If you had a choice: Acceleration or Distance?

[Garlan Garner]

It has been said by Mr Elon M. that there is definitely going to be a Ludicrous mode on the M3. Some have concluded in their minds that Ludicrous means sub 3 second 0-60 times.

Mr. Elon M. has also said that the distance for the M3 will exceed 200 miles per charge. He has also stated in a recent conference that 300 miles per charge is fully achievable.

If perhaps there is an option for a much more powerful battery ( when it comes time for configuration ) - Where might you want a battery enhancement directed ? Acceleration? or Distance?

 

[Gunn]

For me it has to be distance, the M3 will already be quick (quicker than my current car) and I'm planning a lot of cross country traveling so i need the range.

The estimated 215 is already on par with a full tank of my current (or at least when I choose to fill up), but to get closer to 250 even with it at 90% full would be great. And I have heard from some MS owners that their predicted is a conservative estimate so it depends on how you drive and where (50/50 for regeneration).

 

[Boourns]

I'll get the non-performance version of the biggest battery, i.e., the Model 3 equivalent of the 90D. It will be a very quick car in its own right (4.x 0-60 is plenty fast to have fun and way beyond the threshold of my wife yelling at me), and you will also benefit from the longest range.

 

[eSpiritIV]

If they have a stripped down M3 with Ludicrous mode ill do that. If they dont and you have to buy a "package" with a bunch of other bells and whistles, ill have a hard decision. I plan for a commuter car, and if i travel, there will be plenty of superchargers to support my trips

 

[jkk_]

I'll get the non-performance version of the biggest battery, i.e., the Model 3 equivalent of the 90D. It will be a very quick car in its own right (4.x 0-60 is plenty fast to have fun and way beyond the threshold of my wife yelling at me), and you will also benefit from the longest range.

Yeah, what you said.

 

[zenmaster]

It has been said by Mr Elon M. that there is definitely going to be a Ludicrous mode on the M3. Some have concluded in their minds that Ludicrous means sub 3 second 0-60 times.

Mr. Elon M. has also said that the distance for the M3 will exceed 200 miles per charge. He has also stated in a recent conference that 300 miles per charge is fully achievable.

If perhaps there is an option for a much more powerful battery ( when it comes time for configuration ) - Where might you want a battery enhancement directed ? Acceleration? or Distance?

Why do you think the choice is between one or the other? Aren't they orthogonal? One is in chemistry the other is in thermal mgmt?

 

[Garlan Garner]

Why do you think the choice is between one or the other? Aren't they orthogonal? One is in chemistry the other is in thermal mgmt?

I've been informed that either can be limited by software. I have been informed by those who are rebuilding subclips of the MS that they have gotten their MS 0-16 time below 2 seconds. They have also easily gotten their MS above 300 miles per charge. In other words....both options appear to be software controlled not hardware controlled.

 

[BluestarE3]

Just about anything accelerates faster than my Gen 1 Prius, so range is more important for me, given a choice.

 

[JeffK]

I would like both... and a side of technology with that. Go ahead and throw in some looks too.

I want to have my cake and eat it too.

 

[ChadS]

I don't think it's a meaningful choice between one or the other, especially not in terms of the battery. The acceleration is currently a side effect of the distance. Tesla picks their batteries for energy density to get max range; but a big energy-dense battery still provides lots of power.

The acceleration of the S and X is limited by power from the battery. Tesla could select more power-dense batteries if they were trying to optimize for power, but they are not even though the existing motors could make use of it. They even give you the option of buying a cheaper long-distance version of the car that doesn't even take advantage of the power the battery already offers; you only buy the high-performance version if that is important to you.

To get top acceleration you need more than just the big battery. You need big motors, AWD, a very capable inverter, sticky tires, etc. Tesla gives you the choice of buying a base car with the big battery, or a souped up P90D with AWD, upgraded motors and upgraded inverter to take advantage of all the power the batteries can provide. Doing so greatly increases the attention paid to the company, improves the way consumers think about EVs, and greatly improves Tesla's profit margin - all without requiring owners to pay for it (you can just buy a 90D without the big motor and inverter - they do require you to get AWD with the big battery, but that's largely a packaging assumption - if you want max range you want AWD because it improves range, likely because of front/back gearing differences).

As energy densities increase, Tesla will provide cars with bigger batteries that offer more range. They will also be able to be quicker as a side effect (wrt batteries) if you pay extra for the right gear.

 

[WileyTheMan]

I think my thoughts have already been reflected here. Range is #1 for me. Knowing speed will be a fortuitous side-effect is pretty cool!

 

[S'toon]

Base model is faster'n my current car, so I'd go for distance.

 

[int32_t]

We know it's going to be at least under six seconds, so I'd like the most range there is.

 

[alseTrick]

I don't care about acceleration at all. I'd gladly take a 6.5 second 60 speed in exchange for 300 miles. And I don't even make many road trips, so the distance upgrade isn't even that necessary. I don't race other vehicles on tracks or streets and I don't drive through traffic and city roads like an a-hole. I don't need or want "high performance".

Heck, I'd take prius level performance (whatever it is). That's how little I care about acceleration.

 

[aronth5]

I'll get the non-performance version of the biggest battery, i.e., the Model 3 equivalent of the 90D. It will be a very quick car in its own right (4.x 0-60 is plenty fast to have fun and way beyond the threshold of my wife yelling at me), and you will also benefit from the longest range.

Just about anything accelerates faster than my Gen 1 Prius, so range is more important for me, given a choice.

I think my thoughts have already been reflected here. Range is #1 for me. Knowing speed will be a fortuitous side-effect is pretty cool!

Base model is faster'n my current car, so I'd go for distance.

This.....
These are all very smart people

 

[Garlan Garner]

Very interesting vote so far. I thought it would be much more even. I have to stand almost alone and say. I voted for acceleration. Ludicrous. 200 miles per charge is more than enough for me.

 

[McHoffa]

My current car is over 10 seconds 0-60, so base will be better by a lot. I want range first, and then as much increase in acceleration as I can afford, because this will be my first fun car, and maybe my last if true 100% autonomy is really here in the next 5-7 years.

 

[Nubo]

Why do you think the choice is between one or the other? Aren't they orthogonal? One is in chemistry the other is in thermal mgmt?

The mutual exclusion isn't nearly as clear-cut as the poll assumes. There might be some push-pull at the boundaries, where peak acceleration makes huge current demands and possibly there is some compromise between current-delivery capacity and storage capacity and longevity. But I think you can get some fine acceleration without making the batteries break much of a sweat.

That being said, I have no need for a 3-second 0-60 vehicle, and both society and myself are probably better off if I do not have one.

The question might be better put: how much acceleration is acceptable to you and how much do you prefer? For me, 8 or 9 seconds is perfectly fine; if I could pick I'd probably end up on the high side of 6. I'm old enough to remember when 0-60 in 10 seconds was sports-car territory.

 

[Garlan Garner]

The mutual exclusion isn't nearly as clear-cut as the poll assumes. There might be some push-pull at the boundaries, where peak acceleration makes huge current demands and possibly there is some compromise between current-delivery capacity and storage capacity and longevity. But I think you can get some fine acceleration without making the batteries break much of a sweat.

That being said, I have no need for a 3-second 0-60 vehicle, and both society and myself are probably better off if I do not have one.

The question might be better put: how much acceleration is acceptable to you and how much do you prefer? For me, 8 or 9 seconds is perfectly fine; if I could pick I'd probably end up on the high side of 6. I'm old enough to remember when 0-60 in 10 seconds was sports-car territory.

Fair enough.

 

[zenmaster]

The question might be better put: how much acceleration is acceptable to you and how much do you prefer?

4 seconds is acceptable, but I'd prefer 3.