lightweight wheels model 3 performance 0-60 testing

[gearchruncher]

A few questions to "debate" rather than insult.
1: Do you believe in gravity?

You're the one going off on "gravity" suddenly. Nobody in here has ever once denied gravity, nor have they denied "physics." Nobody is arguing that it takes more power to accelerate up a hill at the same vehicle velocity reference frame, nor that a car that weighs more takes more energy to achieve the same velocity change.

However, this discussion is about if the vehicle itself delivers acceleration (in which frame?!) vs power. We're stuck in the traditional mindset that an traditional car delivers power, irrespective of road slope or vehicle mass or resultant acceleration. But we know this doesn't have to be true, and in fact it would be trivial for Tesla do do so, and close the loop on acceleration instead of power.

This conversation will go nowhere if one group of people can't understand that nobody is trying to rewrite physics, and calls everyone that questions the behavior of the car an idiot that doesn't get it. That's not the discussion here. The discussion is what control system is Tesla using, and secondarily for what business reasons.

Here's the thing, all of us know that the Tesla has to actively manage the power of the motor. That's what the inverter does. If the inverter did no current limiting, the tires would spin and the motor would fail immediately. This is the same as a boosted car, where if the ECU doesn't limit boost, the engine blows up. The inverter also knows the speed of the motor and the rate of change. So a discussion about what it limits is far from crazy or denying physics. In fact, its the most fundamental physics happening in the car.


And to specifically point out: reference frames are a thing. Going uphill is NOT the same as adding weight depending on your control system. That is why I said it was moving the goalposts to tell everyone to add weight to the car, and then suddenly post about going uphill. This is physics as well. Velocity is only a thing relative to other things, and there is more than one way to measure it.

Additionally, the normal force on a tire decreases when going uphill or downhill even for the same car mass, possibility leading to earlier traction control intervention. Which kinda looks like it happened on your downhill run. So yeah, physics isn't that easy and hills aren't the same as wheel mass.

So let's get out of all of the name calling and to the actual data data @Sendit1 posted, because that is super useful and interesting.

A few comments.

See attached pics of Draggy. Same car, same state of charge. The only difference was the incline or decline.

Well, and road surface because it's not the same location. This may have had an impact because you can see how noisy your downhill trace was vs your level traces, and how acceleration spikes well above what is expected for the slope.

From outside, this particularly looks like picking and choosing as you have two identical runs level, but they are 0.08 seconds apart. So the car has some variance in identical situations. Then you post a single shot downhill showing a 0.10 difference. This seems to be within the distribution. For actual science, a lot more data would be needed. Is there a reason you posted one downhill trace but two level ones? Is there a reason you didn't run on the same slope up and down instead of two different locations?

would it be permissible by you if I were to simply respond with a post showing the math equation that applies?

Let's do that. If you put a fixed power into a 4000lb mass and accelerate it 0-60 MPH with no elevation change, and then use the same power but do that against an incline, what is the 0-60 time you expect at 4.7% incline? Is that inline with the results you got?

Now, back to the control system discussion. I'm pretty convinced these traces prove both camps.

Draggy gives us more than 0-60 times. Let's look at the 10 MPH increments, level vs downhill:
10 MPH: -0.03 (level faster)
20 MPH: -0.01 (level faster)
30 MPH: +0.03 (down faster)
40 MPH: +0.03 (no change level vs downhill from 30-40)
50 MPH: +0.07
60 MPH: +0.10

This is far from a linear result. All of the change happens after 40 MPH, which is exactly where the acceleration decreases and the M3P is well known for becoming battery power limited vs motor power limited. The acceleration graphs show the same- the acceleration to 40 MPH is indistinguishable, but after that, the level falls of faster than the downhill.

If you look at more than 0-60, this still very much looks to me like Tesla closes the loop on 0.9G when the motor has excess capability. Only once we hit the battery limit do we become a simple fixed power system.

I have a 10% slope near me, I really need to go do some 0-40 runs on that both directions logging motor power, not acceleration and see if there's a difference, because that's fundamentally the question is if Tesla changes power to adjust for resultant vehicle frame acceleration.

 

[Sendit1]

I have a 10% slope near me, I really need to go do some 0-40 runs on that both directions logging motor power, not acceleration and see if there's a difference, because that's fundamentally the question is if Tesla changes power to adjust for resultant vehicle frame acceleration.

This! Yes, this exactly would prove or disprove the theory. Please do collect and share that data. This would likely reveal all unquestionably.
Nothing sterilizes like sunlight

 

[Sendit1]

You're the one going off on "gravity" suddenly. Nobody in here has ever once denied gravity, nor have they denied "physics." Nobody is arguing that it takes more power to accelerate up a hill at the same vehicle velocity reference frame, nor that a car that weighs more takes more energy to achieve the same velocity change.

However, this discussion is about if the vehicle itself delivers acceleration (in which frame?!) vs power. We're stuck in the traditional mindset that an traditional car delivers power, irrespective of road slope or vehicle mass or resultant acceleration. But we know this doesn't have to be true, and in fact it would be trivial for Tesla do do so, and close the loop on acceleration instead of power.

This conversation will go nowhere if one group of people can't understand that nobody is trying to rewrite physics, and calls everyone that questions the behavior of the car an idiot that doesn't get it. That's not the discussion here. The discussion is what control system is Tesla using, and secondarily for what business reasons.

Here's the thing, all of us know that the Tesla has to actively manage the power of the motor. That's what the inverter does. If the inverter did no current limiting, the tires would spin and the motor would fail immediately. This is the same as a boosted car, where if the ECU doesn't limit boost, the engine blows up. The inverter also knows the speed of the motor and the rate of change. So a discussion about what it limits is far from crazy or denying physics. In fact, its the most fundamental physics happening in the car.


And to specifically point out: reference frames are a thing. Going uphill is NOT the same as adding weight depending on your control system. That is why I said it was moving the goalposts to tell everyone to add weight to the car, and then suddenly post about going uphill. This is physics as well. Velocity is only a thing relative to other things, and there is more than one way to measure it.

Additionally, the normal force on a tire decreases when going uphill or downhill even for the same car mass, possibility leading to earlier traction control intervention. Which kinda looks like it happened on your downhill run. So yeah, physics isn't that easy and hills aren't the same as wheel mass.

So let's get out of all of the name calling and to the actual data data @Sendit1 posted, because that is super useful and interesting.

A few comments.

Well, and road surface because it's not the same location. This may have had an impact because you can see how noisy your downhill trace was vs your level traces, and how acceleration spikes well above what is expected for the slope.

From outside, this particularly looks like picking and choosing as you have two identical runs level, but they are 0.08 seconds apart. So the car has some variance in identical situations. Then you post a single shot downhill showing a 0.10 difference. This seems to be within the distribution. For actual science, a lot more data would be needed. Is there a reason you posted one downhill trace but two level ones? Is there a reason you didn't run on the same slope up and down instead of two different locations?


Let's do that. If you put a fixed power into a 4000lb mass and accelerate it 0-60 MPH with no elevation change, and then use the same power but do that against an incline, what is the 0-60 time you expect at 4.7% incline? Is that inline with the results you got?

Now, back to the control system discussion. I'm pretty convinced these traces prove both camps.

Draggy gives us more than 0-60 times. Let's look at the 10 MPH increments, level vs downhill:
10 MPH: -0.03 (level faster)
20 MPH: -0.01 (level faster)
30 MPH: +0.03 (down faster)
40 MPH: +0.03 (no change level vs downhill from 30-40)
50 MPH: +0.07
60 MPH: +0.10

This is far from a linear result. All of the change happens after 40 MPH, which is exactly where the acceleration decreases and the M3P is well known for becoming battery power limited vs motor power limited. The acceleration graphs show the same- the acceleration to 40 MPH is indistinguishable, but after that, the level falls of faster than the downhill.

If you look at more than 0-60, this still very much looks to me like Tesla closes the loop on 0.9G when the motor has excess capability. Only once we hit the battery limit do we become a simple fixed power system.

I have a 10% slope near me, I really need to go do some 0-40 runs on that both directions logging motor power, not acceleration and see if there's a difference, because that's fundamentally the question is if Tesla changes power to adjust for resultant vehicle frame acceleration.

This is an outstandingly good post, the info is presented so well. Please do those 0-40 runs and post the results. Good job on this one.
You gave this newby useful information I did not have before.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

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.

You told me the exact same thing when I was trying to improve my times over a year ago and I ALMOST believed you. Instead I went out and made the changes and put the effort in to do repeatable and controlled tests over and over again at the Dragstrip. And what do you know? It worked. I got all of the Model 3 records from the 60 foot all the way through the 1/4 mile. I leap frogged you on the Dragy leaderboard and the really cool thing is that other people who have taken my advice instead of your advice have leap frogged you as well.

You have been saying the same tired thing for years now. The people that listen to you stay the same. The people that listen to me have gotten faster.

I have maxed out my Model 3 now for performance. It just won't go any faster without a lighter driver. So now I am focusing on efficiency. I am replicating all of the Highland changes on my 2022 Model 3 Performance to see if I can beat even the new car's efficiency. I assume you will say that isn't possible as well?

 

[Sam1]

You told me the exact same thing when I was trying to improve my times over a year ago and I ALMOST believed you. Instead I went out and made the changes and put the effort in to do repeatable and controlled tests over and over again at the Dragstrip. And what do you know? It worked. I got all of the Model 3 records from the 60 foot all the way through the 1/4 mile. I leap frogged you on the Dragy leaderboard and the really cool thing is that other people who have taken my advice instead of your advice have leap frogged you as well.

You have been saying the same tired thing for years now. The people that listen to you stay the same. The people that listen to me have gotten faster.

I have maxed out my Model 3 now for performance. It just won't go any faster. So now I am focusing on efficiency. I am replicating all of the Highland changes on my 2022 Model 3 Performance to see if I can beat even the new car's efficiency. I assume you will say that isn't possible as well?View attachment 981434

View attachment 981435
View attachment 981436
View attachment 981437

Every one of my model 3 posted runs on dragy were on the street. I never shared any time slips or ran dragy at the strip.

There are multiple model 3's faster than you on the leaderboards, and it looks like you're posting comments on their shares about how their times are fake

No further comments.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

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.

I have done the same test you did with similar slopes. I got similar results. Then I took it even further and reduced the weight of the vehicle by 210 lbs and gained as much as .25 seconds on a valid(-.99%) slope. There is no computer limit to how fast the Model 3 can accelerate. Only physics holds it back. If I had a 100 lb driver instead of my 190 lbs I am certain I could shave almost .1 seconds off the records that already stand.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Every one of my model 3 posted runs on dragy were on the street. I never shared any time slips or ran dragy at the strip.

There are multiple model 3's faster than you on the leaderboards, and it looks like you're posting comments on their shares about how their times are fake

No further comments.

You know there is one guy posting under 3 accounts with an Electric Harley, right? His 1/4 mile times stop at 110 mph which is the top speed of his motorcycle. You can't possibly ignore the times I am getting now and say they aren't a GIGANTIC improvement over stock times. You can run and hide. That is fine but you still never post any evidence at all to back up your claims. I post the evidence every single time.

 

[Sendit1]

I have come up with a solution that will work fine for me. In March I am going to take delivery of a new Model S Plaid, with track pack upgrade.

I came into this "discussion" not knowing much at all about Tesla computer management. Since then, many here have schooled me significantly, sufficiently enough that now I must now state "I stand corrected" that it appears not to be clearly, simply, and only power to weight, but that there is most definitely some computer regulation.

I do really enjoy the model 3 P, but I want more unnannied acceleration than it is able to deliver, so my solution is to buy the S Plaid. If a similarly performing smaller and more nimble model 3 "plaid" arrives I would love one of those, but that is not immediatly deliverable at the moment, nor is the Roadster which I will be getting in line for. The S Plaid is a BEAST and is available now, and it is most certainly not nannied in any way.

 

[Sam1]

I have come up with a solution that will work fine for me. In March I am going to take delivery of a new Model S Plaid, with track pack upgrade.

I came into this "discussion" not knowing much at all about Tesla computer management. Since then, many here have schooled me significantly, sufficiently enough that now I must now state "I stand corrected" that it appears not to be clearly, simply, and only power to weight, but that there is most definitely some computer regulation.

I do really enjoy the model 3 P, but I want more unnannied acceleration than it is able to deliver, so my solution is to buy the S Plaid. If a similarly performing smaller and more nimble model 3 "plaid" arrives I would love one of those, but that is not immediatly deliverable at the moment, nor is the Roadster which I will be getting in line for. The S Plaid is a BEAST and is available now, and it is most certainly not nannied in any way.

With the plaid, supposedly theoretically the hardware can support 1250hp, but it's limited to about 80%. That's a +/-, I can't remember the specific number the guy that came up with the calculations stated.

The plaid is so ridiculously overpowered that you'll learn more about tesla's traction control in a week of driving it hard, than you could ever learn on a 3/Y. It's so exaggerated, that you'll be able to feel the difference when you're going through tire spin, or power reduction (there's different levels of traction control, it's working even when the light isn't on).

After that, you'll understand better of what we're talking about with the 3/Y constraints. It happens with them too, but you have to pay very close attention to the way things feel because it's very muted.

 

[Olavxxx]

I have done the same test you did with similar slopes. I got similar results. Then I took it even further and reduced the weight of the vehicle by 210 lbs and gained as much as .25 seconds on a valid(-.99%) slope. There is no computer limit to how fast the Model 3 can accelerate. Only physics holds it back. If I had a 100 lb driver instead of my 190 lbs I am certain I could shave almost .1 seconds off the records that already stand.

Having been doing dragraces with turbo Volvos, 3 Performance and Y Performance - I must say that you cant really just compare data you have - with others. Reason for this is that for max accelleration you need high enough temperature for tires to have grip, also high enough for battery to have max power. Then there is the factor that you are not on the same place, at the same time. Headwind, tailwind, temperature, etc. it all plays a role. The tire and battery temp, as well as surface, weather etc are the most important factors.

Not by that saying there is 0% performance to be had from light wheels, but just that you cant compare your data to others - if they are not done at the same time, with identical ways to preheat battery etc. also has to be same generation Model 3P with same battery size, about same degredation etc. Not to forget same tires, same tirepressure....

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Having been doing dragraces with turbo Volvos, 3 Performance and Y Performance - I must say that you cant really just compare data you have - with others. Reason for this is that for max accelleration you need high enough temperature for tires to have grip, also high enough for battery to have max power. Then there is the factor that you are not on the same place, at the same time. Headwind, tailwind, temperature, etc. it all plays a role. The tire and battery temp, as well as surface, weather etc are the most important factors.

Not by that saying there is 0% performance to be had from light wheels, but just that you cant compare your data to others - if they are not done at the same time, with identical ways to preheat battery etc. also has to be same generation Model 3P with same battery size, about same degredation etc. Not to forget same tires, same tirepressure....

And I have done all of the slope tests with the same car. It will go faster the steeper the slope is downhill. It will go slower the steeper the slope is uphill.

 

[Olavxxx]

And I have done all of the slope tests with the same car. It will go faster the steeper the slope is downhill. It will go slower the steeper the slope is uphill.

yes, but if you say you beat the other guys dragrace times - its really hard to compare those numbers as so many factors come into play that you cant really then know how much the wheels affected the result.

 

[Sendit1]

I don't think anyone can claim lighter wheels can hurt you in the acceleration department, the issue may become what is the cost and what is the benefit.
I, for one, like the look and the improvement of feel of losing 12ish lbs per wheel, so, for me, it was worth it. YRMV

 

[dfwatt]

Having been doing dragraces with turbo Volvos, 3 Performance and Y Performance - I must say that you cant really just compare data you have - with others. Reason for this is that for max accelleration you need high enough temperature for tires to have grip, also high enough for battery to have max power. Then there is the factor that you are not on the same place, at the same time. Headwind, tailwind, temperature, etc. it all plays a role. The tire and battery temp, as well as surface, weather etc are the most important factors.

Not by that saying there is 0% performance to be had from light wheels, but just that you cant compare your data to others - if they are not done at the same time, with identical ways to preheat battery etc. also has to be same generation Model 3P with same battery size, about same degredation etc. Not to forget same tires, same tirepressure....

Please don't recycle the silliness about how the system is dialing down power because of lack of tire grip on a good dry surface. Even the performance model 3 is not traction limited. The slight modulation of launch torque is to prevent something called torque ripple which is seen in permanent magnet so-called switched reluctance Motors. Only on a very slippery surface is power modulated by traction control. You do not need to warm up your tires. That might be true in an ice car that breaks traction or if you're on a road course not true on these cars in straight line acceleration runs. Please don't recycle disinformation

 

[Sam1]

Only on a very slippery surface is power modulated by traction control.

Just because you don't see the light activated, doesn't mean the power delivery isn't being modified. Also the "torque ripple" you're referring to is completely different than what is displayed on dragy g force readouts. The instances are not even remotely similar.

 

[gearchruncher]

The slight modulation of launch torque is to prevent something called torque ripple which is seen in permanent magnet so-called switched reluctance Motors.

Modulating bulk torque does not prevent torque ripple, and torque ripple is a thing on almost all motor designs, it's just harder to manage on some than others.
This is generally much more of an issue at low speeds and low torques, so this has nothing to do with a launch in a Model 3.

Only on a very slippery surface is power modulated by traction control.

In track mode with cold 200TW tires, my car does spin the rears when I launch on dry pavement. 0.9G can easily be traction limited in many situations, not just "very slippery" surfaces.

 

[Knightshade]

Just because you don't see the light activated, doesn't mean the power delivery isn't being modified. Also the "torque ripple" you're referring to is completely different than what is displayed on dragy g force readouts. The instances are not even remotely similar.

AFAIK folks who got P3D- vehicles with crappy MXM4 all season tires don't run any faster when they swap PS4s tires on there- which they ought to if the car was traction limited on acceleration.

(They do of course get much shorter braking distances )

 

[Sam1]

AFAIK folks who got P3D- vehicles with crappy MXM4 all season tires don't run any faster when they swap PS4s tires on there- which they ought to if the car was traction limited on acceleration.

(They do of course get much shorter braking distances )

Tires providing better braking does not equate to better acceleration. Two completely different situations, kind of like saying tire #1 corners better, so tire #1 must also allow for better launches.

 

[Knightshade]

Tires providing better braking does not equate to better acceleration. Two completely different situations, kind of like saying tire #1 corners better, so tire #1 must also allow for better launches.

Except both of the examples I used are straight line traction.

The car IS traction limited on braking distance- so better tires, which provide more traction, helped.

The car is NOT traction limited for acceleration- so better tires, which provide more traction, did NOT help.

tl;dr- if you add traction and results don't improve the results were not limited by traction in the first place.

 

[Sam1]

Except both of the examples I used are straight line traction.

The car IS traction limited on braking distance- so better tires, which provide more traction, helped.

The car is NOT traction limited for acceleration- so better tires, which provide more traction, did NOT help.

tl;dr- if you add traction and results don't improve the results were not limited by traction in the first place.

Simply not true, your poor overgeneralization doesn't equate to real-world applications.

If what you said was true, I could slap 4 DOT drag radials on a car and get a ridiculous braking performance increase simply because they're more sticky and help with a launch. When in fact, that would not even be remotely the case and you would have better braking with street tires that are astronomically worse during a launch of the car.

I'm not debating that the 3/Y has traction issues on a launch or not, just addressing the silliness of tires better for acceleration in a straight line unquestionably means they are also better for braking in a straight line.