-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Petition Tesla to make the Model 3 Performance 0-60 <3s
- Thread starter Sutton 3P
- Start date
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Any experts wanna take a stab at how much more power P3D would need to put down to get to 2.7 consistently?
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
3.2/2.7 = 19% more power at all speeds 0-60. It could also be done with more torque and no increase in peak power.
Someone should calculate the necessary tail wind! It would probably be a few hundred mph.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Your antic's of repeatedly claiming these times with absolutely no evidence to back it up are getting old lol.
Pardon my french but you should put up or...you know, stop talking about it? I'd put money on it that you couldn't achieve that time using a Dragy device with a validated performance report (meaning within slope tolerance the app accepts to post your time to the leaderboards) in a stock P3. But quite frankly, I don't see you doing that for obvious reasons.
I'm not claiming it's impossible but either the testing method is flawed or there is an external cause to be achieving that time - such as a strong tail-wind and/or a negative slope and/or weight reductions. Not all tracks are made equal.
.02 faster than this guy? impossible right?
tesla "model 3" 0-60 2.8 seconds - Bing video
Garlan Garner
Banned
Your antic's of repeatedly claiming these times with absolutely no evidence to back it up are getting old lol.
Pardon my french but you should put up or...you know, stop talking about it? I'd put money on it that you couldn't achieve that time using a Dragy device with a validated performance report (meaning within slope tolerance the app accepts to post your time to the leaderboards) in a stock P3. But quite frankly, I don't see you doing that for obvious reasons.
I'm not claiming it's impossible but either the testing method is flawed or there is an external cause to be achieving that time - such as a strong tail-wind and/or a negative slope and/or weight reductions. Not all tracks are made equal.
.2 faster than this guy? impossible right?
Maybe its because I removed the 5 quarters from my console and he didn't. LOL.....
you guys really think that you are getting to me....that's hilarious.
tesla "model 3" 0-60 2.8 seconds - Bing video
Tesla Model 3 Performance's 0-60 mph acceleration dips below 3 seconds after software update - Electrek
He sees Tesla getting the Model 3 to a 0-60 mph launch in 2.8 seconds.
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Dude. You're embarrassing yourself.
The drag-times guys actual time was 2.998.
Not 2.8
YOUR time would be almost 0.3 faster than him-- not 0.02
He said "sees" 2.8 as in "he thinks with some future changes it might"- not that it actually did
So yes- your 2.7 claim is utter nonsense unsupported by any facts of any kind
Even by your own source that you appear to have totally misunderstood yet keep repeating like a learning disabled parrot.
Last edited:
Garlan Garner
Banned
you mean down from 2.9 consistently?
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
You mean 2.998 of course.
Because that's the actual time in the video.
Yes because you keep citing a source that contradicts you as if it agrees with you.
And despite having it pointed out several times you keep doing it
MagnusMako
Member
It's hard to get to someone who doubles down on what they're saying but can't provide any evidence. Now that's an argument I can get behind.
I've said this to you before but I'll say it again - @Zerosport has the fastest documented time I've seen of 2.74 seconds (1 foot rollout) and that's after removing 400+ pounds. You are claiming to hit essentially the same time as him while being 400+ pounds heavier.
Wow you guys got the magnetic flux too? Fun!!
So here are some test you guys can do.
1: turn off everything in the car and launch it. See what time you get
2; so the same launch, max out your heat.
Same 0-60 means it’s not battery limited.
3: turn on Dyno mode , launch it
Dyno mode is able to launch it faster, it’s traction control limited.
If it’s not battery or traction, then you are left with motor or inverter.
Now for power electronics the inverter can handle more power when they are kept cool. Transistor that’s used as a switch is in saturation mode, which means the channel has a pinch off reason, limiting the current flow. That can be seen as the max current. This current should save regardless of the toggle frequency. So that transistor on the buck converter should be able to transfer the same power at virtually all frequency range ( motor rpm). So lower power at lower motor rpm probably isn’t limited by the inverter.
I didn’t work with buck converter since my third year university. Anyone know if what I said is right? Feel free to correct me.
So If it’s not battery or traction control, and I believe is probably not inverter, that leaves it to be the motor. Motor design is out of my scope. Anyone know if motor efficiencies are affected by rpm??
One more thing
engineers evaluate their life span using the activation energy equation. Essentially it’s an exponential relationship. In general, 1 celcius increase in temperature shortens the life for 10x. 1 volt increase shortens the life by 10x. I’m not pulling out numbers from my thin air, I was a electronic process engineer before and that’s what 65nm tech data showed me.
to those who’s willing to sacrifice reliability, if the life time of the car is shortened exponentially, you probably don’t want the performance increase that pushes the electronics to its limit.
So here are some test you guys can do.
1: turn off everything in the car and launch it. See what time you get
2; so the same launch, max out your heat.
Same 0-60 means it’s not battery limited.
3: turn on Dyno mode , launch it
Dyno mode is able to launch it faster, it’s traction control limited.
If it’s not battery or traction, then you are left with motor or inverter.
Now for power electronics the inverter can handle more power when they are kept cool. Transistor that’s used as a switch is in saturation mode, which means the channel has a pinch off reason, limiting the current flow. That can be seen as the max current. This current should save regardless of the toggle frequency. So that transistor on the buck converter should be able to transfer the same power at virtually all frequency range ( motor rpm). So lower power at lower motor rpm probably isn’t limited by the inverter.
I didn’t work with buck converter since my third year university. Anyone know if what I said is right? Feel free to correct me.
So If it’s not battery or traction control, and I believe is probably not inverter, that leaves it to be the motor. Motor design is out of my scope. Anyone know if motor efficiencies are affected by rpm??
One more thing
engineers evaluate their life span using the activation energy equation. Essentially it’s an exponential relationship. In general, 1 celcius increase in temperature shortens the life for 10x. 1 volt increase shortens the life by 10x. I’m not pulling out numbers from my thin air, I was a electronic process engineer before and that’s what 65nm tech data showed me.
to those who’s willing to sacrifice reliability, if the life time of the car is shortened exponentially, you probably don’t want the performance increase that pushes the electronics to its limit.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Max power is more than 340kW. Good luck consistently measuring the effect of the heater. Even if you could not measure a difference it wouldn’t prove anything. The power limit is purely software, they might not even cut power to compensate for heater usage because it’s so insignificant. Max power draw from the battery is probably many megawatts if you don’t care about it catching on fire.
The traction question has been beaten to death. The Performance cars with crappy mxm4 tires are just as quick as the PS4S.
Anyway 0-60 is obviously motor or inverter limited since the motors don’t even reach full power until 40mph.
Of course that also requires an increase in torque for all the initial increases in power.
This is the more interesting question:. How much performance and cooling headroom is in that rear PMSR motor? It would take amazing hacking skills to run the motor solo on the bench to test. And to put it in the car you would also have to reverse engineer the private key that signs the controller code.
Zerosport
Member
It's hard to get to someone who doubles down on what they're saying but can't provide any evidence. Now that's an argument I can get behind.
I've said this to you before but I'll say it again - @Zerosport has the fastest documented time I've seen of 2.74 seconds (1 foot rollout) and that's after removing 400+ pounds. You are claiming to hit essentially the same time as him while being 400+ pounds heavier.
For context that was prior to the November firmware power boost. Though we were on pirelli pzero racing tires (not as good as drag tires, but better than street.) Need to run the test again when the car is put back together.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Where is best to start shedding weight while keeping stock look? I’m starting with wheels which should help with nearly 50lb overall.
Zerosport
Member
Totally stock? 12v battery is probably your best bet. @MountainPass makes a kit that shaves 20+ pounds and you'll never see it under the front trunk. For 0-60 performance like in this thread I'd say aftermarket wheels, rotors, and tires. You can shave a fair amount of rotating mass.
MagnusMako
Member
Yeah I did the 12v battery swap from MPP and then also rotors will shave several more pounds per corner as well. I've got both from them and am hoping to do the front rotors soon. Replacing the battery was a bit of a pain to remove/replace due to how it's mounted but worth it imo.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Well. Stock on the surface. Not looking to remove seats or any interior bits.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
Seems like a very reasonable guess. I think to get a good launch at 1G rather than 0.9G or so, you need about 420 pounds more force. That's only 11% more acceleration, not 20% more, though.
It's about 75 pounds of force at 80mph (150Wh/mi) I think. That's moving into the wind though...probably quite a bit different from the back - maybe it is more of a sail...that would be a good design feature. Anyway. Call it sqrt(420/75)*80mph = 190mph.
After the launch it gets complicated; the assistance starts to drop off pretty quickly as you start moving. So might want to boost that breeze to 250mph to be sure. You might have a chance.
When FSD arrives do you think we can ask our cars to perform 0-60 testing with no one in the car? That should shave a few hundred pounds
Am no expert but I'll take a stab.
I estimate you could get there at 720Nm at the current power level of 428kW. Neglecting BackEMF that would give you:
I doubt you would reach traction, cooling or or any of the other secondary limits in the 0-60.
If the current max torque is 625Nm then at 428kW you get this:
You can never get to 2.7 seconds 0-60 with 625Nm torque limit regardless of how much power you have because you don't reach 500kW by 60 mph.
I know this was a joke but since I already had drag built into the model I solved for this. Turns out at 188mph tailwind you can cut 0.3 seconds off the 625Nm 428kW 0-60 time. Assuming that the drag coefficient is the same in reverse and that we are simply pushing the car from the back and there are no vacuum effects pulling the car forward.
By the way, if Model 3 owning physicists are lurking and know how to formulate the Back EMF power drop for the PMSR or even the induction motors please drop me a note. We never got that done for the Model S/X or original roadster.
Last edited:
