Model 3 Highland Performance/Plaid Speculation [Car announced 04.23.2024]

[cptnslo]

I really thought they would change both motors so it surprised me when the rumors said just the rear motor would change.

The car doesn’t need a ton more peak power. It just needs to maintain that peak power for much longer in both the front and rear motors.

This car is going to shakeup what people think is possible for about $55k brand new off the lot. Kind of like how the Plaid did for the $120k+ category.

Mid to perhaps low 10s is entirely feasible for the Model 3 Ludicrous.

You’re still putting a lot of stake in that price bracket

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Do we know who this Julien person is and how they supposedly have data down to the MMOI of the rotor and full power graphs?
Weird that the power graph stops at 125 MPH, the new speed limit for non-performance Teslas.

Isn’t that @eivissa? He seems to know all about these batteries and motors when he posts in other sub forums here.

 

[whoosierdaddy]

Do we know who this Julien person is and how they supposedly have data down to the MMOI of the rotor and full power graphs?
Weird that the power graph stops at 125 MPH, the new speed limit for non-performance Teslas.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1768558989644636219

 

[gearchruncher]

We have a whole image for the power curve of the motor compared to other motors, but we can't have a link to this "type certificate"?

I looked around and type certificates don't exist for European vehicles (that's an airplane thing) but Type Approvals do, and conveniently these applications or even Approvals don't seem to be things the public can access.

 

[FastLaneJB]

Wonder what this might do for range and efficiency. I know not the topic most come here to speak on but they turn the induction motor off when not needed to help with the range. With 2 x perm magnet motors that isn't possible so does this take a hit or actually the new motors are more efficient (Hairpin for instance) that it wipes out the need to do that.

 

[terranx]

Wonder what this might do for range and efficiency. I know not the topic most come here to speak on but they turn the induction motor off when not needed to help with the range. With 2 x perm magnet motors that isn't possible so does this take a hit or actually the new motors are more efficient (Hairpin for instance) that it wipes out the need to do that.

Considering the refresh S/X (which have 2 or 3 PM motors) seem to be more efficient than the previous model, it's probably a net gain

 

[Sam1]

How does a motor nearly double in torque but have no change in peak power, and at the same speeds as before?

The frequency the motor runs on. The HP output is clearly not maxed out, so when the operating frequency is changed, the power can go down and torque up or vice versa, however they want it to. Assuming it will be the same controller as used on the plaid, except mono.

 

[gearchruncher]

The frequency the motor runs on. The HP output is clearly not maxed out, so when the operating frequency is changed, the power can go down and torque up or vice versa, however they want it to.

This is gobledy-gook.

Motors are rated on the RPM and torque on the output shaft, and physics is physics.

The motor has a clearly stated 159kW peak power.

400 nm at 3700 RPM is 159 kW. You flat out can't have more than 400nm above 3700 RPM and keep yourself to 159kW, unless we're talking about perpetual motion machines.

3700 RPM is about 30 MPH. If this motor does have 400NM of torque, it's all below 30 MPH. And of course the old motor hit 542NM of torque at 0 RPM, so that's nothing new.

Oh, and the only "frequency" in a motor drive that matters is the frequency related to the RPM the motor is at. If you run a different "frequency" into a motor than you get zero torque because it's not synchronous with the rotation of the rotor. Phase current is what adjusts torque, and of course the controller can run less torque, but it can't trade RPM and torque to limit power, since RPM is fixed to the vehicle speed in a single speed transmission.

 

[Sam1]

This is gobledy-gook.

Motors are rated on the RPM and torque on the output shaft, and physics is physics.

The motor has a clearly stated 159kW peak power.

400 nm at 3700 RPM is 159 kW. You flat out can't have more than 400nm above 3700 RPM and keep yourself to 159kW, unless we're talking about perpetual motion machines.

3700 RPM is about 30 MPH. If this motor does have 400NM of torque, it's all below 30 MPH. And of course the old motor hit 542NM of torque at 0 RPM, so that's nothing new.

Oh, and the only "frequency" in a motor drive that matters is the frequency related to the RPM the motor is at. If you run a different "frequency" into a motor than you get zero torque because it's not synchronous with the rotation of the rotor. Phase current is what adjusts torque, and of course the controller can run less torque, but it can't trade RPM and torque to limit power, since RPM is fixed to the vehicle speed in a single speed transmission.

I'm sure Tesla never thought about compensating RPM level when the frequency changes. Frequency has more effects on a motor than speed alone.

 

[Nabush]

This is gobledy-gook.

Motors are rated on the RPM and torque on the output shaft, and physics is physics.

The motor has a clearly stated 159kW peak power.

400 nm at 3700 RPM is 159 kW. You flat out can't have more than 400nm above 3700 RPM and keep yourself to 159kW, unless we're talking about perpetual motion machines.

3700 RPM is about 30 MPH. If this motor does have 400NM of torque, it's all below 30 MPH. And of course the old motor hit 542NM of torque at 0 RPM, so that's nothing new.

Oh, and the only "frequency" in a motor drive that matters is the frequency related to the RPM the motor is at. If you run a different "frequency" into a motor than you get zero torque because it's not synchronous with the rotation of the rotor. Phase current is what adjusts torque, and of course the controller can run less torque, but it can't trade RPM and torque to limit power, since RPM is fixed to the vehicle speed in a single speed transmission.

We clearly cannot have constant 400Nm torque with 159KW power cap as you said. Likely we will have 400 or 430Nm max torque at low rpm (below 3700rpm) and linear torque drop off to maintain 159KW all the way to 8000 or 10000rpm, (200Nm@7400 rpm for example). I would like something like that !

 

[eivissa]

There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what I am reporting and how to value these thing...

How does a motor nearly double in torque but have no change in peak power, and at the same speeds as before?

The reported power is a certified power level. Not the maximum power that this motor can produce. These motors come in A,B,C...versions usually none go to the absolute power limit on these certification levels. The 4D2 might be the first one as its max power is 320V x 950A = 304kW and it was certified for 303kW.

Motors are not rated by battery limits. Motor ratings are what the motor itself can do given full electrical power.

Sure, but that is not what I have reported here. The old 3D3 front motor has a certified peak power level of 158kW, but its true max is 335V x 630A = 211kW. A US M3P/MYP at full throttle through 80-90kph will log close to this on front power with a full and hot pack. The highest Ive seen from the front was around 205kW, but the front will take any excess power that the rear isnt taking in all Tesla's, so there is no limit by Tesla although it states 158kW.

The car doesn’t need a ton more peak power. It just needs to maintain that peak power for much longer in both the front and rear motors.

I absolutely agree, that's the reason why Tesla doesnt necessarily need to switch to a better pack than the current LG, as long as it delivers its peak 415kW during a wide speed band...with the right motors and long duration power limits.

Weird that the power graph stops at 125 MPH, the new speed limit for non-performance Teslas.

The graph ends at 250kph as this is were I found the last data point of 90% peak power of the 4D3B motor.

We have a whole image for the power curve of the motor compared to other motors, but we can't have a link to this "type certificate"?

No, sorry, you cant, because as you say, it is not a thing the public can access.

I looked around and type certificates don't exist for European vehicles (that's an airplane thing) but Type Approvals do, and conveniently these applications or even Approvals don't seem to be things the public can access.

Well...yes and no...

You are free to doubt the information I provide and question them (and you should), but my reporting about technical changes usually came true in the weeks and months after.

[Wiki] Model 3 / Model Y - Technische Veränderungen

Version with Conventional Battery Pack → VC## e4 * 2007/46 * 1293 * ## Version with Structural Battery Pack → VS## e4 * 2018/858 * 00135 * ## <details><summary>Wo finde ich meine Version?</summary></details> <details><summary>VC36 / 28.03.2024</summary></details> <details><summary>VS10 /...

tff-forum.de

Also the speeds and rpm of different torque and power levels are not something I am making up, but the exact data that Tesla is claiming to the authorities. I am merely reporting them to you unfiltered or sometimes in a way it is easier to understand, but never altered.

If something is off, I am also mentioning it, like now with the 4D3B being reported as a rear motor, but my past experience tells me, that this might be a new front motor that is certified via the "backdoor".

We will soon know if that is true. For now, the best information is the 158kW at 6625rpm from the Korean registration papers. Those two values only match one motor and the is the old 3D3 front motor, that has been used in all dual motor Tesla's worldwide since 2017.

 

[FastLaneJB]

If something is off, I am also mentioning it, like now with the 4D3B being reported as a rear motor, but my past experience tells me, that this might be a new front motor that is certified via the "backdoor".

We will soon know if that is true. For now, the best information is the 158kW at 6625rpm from the Korean registration papers. Those two values only match one motor and the is the old 3D3 front motor, that has been used in all dual motor Tesla's worldwide since 2017.

I wonder if they will also put this motor into the Long Range as you’d think they would want to phase out the 3D3 to keep the number of motors they make to a minimum. It’s an old design, time to move forwards. It wouldn’t make the LR as fast as the new Performance as the difference is really in the rear motor.

I see at least in the UK the RWD Model 3 is still available straight away almost but the LR is a few months out, maybe next batch will have changed motor also. I’m guessing the Performance / Ludicrous can only be a month or two out at this point.

 

[Sam1]

There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what I am reporting and how to value these thing...


The reported power is a certified power level. Not the maximum power that this motor can produce. These motors come in A,B,C...versions usually none go to the absolute power limit on these certification levels. The 4D2 might be the first one as its max power is 320V x 950A = 304kW and it was certified for 303kW.

Sure, but that is not what I have reported here. The old 3D3 front motor has a certified peak power level of 158kW, but its true max is 335V x 630A = 211kW. A US M3P/MYP at full throttle through 80-90kph will log close to this on front power with a full and hot pack. The highest Ive seen from the front was around 205kW, but the front will take any excess power that the rear isnt taking in all Tesla's, so there is no limit by Tesla although it states 158kW.

I absolutely agree, that's the reason why Tesla doesnt necessarily need to switch to a better pack than the current LG, as long as it delivers its peak 415kW during a wide speed band...with the right motors and long duration power limits.

The graph ends at 250kph as this is were I found the last data point of 90% peak power of the 4D3B motor.

No, sorry, you cant, because as you say, it is not a thing the public can access.

Well...yes and no...
View attachment 1028579

You are free to doubt the information I provide and question them (and you should), but my reporting about technical changes usually came true in the weeks and months after.

[Wiki] Model 3 / Model Y - Technische Veränderungen

Version with Conventional Battery Pack → VC## e4 * 2007/46 * 1293 * ## Version with Structural Battery Pack → VS## e4 * 2018/858 * 00135 * ## <details><summary>Wo finde ich meine Version?</summary></details> <details><summary>VC36 / 28.03.2024</summary></details> <details><summary>VS10 /...

tff-forum.de

Also the speeds and rpm of different torque and power levels are not something I am making up, but the exact data that Tesla is claiming to the authorities. I am merely reporting them to you unfiltered or sometimes in a way it is easier to understand, but never altered.

If something is off, I am also mentioning it, like now with the 4D3B being reported as a rear motor, but my past experience tells me, that this might be a new front motor that is certified via the "backdoor".

We will soon know if that is true. For now, the best information is the 158kW at 6625rpm from the Korean registration papers. Those two values only match one motor and the is the old 3D3 front motor, that has been used in all dual motor Tesla's worldwide since 2017.

Thanks for elaborating on this.

 

[Sam1]

We clearly cannot have constant 400Nm torque with 159KW power cap as you said. Likely we will have 400 or 430Nm max torque at low rpm (below 3700rpm) and linear torque drop off to maintain 159KW all the way to 8000 or 10000rpm, (200Nm@7400 rpm for example). I would like something like that !

On this point specifically, Tesla uses frequency to regulate motor torque. It's not torque being controlled via speed regulation. They have done this since the early 2000's...and not something most people are aware of.

 

[Knightshade]

On this point specifically, Tesla uses frequency to regulate motor torque. It's not torque being controlled via speed regulation. They have done this since the early 2000's...and not something most people are aware of.

Tesla didn't even have a car on the market in the early 2000s. First delivery of a roadster 1st gen was 2008.

Which is something most people ARE aware of

 

[Tiger]

Tesla didn't even have a car on the market in the early 2000s. First delivery of a roadster 1st gen was 2008.

He means when he was young

 

[terranx]

On this point specifically, Tesla uses frequency to regulate motor torque. It's not torque being controlled via speed regulation. They have done this since the early 2000's...and not something most people are aware of.

Doesn’t really change that power is a function of torque and angular velocity. But it seems like the issue has been settled and that the reported numbers are not necessarily the actual characteristics of the motor

 

[gearchruncher]

On this point specifically, Tesla uses frequency to regulate motor torque. It's not torque being controlled via speed regulation. They have done this since the early 2000's...and not something most people are aware of.

No they don't.

You are mis-interpreting PWM'ing the DC link to create the AC phase currents needed to commutate and control a motor. But the primary control is duty cycle, not frequency, and the point of this is to control the CURRENT in an inductor (the motor windings) not the "Frequency." You'll note that it's Pulse WIDTH Modulation. Not Frequency modulation. Every motor inverter does this. It's how they all work, and isn't special to Tesla. And yes, there is a frequency associated with PWM, and yes it changes because there are good efficiency reasons to manipulate this. But the motor doesn't change torque because of this. Torque in a motor is phase current, period. And there is no getting away from physics, where power = torque * speed.

But hey, I could be wrong. You learned what you think you know somewhere. Post a link to this fact that "not most people are aware of"

 

[gearchruncher]

There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what I am reporting and how to value these thing...

@eivissa - Appreciate you coming in with more detail and nuance. The issue here is that you're the one that actually posted this on Twitter:

" 430Nm of torque! (up from 3D3=240Nm)"

When it appears that you are well aware this motor doesn't actually outperform the 3D3 in torque because of how Tesla "Certifies" motors. Seems very much like you're being sensational for clicks with all your superlatives (even though you claim to just be reporting the "facts")

..And you can see this leads to people thinking crazy things like Tesla is able to create 430NM of torque without increasing power by modifying the "frequency" of the motor.

 

[12B4A]

From: https://www.tesla.com/blog/motor-city (2006)
Why variable frequency? A little digression into how an AC motor works:

The AC electricity driving the motor powers the stator (the stationary windings around the spinning rotor) and creates a rotating magnetic field. Tesla’s original motors used 3 “phases” of AC to drive the motor: 3 wires to the motor, each with the same frequency AC, but at a different phase. (Sorry – I can’t think of an easy way to explain this!) Lower-power motors today use a single phase, which (annoyingly) use two wires.

Motor engineers coined a concept called “slip,” which is the difference in rotational speed between this rotating field and the rotational speed of the rotor. The torque of the motor is proportional to the slip. So – if you want a certain amount of torque from an AC motor, you measure the speed of its rotor, and adjust the AC frequency to cause the magnetic field to rotate the right amount faster than the rotor (or slower for regen braking).

An AC induction motor is sometimes called a “squirrel cage motor” because the working part of the rotor looks like one of those cages that pet rodents run around in – a shaft with two metal rings connected together by a bunch of metal bars. (Note: there are generally no wire windings in the rotor of an AC induction motor.) Early on, Tesla figured out that he could fill up the squirrel cage (where the squirrels might run) with a stack of steel laminations to increase the power of the motor.

Tesla mostly used copper to make his squirrel cages, but had a difficult time fabricating them. For this reason, Tesla came to advocate aluminum for the rotor instead of copper, even though this reduced the motor’s efficiency considerably.

As noted above, AC motors designed for appliances usually run at one speed. Some of you have commented that we should use a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) to match our motor speed to the desired speed of the car. This would be true if we ran our motor on a fixed frequency.

But we don’t. Like the GM cars, and like other AC electric car motors, we feed the motor with a variable frequency AC waveform, using frequency to regulate torque and therefore speed.