Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Range loss with the different wheel options

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

Zoomit

Active Member
Sep 1, 2015
2,338
4,696
SoCal
In the Model Y EPA Application, Tesla listed the dynamometer set coefficients for the three wheel and tire combinations available for the 2020 Model Y Performance. These coefficients are used to set the dyno for the EPA testing. They tell the dyno how much force to use to mimic the aerodynamic drag on the vehicle because it is stationary during the test. The coefficients are on page 20 of this document: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=49398&flag=1.

I plotted just the road load force in this thread, but the below graph shows the percent difference in efficiency or range when comparing the three options.

It is important to note that this data is only applicable for constant speed driving, such as on the highway. When accelerating and decelerating, heavier wheel and tire combinations will use more energy that is not included here. That means that if city driving efficiency were added to this highway driving efficiency data, the disparity between the options would be a little larger.

Also, using different tires will affect these results.

To summarize, at a constant 75 mph [121 kph]:
  • Range with 21's will be 7% less than with the 20's
  • Range with 20's will be 7% less than with the 19's
  • Range with 21's will be 14% less than with the 19's
20200626, MY wheel loss.png
 
Last edited:
In the Model Y EPA Application, Tesla listed the dynamometer set coefficients for the three wheel and tire combinations available for the 2020 Model Y Performance. These coefficients are used to set the dyno for the EPA testing. They tell the dyno how much force to use to mimic the aerodynamic drag on the vehicle because it is stationary during the test. The coefficients are on page 20 of this document: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=49398&flag=1.

I plotted just the road load force in this thread, but the below graph shows the percent difference in efficiency or range when comparing the three options.

It is important to note that this data is only applicable for constant speed driving, such as on the highway. When accelerating and decelerating, heavier wheel and tire combinations will use more energy that is not included here. That means that if city driving efficiency were added to this highway driving efficiency data, the disparity between the options would be a little larger.

Also, using different tires will affect these results.

To summarize, at a constant 75 mph [121 kph]:
  • Range with 21's will be 7% less than with the 20's
  • Range with 20's will be 7% less than with the 19's
  • Range with 21's will be 14% less than with the 19's
View attachment 556693

Please add the tire used with each rim as that is the critical factor not the rim diameter.
 
MYPUP

21" Überturbines 275/255 Perellis stock

Driver + 1 Adult Passenger
No Cargo

Cold Tire Pressure: 42 PSI

Elev Start: 1400 ft
Elev End: 10 ft

If temp <70°: Fan #2 Lo; AC/Heat OFF
If temp =>70°: Fan #2 AC on Cabin Temp set 70°

Dry Road; Mostly Freeway Speed.

Note: Return trip is mixed-bag speed/traffic pattern. Not shown due to many more variables.

Screenshot_20200627-075857_TezLab.jpg
Screenshot_20200627-074328_TezLab.jpg
Screenshot_20200627-080317_TezLab.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Pied
MYPUP

20" M3 Sportwheels 255 Michelin PS AS 3+

Driver + 1 Adult Passenger
No Cargo

Cold Tire Pressure: 42 PSI

Elev Start: 1400 ft
Elev End: 10 ft

If temp <70°: Fan #2 Lo; AC/Heat OFF
If temp =>70°: Fan #2 AC on Cabin Temp set 70°

Dry Road; Mostly Freeway Speed.

Note: Return trip is mixed-bag speed/traffic pattern. Not shown due to many more variables.

Screenshot_20200627-075048_TezLab.jpg
Screenshot_20200627-075146_TezLab.jpg
Screenshot_20200627-075252_TezLab.jpg

Screenshot_20200627-075004_TezLab.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Pied
MYPUP

19" Apollo w/o Gemini Covers 255 Contis stock

Driver + 1 Adult Passenger
No Cargo

Cold Tire Pressure: 42 PSI

Elev Start: 1400 ft
Elev End: 10 ft

If temp <70°: Fan #2 Lo; AC/Heat OFF
If temp =>70°: Fan #2 AC on Cabin Temp set 70°

Dry Road; Mostly Freeway Speed.

Shorter than previously posted, but same location/route.

Note warmer temp with AC on these trips.

Note: Return trip is mixed-bag speed/traffic pattern. Not shown due to many more variables.

Screenshot_20200627-075517_TezLab.jpg
Screenshot_20200627-075634_TezLab.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Pied
Probably due to variance in driving, weather, etc and not so much due to change in wheel/tire config.

I am going to post more info for context - maybe someone more knowledgeable, like @Zoomit, can analyze and chime in.

Why would you presume Zoomit has any knowledge?
Posting this without listing the tires with the wheels but not explicitly noting the tires, I see it in the chart but it should be listed with the wheels since it is THE thing actually being tested.

This is literally a test of the tires not the wheels, posting it as an indication of anything about wheels is proof of ignorance not knowledge.
 
Why would you presume Zoomit has any knowledge?
Posting this without listing the tires with the wheels but not explicitly noting the tires, I see it in the chart but it should be listed with the wheels since it is THE thing actually being tested.

This is literally a test of the tires not the wheels, posting it as an indication of anything about wheels is proof of ignorance not knowledge.

OK.
My response was to @Lozzy, since his post was right after mine - hence I quoted his post, not your post SSedan. I assumed that Lozzy was referring to my post which is right above his question with diferrent TIRE and Wheel set up.

I agree that info about what tires were used in @Zoomit OP is important missing factor. See that I included wheel and tire info on my post.

See, my response to Lozzy's question was all in response in reference to my post #5.
I have seen Zoomit's other posts/threads regarding wheel/tires dynamics - he is knowledgeable. More knowledgeable than me is what I meant in my post.
All others opinion are welcome too.
 
Last edited:
Please add the tire used with each rim as that is the critical factor not the rim diameter.
Tire selection is certainly very important but is not a single "critical factor".

Rolling resistance is primarily caused by the bending, compression and shearing of the tire tread. To a lesser extent the sidewall bending is also a contributor to energy dissipation. Each manufacturer optimizes their tires for different characteristics and using a different tire WILL change the energy consumption. Heck, even changing to a new version of the SAME tire will change the rolling resistance as a new tire will have different characteristics than a worn tire. It also not safe to say that the same size and model of tire will perform the same. An example is the T0-spec (Tesla spec) Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires that are original equipment on the 20" Model 3 wheels. The tread pattern and width is different than the non-T0-spec PS4S tires of the same 235/35R20 size. Beyond the tire itself, changing the inflation pressure as well as the toe alignment will also change the rolling resistance of the tires. Temperature and road surface roughness also have an effect on rolling resistance. An example here is that a tire should be warmed up for at least 20 minutes before taking precise energy consumption data, as the rolling resistance can be over 15% higher in the first few minutes when the tire is cold. (Yes, cold tires are also a contribution to winter range woes.)

Most people do think of only the wheels as affecting the range, but the characteristics of the tire are a significant contribution. As I said in the first post, "using different tires will affect these results." But rolling resistance is, in simple terms, a linear function of speed. That is the energy needed to overcome rolling resistance grows as a function of speed. Aerodynamic drag does not. Energy used to overcome drag grows as a squared function of speed. This means that when doubling the speed, the energy required grows by a factor of four. At highway speeds in the Model Y, total aerodynamic drag is about three times the tire's rolling resistance and the wheel design plays a large role in the total vehicle drag. For a low Cd car like the Model Y, wheel aero drag could be 25% of the total drag.

Tesla has been paying particular attention to optimizing their wheel designs to reduce aerodynamic drag. The key characteristic to reduce wheel drag losses is to increase the flat area near the outer edge of the wheel and to reduce the open area of the wheel. You see these artifacts in the various Model Y wheel designs. They all have relatively little visibility to the wheel interior. Basically, you can't see the brake rotor very easily. They also have a lot of surface area near the wheel rim. Larger diameter wheels are particularly challenging aerodynamically and you can see that the Uberturbines and Induction wheels have a lot of flat area near the rim to reduce drag. The Gemini caps have minimal porting and are obviously optimized to reduce aero drag. The small gaps between spokes reduces the pumping losses when the high pressure air in the wheel well wants to pass through the wheel. Having a completely closed wheel compromises brake cooling so they have to allow some air to pass through.

All of this is to say that both the wheel design and tire design need to be optimized to reduce the energy consumption. Tesla, in conjunction with tire manufacturers, appear to be using relatively low rolling resistance tires. Likewise, they have worked hard to develop low drag wheels.

For the Model 3, there's a 10% difference in highway range between the 18" Aero and the 19" Sport wheel/tires. Highway testing has shown that just removing the aero cap, and leaving the Aero skeleton wheel exposed, results in a 4% loss by itself. On the Model Y, the fact that the 21" wheels/tires are only 14% worse than the 19" wheels/tires is a testament to the effort expended to optimize their design, but the negative effects of the performance-oriented tire tread and compound along with the aerodynamic losses from the larger diameter wheels cannot be avoided.
 
Last edited:
Probably due to variance in driving, weather, etc and not so much due to change in wheel/tire config.

I am going to post more info for context - maybe someone more knowledgeable, like @Zoomit, can analyze and chime in.
Yes, variance due to many factors are at play here.

You've posted a lot of data summarizing a few trips, but I'm sorry to say that it means very little (sorry). Precise wind data is not included. Wind, especially in a highly aero optimized car like the Model Y, has a very large effect on highway efficiency. Without it being noted, conclusions cannot be made about wheel and tire efficiency. The 7-14% differences in efficiency that we're trying assess here could easily be caused by just a light wind at highway speeds. For reference, at 75 mph, a 4% error in measured power consumption is possible by mistaking a 1 mph headwind for a 1 mph tailwind.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RoBoRaT
The graph list tires, my issue is summarizing it by rim size which in and of itself means absolutely nothing.
Not true
It does however feed the rampant ignorance on the subject where a large number of folks here believe rim size is the key.
True. I referenced the wheel size simply because that's the community lexicon when talking about the wheel/tire options.
 
Questions: How do you correlate all of this to the 'rolling resistance' of the tire?

For example the same size Michelin Pilot Sport 4 has 15% less rolling resistance than the Pilot Sport 3 (according to the manufacturer with the same contact area). So it is not only rim size and tire size, it is contact area (and tread and tire widths) and rolling resistance. I just don't know how to translate from one set technical numbers to watts/mile. Anybody? (and how is rolling resistance different from traction. Oh my....help
 
Questions: How do you correlate all of this to the 'rolling resistance' of the tire?

For example the same size Michelin Pilot Sport 4 has 15% less rolling resistance than the Pilot Sport 3 (according to the manufacturer with the same contact area). So it is not only rim size and tire size, it is contact area (and tread and tire widths) and rolling resistance. I just don't know how to translate from one set technical numbers to watts/mile. Anybody? (and how is rolling resistance different from traction. Oh my....help
A few years ago, I built an energy consumption model for the Model 3. The results are in the below graph (original post). It's not perfect, by any stretch, but can give you an idea of what 15% more rolling resistance might do for total Wh/mi.

FpqcxF9.png


At 75 mph, rolling resistance is ~57 Wh/mi of a total of energy consumption of ~265 Wh/mi. A 15% increase in rolling resistance adds 8.5 Wh/mi or increases the total consumption by 3.2%.

I'm not sure it'll help, but here's the data from the first graph in this thread converted to Wh/mi. I can't use the EPA data to predict total vehicle energy consumption, just the difference between the wheel/tire options. As before, this is only applicable at constant speeds.

20200627, MY Wheel Engy Incr.png