Model 3P-D 0-60 prediction?

[TexasTeslaRacing]

A very reliable Tesla employee has told me it won’t be faster than the P100D. I’m guessing 0-60 on paper 3.1 and 1/4 Mile in mid 11’s. Real life 0-60 and 1/4 mile might be a bit less. Only a few more days to put speculation to rest.

Pricing fully loaded could be over $80k.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

I've done some quick-and-dirty calculations based on the battery pack, curb weight, and other assumptions arrived at from similar calculations on the Model S, and I think we can establish a lower bound on the best that the Model 3PD would be able to do in the 0-60 performance metric.

Let's use an example from the Model S P85D to validate the calculations:

Curb weight = 4936 lbs = 2239 kg.

The torque curve of the induction motors used in the P85D maintain a constant maximum torque up to 42 MPH, with power linearly increasing throughout that region. Then in the 42-60 MPH region, battery power is a constant maximum of 480 kW (measured by CAN bus).

With this information, we can compute a weighted average power for the entire 0-60 MPH interval:

(42/60)*480*0.5 + ((60-42)/60)*480 = 312 kW

We can also compute a final kinetic energy of the vehicle:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*2239*(26.8224)^2 = 805.4 kJ

We also need to assume a drive train efficiency, that encompasses inverter losses, motor losses, gearing losses, and tire losses. An assumed value of 0.8 (80%) efficiency matches real-world results.

We can now compute time using average power, efficiency, and final kinetic energy:

t = KEf / (Pavg * eff) = 805.4 / (312 * 0.8) = 3.23 seconds.


Let's extrapolate some of the same assumptions to the Model 3PD:

- We will assume that the battery power will be the limiting factor, i.e. the motor can use everything the battery can put out
- We will assume an identical torque curve to the Model S P85D (this is idealized, and would probably require the Model 3 to use induction motors. If the Model 3 does not use induction motors on both axles, this will result in a lower 0-60 time than actual).
- We will assume the same drive train efficiency.
- We will assume that an AWD variant of the Model 3 will add 200 pounds to the curb weight.

Curb weight = 3814 lbs for the Model 3 LR + 200 lbs AWD = 4014 lbs = 1821 kg

Maximum battery output = 370 kW, referenced by someone in this thread as the reading that is being advertised on the CAN bus.

Weighted average power:

(42/60)*370*0.5 + ((60-42)/60)*370 = 240.5 kW

Final kinetic energy:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*1821*(26.8224)^2 = 654.9 kJ

Time:

t = KEf / (Pavg * eff) = 654.9 / (240.5 * 0.8) = 3.40 seconds.


3.40 seconds 0-60 is the fastest that the Model 3PD could go with the current battery pack, if the CAN bus reading is accurate.

Any other limiting factors, such as:

- Motor torque is less than maximum at any point during the first interval, as it is for PMSR motors
- Breakpoint where motor shifts from constant torque to constant power is higher than 42 MPH
- Inverter, motor, gearing, or tire losses are higher than assumed, resulting in less than 80% efficiency
- Vehicle weight in AWD configuration is higher than assumed

will cause the 0-60 time to be higher. Thus, the 3.40 seconds figure is probably a lower bound -- 0-60 cannot be faster than this with the current battery pack.

My speculation/prediction is that the vehicle will be somewhat slower than this, around 3.7 seconds, and to do that will have an induction motor on the rear axle vice a PMSR. Range will probably take a pretty good hit (< 300 miles).

 

[chickensworth]

I've done some quick-and-dirty calculations based on the battery pack, curb weight, and other assumptions arrived at from similar calculations on the Model S, and I think we can establish a lower bound on the best that the Model 3PD would be able to do in the 0-60 performance metric.

Let's use an example from the Model S P85D to validate the calculations:

Curb weight = 4936 lbs = 2239 kg.

The torque curve of the induction motors used in the P85D maintain a constant maximum torque up to 42 MPH, with power linearly increasing throughout that region. Then in the 42-60 MPH region, battery power is a constant maximum of 480 kW (measured by CAN bus).

With this information, we can compute a weighted average power for the entire 0-60 MPH interval:

(42/60)*480*0.5 + ((60-42)/60)*480 = 312 kW

We can also compute a final kinetic energy of the vehicle:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*2239*(26.8224)^2 = 805.4 kJ

We also need to assume a drive train efficiency, that encompasses inverter losses, motor losses, gearing losses, and tire losses. An assumed value of 0.8 (80%) efficiency matches real-world results.

We can now compute time using average power, efficiency, and final kinetic energy:

t = KEf / (Pavg * eff) = 805.4 / (312 * 0.8) = 3.23 seconds.


Let's extrapolate some of the same assumptions to the Model 3PD:

- We will assume that the battery power will be the limiting factor, i.e. the motor can use everything the battery can put out
- We will assume an identical torque curve to the Model S P85D (this is idealized, and would probably require the Model 3 to use induction motors. If the Model 3 does not use induction motors on both axles, this will result in a lower 0-60 time than actual).
- We will assume the same drive train efficiency.
- We will assume that an AWD variant of the Model 3 will add 200 pounds to the curb weight.

Curb weight = 3814 lbs for the Model 3 LR + 200 lbs AWD = 4014 lbs = 1821 kg

Maximum battery output = 370 kW, referenced by someone in this thread as the reading that is being advertised on the CAN bus.

Weighted average power:

(42/60)*370*0.5 + ((60-42)/60)*370 = 240.5 kW

Final kinetic energy:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*1821*(26.8224)^2 = 654.9 kJ

Time:

t = KEf / (Pavg * eff) = 654.9 / (240.5 * 0.8) = 3.40 seconds.


3.40 seconds 0-60 is the fastest that the Model 3PD could go with the current battery pack, if the CAN bus reading is accurate.

Any other limiting factors, such as:

- Motor torque is less than maximum at any point during the first interval, as it is for PMSR motors
- Breakpoint where motor shifts from constant torque to constant power is higher than 42 MPH
- Inverter, motor, gearing, or tire losses are higher than assumed, resulting in less than 80% efficiency
- Vehicle weight in AWD configuration is higher than assumed

will cause the 0-60 time to be higher. Thus, the 3.40 seconds figure is probably a lower bound -- 0-60 cannot be faster than this with the current battery pack.

My speculation/prediction is that the vehicle will be somewhat slower than this, around 3.7 seconds, and to do that will have an induction motor on the rear axle vice a PMSR. Range will probably take a pretty good hit (< 300 miles).

unless it's a reasonably inexpensive, i think most buyers would pass on 3.7... drop into the 2's and you'll get people stretching to make payments.
Buying the P is emotional... it's a car for enthusiasts. From a practical standpoint, the current LR provides all the performance anyone needs... but from an emotional standpoint 2.9 sounds so much sweeter and will have enthusiasts dropping their M's, AMG's and RS's.

 

[kingjamez]

I've done some quick-and-dirty calculations based on the battery pack, curb weight, and other assumptions arrived at from similar calculations on the Model S, and I think we can establish a lower bound on the best that the Model 3PD would be able to do in the 0-60 performance metric.

Let's use an example from the Model S P85D to validate the calculations:

Curb weight = 4936 lbs = 2239 kg.

The torque curve of the induction motors used in the P85D maintain a constant maximum torque up to 42 MPH, with power linearly increasing throughout that region. Then in the 42-60 MPH region, battery power is a constant maximum of 480 kW (measured by CAN bus).

With this information, we can compute a weighted average power for the entire 0-60 MPH interval:

(42/60)*480*0.5 + ((60-42)/60)*480 = 312 kW

We can also compute a final kinetic energy of the vehicle:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*2239*(26.8224)^2 = 805.4 kJ

We also need to assume a drive train efficiency, that encompasses inverter losses, motor losses, gearing losses, and tire losses. An assumed value of 0.8 (80%) efficiency matches real-world results.

We can now compute time using average power, efficiency, and final kinetic energy:

t = KEf / (Pavg * eff) = 805.4 / (312 * 0.8) = 3.23 seconds.


Let's extrapolate some of the same assumptions to the Model 3PD:

- We will assume that the battery power will be the limiting factor, i.e. the motor can use everything the battery can put out
- We will assume an identical torque curve to the Model S P85D (this is idealized, and would probably require the Model 3 to use induction motors. If the Model 3 does not use induction motors on both axles, this will result in a lower 0-60 time than actual).
- We will assume the same drive train efficiency.
- We will assume that an AWD variant of the Model 3 will add 200 pounds to the curb weight.

Curb weight = 3814 lbs for the Model 3 LR + 200 lbs AWD = 4014 lbs = 1821 kg

Maximum battery output = 370 kW, referenced by someone in this thread as the reading that is being advertised on the CAN bus.

Weighted average power:

(42/60)*370*0.5 + ((60-42)/60)*370 = 240.5 kW

Final kinetic energy:

KE = 0.5*m*v^2 = 0.5*1821*(26.8224)^2 = 654.9 kJ

Time:

t = KEf / (Pavg * eff) = 654.9 / (240.5 * 0.8) = 3.40 seconds.


3.40 seconds 0-60 is the fastest that the Model 3PD could go with the current battery pack, if the CAN bus reading is accurate.

Any other limiting factors, such as:

- Motor torque is less than maximum at any point during the first interval, as it is for PMSR motors
- Breakpoint where motor shifts from constant torque to constant power is higher than 42 MPH
- Inverter, motor, gearing, or tire losses are higher than assumed, resulting in less than 80% efficiency
- Vehicle weight in AWD configuration is higher than assumed

will cause the 0-60 time to be higher. Thus, the 3.40 seconds figure is probably a lower bound -- 0-60 cannot be faster than this with the current battery pack.

My speculation/prediction is that the vehicle will be somewhat slower than this, around 3.7 seconds, and to do that will have an induction motor on the rear axle vice a PMSR. Range will probably take a pretty good hit (< 300 miles).

I think you could be close.
However, the assumption of the similar torque curve is probably off enough to make a meaningful impact. The permanent magnets really change the equations here.

Additionally, I don't think that using 370kW as the maximum output power is valid since the "P" model of the S has a higher power output than the standard.

The Model S P100D can output ~575kW so roughly 5.75C. If (big if) the C rating on the P3LRD is the same you can use 75kW*5.75 = ~430kW. These numbers should really be based on the actual capacity of the packs though, not the rated.

-Jim

 

[SomeJoe7777]

unless it's a reasonably inexpensive, i think most buyers would pass on 3.7

I wouldn't. That's 1/2 second faster than my Model S 85D, which is impressive as it is. And it's 1.2-1.3 seconds faster than the non-performance Model 3. And it certainly would make me remove a BMW M3 or a Mercedes C63 from consideration.

However, you're correct that a 3.7 cannot command a price premium that's similar to the Model S P-variant for this performance gain.

I think you could be close.
However, the assumption of the similar torque curve is probably off enough to make a meaningful impact. The permanent magnets really change the equations here.

Additionally, I don't think that using 370kW as the maximum output power is valid since the "P" model of the S has a higher power output than the standard.

The Model S P100D can output ~575kW so roughly 5.75C. If (big if) the C rating on the P3LRD is the same you can use 75kW*5.75 = ~430kW. These numbers should really be based on the actual capacity of the packs though, not the rated.

But P model of the S had higher power output due to motor capability, battery pack was the same.

Comparing C rates can give some insight, but at this point we don't even know if the cell chemistry in the Model 3 is the same. Model S 18650 cells are NCA chemistry, but 2170 may not be (NMC is rumored). C rates from the NCA chemistry may not apply.

370 kW advertised as max output from the pack is already far above what the PMSR motor can handle in the Model 3 LR (~ 220 kW), so if there is additional room in the current pack, why the 370 kW limit?

 

[kingjamez]

But P model of the S had higher power output due to motor capability, battery pack was the same.

Comparing C rates can give some insight, but at this point we don't even know if the cell chemistry in the Model 3 is the same. Model S 18650 cells are NCA chemistry, but 2170 may not be (NMC is rumored). C rates from the NCA chemistry may not apply.

370 kW advertised as max output from the pack is already far above what the PMSR motor can handle in the Model 3 LR (~ 220 kW), so if there is additional room in the current pack, why the 370 kW limit?

Good points. I would say that the true peak power handling capability of the PMSR motor is still up for debate... lots of unknowns right now. Hopefully by Friday, we'll have our answer.
-Jim

 

[Zaphod]

Three character tweet --- that would blow the auto world.

If Elon tweets three characters (where the characters would be the 0-60 and a link to the PM3 specs), it would be such a great announcement.

Something like this:

2.9

I think 3.14 would be more Elon's style.

 

[Zaphod]

A very reliable Tesla employee has told me it won’t be faster than the P100D. I’m guessing 0-60 on paper 3.1 and 1/4 Mile in mid 11’s. Real life 0-60 and 1/4 mile might be a bit less. Only a few more days to put speculation to rest.

Pricing fully loaded could be over $80k.

Is your comment on the pricing your general opinion or your opinion based upon said "reliable Tesla employee"?

 

[kingjamez]

Comparing C rates can give some insight, but at this point we don't even know if the cell chemistry in the Model 3 is the same. Model S 18650 cells are NCA chemistry, but 2170 may not be (NMC is rumored). C rates from the NCA chemistry may not apply.

This is the quote from the last earning call from Elon:

“Cells used in Model 3 are the highest energy density cells used in any electric vehicle. We have achieved this by significantly reducing cobalt content per battery pack while increasing nickel content and still maintaining superior thermal stability. The cobalt content of our Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminum cathode chemistry is already lower than next-generation cathodes that will be made by other cell producers with a Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt ratio of 8:1:1. As a result, even with its battery, the gross weight of Model 3 is on par with its gasoline-powered counterparts.”

This sounds to me like the Model 3 is NCA.
Despite the rabid assertions of a poster in this thread, we do not know the exact chemistry or performance of the Model 3 2170's yet.
-Jim

 

[Evthusiast]

I actually care more about the range. Speed is no issue for me

 

[TexasTeslaRacing]

Is your comment on the pricing your general opinion or your opinion based upon said "reliable Tesla employee"?

My personal opinion.

 

[Ludalicious]

I feel as if it will be faster than the current model 'S' P-series. After all the P100D is already a few years old. Anything in the 3's isn't exactly WOW material. The rate Telsa is improving battery range and performance is unprecedented compared to other manufactures. JM2C

 

[Zaphod]

My personal opinion.

Thanks, I don't think you will be too far off but I think crossing into the $80k's is bit high. My opinion has always been mid to upper $70k. At least that is what I hope as that is all my wife will allow. Otherwise, I might have to bribe her with something shiny or a new purse.

 

[TexasTeslaRacing]

Thanks, I don't think you will be too far off but I think crossing into the $80k's is bit high. My opinion has always been mid to upper $70k. At least that is what I hope as that is all my wife will allow. Otherwise, I might have to bribe her with something shiny or a new purse.

Anything new and shiny usually does the trick

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Anything new and shiny usually does the trick

I find that shiny things in Robin's egg blue boxes gains you a lot of leeway.....

 

[Zaphod]

I find that shiny things in Robin's egg blue boxes gains you a lot of leeway.....

Ha, all too familiar with what you speak of

 

[Mayhem]

Seriously... I know it's a crazy hope, but if this car can get low 3's (3.0-3.1) so the only thing it can't smoke is a 911 turbo or Z series corvette, I'll be a happy camper. More realistically... sticking with my original prediction of 3.3-3.5 with hoping its a bit better when actually measured.

 

[Starno]

I wouldn't be surprised if it's sub <3 seconds. The speed isn't the only differentiating aspect of the Model S. People will still choose Model S for it's better design ,interior, comfort...
I think it'll be 3-3,2 seconds.

But wouldn't be surprised if it's like 2,7 seconds.

 

[MartinAustin]

My guesses...

0-60mph
SR RWD 5.6 seconds ($35,000)
LR RWD 5.1 seconds ($44,000)
LR AWD 4.9 second ($49,000)
LR AWD Performance 3.9 seconds ($59,000)
LR AWD Performance with Ludicrous Upgrade 2.9 seconds ($69,000)

Love this thread

I am in agreement with commasign's price guesswork - the least-expensive barebones AWD Performance Model 3 would be $59,000 before forced bundled options like wheels, brakes or leather seats etc. The 0-60 times are something else. Our basic problem as idle posters in this thread is that we are not sure of Tesla's intentions.

1) We know that Elon loves first principles, and this would dictate that they absolutely pack in the best technology that they know about - fuses, inconel, etc. etc. and we could very well see 2.9 seconds if Tesla wants to do that. This would also give them superiority over more cars - i.e. all BMWs LOL and most other brands - with the Model 3. Also would create the biggest possible splashes in the traditional and social media, which we know Elon loves. Continues to push his "electric is better than anything" message.

2) However as we saw with the Model S, 0-60 times shrink over time. First it was 4.2 seconds, then 3.2 with the "D," then 2.8 with Ludicrous mode, then 2.5 with Ludicrous Plus. (those are manufacturers' times, sometimes beaten during independent tests) It is possible that Tesla's AWD Performance Model 3 released this weekend will be its first version and will be bettered as time goes by. This would be in order to keep the competition chasing a moving target. Also to allow price increases. $59,000 for the initial AWD-P, another $5,000 for some super-option on top of that, and yet another $10,000 option for the super-low-volume boutique drag race oddity, for $74,000 before options. (don't forget the base price of the S is $75,000 and the P100D is $135,000)

In terms of what the time is, the first AWD-P will undoubtedly beat the original S-P85 and and the current S100D. THe question is, where will it fall in relation to the 2014 P85D? This was Tesla's first implementation of dual-motor AWD for speed, and it shaved an entire second off the 0-60 time 3.2 seconds, same as McLaren F1. I'm comfortable believing that the Model 3 will do 3.2 seconds, and I voted for the 3.1-3.3 choice. Any lower than that... is up to Elon's technology push-versus-slow roll of the acceleration. I would also not feel bad if the Model 3 AWD-P time was 3.5 seconds. Because as we can be certain of, this is the first iteration out of the gate... Tesla are like a cat playing with a mouse. When they truly sink their teeth in, the 0-60 time could be less than 3 seconds.

I would go with Model 3 LR AWD doing 0-60 in 4.5 or maybe even lower, near to the original S-P85 time of 4.2. The range of that car will be the astonishing number... and could get within 4% of the current S-100D. As I said in another thread, this development may cause a new release in the Model S with more range.

Last thing... Tesla may force extra options to be bundled, leading to higher ASP. Or... simply elect to build the fully-loaded cars first. This is what they did on Model S and Model X before. No-one should be surprised if this happens. It may be more difficult than you think to order a stripped Model 3 AWD P.

 

[favo]

In case anyone isn't following the other thread.