If you had a choice: Acceleration or Distance?

[dhanson865]

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.

Which is a good attitude to some extent but. I'll take the most efficient setup and then decide if I want to drive it more efficiently or if I want to launch full pedal.

I can count on one hand the number of times in my life I would have needed to use the full speed of even the slowest Tesla.

I have no desire to take a Tesla over 120 mph, I'll likely never take it over 100. I'd very very rarely ever take it over 90. I could see my self regularly using 80 on a downhill occasionally.

The gearing in the car has to be set to allow that maximum speed. Whatever it is set to also affects maximum acceleration and my efficiency at 50 mph steady state.

I'd rather they focus on efficiency at or below the speed limit so that I get better range. Top speed and acceleration will still be better than I need even if they do that.

 

[dhanson865]

ARRGGHHH you are killing me. LOL

The more acceleration the better. You can always use more acceleration ( Cowbell ).

I can understand if you have a fever and need to order the bigger pack, performance motor, and ludicrous mode as the only cure to your fever.

I'm just saying there is a non performance rear motor option, and a smaller pack option, and I won't be ordering Ludicrous mode.

Don't fear the reaper...

 

[Garlan Garner]

I can understand if you have a fever and need to order the bigger pack, performance motor, and ludicrous mode as the only cure to your fever.

I'm just saying there is a non performance rear motor option, and a smaller pack option, and I won't be ordering Ludicrous mode.

Don't fear the reaper...

Gotcha...thanks. I "do" have the fever.

 

[S'toon]

ARRGGHHH you are killing me. LOL

The more acceleration the better. You can always use more acceleration ( Cowbell ).

What for?

Doesn't seem all that practical.

 

[Snowcat]

...
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.

Every time I read something like this I think of "The Fast and the Furious" where they have this ongoing thing: "You still owe me a 10 second car ...". It's hilarious to watch those movies again and you'r all like: "a 10 second car, really? That slow??" Shows how far we've come. (and that without NOx)

EDIT: apparently they mean a 10 second 1/4 mile car so you can ignore this

 

[JeffK]

Which is a good attitude to some extent but. I'll take the most efficient setup and then decide if I want to drive it more efficiently or if I want to launch full pedal.

I can count on one hand the number of times in my life I would have needed to use the full speed of even the slowest Tesla.

I have no desire to take a Tesla over 120 mph, I'll likely never take it over 100. I'd very very rarely ever take it over 90. I could see my self regularly using 80 on a downhill occasionally.

The gearing in the car has to be set to allow that maximum speed. Whatever it is set to also affects maximum acceleration and my efficiency at 50 mph steady state.

I'd rather they focus on efficiency at or below the speed limit so that I get better range. Top speed and acceleration will still be better than I need even if they do that.

The gearing, as is, already allows for that quick acceleration AND a top speed of over 100 mph. I'd say the gearing should be left alone.

Every time I read something like this I think of "The Fast and the Furious" where they have this ongoing thing: "You still owe me a 10 second car ...". It's hilarious to watch those movies again and you'r all like: "a 10 second car, really? That slow??" Shows how far we've come. (and that without NOx)

haha he's refering to 10 sec 1/4 mile which even the P90D ludicrous can't do.

 

[Garlan Garner]

What for?

Doesn't seem all that practical.

Practical? Maybe not. Fun? Absolutely.

If I pay $35K and up for something....it would not be practical to get something I don't want.

 

[Snowcat]

haha he's refering to 10 sec 1/4 mile which even the P90D ludicrous can't do.

Ah, that clarifies a lot! Me not so good at street-racer-speak

 

[182RG]

The more acceleration the better. You can always use more acceleration ( Cowbell ).

Safely, in a track environment? Or racing between stop lights, merging into traffic from on ramps, or being a general nuisance on public roads?

The question is can you use more acceleration in a responsible way? There needs to be a limit, or this will be Tesla's next PR disaster. Silently running over someone crossing the street.

I'll take 300 mile range, with the acceleration of my un-modified S5 or slower.

 

[EaglesPDX]

I'll take 300 mile range, with the acceleration of my un-modified S5 or slower.

I think most drivers would take range over accleration especially in the case of the Tesla 3 with a family car that gets to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds but only 218 miles of range. Cutting that to 8 seconds to get a 350 mile range which be a huge boost to sales. As would reducing the dangerous acceleration levels. No parent would want their inexperienced kid driving off in a 5.2 sec. car. Nothing good would happen.

 

[S'toon]

Practical? Maybe not. Fun? Absolutely.

If I pay $35K and up for something....it would not be practical to get something I don't want.

If I wanted fun, but not practical, I'd be looking at getting a used Roadster. All due respect to Bonnie, but a 2 seater car, without supercharging capacity or luggage space, isn't practical. But it's reportedly very fun to drive.

 

[JeffK]

I think most drivers would take range over accleration especially in the case of the Tesla 3 with a family car that gets to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds but only 218 miles of range. Cutting that to 8 seconds to get a 350 mile range which be a huge boost to sales. As would reducing the dangerous acceleration levels. No parent would want their inexperienced kid driving off in a 5.2 sec. car. Nothing good would happen.

I don't understand why that would be a huge boost in sales... if you want a 0-60 in 8 seconds car just turn on valet mode like we've already discussed. Your range will increase accordingly. You can do that with any Model S/X even today. Why in the world would they purposely make it slower for all people when that decision can be left up to the buyer.

 

[Red Sage]

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?

The awesome thing about Tesla Motors is that they give you both, and the ability to choose for yourself. You control the distance you can travel with the long, skinny pedal on the right. What you do with your right foot determines the range you will achieve. And, if you decide to reach 60 MPH in 38 seconds instead of only 3.8 seconds, you can.

I believe that Insane means sub-3.5 second times to 60 MPH. I expect that Ludicrous will mean perhaps and additional 0.5 seconds quicker to that speed. Or rather, check the 0-60 MPH metric for a BMW M3. Subtract 0.5 seconds from that to get Insane. Subtract 1.0 seconds from the M3 to get Ludicrous. Subtract another .75 seconds or so to get Maximum Plaid velocity.

 

[Garlan Garner]

If I wanted fun, but not practical, I'd be looking at getting a used Roadster. All due respect to Bonnie, but a 2 seater car, without supercharging capacity or luggage space, isn't practical. But it's reportedly very fun to drive.

That's exactly what MS drivers said. That's why I'm glad it was an option. You don't have to buy it .. and at the same time....everyone else can.

 

[EaglesPDX]

I don't understand why that would be a huge boost in sales...

Because range and charging place and charging time are major sales drags for EV's even Teslas. Increasing the max range to 300 miles for the T3 would be huge.

You keep saying using "Valet Mode", is there something from Tesla that says using Valet mode increases range? You may have it backwards in that accelerating at greater than 8/60 decreases range. I would guess the Tesla official ranges are not based on any 5.2/60 sessions.

 

[Lem89]

I think AWD will boost its acceleration performance. If so Ludicrous moves to the bottom of the features list as I need AWD for the snow anyways. There are just other compelling features besides Ludicrous such as Autopilot and Supercharging and Pano roof that would make the car unique and functional instead of just fast.

 

[ZAKEEUS]

Well since we already know it will be a sub 6 second car which is a lot faster than my current car, I would go for distance. I do plan on getting dual motors and the bigger battery so I'm hoping for both acceleration and range.

 

[jerry33]

You keep saying using "Valet Mode", is there something from Tesla that says using Valet mode increases range? You may have it backwards in that accelerating at greater than 8/60 decreases range. I would guess the Tesla official ranges are not based on any 5.2/60 sessions.

The only way valet mode will increase range is if you have a very heavy foot.
Tesla ranges are based on EPA except where they are based on sustained speed.

 

[JeffK]

The only way valet mode will increase range is if you have a very heavy foot.
Tesla ranges are based on EPA except where they are based on sustained speed.

Yes, he's referring to limiting acceleration in order to gain range.

A performance model with ludicrous can deliver nearly 500 kW at full throttle so to add perspective valet mode limits you to 80 kW.

You keep saying using "Valet Mode", is there something from Tesla that says using Valet mode increases range? You may have it backwards in that accelerating at greater than 8/60 decreases range....

Valet mode give you a 0-60mph in around 8.2 seconds.

 

[EaglesPDX]

The only way valet mode will increase range is if you have a very heavy foot. Tesla ranges are based on EPA except where they are based on sustained speed.

I would agree which is why it made no sense that "Valet Mode" would increase the range.

When people say "increase the range" they mean the cars rated range. To do that for the T3 would mean some physical change to the motors or battery to have a big effect on the stated prototype range of 215 miles.