You would need a cable the size of your leg. Of course you could havlve the size of the cable by stranding it because current predominantly flows on the outside rim of wires not the inside.
-
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
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
I drive the slowest Tesla made and it has more acceleration than I need. I can snap my passengers back in their seats while going uphill and it definitely gets their attention. But is that really useful? I can pass cars at highway speeds very easily without even coming close to flooring the accelerator. Why would I want more than that? So I can show off at stoplights? So I can take the car to a drag strip? I don't get the fascination of some here with 3 or 4 second 0-60 times. Sub 6 seconds is plenty quick enough for me.
I'll take the extra range, even if it is just 10% or so. I'll take as a given that "Tesla doesn't make slow cars" — my plain old S60 certainly isn't "slow" — so I'd much rather have a Model 3 that was designed for range than a Ludicrous version, even if the latter was at no extra cost.
I'll take the extra range, even if it is just 10% or so. I'll take as a given that "Tesla doesn't make slow cars" — my plain old S60 certainly isn't "slow" — so I'd much rather have a Model 3 that was designed for range than a Ludicrous version, even if the latter was at no extra cost.
Sure looks to be my name in front of EVERY STATEMENT attributing it to me.
If ccutrer was having a conversation with himself (as he is, making up statements with my name attached in every case) and replying to himself no need for my name at all much less in front of every statement.
If ccutrer wants to be honest simply remove my name from the quotes.
Last edited:
ccutrer
Active Member
@EaglesPDX: before you start accusing others of lying, you should try some reading comprehension. Post #111 was @Garlan Garner quoting me in post #100, in which I addressed you. Post #111 reads "ccutrer said: [to] @EaglesPDX...". He broke up my post into multiple quotes approximately by sentence so that he could give a finer grained reaction. He then distributed (to use a mathematical term) the "[to] @EaglesPDX" into each of the subquotes, so as not to lose the context that I had been addressing you the whole time (though you are correct that I intended only the first sentence to address you, and then rest as mostly talking to myself -- I do that a lot for the benefit of other readers of the forum, expounding upon things in case they do not have the context of the conversation, or the technical details being discussed).
Then again, fine details do not appear to be your strong point. You have been caught stating multiple false things as fact -- and not just by me: you stated a Model X 90D has 294 miles of EPA range; in reality it has 257 miles, and Model S 90D has 294. You referred to a S P60D; no such model has ever been produced by Tesla; Performance models have always been restricted to the largest battery sizes (80 and 90). You implied that Tesla or Elon (I can't remember which - and right here I'm going to be lazy and not look it up ---- but point out that I'm not 100% sure) stated that most people will immediately upgrade to a larger battery on the Model 3 for a price of $42,000; the actual quote said that they expect the average (note average, not "most") price to be $42,000, and no specification of which options will get people to the price point.
If you're not going to be bothered to go look up exact quotes or numbers, then you should add a disclaimer or doubtful adjective to your statement. For example, when I was discussing the maximum amperage draw from a Tesla battery with the Ludicrous mode versus the Zombie 222, I knew I was in the correct range at 1500-1700 or so, but I couldn't remember the exact number. And I didn't bother looking it up exactly, since the exact number wasn't relevant to the conversation. 1500 and 1700 are both "about" half or less of the 3840 quoted for a Zombie 222. But you'll notice I explicitly called out "that is only like 1700A, isn't it?", making it obvious that I wasn't sure, and leaving it as an exercise for the reader to look up the exact number if they wished -- which @JeffK did do, and enlightened all of us.
A little bit less self-confidence may do you some good in these forums. Stating everything as absolute fact, and berating other users for disagreeing makes people less likely to want to interact with you (sadly - I recognize that is pretty much what I'm doing to you at the moment - with the olive branch coming up next). I honestly feel you bring up good points, and I enjoy seeing others viewpoints and situations. I hope that I'm able to admit when I'm wrong (as I did about a larger battery not being a necessary precondition to better performance), and able to continue to have constructive conversations. I also remember that asynchronous textual conversation can never capture nuances of human communication that a live, in-person conversation has (though it does allow more thought out, reasoned responses with less emotional putting-your-foot-in-your-mouth; this post has been re-read and edited about three times before posting). There can always be misunderstandings about why someone said something, or how that was perceived (I feel like this happened in the Base Features thread - we were actually both saying the same thing, but speaking right past each other, coming from a slightly different point of view).
Anyhow, I hope we can have less bickering and blaming in the future, and more conversation about the topic at hand: acceleration vs. range, who wants what, is it even a necessary compromise, etc.
Then again, fine details do not appear to be your strong point. You have been caught stating multiple false things as fact -- and not just by me: you stated a Model X 90D has 294 miles of EPA range; in reality it has 257 miles, and Model S 90D has 294. You referred to a S P60D; no such model has ever been produced by Tesla; Performance models have always been restricted to the largest battery sizes (80 and 90). You implied that Tesla or Elon (I can't remember which - and right here I'm going to be lazy and not look it up ---- but point out that I'm not 100% sure) stated that most people will immediately upgrade to a larger battery on the Model 3 for a price of $42,000; the actual quote said that they expect the average (note average, not "most") price to be $42,000, and no specification of which options will get people to the price point.
If you're not going to be bothered to go look up exact quotes or numbers, then you should add a disclaimer or doubtful adjective to your statement. For example, when I was discussing the maximum amperage draw from a Tesla battery with the Ludicrous mode versus the Zombie 222, I knew I was in the correct range at 1500-1700 or so, but I couldn't remember the exact number. And I didn't bother looking it up exactly, since the exact number wasn't relevant to the conversation. 1500 and 1700 are both "about" half or less of the 3840 quoted for a Zombie 222. But you'll notice I explicitly called out "that is only like 1700A, isn't it?", making it obvious that I wasn't sure, and leaving it as an exercise for the reader to look up the exact number if they wished -- which @JeffK did do, and enlightened all of us.
A little bit less self-confidence may do you some good in these forums. Stating everything as absolute fact, and berating other users for disagreeing makes people less likely to want to interact with you (sadly - I recognize that is pretty much what I'm doing to you at the moment - with the olive branch coming up next). I honestly feel you bring up good points, and I enjoy seeing others viewpoints and situations. I hope that I'm able to admit when I'm wrong (as I did about a larger battery not being a necessary precondition to better performance), and able to continue to have constructive conversations. I also remember that asynchronous textual conversation can never capture nuances of human communication that a live, in-person conversation has (though it does allow more thought out, reasoned responses with less emotional putting-your-foot-in-your-mouth; this post has been re-read and edited about three times before posting). There can always be misunderstandings about why someone said something, or how that was perceived (I feel like this happened in the Base Features thread - we were actually both saying the same thing, but speaking right past each other, coming from a slightly different point of view).
Anyhow, I hope we can have less bickering and blaming in the future, and more conversation about the topic at hand: acceleration vs. range, who wants what, is it even a necessary compromise, etc.
ccutrer
Active Member
Heh, and I just got hit by the asynchronous communication problem - @SpiceWare posted beautiful screenshots of what I was describing in the first paragraph of my previous post, while I was writing a big boring thing mostly talking to myself yet again 
ccutrer
Active Member
Indeed, there are often mistakes. The one I didn't realize for a while is that custom trimming of the quoted post can often result in the quote block extending to include the response. I used to completely ignore such posts, thinking the responder just clicked Post Reply accidentally without typing anything. I finally realized I need to scan the bottom of the quoted portion to look for new content.
I don't know who is talking to who about what.
Maybe my confusion is keeping me from being insulted. LOL
Anywhoo... Acceleration is holding on to its marketshare in the voting.
Maybe my confusion is keeping me from being insulted. LOL
Anywhoo... Acceleration is holding on to its marketshare in the voting.
Right you are, it was @Garlan Garner who was lying not @ccutrer to whom I apologize.
Seems clear he was attributing the quotes to me, putting my name in front of the quotes when nothing in his message was mine. ZERO point in putting my name in quotes six times and then replying to them since nothing in the message was a quote of mine unless one was being purposely misleading. If he wants to be honest and fix his "mistake:, he can certainly remove my name since my comments are not in any of the quote boxes.
ccutrer
Active Member
Apologies @ccutrer, it was @Garlan Garner's message where he attributes someone else's quotes to me.
ccutrer
Active Member
I sighed because two people have tried to explain it, and you still didn't get it. It was @Garlan Garner's post quoting me addressing you. He is not trying to attribute the quotes to you.
I sighed because it was @Garlan Garner making it appear you were attributing phony quotes to me. Instead it was @Garlan Garner's fabrication, not yours.
I suppose I'm having trouble understanding what people are saying because I'm ignoring someone in this thread.
maybe this is happening because I'm quoting folks and not replying. When quoting double responses...maybe its getting screwed up. I don't know. I just cut and paste quote headers when I edit a reply. Anyway...I'm glad we are having so much fun with the topic.
Anywhoo. Still looks like Acceleration is trying to hold on to its 13% market share of the vote. LOL
maybe this is happening because I'm quoting folks and not replying. When quoting double responses...maybe its getting screwed up. I don't know. I just cut and paste quote headers when I edit a reply. Anyway...I'm glad we are having so much fun with the topic.
Anywhoo. Still looks like Acceleration is trying to hold on to its 13% market share of the vote. LOL
ummgood
Member
I voted for acceleration based on the assumption it would be about a 10% hit to the range IF I get the performance model. I am willing to give up the 10% of the range on the performance model to get some wicked acceleration. Honestly this car is probably my last hurrah before I have 3 kids go into college. I can afford it now and after all 3 get through college then I'll probably be too old and worn out to have any more fun in life so I might as well live it now.
I keep looking back and wishing I would have had a more performance car earlier in life. I have a neighbor down the street that just bought a '70 Stingray with a 454 in it as a hobby car. He is probably early to mid 30's. Part of me wishes I would have done the same. I don't want to look back at my Tesla purchase and wish I would have gotten the performance model so I am going to get it even if I have to burn 10 miles of range or so. Of course this is all assuming that the Model 3 numbers have the same pros/cons as the Model S performance package.
Once I get all my kids through college then I'll probably go Buick shopping.
I keep looking back and wishing I would have had a more performance car earlier in life. I have a neighbor down the street that just bought a '70 Stingray with a 454 in it as a hobby car. He is probably early to mid 30's. Part of me wishes I would have done the same. I don't want to look back at my Tesla purchase and wish I would have gotten the performance model so I am going to get it even if I have to burn 10 miles of range or so. Of course this is all assuming that the Model 3 numbers have the same pros/cons as the Model S performance package.
Once I get all my kids through college then I'll probably go Buick shopping.
Buick shopping? I thought that once you go EV you never go back.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Article
