Battery is not the major limitation. You can drop a full second in 0-60 on the same battery.Yet others are claiming that the battery is not limiting performance. Yours is the full-fat, made in US, real-deal, Panasonic 3L too!
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Battery is not the major limitation. You can drop a full second in 0-60 on the same battery.Yet others are claiming that the battery is not limiting performance. Yours is the full-fat, made in US, real-deal, Panasonic 3L too!
Thats not sport. We're in the thread of semi-educated guessing game. Once its out and full tested this fun thread would be dead.Well lets just hope it comes out today or at least this week to put all of this to bed.
Weight absolutely influences braking distance. You can overcome it to a degree with more aggressive tires.Weight doesn't influence braking distance if brakes are not overheating in a single stop.
Only pavement, tires and abs system defines the minimum stopping distance.
Wrong suspension geometry can make things worse, but it's a rare thing.
Well you have my guess at 2.9 from 3.1 seconds which is US based cheating numbers with rollout Matt Watson will give us the real figures.Thats not sport. We're in the thread of semi-educated guessing game. Once its out and full tested this fun thread would be dead.
Not quite, you were reaching the limits of the motors, not the battery. The LR and Performance had effectively the same motors with the LR having a weaker rear inverter for newer ones. Past 50mph or so, the EMF limited how much power the motor could put out. Same motor in the X/S LR seems to do a bit better, but I think that's because of the higher voltage.I also think this car might be why Acceleration Boost isn't available on the Model 3 LR. If you look at the old LR with Acceleration Boost, once you got off the line and the Performance was a car length ahead the LR would keep up pretty much then. I think from what I've read, this is because Acceleration Boost took the LR motors to the power output of the battery so once you hit that point the Performance couldn't be quicker.
It absolutely is limiting (capping) performance and the performance envelope, as mpgxsvcd's post proves, particularly in the M3P which will sink all the power that the battery can source and from the UK/EU experience of the change to the LG 5L.It’s limiting peak power draw, not “performance” overall, as described in several different ways, including the below.
How?Battery is not the major limitation. You can drop a full second in 0-60 on the same battery.
This is not accurate. Battery temperature affects the Performance model significantly because the Performance Model can actually hit the max Power that the battery can give. As you cool the battery down the "Max Discharge Value" decreases which limits the Performance model down to the LR capabilities after max HP is reached.I also think this car might be why Acceleration Boost isn't available on the Model 3 LR. If you look at the old LR with Acceleration Boost, once you got off the line and the Performance was a car length ahead the LR would keep up pretty much then. I think from what I've read, this is because Acceleration Boost took the LR motors to the power output of the battery so once you hit that point the Performance couldn't be quicker.
So just checked Bjorn's videos where he did launches of the Performance and he's getting to 400KW roughly on pull from the battery and the LG pack is rated 415KW max discharge. Probably with some losses and so on, that feels like the Model 3 Performance was maxing out the battery pack already. Hence why I think a small improvement at low speeds will be due to motor changes and wheels to get the 0-60 down. They've changed where the motor tops out so that also will help hopefully with mid speed pull.Not quite, you were reaching the limits of the motors, not the battery. The LR and Performance had effectively the same motors with the LR having a weaker rear inverter for newer ones. Past 50mph or so, the EMF limited how much power the motor could put out. Same motor in the X/S LR seems to do a bit better, but I think that's because of the higher voltage.
Acceleration boost lifted the battery discharge power from 324kW to 366kW, which may not be significantly less than the available discharge power. Carwow are notorious for testing cars with ~50% SoC on a typically cold UK day, without any preparation, when the available power will be <400kW.I think from what I've read, this is because Acceleration Boost took the LR motors to the power output of the battery so once you hit that point the Performance couldn't be quicker.
lol, have you never spent any time in an online forum? You can post objective truth and people will argue over it, so a thread about speculation will always end up being a complete mess.Man all this free speculation is so tiresome. Wouldn't it spare everyone alot of time if we all just Shut Up and wait for the actual reveal and reviews? "I think it.s gonna be 2.6...no..2.9...no...2.7..". It's like kindergarden in here.
There is tons of great information and also speculation based off of that great information here. Do with it what you want. The topic of the thread is Speculation about the new car and that is exactly what we are providing. There are several people in this forum who know exactly what the current car's battery, motors, and performance are capable of. Based on that knowledge we can definitely make educated guesses on what is possible and also what is plausible. You are free to ignore that information if that is what you desire. No one will stop you.Man all this free speculation is so tiresome. Wouldn't it spare everyone alot of time if we all just Shut Up and wait for the actual reveal and reviews? "I think it.s gonna be 2.6...no..2.9...no...2.7..". It's like kindergarden in here.
When that was a thing I was still messing with BMW and Merc V8 engines and I haven't measured on any Tesla before 2019, so I really don't know. I just quoted the manual.Did Ludicrous mode in the MS/MX increase the torque to 130% of the rated motor output?
If you look at that projected torque curve, you also see that all motors are limited to the same combined torque really, whatever it states in the registration docs and user manual. I think they are doing that on purpose ;-)If the motors are run at "100%" torque then there's little improvement over the 3D6 (but the US M3L will get a decent upgrade from the CAT 1 3D1 DU used so far).
No way for me to know since I havent seen a non torque limited front and rear motor in a M3P yet. Since peak torque is basically the same through most of the SOC range, I can only assume, that there is an artificial limit that can be raised.I would think that the rear motor torque could increase by 30% with the new motor and vastly wider tires but not the front motor torque.
Yes. True. But one thing is...theyve never done that with the 3D3A and another thing is, whenever they do that kind of thing, they name it 3D3B oder 3D3C. I would be able to provide you with different data for these then.We dont know for sure power curve before and after maximum power speed. We.can guess that the front motor would be similar to m3p, but even that is not certain, since you can drive the same motor differently.
From around 130kph onwards yes. Below that the Performance is allowed 1350A peak and the boosted LR only 1255A. At Autobahn speed there very little difference and if youve got a Model Y with the 4D1 rear motor there is none.think from what I've read, this is because Acceleration Boost took the LR motors to the power output of the battery so once you hit that point the Performance couldn't be quicker.
The LG is spot on with Maximum Discharge Power vs actual Battery power. If he was only pulling 400kW, he wasn't at 100% SOC and hot, but at 90% and hot maybe?So just checked Bjorn's videos where he did launches of the Performance and he's getting to 400KW roughly on pull from the battery and the LG pack is rated 415KW max discharge.
Actually from 320-325kW to 385-390kW in the LG 5L.Acceleration boost lifted the battery discharge power from 324kW to 366kW
You’ve grossly misunderstood, or misrepresented, his post…It absolutely is limiting (capping) performance and the performance envelope, as mpgxsvcd's post proves, particularly in the M3P which will sink all the power that the battery can source and from the UK/EU experience of the change to the LG 5L.
How?
I think one of the nice things on the LR and yes its slower but because it's not quite tapping out everything possible from the battery that it keeps that performance almost all the time regardless of if the battery is a lower SOC or maybe a bit colder. It's predictable performance.Acceleration boost lifted the battery discharge power from 324kW to 366kW, which may not be significantly less than the available discharge power. Carwow are notorious for testing cars with ~50% SoC on a typically cold UK day, without any preparation, when the available power will be <400kW.
View attachment 1036667
You'll see that 366kW is a well considered power level for homogeneous performance.
Yes correct, he Supercharged which would have warmed the the battery up but then assumed needed to drive to a location to launch it so guess decided to get it down to 90% and start from there.The LG is spot on with Maximum Discharge Power vs actual Battery power. If he was only pulling 400kW, he wasn't at 100% SOC and hot, but at 90% and hot maybe?
Not at all. He said that "SOC is largely irrelevant for 0-60 mph until very low SOCs. However, battery and motor temperature are extremely important" and "With a hot battery you will gain about .1 seconds on your 40-60 mph time". His further posts referenced the detrimental effect that cooling the battery has on available power.You’ve grossly misunderstood, or misrepresented, his post…
He said high SOC and Temps will improve 40-60 by about 0.1.
I think you misunderstand basic physics. A motor cannot create power.Additionally, different motor designs could inherently increase available power from 40-60 without as much effort from the battery.
Seen this asserted also, is there any long term clear and trusted data to support that supposition either way for a P vs LR battery degradation with the same cell?Also that lower load on the battery helps keep their degradation down. Think over a 4 or maybe it's 5 year period the Performance is almost doubling the degradation of the Long Range. Might be wrong though as these are stats from my head and not sure where I saw it to validate it.
Try this video below. Two things but this one is showing that the China LG battery degradation on average is -6% and the Panasonic is around -11% on the LR so while that battery can make more power, it's not as good longer term.Seen this asserted also, is there any long term clear and trusted data to support that supposition either way for a P vs LR battery degradation with the same cell?