JeffK
Well-Known Member
The EPA range would increase if you software limited the power output without physical changes to the car. It's not like an ICE where there's only a really narrow range of efficiency.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
If you had a choice: Acceleration or Distance?
- Thread starter Garlan Garner
- Start date
The power output was already limited for the EPA tests, no 5.5 0-60's. The range is per the EPA test parameters. You can't go slower or faster for the EPA tests that's why they are a baseline of compariso.
In order to increase the range, there will have to some engineering change such as battery or motor size/qty/type.
Well - the EPA does get on it I believe. Fastest is 8.46 mph/sec. That is 7 sec 0-60. So software limiting to 8 sec 0-60 would actually improve EPA range a very small amount.
Not in any meaningful way of course but technically...
But the topic was about designing the battery, not necessarily the software. And the tiny benefit in limiting acceleration in software isn't really relevant.
Now - there are real battery compromises to be made. But in general (my understanding) is that discharge and charge rates are going to be pretty much the same design criteria. So you could make a slower car but then it would charge slower and no one wants that (on a road trip). You also lose regen - which will change range a bit - real and EPA.
Now $$$ vs acceleration - that is clearly an issues. And that is easy to deal with - as they do now with $$$ optional increased performance. But if you take a car comparable to a S60 but make it lighter and smaller and shrink the battery - you still wind up just under 6 sec 0-60. You must use the original S60's numbers since the software reduced S75 is not fair. So low 5's is probably not going to be the base but it does depend on how much weight is dropped and the final battery size.
As the battery gets bigger, the potential to accelerate faster goes up. But there really isn't a significant design trade off. The base car will be faster than most cars. And it will have the EV factor where real world, it is much faster. (quiet, no rev, minimal efficiency tradeoff). But you will unlikely get a 6 sec car (ie it will be much faster) when you get the battery - even if you wanted to save $500 dollars to do it. All the motors and inverters will probably be the same for manufacturing efficiency. So acceleration will be no increased manufacturing cost.
The end result - lots of slow drivers with fast cars. Not a big deal. We can only hope they learn to drive faster..... I dream of better traffic flow with everyone driving Model 3's.
Not in any meaningful way of course but technically...
But the topic was about designing the battery, not necessarily the software. And the tiny benefit in limiting acceleration in software isn't really relevant.
Now - there are real battery compromises to be made. But in general (my understanding) is that discharge and charge rates are going to be pretty much the same design criteria. So you could make a slower car but then it would charge slower and no one wants that (on a road trip). You also lose regen - which will change range a bit - real and EPA.
Now $$$ vs acceleration - that is clearly an issues. And that is easy to deal with - as they do now with $$$ optional increased performance. But if you take a car comparable to a S60 but make it lighter and smaller and shrink the battery - you still wind up just under 6 sec 0-60. You must use the original S60's numbers since the software reduced S75 is not fair. So low 5's is probably not going to be the base but it does depend on how much weight is dropped and the final battery size.
As the battery gets bigger, the potential to accelerate faster goes up. But there really isn't a significant design trade off. The base car will be faster than most cars. And it will have the EV factor where real world, it is much faster. (quiet, no rev, minimal efficiency tradeoff). But you will unlikely get a 6 sec car (ie it will be much faster) when you get the battery - even if you wanted to save $500 dollars to do it. All the motors and inverters will probably be the same for manufacturing efficiency. So acceleration will be no increased manufacturing cost.
The end result - lots of slow drivers with fast cars. Not a big deal. We can only hope they learn to drive faster..... I dream of better traffic flow with everyone driving Model 3's.
Now this is what I don't understand, why do we have to choose performance vs range for an EV? Let the car be equipped for medium i.e. sub 6 sec 0-60 performance but those who want to maximize on range can drive sensibly. It is not like there is a significant advantage to be had by making inverters and motor even smaller. This differs from ICE where we have no option but downsize engine capacity to achieve the best mpg compromise.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Exactly, I mean if you guys want a slow EV you can always get a Chevy Bolt. It's going to have a 60kWh battery and oh wait only 200 miles of range. Poor GM.
The same is likely true on electric motors, you still have a mass to energize and smaller motor, smaller mass less power to energize it. What was interesting was that the two small motors for AWD increased the range by almost 4% in the P60.
Likely smaller motors would increase the range while lowering acceleration.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Off topic - why do you keep referring as P60? The Performance variant is not available with the 60kWh (labeled) battery.
I think it was obvious that the majority would go for range rather than performance. In reality these two things are not exclusive and with current battery technology more capacity comes with greater performance.
I would guess the tradeoff is going to be smaller motors overall which would lower the power and acceleration but still provide excellent performance and towing.
Tesla has been obsessed with the acceleration, I think, in part due to slow hybrids and perception of EV as slow. Tesla can back off a bit now, go with reasonable acceleration for the family and increase the range.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Once again... Limiting maximum acceleration will not produce a significant increase in range. If a particular configuration of a Tesla Motors product will get an EPA rated range of 250 miles... Changing its acceleration profile will not magically increase the EPA rated range to 350 miles instead.
There are those who are certain they would be perfectly satisfied with a fully electric car that performed like a Toyota Camry LE. Cool. Please explain that to Toyota. I'm sure they'll get right on that for you... In about fifteen or twenty years.
Tesla Motors does not build slow cars. Traditional automobile companies that build fully electric compliance cars with limited capacity battery packs of 24 kWh or less also limit their acceleration profile so that they do not get to 60 MPH in less than seven seconds. They also tend to limit the top speed of those vehicles, sometimes to as low as 65 MPH and rarely to exceed even 100 MPH. Further, they limit the performance profile further, by derating their electric motors to far less than their maximum achievable output. I believe that the 'NO COMPROMISES' tagline from Tesla Motors refers to these artificial limits that traditional automobile manufacturers have chosen to regularly place on their compliance EVs.
Changing the first three or four seconds of acceleration will not allow a car to drive at a constant speed on the highway for hours more on end. What really matters is the average energy consumption per mile. That is the type of systematic improvement that Tesla Motors will deliver for their Generation III vehicles. You'll be able to drive long distances. You will be able to have fun doing so.
There are those who are certain they would be perfectly satisfied with a fully electric car that performed like a Toyota Camry LE. Cool. Please explain that to Toyota. I'm sure they'll get right on that for you... In about fifteen or twenty years.
Tesla Motors does not build slow cars. Traditional automobile companies that build fully electric compliance cars with limited capacity battery packs of 24 kWh or less also limit their acceleration profile so that they do not get to 60 MPH in less than seven seconds. They also tend to limit the top speed of those vehicles, sometimes to as low as 65 MPH and rarely to exceed even 100 MPH. Further, they limit the performance profile further, by derating their electric motors to far less than their maximum achievable output. I believe that the 'NO COMPROMISES' tagline from Tesla Motors refers to these artificial limits that traditional automobile manufacturers have chosen to regularly place on their compliance EVs.
Changing the first three or four seconds of acceleration will not allow a car to drive at a constant speed on the highway for hours more on end. What really matters is the average energy consumption per mile. That is the type of systematic improvement that Tesla Motors will deliver for their Generation III vehicles. You'll be able to drive long distances. You will be able to have fun doing so.
2018 Steve
Member
If I can get closer to 300 miles with 0-60 in 6 seconds then I will be ecstatic!! Warning, mileage is very dependent on how often one uses the throttle and how far down one pushes it!!
CarlitoDoc
Member
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Performance is as important as distance when it comes to that.Distance baby.....just like S3X !!!
timk225
Active Member
As Elon said at the Model 3 reveal - "At Tesla we don't make slow cars". And if I am spending $35K plus, I want at least 5.4 or better!
My Challenger R/T does 0-60 in 5.1 to 5.3, according to its performance pages in the dash, depending on how good I hit it. I'd like my single motor base battery Model 3 to have similar times.
I used to have a 2005 Neon that did an amazing 17.7 @ 77 in the 1/4 mile, and it was in the 11.0 to 11.5 second 0-60 range. Fine for L.A. traffic, but it is SLOW in my idea of normal driving.
How hard would it be to have a range / acceleration switch on the touch screen that really does something significant? Doesn't the Model S have something like that?
My Challenger R/T does 0-60 in 5.1 to 5.3, according to its performance pages in the dash, depending on how good I hit it. I'd like my single motor base battery Model 3 to have similar times.
I used to have a 2005 Neon that did an amazing 17.7 @ 77 in the 1/4 mile, and it was in the 11.0 to 11.5 second 0-60 range. Fine for L.A. traffic, but it is SLOW in my idea of normal driving.
How hard would it be to have a range / acceleration switch on the touch screen that really does something significant? Doesn't the Model S have something like that?
JeffK
Well-Known Member
You mean your right foot
The Model S has a range mode that reduces the Air Conditioning power consumption. You can use your foot to adjust how much you accelerate. see page 70 of the Model S owners manual https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/Model-S-Owners-Manual.pdf
SpiceWare
Member
When I bought my first S2000 I noticed I stopped becoming annoyed at catching red lights, provided I was first in line, due to the acceleration off the line when the light turned green. As such, I'm also one of the few who voted for acceleration.
I suspect the range of a tricked out Model 3 will be comparable to the range I have now with my S2000 and its small gas tank. I tend to refill every 220 miles or so when driving locally and 240 on road trips.
Similar threads
- Article