-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Let's discuss Dual Motor range
- Thread starter ModelNforNerd
- Start date
Why? 18" wheels are the base option on the 3P. The 20" are part of the $5k Performance package. Even then you'd be talking about wheel and tire efficiency, not the efficiency differences due to the car itself. You can put 20" wheels and PS4S tires on any of the cars and expect to see less range.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
1) That webpage was likely written when it was "20 wheels 'standard', this two-tier pricing is a very new situation. Given the speed at which Tesla's internal comms move it seems unlikely the numbers somehow reflect the new tiers.
2) Unlikely that Tesla would give numbers for non-marque build (in fact it's been suggested that the 310mi is more a reflection of 19" wheels, than anything).
3) Insider info is suggesting that the enhanced disks won't fit 18". (it's on the board somewhere), that'd make it even more weird to have it based on 18" wheels.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
@commasign
You may be right here, at least according to the CARB paperwork filed.
I do find it interesting that AWD and AWD-P are supposedly the same range. That would be a first in the Tesla lineup.
Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor and Performance CARB filing shows interesting range results
We'll likely learn a little more when the EPA paperwork comes out.
You may be right here, at least according to the CARB paperwork filed.
I do find it interesting that AWD and AWD-P are supposedly the same range. That would be a first in the Tesla lineup.
Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor and Performance CARB filing shows interesting range results
We'll likely learn a little more when the EPA paperwork comes out.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
You'd think that the P would be tuned on the software side for torque and performance, as opposed to traction and range.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
JeffK
Well-Known Member
From a pure physics standpoint the energy used to get to 60 mph is the same regardless of how quickly you do it. Even with the software unlocked you're simply sending more power through the same motor but for a shorter duration.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
I'm not going to try unpack that sentence but if the test procedure doesn't call for the extra acceleration rate it's reasonable to expect the vehicle won't try to use the extra "performance".
It's not clear that the P has much in the way of hardware differences that would show up on a dyno test. Suspension softness, for example, shouldn't matter on the very smooth surface (no bumps or dips) that is inherent to the dyno.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
That isn't quite true. Because the tires are always going to slip a bit and the slipping versus force applied isn't linear, faster acceleration will create some inefficiencies. Likewise in the motor, faster acceleration will be somewhat less efficient.
However it's quite possible that the UDDS doesn't call for vehicles to fully utilize what the P is capable of, thus the D and P being basically indistinguishable from each other on this test.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Again, from a pure physics standpoint. Not talking about edge cases.
Secondly depending on the motor a higher load can be more efficient instead of less efficient especially if the motor was designed for the higher load.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
Your "pure physics" is a mislabel, it's "incomplete physics, thus a poorer match with the real world". Spherical cow milk is a poor substitute for putting on your cereal.
Same battery, same power electronics, same motor, same drivetrain [likely same tires, the 18" ones]. It appears the only difference is the software that allows more current to flow pushing further on the maximum operating envelope (and almost certainly causing more wear when doing so). That's not going to be in a more efficient mode.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Your "pure physics" is a mislabel, it's "incomplete physics, thus a poorer match with the real world". Spherical cow milk is a poor substitute for putting on your cereal.
Same battery, same power electronics, same motor, same drivetrain [likely same tires, the 18" ones]. It appears the only difference is the software that allows more current to flow pushing further on the maximum operating envelope (and almost certainly causing more wear when doing so). That's not going to be in a more efficient mode.
You could use the same argument against the laws of physics but they are still laws of physics regardless of the corrections you have to make to get real life numbers.
Secondly you are assuming the motor was only designed for AWD and is simply being pushed further than designed for the Performance version. You actually don't know this to be the case and it's pretty unlikely since it was designed to be efficient and used for high torque applications such as the Tesla Semi, and next gen Roadster. It's more likely that the motor was designed to be a great performer and is simply sandbagged for the AWD to allow it to have a longer life.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
In this situation you're the one arguing against the law of physics.
Proof is in the "prediction doesn't match measurement".EDIT: Put another way; If the set of "laws of physics" you're using leads to a prediction that's different than what actually happens [within the level precision that you can measure and care about] you either need to recheck your math or you need a better set of "laws". This is an axiom of physics. I try to calculate the orbit of Mercury using Newtonian physics and find it doesn't quite match Mercury's path? I don't go arguing that the planet Mercury is wrong, I get myself a better [often simply more complete] physics model.
Incorrect, this is not my assumption.
Longer life here is from less wear, right? Wearing due to pushing performance levels is the result of increased resistance. Increased resistance is another way of saying energy losses (stuff getting in the way of what we want to happen, so diverting some effort from where we want to go).
Last edited:
Dr. J
Active Member
Spherical milk, or milk from spherical cows?
Which motor--the front or rear?
Interesting discussion.
ℬête Noire
Active Member
ℬête Noire
Active Member
It's lacking information to come to certain conclusions, yet. I see an important one being where Tesla is applying the extra current to get the extra acceleration of the P. If the ratio between front and rear motor power output remains the same in the D as the P under maximum acceleration of each, then there probably won't be a lot of difference. Just a little extra loses inherent in pushing the gear further to the edge in the P, if you use that acceleration (or top end speed, I guess, but that's pretty esoteric for most people). If however the extra oomph is disproportionately coming from increased power in the front motor that probably means the difference will be bigger as the front motor is overall roughly 10% lower efficiency compared to the rear (depending on where you are on the curve).
This is probably also why they didn't go with a smaller rear motor in the Model 3 D than Model 3 RWD, like the Model S D was compared to the RWD Model S. If they had done that, moving the balance of work done more towards the front motor, the net would likely be less efficiency.
Now if they also have selected slightly different gearing ratios in the transaxles for the D vs P? Well then that'd be a sizable curve-ball in all of this. However there's not been any real indication that that's the case as far as I know?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing
- Marketplace listing