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

[Mash]

I did see that, thank you. Without understanding the assumptions and calculations behind this it's impossible to say if this is achievable. How does it model the torque curves of the motors?

For example, your calculations show that a M3P Panasonic with 1.0G grip should already be achieving 2.75s 0-60 and 10.3s quarter. If your projections correlated better with the real-world then they would be more compelling.

I specifically said that my model is torque limited by the grip. Battery is not limiting torque, it's limiting power.

M3P is lower acceleration than 1.0g for 0-60 and it's dropping power way below battery limit after 45.

The purpose of this model is to show that battery is not the limit of M3P by far.

 

[Mash]

"Then there is the vertical load on the tire, which is crucial to understand, but also the most misunderstood element of tire traction. Traction increases as the vertical load on the tire increases. But it is very important to understand that the relationship between vertical load and traction is not linear. Being nonlinear means that if the load on the tire is increased, while the traction also increases, it does not increase as much as the load. This is a good time to more clearly explain traction in terms of pounds of force and vertical load on a tire."

Weight Watching - Understanding Weight Transfer and Racecar Dynamics - NASA Speed News Magazine

Most of us understand that tires make traction through friction between the rubber molecules at the tire’s contact patch and the road surface. And most of us understand that traction increases as vertical load on the tire increases, which is why aerodynamic downforce works so well. In addition...

www.google.com

View attachment 1036894

I dont know how to say it more clearly.

If you have 2 light cars connected together - they act as one 2x heavier car that stops the same as a light car. And you don't need 2x more wheels to do it. Now if you compare loaded and unloaded truck - yes, they are different, because it's the same tire in both cases. But we talk about whether heavy car stops slower. It doesnt, because tires are different.

Best 1 pound RC cars have the same stopping distance as 4000 pounds cars. Trucks braking distance is worse because they use low traction tires for a fuel and tire economy, not because they are heavy.

P.S. One more reminder to buyers of range extending tires - you also increase your braking distance vs UHP tires. In some cases it's double.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

FWIW Raleigh stopped issuing camera citations last month- and AFAIK they were only ever red light cams, not speed.

City leaders dump red-light camera program in Raleigh

Raleigh leaders confirm they are removing 25 red-light cameras at locations across the city.

abc11.com

AFAIK speed cameras aren't even legal in NC (no tickets that carry points can be issued from camera evidence, even red light ones are 0 points and max $50 fine)

I never said speed cameras. I said cameras that they monitor. There are cameras for seeing crashes and things like that. If they see you traveling faster than everyone else they will radio ahead to a waiting cop and try to get you on radar.

If they don’t get you on radar then they can’t give you a ticket. They will just pull you over and give you a warning.

 

[CKwik240]

I dont know how to say it more clearly.

If you have 2 light cars connected together - they act as one 2x heavier car that stops the same as a light car. And you don't need 2x more wheels to do it. Now if you compare loaded and unloaded truck - yes, they are different, because it's the same tire in both cases. But we talk about whether heavy car stops slower. It doesnt, because tires are different.

Best 1 pound RC cars have the same stopping distance as 4000 pounds cars. Trucks braking distance is worse because they use low traction tires for a fuel and tire economy, not because they are heavy.

P.S. One more reminder to buyers of range extending tires - you also increase your braking distance vs UHP tires. In some cases it's double.

I literally posted an article that describes the nonlinear relationship between the amount of grip and weight on tires. It's actually not complicated than that as slip speed (angle) and temperature are additional variables and these vary by tire. See page 11:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/cav/nextrans/completed-projects/docs/Final%2520Report%2520049.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjghLD0hbeFAxUBLkQIHWT6D8s4ChAWegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw3wdTsUPV6v1MV6lj8POIVY

 

[milesr3]

The purpose of this model is to show that battery is not the limit of M3P by far.

I tend to agree with this from 0-70 km/h but between 70-100 km/h (when the 3D1/3D6 motor torque is falling and the power demand is greatest) and above 100 km/h (where the 4D2 power demand will be greatest) it's not so clear.

These models are interesting, but they have their limits. The real-world throws up anomalies, like a 0.2s variance in 0-100 km/h due to battery and motor temperature, gaining 0.1s from 70-100 km/h from battery temperature alone, and the LG equipped M3P simply being slower in every back to back test than their predecessors.

 

[milesr3]

M3P is lower acceleration than 1.0g for 0-60 and it's dropping power way below battery limit after 45.

How much power and how many G does your model show for (say) a real-world 3.3s 0-60? This would be another way of checking correlation.

 

[Sellout]

I literally posted an article that describes the nonlinear relationship between the amount of grip and weight on tires. It's actually not complicated than that as slip speed (angle) and temperature are additional variables and these vary by tire. See page 11:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/cav/nextrans/completed-projects/docs/Final%2520Report%2520049.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjghLD0hbeFAxUBLkQIHWT6D8s4ChAWegQIDRAB&usg=AOvVaw3wdTsUPV6v1MV6lj8POIVY

I think some of you guys are putting a little too much weight on that non-linearity. Just because it’s not a linear relationship doesn’t make what he’s saying false. What the article actually shows is that neither of you are *wrong*

You’re just focused on it from different perspectives, trying to be right, and unable to accept that it nuanced like almost everything else in life. Non-linear does not mean that weight differences have no bearing on braking distance, but it does mean that the difference comes down to more than just the weight.
The nonlinearity described in the article and graph attached make it look to me like the real world difference would be “in the noise” if we were able to test it with actual cars on pavement somewhere.

Maybe this discussion also belongs in that other thread that was started to keep this one on the vaporware.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Some people have asked about what is possible in terms of acceleration with the Ludicrous Model 3. I know most of you want to equate an increase in maximum HP with an increase in acceleration. With a single speed transmission EV that really isn't the best way to compare the differences.

I have 175 0-60 mph, 155 1/8 mile, and 150 1/4 mile runs recorded with a Dragy and my 2022 Model 3 Performance. I am pretty sure that is more test data than anyone else has with a Model 3. Plus I have tracked temperature, wheel/tire weight, and vehicle weight for each run so I know what the result of each change to the car produces.

I am using my Dragy data for this because it is always consistent. Track timing systems are never consistent from one track to the next and from one run to the next. If you shallow or deep stage that will affect your 60 foot time significantly. With the Dragy it always measures 1 foot rollout the same no matter where you are and it always gives you 0-60 mph with 1 foot rollout subtracted and not subtracted.

The single most important metric for reducing your 1/8 and 1/4 mile times from a Dig/Standstill is the 60' time. Any decrease in your 60' time will get compounded as you progress down the track because you are measuring time over a distance instead of time to a certain speed. As you increase your speed earlier on for an 1/8 or 1/4 mile race you will decrease your time to the distance by even more.

For 0-60 mph measurements the 60' time counts just the same as any other portion of the acceleration. Basically, 60' time matters a lot more for 1/8 and 1/4 mile races than for 0-60 mph.

My best 60' time 100% stock was a 1.83 Dragy measured. However, I got that down to a 1.75 with the 210 lbs of weight reduction. That took my 1/8 mile time down from 7.30 to 7.12 and my 1/4 mile time down from 11.43 to 11.17. That .08 60' reduction doesn't sound like much but my trap speeds were less than 2.5 mph faster between those two runs. I didn't gain that much in acceleration down track from the weight reductions. Almost all of the gains were in the first portion of the track. In the first 60' I gained .08 seconds while I only gained another .1 seconds all the way to the 1/8 mile(660'). Then I only gained another .08 seconds from the 1/8 to the 1/4 mile(1320') for a total of .26 seconds over the whole 1/4 mile.

If the Model 3 Ludicrous can take that 60' time from a 1.83 down to a 1.60 then that alone would probably translate to a .4 or even .5 decrease even if nothing else changes after the 60' acceleration. Just launching better than the soft launch it does today could get it close to a 10 second ¼ mile without making the top end acceleration any better at all. A 1.60 60’ foot is perfectly plausible especially with those wider 275 rear tires.

However, the Ludicrous will almost certainly have improvements in acceleration all the way through 70 mph if not all the way through the full ¼ mile. It would be trivial to gain .2+ seconds from the 60’ mark to the end of the ¼ mile with the slightest power increase. The old adage says each 10 HP gain gives you .1 seconds. However, that is for multi speed ICE cars so EVs are slightly different.

A 50 HP gain plus the 1.60 60’ would easily get that ¼ time from 11.43 down to mid 10s. I am certain of that.

For 0-60 mph I went from 3.23 seconds without rollout 100% stock to 3.01 seconds without rollout and the weight reductions. .08 seconds of that .22 decrease was in the 60’. Then the other .14 seconds reduction came in the last 1/2 of the acceleration.

To improve the 0-60 mph time it will take a better launch but it really just needs an increase in the constant torque through most of the 0-60 mph acceleration. I believe that is precisely what the wider rear tires will allow.

With a 3.01 0-60 mph time without rollout subtracted I had a 2.83 second time with rollout subtracted. I predict that if they got the time down to 2.77 without rollout subtracted then they would be able to claim a 2.5 0-60 mph time with rollout subtracted. Going from 3.1 seconds to 2.5 seconds with rollout subtracted shouldn’t be that difficult with the new rear motor and wider tires.

I was asked not to post anymore Dragy results in this thread but I have all of the data to back up these assertions if anyone wants to see it in another thread.

 

[FastLaneJB]

2.5 seconds without rollout would make it a Plaid as in the second it's matching the Model X Plaid. It's not a Plaid, it's a Ludicrous so personally I think that tells you that it won't be 2.5 seconds or close to that. 2.9 seems a reasonable number and a 0.2 drop so they can say it's sub 3 seconds but still keeps it a distance from Plaid levels. This way there is a still a reason for people to pony up more to get a Plaid if they want it.

For this of us that need RHD, we are stuck with whatever this is as the fastest Tesla but considering our traffic levels and laws, this one will be more than fast enough. I'd personally more prefer the S for air suspension.

 

[terranx]

Yeah no way they do 2.5. Best case scenario is 2.7 imo, with 2.8-2.9 being more likely

 

[mpgxsvcd]

2.5 seconds without rollout would make it a Plaid as in the second it's matching the Model X Plaid. It's not a Plaid, it's a Ludicrous so personally I think that tells you that it won't be 2.5 seconds or close to that. 2.9 seems a reasonable number and a 0.2 drop so they can say it's sub 3 seconds but still keeps it a distance from Plaid levels. This way there is a still a reason for people to pony up more to get a Plaid if they want it.

For this of us that need RHD, we are stuck with whatever this is as the fastest Tesla but considering our traffic levels and laws, this one will be more than fast enough. I'd personally more prefer the S for air suspension.

Nobody said 2.5 seconds WITHOUT rollout subtracted. 2.5 seconds is WITH rollout subtracted or 2.77 seconds WITHOUT rollout subtracted. Plaid is 2.17 seconds without rollout subtracted and 1.99 seconds with rollout subtracted. That is .6 seconds quicker than I am predicting for the Model 3 Ludicrous without rollout subtracted.

 

[terranx]

Nobody said 2.5 seconds WITHOUT rollout subtracted. 2.5 seconds is WITH rollout subtracted or 2.77 seconds WITHOUT rollout subtracted. Plaid is 2.17 seconds without rollout subtracted and 1.99 seconds with rollout subtracted. That is .6 seconds quicker than I am predicting for the Model 3 Ludicrous without rollout subtracted.

Model X Plaid is 2.5 with rollout.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

Model X Plaid is 2.5 with rollout.

And? It is a $90K SUV. Tesla doesn't care if the Model 3 Ludicrous has the same 0-60 mph as their largest SUV. Just watch.

 

[terranx]

And? It is a $90K SUV. Tesla doesn't care if the Model 3 Ludicrous has the same 0-60 mph as their largest SUV. Just watch.

The point is 2.5 brings it into “Plaid” territory.

I think there is zero chance the ludicrous hits 2.5 personally. That takes a lot more than you imply. Your dragy slips are not useful to make that judgment.

 

[mpgxsvcd]

The point is 2.5 brings it into “Plaid” territory.

I think there is zero chance the ludicrous hits 2.5 personally. That takes a lot more than you imply. Your dragy slips are not useful to make that judgment.

I literally have tested this with one of the most accurate devices for measuring 0-60 mph and you say it is not useful? Could you provide some actual evidence to support your conclusion or are your feelings more relevant than actual measured data?

 

[FastLaneJB]

Nobody said 2.5 seconds WITHOUT rollout subtracted. 2.5 seconds is WITH rollout subtracted or 2.77 seconds WITHOUT rollout subtracted. Plaid is 2.17 seconds without rollout subtracted and 1.99 seconds with rollout subtracted. That is .6 seconds quicker than I am predicting for the Model 3 Ludicrous without rollout subtracted.

Model X Plaid is 2.5 seconds WITH rollout subtracted. I get it's an SUV and the Model 3 is a saloon but I think the point stands that Plaid is probably 2.5 seconds and below WITH rollout. Model 3 Ludicrous I think will be 2.9 WITH rollout. I'd love for them to not use rollout but I know they do it for marketing purposes and also because they are an American company and that's the way over there.

 

[terranx]

I literally have tested this with one of the most accurate devices for measuring 0-60 mph and you say it is not useful? Could you provide some actual evidence to support your conclusion or are your feelings more relevant than actual measured data?

Not one person has replicated your results. Getting to 2.5 requires a massive increase in power. More than the ludicrous is expected to have

 

[mpgxsvcd]

The point is 2.5 brings it into “Plaid” territory.

I think there is zero chance the ludicrous hits 2.5 personally. That takes a lot more than you imply. Your dragy slips are not useful to make that judgment.

Plaid is a tri motor 1,000+ HP vehicle. The Model X Plaid weighs well over 1,000 lbs more than a Model 3. At some point physics makes it impossible to differentiate between the Model X Plaid and a fully optimized Model 3 Ludicrous for 0-60 mph if Tesla wants to keep up with other manufactures.

Ask yourself this. Would Tesla intentionally cripple their brand new Performance version of the Model 3 to protect the declining and almost irrelevant sales of the Model X Plaid that even Musk admits they make simply because they can? Model 3 Performance already matches the Model S LR in 0-60 mph acceleration. Why did they let those two cars have the same 0-60 mph metric?

 

[FastLaneJB]

I literally have tested this with one of the most accurate devices for measuring 0-60 mph and you say it is not useful? Could you provide some actual evidence to support your conclusion or are your feelings more relevant than actual measured data?

Has Tesla Marketing contacted you to ask you what speed you'd like them to use in their marketing data? I suspect not and hence they won't be going off your opinion and your draggie results

Not sure why some of you won't accept 2.9 with rollout. They've been rumoured to say it's not a Plaid, we also know it'll be faster than the last one. A 0.2 second improvement when down at these numbers is a reasonable improvement, especially if they manage to offer this without a price increase.

 

[terranx]

Plaid is a tri motor 1,000+ HP vehicle. The Model X Plaid weighs well over 1,000 lbs more than a Model 3. At some point physics makes it impossible to differentiate between the Model X Plaid and a fully optimized Model 3 Ludicrous for 0-60 mph if Tesla wants to keep up with other manufactures.

Ask yourself this. Would Tesla intentionally cripple their brand new Performance version of the Model 3 to protect the declining and almost irrelevant sales of the Model X Plaid that even Musk admits they make simply because they can? Model 3 Performance already matches the Model S LR in 0-60 mph acceleration. Why did they let those two cars have the same 0-60 mph metric?

Tesla has been fairly consistent at actually maintaining the product differentiation between the various monikers. All Plaids thus far have been faster than all ludicrous models, all ludicrous models have been faster than all performance models.