Perf gets higher top speed, RWD more range, but no love for AWD???

[Daniel in SD]

This is not correct. I think we can agree that the torque produced by either version of the car is enough to spin out the wheels of either tire, so it is the tire that fundamentally determines the amount of torque that can be applied at low speeds. This is a significant factor and relates to this roll out concept.

Huh. You can calculate the torque at the wheels. It's definitely not enough to spin the tires. In general you need > 1g acceleration on an AWD car to spin the wheels. The measured acceleration for P3D with the Pilot Sport tires is EXACTLY the same as the P3D with the MXM4 tires. It's been measured many times by people in this forum.

It’s clear from the 0-60 time for the P that it is producing about 1g on average and clearly much more at lower speeds. This is much more significant when considering the 0-2.4s time of the S performance version. So yeah, 0.4s is absurd. Maybe 0.2s ...but that doesn’t even address my point that Tesla should mesure in a consistant way unless otherwise mentioned. To do differently would be unethical. So where is the evidence thay they use different metrics currently for P versions? Moreover, what as to my argument that from a simple power output point of view the times makes sense?

The car doesn't instantly start accelerating. 0.4s sounds about right for RWD though I admit I don't know which version you're talking about.
Constant 1g acceleration gives a 0-60 time of 2.7 seconds.
Tesla is a somewhat unethical company, sorry.

 

[Knightshade]

This is not correct.

Yes, it is. There's a slew of threads on this with measured data from every LR version of the Model 3 proving it is.

Feel free to search for em, there's lots.

I think we can agree that the torque produced by either version of the car is enough to spin out the wheels of either tire

Nope.

Again- there's hard data you're wrong.

It’s clear from the 0-60 time for the P that it is producing about 1g on average and clearly much more at lower speeds.

Again, factually and measurably wrong. The P is only about 0.8g accelerating.

The 20" PS4s manage 1.2g when braking however on the P- proving they are nowhere close to their traction limit.

The MXM4s are also capable of handling 0.8g (which is why the 18" P3D- isn't any slower than the P3D+ with much stickier tires... the car is not traction limited)

And since the P isn't traction limited on the MXM4s we know for a fact the AWD isn't.

but that doesn’t even address my point that Tesla should mesure in a consistant way unless otherwise mentioned. To do differently would be unethical. So where is the evidence thay they use different metrics currently for P versions?

You mean besides where I not only directly screen shotted them saying they do this on the S but also pointing out they changed the P 3 0-60 by 0.2 without changing the actual car and they explicitly said this was due to suddenly not including rollout when they didn't used to do that and they did not change the non-P versions at the same time?

I mean, how much evidence do you need to accept the obvious?

 

[MentalNomad]

I do think if they made the difference in efficiency clearer I probably would have opted for the RWD.

Same here. I actually hoped for more regen with the AWD.

But I'm happy with my AWD, too. Lets me make people smile.

 

[Adam3]

Again, factually and measurably wrong. The P is only about 0.8g accelerating.

What am I missing - I thought Dragy shows P3D peaking over 1G?

 

[Knightshade]

What am I missing - I thought Dragy shows P3D peaking over 1G?

If it was actually going 1G or better it'd be running sub 3 second 0-60s, and it doesn't.

IIRC the braking data we have says the MXM4s can handle about 1g, and the PS4s about 1.2g... and swapping between those on a P3D makes no difference to 0-60 at all.... since the car isn't traction limited with either tire... (and thus we know the AWD sure isn't)

The search function here is awful but if you poke around you should be able to find a lot more confirming all this.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Not this discussion again! The Model 3 in current form is not traction limited in a straight line on typical dry pavement with either MXM4 or PS4S!

Here is some data from a VBOX that I already posted elsewhere. This is for a 3.36s run (excluding 1-foot rollout time), at about 85-90% SoC.

Note that in the speed vs. time plot it takes 3.7s to get to 60. The plot just shows true speed vs. time, and the VBOX then calculates and removes the 1-foot rollout for the corrected time.

Peak g on VBOX says is 0.872, but I think that is slightly high (easy to get thrown off by a single datapoint slightly out of place). It’s 0.81g between 20 and 40, possibly ever so slightly higher at around 5mph. The acceleration and torque are clearly essentially flat after about 1mph (look at the slope), so it is a small difference anyway. The car is going about 5mph after 1 foot, which takes about 0.3 seconds.

Anyway, this is not even close to breaking the tires loose. When we get below 2.9sec let’s revisit this - the MXM4s will be close to the limit!

The 5% likely only applies to peak power and has no effect on peak torque so will only affect this curve above about 45mph which is where peak HP is reached; when the slope starts to reduce it’ll stay on line for a little bit longer in future, like to 47mph...

 

[MrMannilow]

How about us early adopters getting a bone from Tesla. We are the ones who made it possible for you to be a recent buyer!!

I'm in the same boat as you. I'm glad I cancelled my deposit and waited for the white interior option on the AWD. Luckily I bought the car knowing how much it was at the time and knew I could make the payment I selected. No one who bought this early got an advantage which SHOULD be the case. Perhaps the white non P interior should have been a pre order exclusive...

I feel worse for the Tesla employees who might have bought a car to show what a great company they worked for and now will be out of a job with a huge monthly payment they can't afford

That being said my white on white LR AWD w/EAP 1400 miles Dec 12th delivery is posted for sale already.

 

[V__2]

I think it’s actually called Internet Forum Reality Distortion Syndrome. The vast majority of Tesla Model 3 purchasers just drive and enjoy the car they bought. They aren’t tracking price changes that have no impact on them whatsoever. The diehards are on Internet forums. They don’t represent most people.

Was told by my "advisor" that unless I want to wait till April for my desired configuration (MR, 18"), only option is AWD with 19". Have been driving the car for 7 days. 1/2 tax credit. Now, there is a much cheaper, longer range, almost same performance car - the R LR. AWD with 19" is probably 40 miles less range than RWD with 18". Supposedly could have received the LR in under a month.

Not happy at all.

 

[Jonnydigital]

Bought my AWD non-P exactly 2 months ago. It's now $6k cheaper and even more distant in performance to the P. It's interesting how they've dropped 60 times on the P twice now but the AWD non-P has remained the same. I really hope they do something for us instead of improving just the lower and higher models. I'm even willing to pony up $. At current prices I would have just gotten a P had I waited, as it's now barely much more than what I paid for the AWD non-P.

In a similar boat with my two-month-old AWD LR non-P . Feeling a bit left out with no sort of range or 0-60 boost. I'd gladly drop some extra cash for an upgrade if it was available.

 

[12yan]

Huh. You can calculate the torque at the wheels. It's definitely not enough to spin the tires. In general you need > 1g acceleration on an AWD car to spin the wheels.

Again, factually and measurably wrong. The P is only about 0.8g accelerating.

Peak g on VBOX says is 0.872, but I think that is slightly high (easy to get thrown off by a single datapoint slightly out of place). It’s 0.81g between 20 and 40, possibly ever so slightly higher at around 5mph.

You are all spreading nonsense here, and it's very easy to verify that you're wrong if we do the math for the model 3 P:

Mass per tire: 1840kg/4
Torque per tire: 640 Nm/4 (Note this is the most conservative case; we know in reality the rear motor produces more torque than the front)
Radius of wheel at tire surface: 0.3m
Force at tire surface per wheel: Force_tire = Torque_tire/Radius_wheel = (640Nm/4)/0.3m = 533N
Required grip in gravitational units: Force_tire/Mass_per tire = 533N/(1840kg/4) = 1.16g

...and not this is a conservative estimate. If we assumed 2/3 of torque is applied to the rear wheels, as is roughly correct then you need 1.55g of grip to apply full torque from a standstill!

So yes the motor definitely produces enough torque to make both the stock 18" wheels and the performance upgrade wheels slip. It's just simple physics. Traction control is used to avoid slip.

Note: one way you're messing this up is by talking about average acceleration

 

[Daniel in SD]

You are all spreading nonsense here, and it's very easy to verify that you're wrong if we do the math for the model 3 P:

Mass per tire: 1840kg/4
Torque per tire: 640 Nm/4 (Note this is the most conservative case; we know in reality the rear motor produces more torque than the front)
Radius of wheel at tire surface: 0.3m
Force at tire surface per wheel: Force_tire = Torque_tire/Radius_wheel = (640Nm/4)/0.3m = 533N
Required grip in gravitational units: Force_tire/Mass_per tire = 533N/(1840kg/4) = 1.16g

...and not this is a conservative estimate. If we assumed 2/3 of torque is applied to the rear wheels, as is roughly correct then you need 1.55g of grip to apply full torque from a standstill!

So yes the motor definitely produces enough torque to make both the stock 18" wheels and the performance upgrade wheels slip. It's just simple physics. Traction control is used to avoid slip.

Note: one way you're messing this up is by talking about average acceleration

You forgot the 9:1 final drive ratio.

 

[Sunshine State]

You guys are worried about top speed? Who is actually ever going to go more than 20 over the legal speed limit? I don’t understand why people are not all lobbying to get Tesla to introduce a "Launch Mode" in the P3. It feels leisurely off the line compared to a performance S. It wouldn’t surprise me if that will eventually be coming down the road, hopefully in an update, not hardware.

 

[Lifeinabox]

You guys are worried about top speed? Who is actually ever going to go more than 20 over the legal speed limit? I don’t understand why people are not all lobbying to get Tesla to introduce a "Launch Mode" in the P3. It feels leisurely off the line compared to a performance S. It wouldn’t surprise me if that will eventually be coming down the road, hopefully in an update, not hardware.

Ludicrous is likely coming.

 

[12yan]

You forgot the 9:1 final drive ratio.

Right, I didn’t take into account any torque multiplication, so this is the limiting case. Multiplying the required grip by 9 doesn’t help your argument. So how does that square with this?

Huh. You can calculate the torque at the wheels. It's definitely not enough to spin the tires. In general you need > 1g acceleration on an AWD car to spin the wheels.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Right, I didn’t take into account any torque multiplication, so this is the limiting case. Multiplying the required grip by 9 doesn’t help your argument. So how does that square with this?

639Newton-meters*9/(26.3 inches/2)/(4072 pounds + 150 pounds) = 0.92g not counting drivetrain loss.
Wolfram|Alpha: Making the world’s knowledge computable

 

[diamond.g]

You are all spreading nonsense here, and it's very easy to verify that you're wrong if we do the math for the model 3 P:

Mass per tire: 1840kg/4
Torque per tire: 640 Nm/4 (Note this is the most conservative case; we know in reality the rear motor produces more torque than the front)
Radius of wheel at tire surface: 0.3m
Force at tire surface per wheel: Force_tire = Torque_tire/Radius_wheel = (640Nm/4)/0.3m = 533N
Required grip in gravitational units: Force_tire/Mass_per tire = 533N/(1840kg/4) = 1.16g

...and not this is a conservative estimate. If we assumed 2/3 of torque is applied to the rear wheels, as is roughly correct then you need 1.55g of grip to apply full torque from a standstill!

So yes the motor definitely produces enough torque to make both the stock 18" wheels and the performance upgrade wheels slip. It's just simple physics. Traction control is used to avoid slip.

Note: one way you're messing this up is by talking about average acceleration

Shouldn’t slip start allow this to be proven?

 

[Atari2600]

Not this discussion again! The Model 3 in current form is not traction limited in a straight line on typical dry pavement with either MXM4 or PS4S!

But it sure in hell stops much shorter when braking. I know that's not what is being discussed but I do not want people to overlook that and that's why I have PS4S on my 18" OEM wheels.

 

[Daniel in SD]

But it sure in hell stops much shorter when braking. I know that's not what is being discussed but I do not want people to overlook that and that's why I have PS4S on my 18" OEM wheels.

Yep. I installed PS4S on my aftermarket wheels and 60-0 went from 125ft to 105ft measured with Vbox sport.

 

[Atari2600]

Yep. I installed PS4S on my aftermarket wheels and 60-0 went from 125ft to 105ft measured with Vbox sport.

I recall that and found that info super useful. Could I talk you into an 80-0 test?

I do not have a VBOX of any kind.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I recall that and found that info super useful. Could I talk you into an 80-0 test?

I do not have a VBOX of any kind.

Haha. No. There aren't many flat uncrowded roads around here. I had a tough enough time finding a flat enough 60mph road where I wouldn't get rear ended. 80mph stopping distance = (80/60)^2 * 60mph stopping distance