It's alive! [All spoiler, no speculation]

[mongo]

I'm thinking an easy way to do it would be to use two standard isolated 400V chargers. Put them in series and you have an 800V charger, put them in parallel and you have a 400V charger with twice the amperage.

Interesting concept, especially if an 800V vehicle takes up two parking spots.

 

[insaneoctane]

Sorry about the first post. Desktop computers are much easier to work with vs phones....

Here's the range difference between the 18" and 19" wheels per the document...

MPH   19   18
5    944    1,045
10    919    1,023
15    879    983
20    827    929
25    769    864
30    707    796
35    646    726
40    587    659
45    532    596
50    482    539
55    436    486
60    395    439
65    358    397
70    325    360
75    296    327
80    270    298
85    247    272
90    227    249
95    209    228
100    192    210

 

[AlanSqB]

If THIS was to be true, sounds like maybe they could push an update in the future to unlock some of those ponies.......

OR....this is already they motor they're going to use in Performance/Dual Motor variants, and testing will be for this motor with the unlocked HP and the new front motor.


Reusing the same hardware would definitely make some sense, and it would also increase their margins on P and D variants.

Agree. I think the “P” is already baked in. We are all going to get an offer to unlock, for a nice fee, after they get more testing and road miles on this hardware.

 

[T34ME]

Sorry about the first post. Desktop computers are much easier to work with vs phones....

Here's the range difference between the 18" and 19" wheels per the document...

This document makes absolutely no sense! Say a vehicle is moving at 5mph, there is absolutely no affect on range between 18" and 19" rims. The faster the vehicle goes, the more affect on range between wheel sizes, not vice versa. Where are these data points coming from? Show us your algorithms and formulae.

 

[dhanson865]

.

This document makes absolutely no sense! Say a vehicle is moving at 5mph, there is absolutely no affect on range between 18" and 19" rims. The faster the vehicle goes, the more affect on range between wheel sizes, not vice versa. Where are these data points coming from? Show us your algorithms and formulae.

The rims themselves dictate tires, the tires (if they have different widths and rolling resistances) will affect mileage more at low speeds. At high speeds aero effects (air resistance and wind) will overwhelm the rolling resistance factor.

It's common to see better efficiency with lighter/narrower tires at low speeds. It's why I have 15" wheels on both my Prius and my Leaf.

See Range Chart - My Nissan Leaf Forum for a range chart backed by real world measurements. Or see an old copy I put here at www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=76973&d=1428176594

A leaf with stock 16" tires would get twice the range at 35 mph it does at 70 mph. Below that speed efficiency gets so high it's silly to chart. Maximum efficiency on the stock tires happens around 12mph on the leaf assuming you aren't using climate control (high speeds required to get the best range if you blast the heat).

I do find it hard to believe that any Tesla would get more miles at 5 mph than they do at 10 mph. The chart you replied to is likely ignoring vampire / user comfort drains. It probably needs a disclaimer about climate control.

 

[run-the-joules]

Agree. I think the “P” is already baked in. We are all going to get an offer to unlock, for a nice fee, after they get more testing and road miles on this hardware.

Well, that's about the most ridiculously optimistic thing I've read today, and I do not for one damned moment think it'll turn out to be true.

 

[SageBrush]

.


The rims themselves dictate tires, the tires (if they have different widths and rolling resistances) will affect mileage more at low speeds. At high speeds aero effects (air resistance and wind) will overwhelm the rolling resistance factor.

It's common to see better efficiency with lighter/narrower tires at low speeds. It's why I have 15" wheels on both my Prius and my Leaf.

See Range Chart - My Nissan Leaf Forum for a range chart backed by real world measurements. Or see an old copy I put here at www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=76973&d=1428176594

Yep.

A related way to think about it: The energy/distance penalty from tyres/wheels is fixed, while the total energy/distance is proportional (somewhat quadratically) to speed.

 

[AlanSqB]

Well, that's about the most ridiculously optimistic thing I've read today, and I do not for one damned moment think it'll turn out to be true.

The history of the 85/P85 says it’s possible, even if it’s not probable.

 

[T34ME]

.It's common to see better efficiency with lighter/narrower tires at low speeds.

Then shows us the algorithms used rather than an unsupported chart. PriusChat found just the opposite to be true (with an unsupported chart). No, I'm not going to post that chart. I just want to see the formulae used to support this model 3 document.

 

[insaneoctane]

This document makes absolutely no sense! Say a vehicle is moving at 5mph, there is absolutely no affect on range between 18" and 19" rims. The faster the vehicle goes, the more affect on range between wheel sizes, not vice versa. Where are these data points coming from? Show us your algorithms and formulae.

It makes sense to me, rolling resistance is the dominant driver of the difference until the aerodynamics start to take over and they start to converge ...


From the 2nd to the last page of the document :

Vehicle Configuration # 0
Gross Vehicle Weight (lbs) 4805
33% Curb Mass (lbs) 3837
Loaded Vehicle Weight (lbs) 4137
Equivalent Test Weight (lbs) 4250 (4126 ‐4375)
Base wheel / Tire (F&R) 235/45 R18
Target Road Load A lbf 38.51
B lbf/mph ‐0.0811
C lbf/mph^2 0.01610
RLHP @ 50mph 9.95
Sub configuration # 1
Gross Vehicle Weight (lbs) 4805
33% Curb Mass (lbs) 3848
Loaded Vehicle Weight (lbs) 4148
Equivalent Test Weight (lbs) 4250 (4126 ‐4375)
Wheel / Tire 235/40 R19
Target Road Load A lbf 42.30
B lbf/mph ‐0.0212
C lbf/mph^2 0.01691
Road Load HP @ 50mph 11.13

This shows the coefficients from the coast down test and should be quite accurate to compare the wheel and tire combinations.

I calculated Wh/mile for 5 to 100 MPH using A, B, C coefficients and then divided 80,000 Wh by the result for the range at the given speed....

 

[FlyingKiwi]

This shows the coefficients from the coast down test and should be quite accurate to compare the wheel and tire combinations.

I calculated Wh/mile for 5 to 100 MPH using A, B, C coefficients and then divided 80,000 Wh by the result for the range at the given speed....

You've neglected all the internal power consumption.. Inverter, coolant pumps, infotainment etc. so at higher speed your graph is approaching something approximately accurate as most of those loads are steady in terms of watts, and decline in terms of w.hr/mile as speed increases. But the low end of your graph is going to be hugely wrong. At 5mph the internal electrical loads will suck the battery dry in the 20hours it takes you to get 100miles (or something like that). At 0mph your range before battery depletion is... zero

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

What @FlyingKiwi said!

I'm guesstimating pack to wheels efficiency is +/75%, plus another ~200W for the car to be in a ready state. The five cycle test results strongly suggest range at a steady 55mph is ~360 miles, which gives me a good idea of the CdA (Crr is in the document), and from there extrapolating range at different speeds is I think accurate.

 

[scottf200]

Did anyone catch this on the sticker?

"The best vehicle rates 119 MPGe."
126 MPGe

Relative MPGe numbers...

 

[shokunin]

So the battery is capable of outputting in excess of 400 kW or 536+ HP. Nice.

Not quite. That's the pack voltage at rest 400v. Once you put a load on the pack, the voltage will drop. At max 1000 amps you could see the pack voltage drop 20+% down to 320v. The P100DL's can handle 1700 amps, if they could keep the same 400v at max discharge that would be 680kw or 911 hp.

 

[T34ME]

The five cycle test results strongly suggest range at a steady 55mph is ~360 miles.

Yet, the chart above clearly shows a range of 436 miles at a steady state 55mph for LR3. Who is right? Perhaps we are being too optimistic.

 

[FlyingKiwi]

Yet, the chart above clearly shows a range of 436 miles at a steady state 55mph for LR3. Who is right? Perhaps we are being too optimistic.

The 5 cycle test is just that, a test in lab conditions. It's not real world, but it is accurate and repeatable and not too far off ideal real world conditions.

The spreadsheet neglects some significant power consumption so we know it's wrong and highly optimistic as a result.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Yet, the chart above clearly shows a range of 436 miles at a steady state 55mph for LR3. Who is right? Perhaps we are being too optimistic.

My money's on the five cycle test. It has 320 miles at a steady 55mph, and the precise energy used during each sequential test. Extrapolating range at 55mph is as easy as scaling the energy used for the existing ~320 miles/~70kWh to the remaining ~8+kWh.

 

[insaneoctane]

I admit that the chart is missing some power consumption offsets and I'm sorry I didn't disclose that up front. That will teach me not to try and post graphs and other more complex comparisons from my phone squeezing it in during lunch

 

[FlyingKiwi]

It does however show something I didn't expect.. ignoring the left hand side of the graph and the missing power consumption (which should be the same for either wheel/tyre selection).. I would have expected as speed increased the benefit of the aero wheel increased since the aerodynamic drag becomes more and more dominant with increasing speed, so the difference between the 18s and 19s should increase, but that graph doesn't appear to show it. it seems to be more constant or maybe even slightly declining.

 

[Meats]

Relative MPGe numbers...

Are those mid-size though? seem to be in the compact category