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

[JeffK]

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.

You're mixing apples and oranges the reason the awd config is quicker is due to increased HP. In dry conditions awd and rwd with the same HP would accelerate the same.
Also, as explained by JB the dual motor setup allowed the power load to be switched between the motors depending on what the car was doing which lead to the increased range due to the more efficient use of the motors with their respective gearing. This also increased top speed on the cars (again thanks to the gearing). You won't see those same gains again simply by making both motors smaller.

 

[tsla007]

Thank you everybody for your input-I've learned some interesting things here.
Best to all of you. Can't wait for the msp2 (master secret plan 2).
*raises glass of Don*
To the Telsa fans, owners and soon to be owners.

 

[EaglesPDX]

You're mixing apples and oranges the reason the awd config is quicker is due to increased HP .

Actually less HP per motor, smaller motors and using them more efficiently. So the question for Tesla is could they further reduce the size of the motors and gain more range and range, not acceleration, is what most Tesla customers want and would trade for.

 

[22522]

Actually less HP per motor, smaller motors and using them more efficiently. So the question for Tesla is could they further reduce the size of the motors and gain more range and range, not acceleration, is what most Tesla customers want and would trade for.

I expect you need to do a survey on that last statement. I care about acceleration for many reasons. One being safety when all seats are occupied. I understand the car meets that criteria today. Smaller motors will make the car unsafe for my purposes.

This hopeful customer wants Tesla to not change a thing about the performance profile of their vehicles.

 

[Twiglett]

Actually less HP per motor, smaller motors and using them more efficiently. So the question for Tesla is could they further reduce the size of the motors and gain more range and range, not acceleration, is what most Tesla customers want and would trade for.

care to show us how you get to "most Tesla customers" wanting smaller motors and less acceleration?
I would suggest the exact opposite is true and most Tesla customers would prefer it just like it is.
Folks wanting an anemic, joyless Prius can go buy one - I'd rather leave Tesla just like they are....

 

[EaglesPDX]

care to show us how you get to "most Tesla customers" wanting smaller motors and less acceleration?

85% more range vs. 15% more acceleration.

 

[Red Sage]

Actually less HP per motor, smaller motors and using them more efficiently. So the question for Tesla is could they further reduce the size of the motors and gain more range and range, not acceleration, is what most Tesla customers want and would trade for.

This is the essence of the argument for those who want to see Tesla Motors develop a quad motor system. They don't seem to note that both the Rimac Concept One and the Mercedes-AMG SLS Electric Drive have a shorter range than the Tesla Roadster, despite having higher capacity battery packs and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars more. It is awesome the technology that goes into the SLS Electric Drive, because it uses four 150 HP motors... but its 0-60 MPH metric at 3.7 seconds is the same as the Tesla Roadster, which came out around five years earlier.

As a longtime fan of Honda products, I wondered for quite a while why they didn't offer a 1.8 liter or smaller V6, V8, or V12 for the Civic/Integra/RSX... Considering they had made plenty of 600cc motors for Kei cars and motorcycles, I figured they could do a small displacement V12 too... The problem is that the complexity that comes with going smaller increases expense while also lowering durability and endurance. That was fine for race cars, not so hot for street cars. So, it was better for them to stick with four cylinder double overhead cam VTEC systems instead.

 

[Red Sage]

EaglesPDX wrote, "With EV's there is no real energy penalty for fast acceleration."

This is demonstrably not true, as any Model S owner will likely know. Fast acceleration is much less efficient than easy-does-it.

I get the impression that the phrase 'no real energy penalty' is relative to ICE vehicles. For instance, if you were to engineer the exact same drivetrain that resides in a Toyota Prius to achieve sub-3.5 second runs to 60 MPH, its fuel economy and range would drop like a rock.

The difference in range between the Model S 90 and 90D is 10.9%... While the difference between the Model S 90 and Model S P90D is 1.8% -- in favor of the the Model S P90D.

But when you compare their MPGe ratings, the Model S 90 is 89, Model S P90D scores 95, while the Model S 90D gets 103.

Sure, a Toyota Prius is rated at 52 MPG. Meanwhile, an Alfa Romeo 4C gets 28 MPG, and a Ferrari F12 only manages 13 MPG.

 

[jkk_]

85% more range vs. 15% more acceleration.

On a thread where the question was "on which aspect of battery development Tesla should focus future developments on" or something like that (paraphrasing). So I don't see that as most people wanting to sacrifice the current performance of the cars for more range. At least I don't where as you seem to be more than willing to.

I still haven't understood what is wrong using your right foot for managing the power output of the car.

 

[David_Cary]

Aren't we splitting hairs more than just a little bit here.

First of all - somehow slower acceleration becomes Prius level acceleration. Slower could just be 7sec 0-60 instead of 6. Most people would be happy with that (I presume). Obviously some would not. But you would really need to quantify it to have a meaningful poll. If that 15% reduction in acceleration was accompanied by a 15% increase in range, than a majority would probably take that. But...that isn't going to happen. The trade off's are quite minimal. Perhaps a 1% increase in range - and then the poll results would be much different.

I am a bit surprised that "force" and "power" are being used by people who don't fully understand them. As someone who thinks he understands basic physics, it does hurt efficiency to full throttle to 60 as opposed to get there at 1/2 throttle. More heat is generated and heat is waste energy. Not usually requiring cooling but still wasted energy. An order of magnitude less than ICE? Sure, but still a difference. The fact is that for efficiency, most ICE cars want to accelerate pretty quickly. Certainly faster than most people drive.

My opinion - it is splitting hairs. People like fast cars and like to accelerate quickly. Even just 15%. It costs so little and hurts efficiency so little, that even building it for the 15% is worth it. 2 motor sizes - not worth it in manufacturing efficiency.

So - the base car will be faster than some people like. No big deal.

 

[EaglesPDX]

"I get the impression that the phrase 'no real energy penalty' is relative to ICE vehicles."

More basic physics and nature of EV's with electric motor drives. It takes the same energy to move 4,000#'s from 0-60 mph in 5 secs as in 10 seconds. Basic physics. Then the electric motors are 93% efficient in doing it with instant full torque. So whatever the total energy loss in electric motor efficiency, tire friction losses, etc, a Tesla doing the 0-60 in 5 sec or 10 seconds has the same energy usage. The acceleration is kind of a physics joke Musk played on people. It didn't affect the main issue of EV range and it hit the ICE crowd where it lived, in mindless muscle cars. The little Chevy Bolt has a respectable 7 secs, better than my Subaru Legacy.

However, as we see with the 8% increase in range by going to smaller "smarter" motors in the TS60D, there are ways to increase range and range is THE issue for all EV buyers due to the issues with recharging on the road, time it takes mostly and, as yet, the not so numerous charging stations.

So to this thread, do what it takes to increase range and if that means smaller motors that take longer to accelerate, go for the range.

 

[JeffK]

One of the basic things you are forgetting is that the goal is to compete with ICEs and to try to be better across the board. When you have cars like a Ford Focus RS doing 0-60 in 4.7 seconds for a base price of near $35K you start to see that the competition is there in that price range. Everytime you suggest they make a compromise to squeeze out a few minor percentage points of range you forget most people in normal daily life won't even use it for their commute.

Heck, as they've previously mentioned if they wanted to make a high range car and sacrifice your cargo space they can do it today.

Point is, there's no reason to sacrifice performance. There are other methods of gaining range such as bigger batteries or lighter materials in the body of the car.

 

[diamond.g]

One of the basic things you are forgetting is that the goal is to compete with ICEs and to try to be better across the board. When you have cars like a Ford Focus RS doing 0-60 in 4.7 seconds for a base price of near $35K you start to see that the competition is there in that price range. Everytime you suggest they make a compromise to squeeze out a few minor percentage points of range you forget most people in normal daily life won't even use it for their commute.

Heck, as they've previously mentioned if they wanted to make a high range car and sacrifice your cargo space they can do it today.

Point is, there's no reason to sacrifice performance. There are other methods of gaining range such as bigger batteries or lighter materials in the body of the car.

Of course the Focus RS is a hot hatch, and the don't have anything that can compare to it (at the moment.)

 

[dgpcolorado]

...I am a bit surprised that "force" and "power" are being used by people who don't fully understand them. As someone who thinks he understands basic physics, it does hurt efficiency to full throttle to 60 as opposed to get there at 1/2 throttle. More heat is generated and heat is waste energy. Not usually requiring cooling but still wasted energy...

Just so. Tesla provides a lot of measuring tools on the Model S and the difference in efficiency in aggressive acceleration versus gentle acceleration is quite significant IME.

 

[JeffK]

Of course the Focus RS is a hot hatch, and the don't have anything that can compare to it (at the moment.)

On the contrary, If you want to compare hot hatches I'd compare the Focus RS to the Subaru WRX STI (which used to be available in a hatchback), the Audi RS3, BMW M135i, Mercedes CLA45 AMG Shooting Brake, Volkswagen Golf R, etc, etc. Whether it's a hatchback or a sedan, there are high performance cars able to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds available in the same price range as the Model 3 (which the base is supposed to go 0-60 in under 6 seconds).

When examining that particular audience that wants performance at a low price then there is definitely competition.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

On the contrary, If you want to compare hot hatches I'd compare the Focus RS to the Subaru WRX STI (which used to be available in a hatchback), the Audi RS3, BMW M135i, Mercedes CLA45 AMG Shooting Brake, Volkswagen Golf R, etc, etc. Whether it's a hatchback or a sedan, there are high performance cars able to go 0-60 in under 5 seconds available in the same price range as the Model 3 (which the base is supposed to go 0-60 in under 6 seconds).

When examining that particular audience that wants performance at a low price then there is definitely competition.

You don't even have to get an RS3 to get down into low 5's.

an S3 will do it out of the box. and an A3 can do it with a $700 ECU reflash.

So if you pulled it off in a base A3...maybe $33k total. (not mine though....checked too many option boxes.)

point being, you can get a sub 5 second car WELL within the price point Elon's aiming at, but don't think he's not already aware of this. I expect some of the ballpark numbers he announced in March will be beaten when the Model 3 makes it to Production.

 

[JeffK]

You don't even have to get an RS3 to get down into low 5's/

an S3 will do it out of the box. and an A3 can do it with a $700 ECU reflash.

So if you pulled it off in a base A3...maybe $33k total. (not mine though....checked too many option boxes.)

point being, you can get a sub 5 second car WELL within the ~6 seconds Elon's aiming at, but don't think he's not already aware of this. I expect some of the ballpark numbers he announced in March will be beaten when the Model 3 makes it to Production.

My fingers are crossed for some awesome surprises.

 

[EaglesPDX]

One of the basic things you are forgetting is that the goal is to compete with ICEs and to try to be better across the board.

The goal is use no oil and move car tech to 21st century. Most hybrid, EV, H2, fuel cell car buyers do it because it uses little or no oil, the root of a lot of evil from air, water pollution, global warming, war, terrorism, deficits and debt.

The acceleration on EV's is simply a by product of electric motors having 100% torque immediately. A BMWi8 does 0-60 in 4.4 secs. A Chevy Bolt in 7 secs.

Range and fast, readily available charging are what EV's need to compete with oil powered cars. Teslas success has been in addressing both issues out the gate with the 250 mile range and the 30 minute SuperCharger network. Tesla was smart and made the cars luxurious and good looking to finance the high per car start up costs. Also to tweek the auto mfgs. who only build EV's to meet regulatory requirements and make them needlessly ungainly to suppress sales. The acceleration of EV's is just a physics fact more than a design strategy. Musk and Tesla use it to their advantage. And fair to say that, as with ICE cars, there is a small minority who want "performance" for aggressive driving, that runs around 15% of customers.

 

[Red Sage]

The acceleration is kind of a physics joke Musk played on people. It didn't affect the main issue of EV range and it hit the ICE crowd where it lived, in mindless muscle cars. The little Chevy Bolt has a respectable 7 secs, better than my Subaru Legacy.

If Elon told a joke, the traditional automobile manufacturers told a lie. For decades they have told us that electric cars must be unbearably slow. In more recent years they have consistently kept the 0-to-60 MPH metric for their fully electric compliance cars over 7.0 seconds. And despite that, they have delivered exactly ZERO long range vehicles that can achieve 200+ miles of EPA rated range. Further, they have insisted that fully electric versions of their ICE vehicle command in the neighborhood of a 100% premium for greatly reduced range. It is expected, hoped, and noted that perhaps the Chevrolet BOLT will be the first to break that long-lasting trend of interminable compromises.

However, as we see with the 8% increase in range by going to smaller "smarter" motors in the TS60D, there are ways to increase range and range is THE issue for all EV buyers due to the issues with recharging on the road, time it takes mostly and, as yet, the not so numerous charging stations.

Uhm... What? The Tesla Model S 60D uses the exact same 259 HP motors found in the front and back of Model S 75D, Model S 90D, and in the front of the Model S P90D. It is not a 'smaller' motor at all. Because the Model S 60D uses a 75 kWh battery pack that is software limited to a usable 60 kWh, it yields a slightly better range than would a car with an actual 60 kWh capacity, which would have a reserve area for anti-bricking. The original Model S 60, in rear wheel drive configuration, did have a more powerful 302 HP rating. There is no indication on Tesla's website that the current Model S 60 rear wheel drive version has more than 259 HP. It is only shown as being slightly slower to 60 MPH, by ~0.3 seconds, than the Model S 60D and with an 8 mile shorter range.

So to this thread, do what it takes to increase range and if that means smaller motors that take longer to accelerate, go for the range.

The 8 mile difference between single motor rear wheel drive and dual motor all wheel drive is rather insignificant, at 3.8%... Not the 8% you quoted. Even compared to the original Model S 60, the 10 mile difference is only 4.8% for the current Model S 60D.

So... What are you talking about? I get the impression you meant to say something, but skipped it inadvertently.

 

[EaglesPDX]

Uhm... What? The Tesla Model S 60D uses the exact same 259 HP motors found in the front and back of Model S 75D, Model S 90D, and in the front of the Model S P90D. It is not a 'smaller' motor at all.

You are confusing models and issues. The range pick up of 8 miles was due to the smaller motors (plural) in the AWD vs. the one large motor in the rear wheel drive.

The speculation was that this might be a path to greater range, using smaller multiple motors that would increase range as they do in the TS60D but might lower acceleration or smaller motors overall. Range not acceleration is the key for EV's.