On the dyno with those guards/screens beside the wheels the aerodynamics are not representative of real world conditions so that is not relevant. The dyno controller should have been applying appropriate load as described from Road Load A B & C coefficients which I assume are calculated from coast down test data.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
It's alive! [All spoiler, no speculation]
- Thread starter omgwtfbyobbq
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
On the dyno with those guards/screens beside the wheels the aerodynamics are not representative of real world conditions so that is not relevant. The dyno controller should have been applying appropriate load as described from Road Load A B & C coefficients which I assume are calculated from coast down test data.
It would be very theoretical. Just like the Model S can *theoretically* charge at 330A x 400V = 132 kW. By the time the voltage builds up towards 400V, the max charging speed has dropped below 50 kW. More would damage the battery.
But I think Tesla might say that a 525A charger is "200 kW". It's close enough.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
When Supercharging v3 goes online, an EV stop and restroom break on the NJ Turnpike will be shorter than it would be in an ICE.
Game Changer.
Game Changer.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
All of this leads me to ask this very interesting question:
Is the car's trip software going to be set for 310 miles permanently?
So even though you know that if you're driving in the right conditions, you SHOULD have ~24 miles of range left, will the car start blaring dummy lights at you to recharge?
Is the car's trip software going to be set for 310 miles permanently?
So even though you know that if you're driving in the right conditions, you SHOULD have ~24 miles of range left, will the car start blaring dummy lights at you to recharge?
Yeah I immediately noticed that as well. Given that it states "the vehicle", and not just "the pack", that's pretty amazing for the charge port connector. There's already concern about supercharger handles getting too hot with the current[1] ~350A charging.
It makes me wonder if the charge port on a model 3 includes longer pins for increased contact area, and we might see a revision of the handle on future supercharger versions.
[1]See what I did there?
Uuuuuh, no. Nothing like that will be possible in the forseeable future. The laws of physics make that matter problematic. Even with batteries that would allow it the loading technology would have the problem of currents that would turn the charger into a soldering iron with the slightest bit of ohmic resistance.
There are some projects on the way which work with around double of what Tesla superchargers can do atm and those have very serious heat/cooling issues already.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
You conveniently just ignored the 1st phrase: "when supercharging v3 goes online".
The onboard charger is rated for 525A, as stated in this document. It's a matter of current and cooling, of both the battery pack and the cabling.
Will we get to 525A? Unlikely any time soon, I'll concede that.
3/4 of that? somewhere in the 400A range? Achievable in short order.
The pack density has been commented on before (actually implying that the pack was less energy dense than current).
But the pack also contains a bunch of other stuff: the charger, HVJB, controllers, DC-DC converter, contactors, fuses, etc... So I wonder if that 480Kg (~1,056 lb) spec is battery weight or pack weight.
I suspect the latter, as the Model S 85 pack is ~1,200 lbs, including all of the pack structure, cooling tubes, cabling , contactors, etc... According to one of @wk057 's posts about 300 lbs of that is pack stuff, and the battery modules weigh about 900 lbs.
I'd be willing to bet the actual battery modules may only be 700-800 lbs or so.
So if, as your post points out, the battery is really 72KWh, then the previous musings about the new 2170 cells being less energy dense are almost certainly incorrect...
Not the onboard charger, that's on an off-board charger. And since they say the vehicle can accept 525A, I would assume this is in the very near future.
But yeah, I'd agree you'd be pretty close to fossil fuels with ~725 mph charging. A 20 minute stop would give you something like 225 miles of added range. You would just plug in and go to the restroom, and when you get back to the car it would be pretty much finished charging.
With a fossil car, you would first spend 5-10 minutes filling up and paying, then you might spend 10 minutes going to the restroom.
The time spent would be similar.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Exactly. And in the example I gave (NJ Turnpike), the EV would now have the advantage. New Jersey has a stupid state law where you are not allowed to pump your own gas, so the timing of your trip is always at the mercy of someone whose entire life has led up to them pumping gas as an actual grown-up, adult job......
HankLloydRight
No Roads
There are also very often gas lines at the New Jersey Turnpike rest stops which add a 5-10 minute wait.
Even with just four stalls, I've never waited for a supercharger.
Even with just four stalls, I've never waited for a supercharger.
I doubt it. There's always a safety margin in electrical specs. The S/X today can probably charge at a higher rate for a few minutes when the battery state is favorable.
It's also very unlikely that Tesla has been building Supercharger infrastructure to support much higher charging rates in the next few years.
I do think that Tesla has a roadmap to increase charge rate on the S/X before 2020. There's no upside for Tesla to give faster charging to the Model 3 in the next couple of years.
Yeah, I saw that on the original window sticker thread earlier. Not quite sure how that works...
The thing I thought was most interesting was the 334 mile five cycle result - like the model S 70D was, this car is apparently being derated by Tesla to avoid stealing S100D sales.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
There's not?
1. Lines at Superchargers. There's likely to be less congestion if the largest segment of your vehicle lineup can get in and out quickly.
2. As we've alluded to above....this might put as at, or very near the psychological tipping point for mass EV adoption. If you aren't waiting 45 minutes to regain what an ICE can in range in 15 minutes, that's a whole new ballgame.
So what is the significance of the RLHP @ 50 mph (Road Load Horsepower) values?
The EPA document lists values for the 2 wheel configurations.
18" - 9.95
19" - 11.13
So the 19" is 11.8% more than the 18"
Does anybody know how these values would effect rated range for a car with 19" rims?
I'm assuming its more complicated than just saying the 19" rims would be rated at 277 miles, but maybe not?
The EPA document lists values for the 2 wheel configurations.
18" - 9.95
19" - 11.13
So the 19" is 11.8% more than the 18"
Does anybody know how these values would effect rated range for a car with 19" rims?
I'm assuming its more complicated than just saying the 19" rims would be rated at 277 miles, but maybe not?
Those items don't increase Tesla sales.
Also, amps probably won't increase. Voltage will double. Amps may actually decrease at first.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Tesla asked for a reduction in range to 310, so it might be higher than that. I'm just taking it literally at the moment, which is a ~12% difference at 50mph, a < 12% difference below 50mph, and a > 12% difference above 50mph. I imagine someone will run some rough (but accurate) calculations about range at different speeds sooner or later.
Similar threads
