of regen. Regen allows EVs to recapture much of the extra energy used in acceleration of heavy wheels. Highway use reduces the acceleration cycles reducing the opportunity to "save" energy with lite wheels.
Tires are also a bigger factor in efficiency, while the vast numbers of cripplingly academic folks here fixate on rim diameter.
Or you could be like the huge number of folks here who are wrong about your fixation on wheel weight.
Arachnids come with sticky performance rubber and compromise aerodynamics compared to slipstreams or turbines.
ICE see greater gains from reduced wheel weight due to a lack of regen. Regen allows EVs to recapture much of the extra energy used in acceleration of heavy wheels. Highway use reduces the acceleration cycles reducing the opportunity to "save" energy with lite wheels.
Tires are also a bigger factor in efficiency, while the vast numbers of cripplingly academic folks here fixate on rim diameter.
i'm basing it on anecdotes that people say the arachnids are more efficient. also my arachnids have the same tire as my turbine. arent the michelin super sport the default tire for all of them? (i bought both from this forum). i'm not trying to compare arachnids with sticky tires vs turbines with hyperefficient tires, i'm trying to compare them apples to apples. and im hard pressed to believe the "compromise in aerodynamics" means the arachnids which are significantly lighter are worst than the turbines because its using stickier tires.
Model 3 Aero caps on vs off is ~4% at highway speeds. I’d expect the same for the Tempest caps.
The tires on my turbines were more worn and a different brand, and my numbers weren’t scientifically measured so I'm not saying arachnids are better or worse than turbines, but there was definitely an immediate significant difference going to and from 19s.
Same tires it can still come down to one person driving in town and being poor about Regen timing making the lite wheels help. Then another person driving mostly highway where the energy wasted accelerating a heavy wheel is so infrequent as to be a non-factor.
Like I said an EV has regen which can recapture much of the energy that would otherwise be wasted with heavy wheels if the regen is used right.
On the highway acceleration energy is only used basically once and then high speed aerodynamic efficiency is what matters.
Guess how you save weight and create aerodynamic efficiency? Plastic covers like the 3, yes the 3 rims could be lighter but they would be heavier with aluminum filling those voids.
Destiny1701
22’ M3LR ‘DrkNite’/ 22’ MYP BliueRocket
Destiny1701
22’ M3LR ‘DrkNite’/ 22’ MYP BliueRocket
Same driving style with both. Oem Michelin MXM4 on 19’s. Now Michh PSSport on 21’s.
havnt noticed a single bit of diff in kw usage.
My averages are 335 for 21” turbines w/Contis (staggered), 308 for 21” arachnids w/Mich (staggered), and 300 for 19” TST w/Pirelli P7 (square).
dark cloud
Active Member
The key word is highlighted above. Until we know how fast people are driving on average we are always comparing apples to oranges. If @Navsarin primarily drove his car on the highway at 120 km/h like I do he would definitely not make the same claim.
These are the physics facts: If you bought carbon fibre Arachnid rims that had a mass of 5 lbs each, you still would not come close to the same efficiency as slipstreams at highways speeds. Mass is trumped by aerodynamics. There is also the wind being displaced by the width of the wheel, on top of the friction increase of the rubber. I have read from people with time and resources and grant monies anywhere from 3-8%
If all someone does is live in the city and putt around town at speeds less than 50 mph consistently then someone could claim having the same efficiency between the Arachnids' and the slipstreams, or even the Tempests. In theory there is a difference in friction between the racing rubber and the all-seasons, but I could see someone not noticing the small difference. As explained by SSedan above because of regen there isn't the same difference as what we have learned with an ICE, and the reduced unsprung weight vs. the aero is probably a wash.
This is the human factor: everyone knows the Arachnids look better, so what actually happens is those who put them on drive slower than they did with the slipstreams, because they know everyone is looking at their car more. Right?
TL:dR The faster the car goes, the more the difference in efficiency between a "cool looking" wheel and the "ugly" aero ones.
Destiny1701
22’ M3LR ‘DrkNite’/ 22’ MYP BliueRocket
The key word is highlighted above. Until we know how fast people are driving on average we are always comparing apples to oranges. If @Navsarin primarily drove his car on the highway at 120 km/h like I do he would definitely not make the same claim.
These are the physics facts: If you bought carbon fibre Arachnid rims that had a mass of 5 lbs each, you still would not come close to the same efficiency as slipstreams at highways speeds. Mass is trumped by aerodynamics. There is also the wind being displaced by the width of the wheel, on top of the friction increase of the rubber. I have read from people with time and resources and grant monies anywhere from 3-8%
If all someone does is live in the city and putt around town at speeds less than 50 mph consistently then someone could claim having the same efficiency between the Arachnids' and the slipstreams, or even the Tempests. In theory there is a difference in friction between the racing rubber and the all-seasons, but I could see someone not noticing the small difference. As explained by SSedan above because of regen there isn't the same difference as what we have learned with an ICE, and the reduced unsprung weight vs. the aero is probably a wash.
This is the human factor: everyone knows the Arachnids look better, so what actually happens is those who put them on drive slower than they did with the slipstreams, because they know everyone is looking at their car more. Right?
TL:dR The faster the car goes, the more the difference in efficiency between a "cool looking" wheel and the "ugly" aero ones.
What you said above
And yes I do drive abt 75% city vs highway. So majority is under 50mph.
However arachnids do not make one slower lol.
It entices more AMG, M drivers to rev up at a light and start a nice light to light session lol.
Physics you’re bang on.
Similar threads
