Smaller motors front and rear would likely increase range. We see 8% increase in range increase on the 60D doing that so making the motors smaller to a 8 sec/60 mph could possibly see a 30% range increase. Getting range on the T3 to 300 miles, 150 miles towing 5,000# hits a sweet spot. It makes the T3 the true American family car that Tesla says they want it to be.
-
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
Smaller motors front and rear would likely increase range. We see 8% increase in range increase on the 60D doing that so making the motors smaller to a 8 sec/60 mph could possibly see a 30% range increase. Getting range on the T3 to 300 miles, 150 miles towing 5,000# hits a sweet spot. It makes the T3 the true American family car that Tesla says they want it to be.
Somehow this thread turned from "which aspect of battery development should be focused on" in to "how should we make the cars worse" 
Edit: by "make worse" I don't mean that having more range would be a bad thing. What I mean is that it should be attained by making other aspect of the car worse.
Edit: by "make worse" I don't mean that having more range would be a bad thing. What I mean is that it should be attained by making other aspect of the car worse.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Somehow this thread turned from "which aspect of battery development should be focused on" in to "how should we make the cars worse"
Edit: by "make worse" I don't mean that having more range would be a bad thing. What I mean is that it should be attained by making other aspect of the car worse.
don't worry, anything they do that will make me happy by making the car more efficient won't make the car bad in any way. Your worse is only vs a car that doesn't exist. It will be what they make it,
They won't make it one thing and then listen to someone else and make it another. They'll make it better than any gas car, hands down.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
This is a tough choice because I like my cars to have under 12 second 0-60 times.
Oh, wait. Nevermind
Oh, wait. Nevermind
pinski
Not Ludicrous
I voted acceleration, but it really depends on the gulf between the two. Meaning, if I can get one with a 300 mile range, but it means it only accelerates to 60 in ten seconds, I wouldn't want it at all. Conversely, if I could have a Model 3 that accelerated to 60 in four seconds, but only had 100 miles of range, I wouldn't want it either.
In a greater likelihood, if I was faced with choosing a six-second Model 3 with a 250 mile range versus a four-second Model 3 with a 200 mile range, I'd probably be happier with the extra range. However, if this thing doesn't move, it's a non-starter for me.
In a greater likelihood, if I was faced with choosing a six-second Model 3 with a 250 mile range versus a four-second Model 3 with a 200 mile range, I'd probably be happier with the extra range. However, if this thing doesn't move, it's a non-starter for me.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a nice Christmas gift. You will probably be able to ask for it for 2 more Christmases.
Its going to be a tremendously long wait to get our M3's delivered.
Last edited:
SpiceWare
Member
That should have been my 3rd poll option.
- both but not at the same time or switchable
Give me the range. I don't need a high top end speed nor do I need fast acceleration - I'm coming from a Honda Civic and so anything Tesla produces will be a huge upgrade. I care more about charging convenience than anything else, and range is a big factor for the convenience. 300 miles of stated capacity means I can get to 240 miles of range with a supercharger in a short amount of time.
I don't yet know what my charging situation will be (condo association) and so at least for a while, I may use other charging locations like at work.
I don't yet know what my charging situation will be (condo association) and so at least for a while, I may use other charging locations like at work.
I wonder if people just don't care to vote....or are there only 200 or so people that frequent this M3 forum.
I doubt the results would change dramatically even with more votes - most people are clearly looking for range.
Maybe, However I wonder what the vote would be if the either/or scenario was changed to both/and. - essentially "switchable"
JeffK
Well-Known Member
That's because they don't realize that they probably don't drive more than that max range per day. If they go on vacation they can always use the charging networks or hotels with charging stations. It's a good thing to get out of the car every few hours when driving long distance.
(Now that's discounting the < 200mi crap range golf carts err "EV"s. Ranges like 40 mi is not going to cut it)
As Americans, it's our culture to always want more even if we don't need it. We'll come to a point rather quickly where we have enough range and anything more might lead to diminishing returns.
I still don't understand the poll as the tradeoff is primarily controlled by accelerator pedal angle. Ultimate power is software limited for component safety or longetivity - not for range compromise. Tesla already markets a fast acceleration option, using some higher rated componets, which they will also produce for the Model 3. So you have presented a false dichotomy as far as some would be tech development tradeoff.
ccutrer
Active Member
@EaglesPDX I think you're deluding yourself. Even as much as a 25% gain (loss?) in acceleration and motor weight will only translate to like 5% weight loss of the entire vehicle, and like a 5% range improvement. That's not going to take a 215 mile range vehicle to 300. It will take it to 225. The battery itself is the overriding factor.
I voted range, because a 215 mile range is more like 150 mile range in normal around town driving. Worse in inclement weather. But I sure do love the instant acceleration of the Model X. As opposed to what a lot of you seem to think, fast acceleration isn't just for beating people off the line or being an a-hole in traffic (though you can definitely do both of those too if you're so inclined). It's amazingly helpful for merging into fast, busy traffic with little runway. Or for safely and quickly getting around the a-holes going 20 under the speed limit because they think driving fast is for jerks. Does an average driver need need Ludicrous, or performance level acceleration? Heck no. Do they even need sub-6 second 0-60? I dunno. Does anyone need 155mph top speed? Hells no. Maybe on the autobon. I do know that you can't compare ICE times to EVs, though. The acceleration curve is just too different. And has been pointed out time and again, having a battery capable of delivering 300+ mile range also means it's capable of delivering ludicrous level acceleration - given appropriate motors. Scale back a little on the motors to something that still efficiently uses the electricity, and you still get acceleration that is beyond what the majority of the population ever thought they would have. It's just the nature of how electric motors work. Purposely handicap the motor much more, and you'll be back to ICE level acceleration 0-30 or so but won't be able to get up to 75mph on the freeway.
Oh, and one last thought - for an EV, the torque that powers acceleration is also what makes towing great. If you plan to tow effectively, then you're going to end up with much more non-towing acceleration than you would normally use.
I voted range, because a 215 mile range is more like 150 mile range in normal around town driving. Worse in inclement weather. But I sure do love the instant acceleration of the Model X. As opposed to what a lot of you seem to think, fast acceleration isn't just for beating people off the line or being an a-hole in traffic (though you can definitely do both of those too if you're so inclined). It's amazingly helpful for merging into fast, busy traffic with little runway. Or for safely and quickly getting around the a-holes going 20 under the speed limit because they think driving fast is for jerks. Does an average driver need need Ludicrous, or performance level acceleration? Heck no. Do they even need sub-6 second 0-60? I dunno. Does anyone need 155mph top speed? Hells no. Maybe on the autobon. I do know that you can't compare ICE times to EVs, though. The acceleration curve is just too different. And has been pointed out time and again, having a battery capable of delivering 300+ mile range also means it's capable of delivering ludicrous level acceleration - given appropriate motors. Scale back a little on the motors to something that still efficiently uses the electricity, and you still get acceleration that is beyond what the majority of the population ever thought they would have. It's just the nature of how electric motors work. Purposely handicap the motor much more, and you'll be back to ICE level acceleration 0-30 or so but won't be able to get up to 75mph on the freeway.
Oh, and one last thought - for an EV, the torque that powers acceleration is also what makes towing great. If you plan to tow effectively, then you're going to end up with much more non-towing acceleration than you would normally use.
Similar threads
- Article