Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model 3' started by Garlan Garner, Jul 1, 2016.
Exactly. I wouldn't mind sub 3's either. 2.x... I can't wait. lol
What about an option for faster charging? For many people, that's probably more important than more range or acceleration.
I dunno. I'd say most people just plug it in over night and not need to worry about it. Faster charging would be most desirable for long distance trips which don't occur all that often. This is despite some people's claims that the extra relaxation the SC stops afford makes the long distance trips that much more pleasant. lol!
Distance. That makes mid trip charging less of a need.
If we could double the range (400-600 miles) and halve the supercharging time (15-20 minutes for 0-80% battery), then gasoline cars would lose their one last remaining advantage over electric cars.
AWD on the new P60D increases the range. If you select just the AWD option the range increases from 201 to 218. It appears to be because it uses two smaller motors instead of one larger motor. And acceleration increases from 5.5 seconds to 5.2 seconds.
If Tesla reduced the AWD acceleration to 8 seconds using smaller AWD motors, what would the increased in range be, if any?
Depends on the type of driving you do... if you accelerate once to get on a freeway or you accelerate many times in city traffic..
You can always set the tesla on Valet mode to reduce power used... you'll get your 8 secs 0-60mph without Tesla having to change a thing.
The AWD P60D getting greater range and faster acceleration with smaller motors had nothing to do with type of driving and was based on the baseline parameters uses to determine range and acceleration.
I think the thread is more about building the car to affect the baselines of acceleration and range vs. how to drive to increase range, the topic of another thread perhaps.
The type of driving has everything to do with the range you get from the same equipment. My point is you can have both range and acceleration and limit via software when you want range and unlock it when you want more acceleration and decreased range.
In my opinion, it's better to have it and not use it vs not have it at all.
As to the 60D getting better range and faster acceleration you first have to take into account the configuration for the dual motor setup has more horsepower. Under ideal road conditions, RWD vs AWD will accelerate the same with the same hp. Then range difference is 8 miles due to better efficiency of the dual motor setup.
60D vs 60D on valet mode and you'll probably get more range due to less power draw during acceleration.
Basically, I'll take the best performing model and adjust the range myself as needed.
3.5 or 2.8 doesn't matter when it's in that range of times
show me that it'll run hi 10's very low 11's
0-60 is very overrated these days
Distance will be my preference and where I plan on spending extra money, but faster charging might outweigh the need. Yes, stopping would be a pain, but if it's no longer than stopping to grab gas and use the bathroom it doesn't change the experience much.
No doubt but this thread is about the build of the car for range or acceleration. Not how to drive it to get better range which would be an interesting thread you should start. As with the hybrids when they first came out, there may be different techniques to use with EV's to maximize range.
As for this thread on vehicle construction for baseliness of acceleration or range, most would like the Tesla 3 designed for range. The question is what would that design look like (apparently two smaller motors get better range than one large motor) and how would it affect acceleration. Would two smaller motors providing AWD (what gets the range boost in the P60D) sized for 8.0 secs to 60 vs. 5.2 seconds yield a longer range.
I wish I could frame this response. This is perfect.
I don't get it. The OP is presumably aware that range vs power is still controlled by driver demand, just like in an ICE vehicle, but is suggesting that battery tech somehow creates a significant tradeoff between the two.
Let me explain.
I watch hours of videos of people like Jack reverse engineer the MS's subclips. Initially it was perplexing to learn that Tesla limited access to the full battery via software between versions. Performance is not fully dependent on driver discipline. Of course performance can be altered by driver discipline, but not "fully". Software updates set the standard for the car and then the driver can do with it can within the software's set parameters.
Just like the valet mode. Software affects the cars distance and acceleration. For example, I could probably exceed 300 miles per charge in valet mode. As a driver, I can mimic the valet mode and exceed 300 miles per charge myself.
But here's the kicker......
Lets say for example: Tesla limits all cars to valet mode. Same Battery, Same Motors. They could tout that the MS WILL get 300 miles per charge. Of course acceleration would be NILL.
Now lets say for example: Tesla directly ties the battery to the motors through software - like the ludicrous (new fuse, etc) mode. and touts 2.3 second 0-60 times, Going Ludicrous does not require a new battery or a new motor...... Its primarily a fuse changout and some software.
Its not simply about driver discipline. Tesla's software is intricately involved in what you can do with the car. Performance or Distance
With Jack, you have no choice but to spend hours.
Absolutely. He is great. Its amazing the amount of money he has spent doing this. I'm glad he got the Tesla parking brake issue done. Now he can sell a full subclip or drive unit and recoup some of his expenses.
Let me say this also.
I "believe" that if you order "Ludicrous" you get access to ALL of the battery even if you never use "Ludicrous". If you order the Acceleration / Performance package and drive in Valet mode....you might get 350 miles per charge. I've never driven very efficiently so I wouldn't know. I'm not sure I'm willing to drive in Valet mode for 350 miles to prove it. LOL.
On the single and dual motor versions of the car both can be a choice of gear ratio (with less down side on the dual motor version). One end of the scale is low acceleration but better cruising efficiency. The other end of the scale is worse cruising efficiency but better acceleration.
While they can gain on both by choosing a sweet spot inbetwen the extremes there is room to slide somewhat to either side of the sweet spot.
Currently a Model S60 (75 kWh pack software limited) is listed at 5.5 seconds 0-60 and 210 miles range. Dual motor of the same car is 5.2 seconds 0-60 and 218 miles range.
Both of those data points exceed my minimum expectation and significantly exceed my need.
If it allows them to drop the price noticeably to skew towards range I have no problem with 0-60 climbing up to 5.9 seconds single motor and 5.7 seconds dual motor. Heck I wouldn't mind if the base trim was 7 seconds 0-60 but I know that just isn't in the cards.
The EV model is just too efficient at low speeds with all that torque. Tesla just won't leave that on the table. So I expect stronger acceleration than I need and I have to remind Tesla that I want range and reliability and am willing to give up some acceleration.
ARRGGHHH you are killing me. LOL
The more acceleration the better. You can always use more acceleration ( Cowbell ).