Lindenwood
Active Member
At the very least, any difference in acceleration is evidence against a specified, electronically-controlled target (whether in angular acceleration of the powertrain or linear acceleration of the vehicle itself).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
lightweight wheels model 3 performance 0-60 testing
- Thread starter Kaz93
- Start date
Keep going Sendit1, and please keep sharing 
. We all want to learn and there are still areas to explore and learn from.
. We all want to learn and there are still areas to explore and learn from.That was a misread on my part, I thought it said 0.8.
Either way, these cars have been around for years longer than you've owned one. There's nothing you are doing differently than multiple hundreds of people already have. We see on the forum when people get a car, then think they figured out some secret that no one else knows, then they find out they don't know anything that hasn't been available for a long time before them.
I say that because I was the same way, when people told me back in 2018ish. I had a set of 17 pound wheels custom made, they made zero difference. Then I got the lightest pirelli pzero tires, which were 3 pounds lighter each than OEM, then I put on lightweight rotors and reduced my rotating mass by iirc around 70 pounds, and my fastest 0-60 time was still on the OEM 19" wheels and that time is still on the dragy charts 4 years later.
I agree with everything you said, and do actually *surprise* respect your experience. That being said, I still much prefer the feel of the lighter wheels and the evidence appears to support a .08 improvement 0-60 as being experienced in real life. I want that extra .08 faster time. That being said, I am going to do some runs uphill and downhill and that ought to expose if the computer is holding the car back or if it is simply power to weight, being limited by the power to weight. If it runs the same uphill as down hill, then this will prove the computer was knee-capping the performance, of not, then not.
See attached pics of Draggy. Same car, same state of charge. The only difference was the incline or decline.
The "computer overlord' appears to not have chosen to employ divine intervention to accomodate a target 0-60 time.
The computer did not allow more power when going uphill, instead, the car was a bit slower.
The computer did not restrict power going down hill, instead the car was a bit faster.
The "evidence" is presented.
I believe the moon is observed as round.
My intention is not to offend the easily offended, my intention is to display evidence.
That being said, I do understand that me positing this evidence might result in me being banned for upsetting someone.
For that reason I am not going to further increase that risk by posting the equations that show mathematically how the slope is believed by the scientific community to affect acceleration.
I will restrain from such blasphemy here.
For the record, I did not refute the existence of the divine compouter overlord, I'm merely pointing out on this day, during these runs, "It" appears to not have chosen to intervene.
The "computer overlord' appears to not have chosen to employ divine intervention to accomodate a target 0-60 time.
The computer did not allow more power when going uphill, instead, the car was a bit slower.
The computer did not restrict power going down hill, instead the car was a bit faster.
The "evidence" is presented.
I believe the moon is observed as round.
My intention is not to offend the easily offended, my intention is to display evidence.
That being said, I do understand that me positing this evidence might result in me being banned for upsetting someone.
For that reason I am not going to further increase that risk by posting the equations that show mathematically how the slope is believed by the scientific community to affect acceleration.
I will restrain from such blasphemy here.
For the record, I did not refute the existence of the divine compouter overlord, I'm merely pointing out on this day, during these runs, "It" appears to not have chosen to intervene.
Attachments
Last edited:
Lindenwood
Active Member
@Sendit1 Nice times! What wheels did you say you were running, have you done any other weight reduction, and what SOC and battery temps were you at?
I'm running Apex VS-5RS wheels in 18x9.5" They show on my scale at the advertised 18.3 lbs each. 255 40 18 ps4s @ 25.2 lbs each per my scale. These are not the lightest wheels or size of tires, but the wheels appeared to be supremely well engineered to be stronger in the areas that promote longevity and will reduce damage from potholes, etc. Given it is a daily driver, I'm more than happy to trade a little weight for significantly more durability.
I did zero weight reduction, I'm carrying approx 20 lbs of extra junk in my trunk and frunk. SOC approx 77-75% and I did NOT preheat the battery and have no idea what the battery temps were.
I did zero weight reduction, I'm carrying approx 20 lbs of extra junk in my trunk and frunk. SOC approx 77-75% and I did NOT preheat the battery and have no idea what the battery temps were.
OK, I agree to not insult people. I understand that you banned for 1 day because my response to someone who appeared to question the effects of slope/gravity was very upset that I suggested he get a primer on physics. I now clearly understand that my response crossed the line of being offensive on this forum. If someone were to do the same in the future, would it be permissible by you if I were to simply respond with a post showing the math equation that applies? Or would you judge that to be too inflamitory for this forum?
I can tell by the way you post, that you are someone who knows how to communicate well. I would suggest just using those skills to debate, rather than either overt or under the table insults, and you will be fine.
There are a bunch of us here who do not do well with suffering fools gladly. I have the same dismayed reaction when I hear people quoting utter nonsense such as your personal favorite, the meme that circulated on the forum for quite a while and still pops up from time to time, namely that the car had a set 0 to 60 time and it added extra power when extra weight was added or reduced power when weight was reduced. Hearing this would make me crazy! It's kind of like the argument, "well the Moon is much larger than Mars- anybody can see that!" But the moderators are right - we have to attack the argument with facts and logic and not the person. Although that distinction is hard to observe when you have steam coming out of your ears from the latest crazy nonsense! I have a particularly hard time being gentle with climate deniers and people saying electric vehicles will never work! My wife tells me to put down the tablet and count to 10 and go for a walk
Agreed. When people don't seem to understand the concept of gravity....it just surprises me to find that on a forum of supposedly owners of these cars.
I have now presented the facts as my car clearly was a little faster down hill and a little slower up hill. It appears the naysayers have gone into hiding.
The "I heard of one guy once who's car was just as fast uphill with extra weight in it" theory has been debunked.
I have now presented the facts as my car clearly was a little faster down hill and a little slower up hill. It appears the naysayers have gone into hiding.
The "I heard of one guy once who's car was just as fast uphill with extra weight in it" theory has been debunked.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Remember there's still a few people (with some overlap in who they are with this discussion) that still think better brake pads or larger rotors stop the car shorter too, despite the literal physics formula for stopping distance not even asking about the pads or rotors at all-- just the tires, which are the thing that actually stop the car.
Don't take it personally, some folks hold very very deeply to myths- even around cars.
Don't take it personally, some folks hold very very deeply to myths- even around cars.
No, you posted a single run with a variation of .1 seconds which could be dismissed simply by the surface. Or the large spike and retraction of torque on the first of the launch, which is what happens when traction control/the computer limits power.
The reason we disappeared is that sometimes it's exhausting trying to discuss things that have been expressed often over a long period of time repetitively with new people. You'll be the same way in a few years when someone buys the car and tells you they're going to do something different than you could, by doing the same thing you did.
A few questions to "debate" rather than insult.
1: Do you believe in gravity?
2: Do you believe the slope has any effect on acceleration?
3: Do you see that the slope appeared to correlate with generally accepted scientific understandings of slope effects on acceleration?
The idea that something has been discussed for a long time therefore we have the final answer is bunk. You have zero evidence that proves your theory.
If you have "evidence" that proves your theory, please post it.
The we have been here longer argument has been made for thousands of years, and has been proven bunk time and time again. If that were true, everything would have already been discovered, everything already would have been invented, and no more progress could ever be made. No more mechanical design improvements, no more medical treatment improvements, none, nada, ever.
You have not provided any difinitive proof of computer limiting intervention yet it appears you wish to establish the facts as we were here first so we must know better. If you wish to provide "evidence" then I suggest you go make enough runs and post the draggy results that would debunk my evidence as a fluke. Put up your own "evidence" rather than unsupported theory as is generally done in debates.
The large spike, by your explaination could not have happened if the computer chose not to allow it.
Is it just coincidental that the fastest 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are only cars with less mass or less rotational mass? Hmmmm.
So I challenge you to answer the 3 questions above directly, and not duck them. We can debate this step by step to unveil the projections that were posing as facts.
1: Do you believe in gravity?
2: Do you believe the slope has any effect on acceleration?
3: Do you see that the slope appeared to correlate with generally accepted scientific understandings of slope effects on acceleration?
The idea that something has been discussed for a long time therefore we have the final answer is bunk. You have zero evidence that proves your theory.
If you have "evidence" that proves your theory, please post it.
The we have been here longer argument has been made for thousands of years, and has been proven bunk time and time again. If that were true, everything would have already been discovered, everything already would have been invented, and no more progress could ever be made. No more mechanical design improvements, no more medical treatment improvements, none, nada, ever.
You have not provided any difinitive proof of computer limiting intervention yet it appears you wish to establish the facts as we were here first so we must know better. If you wish to provide "evidence" then I suggest you go make enough runs and post the draggy results that would debunk my evidence as a fluke. Put up your own "evidence" rather than unsupported theory as is generally done in debates.
The large spike, by your explaination could not have happened if the computer chose not to allow it.
Is it just coincidental that the fastest 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are only cars with less mass or less rotational mass? Hmmmm.
So I challenge you to answer the 3 questions above directly, and not duck them. We can debate this step by step to unveil the projections that were posing as facts.
Last edited:
l completely agree. It also appears to me that some people can't understand the variable multifactorial dynamics revealed upon furthur investigating such statements, and their lack of ability to grasp the nuances of changing conditions limits their ability to recognize new causes and conditions that change the outcomes. Like the above, absolutely, normally, it is true that it is the tires that limit the deceleration, but when the brake fluid boils, or the pads are beyond their working temperature range, then the tires are no longer the limit of the deceleration, and in those scenarios, rotors that shed heat much faster and pads with working temps applicable to the temps seen under extended braking, absolutely will make a difference. I'm seeing some arguments that are referring to the statement above, which is true, but then because statement 1 is true, people are claiming that is the final and complete answer, which is false.
The statement 1 is true and we all know it and we have been here longer so don't talk to us about statement 2 because you just got here argument will be challenged.
It may be found as inconvenient to be forced to provide evidence for arguments that have been accepted in the past without evidence.
"If you are not the lead dog, the view never changes" :0)~
Last edited:
To clarify, I'm not saying the computer overlord theory is incorrect, but that it has not been proven with any evidence that I have seen as of yet.
If the theory can be sufficiently supported with evidence, then it can be claimed to be a valid theory. In my ever so limited view, that has not happened yet.
I predicted beforehand that an uphill run would be slightly slower and a downhill run would be slightly faster, which is exactly what happened. .1 seconds 0-60 is significant considering the relative slopes were not that steep. I further posit that a significantly steeper incline or decline would increase the difference of recorded acceleration on draggy.
I can run that experiment and post the results after anyone supplies any evidence to the contrary vs " light could have been reflecting off a satelite and then passed through swamp gas on one of Jupiter's moons and that threw off the satelite readings, etc"
If anyone wishes to "put up" evidence to the contrary to support alternative thoeries, please do so.
If the theory can be sufficiently supported with evidence, then it can be claimed to be a valid theory. In my ever so limited view, that has not happened yet.
I predicted beforehand that an uphill run would be slightly slower and a downhill run would be slightly faster, which is exactly what happened. .1 seconds 0-60 is significant considering the relative slopes were not that steep. I further posit that a significantly steeper incline or decline would increase the difference of recorded acceleration on draggy.
I can run that experiment and post the results after anyone supplies any evidence to the contrary vs " light could have been reflecting off a satelite and then passed through swamp gas on one of Jupiter's moons and that threw off the satelite readings, etc"
If anyone wishes to "put up" evidence to the contrary to support alternative thoeries, please do so.
Similar threads
- Article
