Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

lightweight wheels model 3 performance 0-60 testing

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
44lbs of rotational weight is not equal to 90lbs of static weight, its about equivalent to ~51lbs, depending on various variables.
You can play with the math on the 2nd tab on this spreadsheet:
I looked at the spreadsheet but I am not so sure I agree with all of the data that was entered or even with how the calculations are done. First what does "mass of wheelset 1" represent. Is that the mass of one wheel? Mass of all of the wheels combined? Mass of one wheel and tire combination?

I am actually moving from heavier tires to lighter ones as well. Since all of the tire is beyond the wheel's outermost diameter those tire differences should be factored in as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lindenwood
Save your money, it makes zero difference. I removed iirc, 48 pounds between wheels and rotors, and my car was down to the 1/100th of a second identical on a 0-60. I was able to do the same times for a little lower SOCs on the lightweight setup than the OEM setup could, but it never actually went any faster. Driving feedback was awesome though, and why I'm swapping out the new car's uberturbines for lighter setup.
"down to the 1/100th of a second identical on a 0-60"

Dragy says otherwise.

You went from a 3.21 0-60 mph "Stock".


3-21.jpg


To a 3.14 with "right at 20 lb total lighter." "Boom!"

Boom!.jpg

20 lb lighter.jpg


I went through every single Model 3 Performance time on Dragy. The OVERWHELMING theme with the top 10 cars is that they were on smaller lighter rims or they had the Ghost. The only exception is in the 1/4 mile with a European car that has the new hairpin windings motor. That makes it accelerate faster on the top end even with the UberHeavy wheels. That car still has a normal 60' and 0-60 mph time.

Why tell everyone that smaller lighter wheels is "identical on a 0-60" when your own data shows otherwise? Is this why you never actually posted the data before?

If I see the same benefits you saw then it will ABSOLUTELY be worth it to switch to the smaller lighter wheels.
 
What most people don't include in their dragy posts are the battery temp (probably because they don't have SMT). Often you'll see the SOC, but that seems to be less of an influence as long as it's 70-80%+. However, the battery temp can have a significant impact.

For example, at 86% SOC, 44C cell temp mid & 90F ambient temp, I managed a 3.22s 0-60mph in my '22 M3P. I've seen high 3.3x & even low 3.4x 0-60 times testing at similar voltages, but at lower ambient & battery temps (mid 30s C).

I'll be installing lighter wheels soon so I look forward to seeing the impact. However, there will be other factors at play besides weight.

Stock 20" Uberturbines w/ the 235/35R20 Pirelli P Zero PZ4 T0
vs
18" FastEV EV01+ Aero wheels w/ 235/45R18 PS4S tires

Of course, the EV01+ wheel will be smaller, lighter & more aerodynamic. The PS4S is also a better tire, but the M3P doesn't seem to be traction limited as narrower & low rolling resistance tires often yield better 0-60 times.
  • Wheel/Tire Weight: ~9-10 lbs less per wheel
  • Wheel/Tire Diameter: ~0.2" less (slightly higher/shorter gearing for acceleration)
  • Tire Tread Width is ~0.3" narrower and the section width is ~0.2" narrower despite both being 235 width tires (smaller contact patch with the road)
  • The rolling resistance will also vary between the tires due to the size, tread, compound, etc.
I hope that the 0-60mph time will improve, but realistically I expect maybe a 0.05 improvement (~3.15 +/-). That should be below 3.0s w/ 1 ft rollout. I am hoping for an improvement in range/efficiency. I also look forward to the added sidewall for pothole/curb rash protection for my wife.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpgxsvcd
@EVolv3d How about 245/45R18 instead of the 235s?

It's on my list as a consideration. It's about 1.5 lbs heavier per tire, 0.5" wider tread width, and larger diameter/circumference. Theoretically it should accelerate slower (weight, rotational inertia & gearing) and have worse range/efficiency, but of course have better lateral grip/handling. Would it actually make any perceivable difference on acceleration in the real world? No.

The main things stopping me are that I'm afraid of the appearance of the even larger sidewall with the 235/45R18 let alone a 245/45R18 and my wife primarily uses the car as her daily commuter since she drives ~60 miles per day and we often take road trips. That's why I leaned towards the aero wheels. I can always buy a set of track wheels if I have the opportunity to do some more spirited or track driving.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpgxsvcd
I looked at the spreadsheet but I am not so sure I agree with all of the data that was entered or even with how the calculations are done. First what does "mass of wheelset 1" represent. Is that the mass of one wheel? Mass of all of the wheels combined? Mass of one wheel and tire combination?

I am actually moving from heavier tires to lighter ones as well. Since all of the tire is beyond the wheel's outermost diameter those tire differences should be factored in as well.

A wheelset is all the wheels is the mass of all the wheels and tires. Over on the right you can see how to tweak it to assume that all of the mass is in the outer edge of the rim (to get a "biggest case difference) or treat them as solid cylinders with evenly distributed mass.

Just just now I've set it up to be basically your scenario, 11lbs less per wheel/tire, 0-60mph in 3 seconds, assuming *all* of the mass difference is in the outer perimeter of the wheel, and that does make it so the inertia has about exactly the same energy cost as the mass, which would make the 44lbs equivalent to about 88lbs in that scenario.

But of course the mass difference is distributed a ways inward in real life so its a good bit less than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpgxsvcd
"down to the 1/100th of a second identical on a 0-60"

Dragy says otherwise.

You went from a 3.21 0-60 mph "Stock".


View attachment 814647

To a 3.14 with "right at 20 lb total lighter." "Boom!"

View attachment 814648
View attachment 814649

I went through every single Model 3 Performance time on Dragy. The OVERWHELMING theme with the top 10 cars is that they were on smaller lighter rims or they had the Ghost. The only exception is in the 1/4 mile with a European car that has the new hairpin windings motor. That makes it accelerate faster on the top end even with the UberHeavy wheels. That car still has a normal 60' and 0-60 mph time.

Why tell everyone that smaller lighter wheels is "identical on a 0-60" when your own data shows otherwise? Is this why you never actually posted the data before?

If I see the same benefits you saw then it will ABSOLUTELY be worth it to switch to the smaller lighter wheels.

You shouldn't make assumptions on things you don't know about. Because that 2.97 second 0-60 time was done on the stock 19" wheels with OEM continental all season tires and with lightweight rotors.

After I installed the lightweight wheels to reduce the total weight from 20 pounds to 48 pounds lighter, my 0-60 times slowed down, even though I went to stickier tires.

The 0.05 variation in times could easily be written off by environmental differences.

Boom.

<ps> those times have been posted in multiple places, because I was the first person to get a sub 3.0 second 0-60 time recorded and I was pretty happy with it.
 
What most people don't include in their dragy posts are the battery temp (probably because they don't have SMT). Often you'll see the SOC, but that seems to be less of an influence as long as it's 70-80%+. However, the battery temp can have a significant impact.

For example, at 86% SOC, 44C cell temp mid & 90F ambient temp, I managed a 3.22s 0-60mph in my '22 M3P. I've seen high 3.3x & even low 3.4x 0-60 times testing at similar voltages, but at lower ambient & battery temps (mid 30s C).

I'll be installing lighter wheels soon so I look forward to seeing the impact. However, there will be other factors at play besides weight.

Stock 20" Uberturbines w/ the 235/35R20 Pirelli P Zero PZ4 T0
vs
18" FastEV EV01+ Aero wheels w/ 235/45R18 PS4S tires

Of course, the EV01+ wheel will be smaller, lighter & more aerodynamic. The PS4S is also a better tire, but the M3P doesn't seem to be traction limited as narrower & low rolling resistance tires often yield better 0-60 times.
  • Wheel/Tire Weight: ~9-10 lbs less per wheel
  • Wheel/Tire Diameter: ~0.2" less (slightly higher/shorter gearing for acceleration)
  • Tire Tread Width is ~0.3" narrower and the section width is ~0.2" narrower despite both being 235 width tires (smaller contact patch with the road)
  • The rolling resistance will also vary between the tires due to the size, tread, compound, etc.
I hope that the 0-60mph time will improve, but realistically I expect maybe a 0.05 improvement (~3.15 +/-). That should be below 3.0s w/ 1 ft rollout. I am hoping for an improvement in range/efficiency. I also look forward to the added sidewall for pothole/curb rash protection for my wife.

100% agree, that's why when I was testing my runs, I posted not only the battery temps, made sure they were all above 105 degrees (or 110 degrees, can't remember, this was years ago) and made sure the road temp was within 10 degrees as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EVolv3d
I went from the ~22lb 235/35R20 tires to my current 28lb and 2% taller 255/35R20. Thus, we are talking a 3-4% difference in force through the contact patch available for linear acceleration compared to stock. I haven’t measured performance, and it is pretty subtle, but I do believe I can feel a perceptible reduction in acceleration.

Please note, I am attributing at least half of any perceived difference to the simple change in mechanical ratio from the larger tires. That said, I am intrigued about the idea of going from my 60lb, 27” wheel/tire combo down to a 40lb, 26” combo (I.e. an 18lb 18x8 with a 22lb 225/45R18). Relative to what I am experiencing, that could net a good 6+% increase in effective power, or about 30+hp, which I expect would certainly be perceptible.
 
Last edited:
A wheelset is all the wheels is the mass of all the wheels and tires. Over on the right you can see how to tweak it to assume that all of the mass is in the outer edge of the rim (to get a "biggest case difference) or treat them as solid cylinders with evenly distributed mass.

Just just now I've set it up to be basically your scenario, 11lbs less per wheel/tire, 0-60mph in 3 seconds, assuming *all* of the mass difference is in the outer perimeter of the wheel, and that does make it so the inertia has about exactly the same energy cost as the mass, which would make the 44lbs equivalent to about 88lbs in that scenario.

But of course the mass difference is distributed a ways inward in real life so its a good bit less than that.
Does this account for the basic loss from a linear standpoint? As in, losing 10lb per wheel of mass means the motors no longer have to either spin up the mass or simply push it down the road?
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: mpgxsvcd
After I installed the lightweight wheels to reduce the total weight from 20 pounds to 48 pounds lighter, my 0-60 times slowed down, even though I went to stickier tires.

The 0.05 variation in times could easily be written off by environmental differences.

I've seen this happen to a lot of M3Ps. They go with lighter wheels, but stickier and/or wider tires. Looking at Dragy & DragTimes results, the common theme seems to be that lighter, narrower and lower rolling resistance tires result in better acceleration. It seems that the M3P does a great job at modulating power/torque and isn't traction limited. The additional friction/rolling resistance seems to actually hurt straight-line acceleration performance. Many of the fastest M3s are either the stealth models or the M3LR w/ Ingenext's ghost mod with their OEM wheels/tires. Of course the story will change once they go to a road course/hpde track with some twisties.

A wheelset is all the wheels is the mass of all the wheels and tires. Over on the right you can see how to tweak it to assume that all of the mass is in the outer edge of the rim (to get a "biggest case difference) or treat them as solid cylinders with evenly distributed mass.
Just just now I've set it up to be basically your scenario, 11lbs less per wheel/tire, 0-60mph in 3 seconds, assuming *all* of the mass difference is in the outer perimeter of the wheel, and that does make it so the inertia has about exactly the same energy cost as the mass, which would make the 44lbs equivalent to about 88lbs in that scenario.

But of course the mass difference is distributed a ways inward in real life so its a good bit less than that.

Exactly. You can go with a smaller diameter wheel and it brings the wheel mass (of the barrels) inwards which is a good thing because there's less mass distributed towards the outer edge of the wheel/tire. However, we still don't know the actual weight distribution of the mass and a lot of the savings can come from further inwards with the spokes. People upgrading to lighter wheels often go with larger and heavier tires which gain weight in the worst place for rotational inertia (at the outer edge of the wheel). Add that to the increase in rolling resistance and you can end up with similar or slower acceleration numbers since we aren't traction limited.

It's a completely different mindset (and chasings hundredths of a second) compared to ICE vehicles where you have near endless powertrain upgrades and often want wider/stickier tires for better traction and acceleration (within reason). Most powerful ICE cars are traction limited and not having to consider rolling resistance and "too sticky" of a tire hurting acceleration. Since we can't mod Tesla's for better acceleration, we're pretty much stuck with tuning wheels/tire, stripping the car for weight reduction, or going on a diet/finding a lighter driver. One of the fastest validated 1/4 mile times that I've seen for an M3P actually stated that they had a 100lb person drive the car. Maybe some day there will be controller & motor upgrades/swaps. Or we could get lucky and Tesla pushes out another OTA update that shaves another tenth off. There are a few threads comparing acceleration between the 5L battery w/ 3D1 motor & the newer 3L battery & 3D6 motor. It's interesting stuff, but it doesn't seem like there's more than 0.1 seconds to be gained really and it's mostly top-end at higher speeds (with a near identical 0-60 where most of us will spend time unless we're at the track).

Regardless, if we're at a traffic light next to another M3P.. the winner is going to be determined by reaction time followed by battery temp/SOC (& the max discharge). The wheel & vehicle/passenger/cargo weight will follow that. These cars are very consistent.
 
Last edited:
Does this account for the basic loss from a linear standpoint? As in, losing 10lb per wheel of mass means the motors no longer have to either spin up the mass or simply push it down the road?

This is a correct observation, but can also be easily calculated. Linear or rotational velocity, both represent energy the propulsion had to put into the system.

For the linear velocity, the weight is the weight. Taking 40 lbs off the car in the wheels is no different than in the interior. But how much energy is that?

40 LBS at 60 MPH is 6,500J. So it takes 6,500J less to get to 60 MPH if your car weighs 40LBS less, no matter where you removed it.

Now for rotational, where people often think there is a lot of energy, and the rumor of 4X or 10X the weight impact comes from. Without a specific wheel/tire combo, we can only guess, since rotational energy depends on the mass moment of inertia of the object. To simplify, let's assume the 40 lbs you took away was a hoop that was 18" in diameter. Seems like a reasonable average for the location of the weight savings for going from a heavier 20" to a lighter 18". In this case:

40 LBS as an 18" hoop at 720 RPM (60 MPH) is: 2,700J.

So, the change due to linear velocity is greater by more than 2X vs the rotational velocity. It's not true that in a 0-60 MPH acceleration that the rotational mass is much more important than linear mass.

And all of this is against the background that a 4,300 lb Tesla (pretty light with a driver) takes 702,000J to get to 60 MPH, so you can see that 2,700J is pretty minor.

I am intrigued about the idea of going from my 60lb, 27” wheel/tire combo down to a 40lb, 26” combo (I.e. an 18lb 18x8 with a 22lb 225/45R18). Relative to what I am experiencing, that could net a good 6-8% increase in effective power, or about 30-40hp, which I expect would certainly be perceptible.
You can run the math above and prove to yourself that going to a wheelset that weighs nothing is required to take 6%-8% off the energy required to get the car to 60 MPH. 240lbs of wheels is 5.5% of the mass of the car, plus another ~2% for the rotational energy. 20lbs taken out of the inner part of the wheelset flat out won't come close. It's more like 2%.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sam1
I've seen this happen to a lot of M3Ps. They go with lighter wheels, but stickier and/or wider tires. Looking at Dragy & DragTimes results, the common theme seems to be that lighter, narrower and lower rolling resistance tires result in better acceleration. It seems that the M3P does a great job at modulating power/torque and isn't traction limited. The additional friction/rolling resistance seems to actually hurt straight-line acceleration performance. Many of the fastest M3s are either the stealth models or the M3LR w/ Ingenext's ghost mod with their OEM wheels/tires. Of course the story will change once they go to a road course/hpde track with some twisties.

A wheelset is all the wheels is the mass of all the wheels and tires. Over on the right you can see how to tweak it to assume that all of the mass is in the outer edge of the rim (to get a "biggest case difference) or treat them as solid cylinders with evenly distributed mass.
The first part is not true on width and sticky tires for 0-60 times. Once you get into the 1/4 mile, then yes. I'm one of the few people that have done full 1/2 mile runs logged on the M3P with various setups. everything up to the 330' or so is pretty much identical, then when you get past that is really the only time you start seeing a difference, more than likely because of resistance and aerodynamics. And, the car is absolutely traction limited, depending on the surface it's on.

On the 1/2 mile runs, my 18" aftermarkets had a similar ET, but a lower trap speed than the 19" turbines. The 18" picked up a bit of time mid range, but then started slowing down when aero came into play. This isn't like one or two runs, I probably have 20 runs at a timed event at an airstrip doing it.

But, as I said before, all you have to do to prove me wrong is go and buy a set of wheels, tires, and rotors for a few thousand dollars and start logging times. There's no reason for me to argue it with anyone, you're not spending my money, so feel free to buy and do anything you want :)
 
That said, I am intrigued about the idea of going from my 60lb, 27” wheel/tire combo down to a 40lb, 26” combo (I.e. an 18lb 18x8 with a 22lb 225/45R18). Relative to what I am experiencing, that could net a good 6+% increase in effective power, or about 30+hp, which I expect would certainly be perceptible.
I'm kind of curious if going to a taller tire would actually help out more in the midrange because it would keep the motors in a lower RPM range where they make more HP/TQ. Similar situation between the MYP and M3P; whatshisname on here said that his MYP has no problem pulling on his M3P from a highway speed roll. If they use the same gearboxes, that MYP tire is about 8% bigger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anth_princ
And, the car is absolutely traction limited, depending on the surface it's on.
In low traction conditions, yes, but it basically won't ever go more than 0.9G, while a normal street tire can easily go 1.1G+. Every time I've raced the car I see 0.9G peak acceleration and 1.2+G peak braking. The tires are more capable than the drivetrain puts out.
 
I'm kind of curious if going to a taller tire would actually help out more in the midrange because it would keep the motors in a lower RPM range where they make more HP/TQ. Similar situation between the MYP and M3P; whatshisname on here said that his MYP has no problem pulling on his M3P from a highway speed roll. If they use the same gearboxes, that MYP tire is about 8% bigger.

It should theoretically help, but the MYP is also rated and dynos at more power than the M3P. The MYP is rated at 393kW vs the US' M3P at 377kW (the difference coming from the rear motor). The US doesn't have the 393kW CAT3 3D6 M3P yet, only the 3D1. As you can see below, the MYP makes 393kW regardless of the 3D1 or 3D6 rear motor. You can see the MYP has considerably more top-end and makes 16 kW (~20whp) more. This would suggest that Tesla may be software limiting the M3P compared to the MYP even with similar hardware configurations.

M3P (dotted) vs MYP (solid) dyno:

Model Y Performance vs Model 3 Performance dyno.JPG


Power Ratings for various M3 & MY configurations:

Motor Power.jpg
 
40 LBS as an 18" hoop at 720 RPM (60 MPH) is: 2,700J.




You can run the math above and prove to yourself that going to a wheelset that weighs nothing is required to take 6%-8% off the energy required to get the car to 60 MPH. 240lbs of wheels is 5.5% of the mass of the car, plus another ~2% for the rotational energy. 20lbs taken out of the inner part of the wheelset flat out won't come close. It's more like 2%.
To be clear, part of that estimate comes from the 4% increase in mechanical advantage from the smaller overall tire diameter. Part of that is 80lbs of raw mass off the 4300 vehicle which is another ~2%. And my previous math indicates that losing this much weight at an average of more like 10-12” radius (vice a 9” radius) would reduce rotational energy by about 1.5% at 60mph mph.
 
And my previous math indicates that losing this much weight at an average of more like 10-12” radius (vice a 9” radius) would reduce rotational energy by about 1.5% at 60mph mph.
Yeah, removing the weight at 24" on a 20" wheel would be great. It's just that it's physically impossible. Yes, I am aware some of the mass is in the tire which is outside this, but the majority of the tire weight is in the tread, and that isn't changing much. A LOT of your weight savings will be far inside the 18" diameter of your 18" wheel.

You're also over-estimating the Uberturbine weight by 5 lbs:

You're realistically going to save 15lbs per corner, which is 1.4%. Your MMOI will save you another 1%.

Tire diameter is not HP in the way lighter tires are. It's just changing what gear you are in which will change acceleration at different points in the speed curve, but it will always have tradeoffs.
 
The first part is not true on width and sticky tires for 0-60 times. Once you get into the 1/4 mile, then yes. And, the car is absolutely traction limited, depending on the surface it's on.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I've yet to see evidence of the car being mechanically traction limited by the tire. The quickest M3Ps on Dragy & DragTimes run 235 width tires.. some even run 225s. I haven't seen a prepped, sticky drag strip or racing slicks make any significant difference in performance compared to street times for the M3P (0-60mph, 60-ft, 1/8 mile, etc.). My observation/opinion is that Tesla is limiting the power/torque/acceleration in the software before it reaches the traction limitation. It could easily be traction limited if Tesla "unlocked" the power or disabled electronic traction control. This is why so many M3P owners can run consistent 0-60mph times regardless of the location (street or drag strip). Of course the lack of driver skill also helps with that :)

In low traction conditions, yes, but it basically won't ever go more than 0.9G, while a normal street tire can easily go 1.1G+. Every time I've raced the car I see 0.9G peak acceleration and 1.2+G peak braking. The tires are more capable than the drivetrain puts out.

This is a great point. I've never seen the acceleration reach 1.0G on straight-line acceleration.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mpgxsvcd
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I've yet to see evidence of the car being mechanically traction limited by the tire. The quickest M3Ps on Dragy & DragTimes run 235 width tires.. some even run 225s. I haven't seen a prepped, sticky drag strip or racing slicks make any significant difference in performance compared to street times for the M3P (0-60mph, 60-ft, 1/8 mile, etc.). My observation/opinion is that Tesla is limiting the power/torque/acceleration in the software before it reaches the traction limitation. It could easily be traction limited if Tesla "unlocked" the power or disabled electronic traction control. This is why so many M3P owners can run consistent 0-60mph times regardless of the location (street or drag strip). Of course the lack of driver skill also helps with that :)



This is a great point. I've never seen the acceleration reach 1.0G on straight-line acceleration.

I can hit 1.1g regularly with the car, got my 2019 to hit 1.2 once, but was never able to replicate it...but 2019 and 2021 is easy to hit 1.1

As for traction, I mistermed that. I meant the cars can be traction limited on some surfaces, but the computer is limiting the acceleration rate overall. Most of the dragy numbers are done on the street, very few are done on the track. but again, you're making assumptions based on data that you don't have complete knowledge of. What were the atmospheric conditions, road conditions, battery conditions, etc of those dragy runs? It's kind of like using confirmation bias to justify an outcome, based on the results of the outcome you already have.