New motor/range increase and towing

[MP3Mike]

All fine and dandy but real towing is generally a RWD thing, why stress the whole chassis by dragging it around with the front? I haven't got data to back up my opinion but still suspect significant power delivery from the large rear motor when towing if that is so then the new front motor won't be a big improvement in towing.

The front motor being PM based has to be driven at all times that the car is moving, so it is the primary motor. The rear motor would be asleep until it is actually needed. Either because you need more power than the front one can provide or the front wheels don't have enough traction.

My guess is that when towing heavy loads both motors will be used to get you moving, and then the front will take over while cruising.

 

[Saghost]

All fine and dandy but real towing is generally a RWD thing, why stress the whole chassis by dragging it around with the front? I haven't got data to back up my opinion but still suspect significant power delivery from the large rear motor when towing if that is so then the new front motor won't be a big improvement in towing.

Getting the load moving and stopping the load, yes.

For steady state cruising, though, the load is small, so the stress on the chassis is small, and the efficiency benefits are likely significant, and you can't just sleep the switched reluctance motor to rely only on the induction motor very well anyway.

 

[SSedan]

Since you argue the rear motor has little to do with steady state driving please explain the 20mile range hit the Model X P version takes vs the LR? That big rear motor that can sleep shouldn't mean much toof anything range and only to initial acceleration.

Unless of course it is still being used to propel the car under steady state............

 

[idoco]

The only reason I’d order is for adding range while towing our camper.

You're swapping out the wrong part. If you want extra range keep the 90D and trade the AS for a Bowlus

 

[Saghost]

Since you argue the rear motor has little to do with steady state driving please explain the 20mile range hit the Model X P version takes vs the LR? That big rear motor that can sleep shouldn't mean much toof anything range and only to initial acceleration.

Unless of course it is still being used to propel the car under steady state............

EPA rated range, you mean?

EPA rated range is based on EPA combined cycle testing numbers - which means that the city test with all the stop and go is actually a bigger factor than the highway test (which still has stop and go elements.)

It's also likely that the big rear motor has somewhat more friction/rolling resistance than the smaller one, but I wouldn't expect it to be a large contributor.

I think the difference is mostly tires. Performance Teslas ship on soft, grippy high performance summer tires - and the tires are still the limiting factor for acceleration for Ludicrous cars.

Those grippy tires pay a price in longevity and in rolling resistance compared to the harder all seasons that the non-Performance cars ship with. My guess is that this is the majority of the difference in rated range, though I've seen little detailed data on it.

 

[SSedan]

Tires is a good point if valid.
I tried both in the configure tool and it seems to allow me to keep the 20" rims so potentially the same tires. I am not that well versed in the X do P and LR come with different tires even on the same size rim?

 

[Saghost]

Tires is a good point if valid.
I tried both in the configure tool and it seems to allow me to keep the 20" rims so potentially the same tires. I am not that well versed in the X do P and LR come with different tires even on the same size rim?

Historically they have - continental contisilent cross contacts on my X, I think the performance cars at the same time got Michelin pilot cup 4s?

Here's the only review article for a project Raven car I know of so far:

EXCLUSIVE: 2019 Tesla Model S Review: From SF to LA on One Charge? - MotorTrend

I went to it looking for the language I thought I remembered about the tires for long range and performance cars sitting side by side on the lab bench, which is there, right below the image following a semi - but before I found that, I also found a direct statement that mirrors what I've been saying all along:

Tesla's skill at cost-analyzing an EV as a total system is colossally more sophisticated. The efficiency of every part is weighed against the cost of battery cells, and now, that analysis tilts in favor of the permanent-magnet motor being used on the front axle. I ask, "Doesn't the permanent-magnet motor create drag when its power is not needed? An induction motor can be switched off, right?" True, but in light load conditions, the Model S is a front-wheel-drive car; the rear motor engages for extra power. So the front unit is never really idle. It's either making power, regenerating it under braking, or idle at a stop.

Amid the "don't touch" cables, shaker tables, monitors of blinking lights, and even a glass container of bubbling clear liquid (what's that?) I'm shown tires. Tires? Pairs of current and new Model S tires, for both the Performance and Long Range versions, side by side. Lars points out the new tread patterns, changes in the multiple rubber compounds employed across the tread making them more efficient, and their lightness. He hands me the current and new wheels' bearings. Turn them: The new one is noticeably easier to twirl. The costs of making tiny improvements to such seemingly unrelated details are constantly weighed against one another other and their impact on battery size and driving range.

 

[ohmman]

You're swapping out the wrong part. If you want extra range keep the 90D and trade the AS for a Bowlus

I’ve wrestled with that idea quite a bit but cannot make the Bowlus layout or style work well for us. There are some positives, especially in the new 26’ version, but enough drawbacks that I still want to keep our Airstream. That may change..

 

[j-rho]

This could go in several threads but this is the most recent...

I was capped at a SC this morning to 80%. Apparently a new policy for high traffic spots. The SC itself was only half full (6 of 12 avail). Today this is only a minor inconvenience in that it may add an extra stop to a routine family weekend trip we could otherwise do without stopping.

But for those of us who tow, if we were to encounter one of these chargers on a key travel leg, it could be a catastrophe. I start biting my fingernails under 20%, and travel starting from one of these neutered spots have “in the green” range reduced by 25%!

:edit: also no indication in the map that the station was capped. Yay for rolling the dice!

 

[ohmman]

This could go in several threads but this is the most recent...

I was capped at a SC this morning to 80%. Apparently a new policy for high traffic spots. The SC itself was only half full (6 of 12 avail). Today this is only a minor inconvenience in that it may add an extra stop to a routine family weekend trip we could otherwise do without stopping.

But for those of us who tow, if we were to encounter one of these chargers on a key travel leg, it could be a catastrophe. I start biting my fingernails under 20%, and travel starting from one of these neutered spots have “in the green” range reduced by 25%!

:edit: also no indication in the map that the station was capped. Yay for rolling the dice!

Yeah, this could be a major issue. I may start a new thread on this specific situation.

 

[MP3Mike]

Yeah, this could be a major issue. I may start a new thread on this specific situation.

Does the trip planner take the extra load of the trailer into account? Because if the trip planner thinks you need to charger higher than 80% it will let you even at a capped site.

 

[ohmman]

Does the trip planner take the extra load of the trailer into account? Because if the trip planner thinks you need to charger higher than 80% it will let you even at a capped site.

It does, but not accurately. It underestimated consumption by quite a bit as far as I can tell. Although, you raise an interesting potential workaround. If indeed the trip planner can override the limitation, I could enter a destination that is farther than my actual destination and which doesn’t have a Supercharger en route. Maybe?

 

[Saghost]

It does, but not accurately. It underestimated consumption by quite a bit as far as I can tell. Although, you raise an interesting potential workaround. If indeed the trip planner can override the limitation, I could enter a destination that is farther than my actual destination and which doesn’t have a Supercharger en route. Maybe?

Should work, unless Tesla sees a lot of abuse by that method and steps in to stop it.

At the moment, I think this is aimed at frequently abused urban area Superchargers, so with a little luck it really won't affect your towing road trips.

 

[RubberToe]

I've been hovering over the order button on a new “long range” X since the range improvement announcement. The only reason I’d order is for adding range while towing our camper. I realize we are at a point where there have been no deliveries and limited information, but I’m curious about how this efficiency will translate at higher sustained power rates. Is it possible that the efficiency was tweaked at the standard consumption and that it won’t be as notable at my normal towing rates (currently around 575-600Wh/mi)?

If indeed it does scale proportionally, it makes a pretty big difference over my degraded 90D (240 miles at 100%) and the faster supercharging would be icing on the cake.

Any thoughts on this?

Press the order button, it's only a matter of time once you start talking like that...

RT

 

[MP3Mike]

At the moment, I think this is aimed at frequently abused urban area Superchargers, so with a little luck it really won't affect your towing road trips.

Yep, they say that "the limit will apply to 8% of stations at all times, and another 9% will have the limitation during periods of times when they are busier." I wonder how many of the limited stations would be lone ones in the area?

 

[clyjr]

Yep, they say that "the limit will apply to 8% of stations at all times, and another 9% will have the limitation during periods of times when they are busier." I wonder how many of the limited stations would be lone ones in the area?

FYI, in case anyone missed it. The 80% limit isn't a hard limit, you can just go to the charging screen and slide the charge limit back to 100%...

 

[Reggers]

I ordered a new refresh X. The Tesla website says nothing about a towing package anymore. Do all Model Xs come with the towing package now?

 

[MP3Mike]

I ordered a new refresh X. The Tesla website says nothing about a towing package anymore. Do all Model Xs come with the towing package now?

Yes they have for while now.

 

[David99]

The 80% limit can easily be adjusted higher manually in the car or the app.

 

[ecarfan]

I was capped at a SC this morning to 80%. Apparently a new policy for high traffic spots.

You aren’t “capped”; at some SCs the firmware now defaults your SOC setting to 80% but you can change that in the usual way, just move the slider in the car or in the app.

Does the trip planner take the extra load of the trailer into account?

In my experience it does not, or if it does, it does so poorly that I don’t even notice it. I always use the EV-TO app if I have any concern about making it to the next charging stop while towing.