I would like economy mode for my mdl 3-my thoughts/config

[Red Sage]

Within the first two pages of his thread ...

You wrote a whole bunch of stuff that I completely disagree with. I really don't feel like taking the time right now to explain just how entirely incorrect you are. Basically though, you assume facts not in evidence, and make claims that are not backed up by fact. Worse, you seem to want Tesla Motors to build wimpmobiles. That truly raises my ire.

 

[JeffK]

Congrats on the wedding by the way! Are you getting married out here? Family in the area or something?

Yeah, getting married out in Portland. The fiance has family. After being here one day I can see what you Portland people mean about Subaru Outbacks. I've never seen so many in my life. It's ridiculous!
I can count the number I've seen at home on one hand.

 

[EaglesPDX]

Let us be quite clear about what Tesla does that no other auto company can do.

Nope. Tesla is doing what any other car company could have done 30 years ago but chose not to based on short term profits. See "Who Killed the Electric Car" for details.

That's what made Musk so angry and why he founded Tesla and built the EV that should have been built decades ago.

To this threads topic, it is fairly unanimous that EV owners want more range over acceleration. Great acceleration is a characteristic of the instant high torque electric motors. Even building to better range with smaller motors and other energy conserving features including limiting acceleration, EV's will always be a quick start.

 

[cantdecide]

But that's exactly the opposite of what Tesla is doing. You get more range from bigger batteries and a side effect is better performance.

Exactly. A large battery electric car doesn't cost much to add fast acceleration capability. Fast acceleration capability also doesn't cost significant range. This is very different from an ICE. Even use of fast acceleration is much less costly than in an ICE.

 

[S'toon]

Exactly. A large battery electric car doesn't cost much to add fast acceleration capability. Fast acceleration capability also doesn't cost significant range. This is very different from an ICE. Even use of fast acceleration is much less costly than in an ICE.

Elon Musk didn't found Tesla. He was brought in as CEO at a later date.

 

[JeffK]

Elon Musk didn't found Tesla. He was brought in as CEO at a later date.

Here's an origin story if anyone is interested.
The Making Of Tesla: Invention, Betrayal, And The Birth Of The Roadster

 

[22522]

Max range please.Tesla model 3 Dual motor. Battery smart suspension

Just my 2 cents.

You will get lot of what you are asking for:

1) I think they are going from NCA battery chemistry to NCM battery chemistry with the 3. I don't know why I think this, but NCM batteries are relatively better at energy storage (read range) and relatively worse at power (read acceleration). So Tesla is right with you on range per dollar/volume as a priority. [Actually, I just said why I think this.]

2) Dual motor 4 wheel drive is more efficient. I think it has to do with managed slip angles in the motors to obtain efficiency.

3) Adjustable suspension might lower ride height and drag as speed is increased, so you are good there, too.

The only option mistake you are making is leaving off autonomous driving. Autonomous driving should be more efficient than you for several reasons. A) paths are calculated and should be smoother, B) there should be access to a higher level of regenerative braking because the control loop does not have to cater to human sensibilities about how much a car slows down when the accelerator is released, C) there should be higher elvels of regenerative braking because anticipated paths will allow more regen on straight paths and less on curved paths. Manual driving limits max regen based on not effecting vehicle stability (read spinning out) when cornering at reasonable speeds in the rain.

I think that answers.

Add autonomous option if you want range.

 

[EaglesPDX]

Exactly. A large battery electric car doesn't cost much to add fast acceleration capability. Fast acceleration capability also doesn't cost significant range. This is very different from an ICE. Even use of fast acceleration is much less costly than in an ICE.

With EV's there is no real energy penalty for fast acceleration. All things being equal, (tire efficiency for example) getting a fixed weight to 60 miles an hour takes the same amount of energy if it takes 5 seconds vs. 10 seconds.

The extra weight of a bigger battery will increase the energy use just a question of how much range is gained as some of the extra energy the bigger battery supplies will deducted for the added weight.

I suspect smaller motors will be able to increase the Tesla's range which will cost in acceleration.

 

[22522]

With EV's there is no real energy penalty for fast acceleration. All things being equal, (tire efficiency for example) getting a fixed weight to 60 miles an hour takes the same amount of energy if it takes 5 seconds vs. 10 seconds.

The extra weight of a bigger battery will increase the energy use just a question of how much range is gained as some of the extra energy the bigger battery supplies will deducted for the added weight.

I suspect smaller motors will be able to increase the Tesla's range which will cost in acceleration.

I don't know enough about motors. If the wire in the smaller motor is smaller wire in a way that there will be more resistance, there will be more losses. Maybe the wire gets shorter, too. Maybe smaller motors I'll be more efficient. I don't know.

 

[22522]

Add autonomous option if you want range.

Better support from FedEx here:

Driverless Cars a Decade Away: MotorWeek’s Davis - Driverless Transportation

 

[Red Sage]

Elon Musk didn't found Tesla. He was brought in as CEO at a later date.

Despite arguments to the contrary, Elon Musk is officially recognized as a 'founder' of Tesla Motors. He was not a founder of those other guys... AC Propulsion.

 

[dgpcolorado]

With EV's there is no real energy penalty for fast acceleration. All things being equal, (tire efficiency for example) getting a fixed weight to 60 miles an hour takes the same amount of energy if it takes 5 seconds vs. 10 seconds...

This is demonstrably not true, as any Model S owner will likely know. Fast acceleration is much less efficient than easy-does-it. I'll leave it to the EEs here to explain why, although the technical details have been addressed in other threads.

That said, however, the capability of fast acceleration doesn't detract much from efficiency or range if one chooses not to use it. Yes, they can design an EV for more efficiency with drive train choices, but the gains are fairly small. And a car designed for decent performance, say the sub six second base Model 3, can be driven for mileage and range if one wants to do so. And even the Ludicrous version will get good efficiency and range if driven gently.

Someone upthread mentioned that he wanted the 3 to have an "Eco" mapped accelerator. If the 3 is anything like the base S, it just isn't necessary: it is very, very easy to drive the base S gently and with good efficiency, no Eco mapping needed. It is also easy to get kick-in-the-pants acceleration when one wants it, as people who have driven my car have discovered. Hypermilers will likely find the Model 3 quite satisfying to drive efficiently.

 

[JeffK]

Force = mass times acceleration therefore since acceleration is directly proportional to force then the quicker the acceleration the greater the force necessary for a fixed mass.

ie. quicker acceleration = more energy needed regardless of motor/battery config.

point is, manage acceleration with your foot not by putting in smaller motors, etc. We need to show the world EVs can be awesome and not just expensive plastic econoboxes (as we've seen from other manufacturers).

 

[EaglesPDX]

Force = mass times acceleration therefore since acceleration is directly proportional to force then the quicker the acceleration the greater the force necessary for a fixed mass..

I think the issue is energy needed which is a bit different than force. Energy needed to get 4,000 lbs to 60 mph is going to be the same no matter how fast or slow you do it. EV's are very efficient at this due to the instant torque and no energy inefficiencies. That's why increasing the range via some other method than bigger (in the energy storage sense) battery is hard. As Musk noted, using two smaller motors provided an 8% increase in range so there may be more to gain there.

 

[ccutrer]

I think the issue is energy needed which is a bit different than force. Energy needed to get 4,000 lbs to 60 mph is going to be the same no matter how fast or slow you do it. EV's are very efficient at this due to the instant torque and no energy inefficiencies. That's why increasing the range via some other method than bigger (in the energy storage sense) battery is hard. As Musk noted, using two smaller motors provided an 8% increase in range so there may be more to gain there.

Hey, a sane post from EaglesPDX!

Now for my own less than perfect understanding of things. An ICE has a very small range of RPM where it has both maximum torque and is most efficient converting fuel energy into motion energy. This is why there can be such a huge difference in fuel economy based on driving style - if you punch it, you inefficiently convert fuel into motion. In an EV, it is much closer to peak efficiency, regardless of how much torque and power you're outputting. While yes, higher accelleration takes more energy, it also does so for a shorter amount of time. It's much close to the idealized "frictionless" world we all live in in high school physics class. Where you end up wasting energy that you otherwise wouldn't is accelerating past the speed you intend to go, and then slowing down. In an ICE you wasted energy to get to the higher speed, and then you bleed off that kinetic energy via heat with friction brakes. At least with EVs you can recover some of that energy you used with regenerative braking. But that's less efficient than the other direction, so,you still lose out some. As @dgpcolorado pointed out, a Tesla is not 100% efficient, so driving style can still affect range.

Now back to @EaglesPDX's post. The inverter is already at mid-90s percent efficiency. The motors are pretty good. Dual motor allowed a range increase by more efficiently putting the energy where there is more traction (and probably more factors that I don't grasp). And Tesla already pushes the coefficient of drag far harder than other automakers. To put it in perspective, an amazing analogy I recently heard is that a 300 mile range Model S has a "fuel capacity" equivalent of 3 gallons of gasoline. Pretty dang impressive.

 

[JeffK]

I think the issue is energy needed which is a bit different than force. Energy needed to get 4,000 lbs to 60 mph is going to be the same no matter how fast or slow you do it.

See this is what happens when I drink and post, I'm not careful with my words .... when I said energy I meant "power"
More power used equals greater losses.

 

[EaglesPDX]

See this is what happens when I drink and post, I'm not careful with my words.... when I said energy I meant "power". More power used equals greater losses.

If by power you mean watts, again no, as many watts are used to move 4,000#'s from 0-60 in 5 seconds as in 10 seconds.

 

[JeffK]

If by power you mean watts, again no, as many watts are used to move 4,000#'s from 0-60 in 5 seconds as in 10 seconds.

This is not true in the real world unfortunately due to energy losses (and watts are not joules). Here's an example that you'll understand for sure: Tesla had to use a different fuse system for ludicrous mode. Why? Because of the heat generated when trying to pull more amps melted the old fuse. This heat is an example of a loss. The greater the discharge rate of the battery also increases heat generated within the cells themselves (another energy loss), this also causes an increased need for cooling.

To move a 2000 kg mass from 0 - 100 kph in 3 seconds requires ~257kW (345 hp) while 6 seconds requires ~129 kW (172 hp)

The work involved is both theoretically 772 kJ but you'd have more losses in the 3 second run.

It's funny in this thread you make the case that quick acceleration has no real penalties when in the other thread you swear up and down that Tesla should make slower cars to supposedly "significantly increase range" (I'm paraphrasing).

The energy losses are minor, relatively speaking, so most of us don't care and actually want quick acceleration. At the end of the day you can always regulate your acceleration with your foot.

I, personally, want a safe, lightning fast, car.

 

[22522]

Bigger copper conductors help range...

 

[EaglesPDX]

This is not true in the real world unfortunately due to energy losses (and watts are not joules). Here's an example that you'll understand for sure

And here's one you'll understand for sure, adding AWD drive increases the range and the acceleration. If your theory were right, the same "losses" would interfere.

With EV's the electrical losses (93% +/-) efficiency of the motors, line losses etc. are constant and small.

It's funny in this thread you make the case that quick acceleration has no real penalties when in the other thread you swear up and down that Tesla should make slower cars to supposedly "significantly increase range" (I'm paraphrasing).

Not quite if you read closely. The ask was acceleration or range and everyone wants more range. Smaller motors, less weight, less acceleration but better range MIGHT be a way and that was the ask of Tesla. Improve range at the expense of acceleration.