I just wanted to chime in and say "thanks" to everyone for shifting the discussion back toward "healthy debate".
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Smaller and Lighter wheels make you faster, more efficient, and offer better road hazard protection.
- Thread starter mpgxsvcd
- Start date
Lindenwood
Active Member
I don’t keep up with Plaid stuff all that closely, but aren’t there stripped Plaids running like half a second faster than stock? Every random 8.7x video I have seen was only accomplished with lots of weight removed, no?
Last edited:
Completely gutted and the cars have been ruined in the process. The systems on the plaids are different than the 3/Y; when you add stickier tires and remove that much weight, you can see the G-forces increase on a launch with a plaid. With the 3/Y that doesn't really happen, everyone stays right under 1g, or like the 2019's I peaked a single time at 1.1g. The Plaids see +/- 1.3g, then upwards of 1.7g after gutting and tires.
Lindenwood
Active Member
I was really just checking if the Plaid example was being cited as evidence that the cars are deliberately software-limited. Given the acknowledged traction limitations, and the significant improvements in measurable performance (both in time and in peak g) after modifications, I am not sure such evidence would apply.
Last edited:
They're software limited to a certain % of the battery pack's output. But that's no different than a car company putting a rev limiter on an engine.
Also a plaid has 400HP at 0mph for launching, and it does a mostly linear ramp up to 1000HP at 60mph. That's because of both traction issues on street tires, and if you put something like slicks on it and did a hard launch and it had full power at 0mph, you're going to start breaking stuff on the drivetrain. This is the same as a timing/fuel map on a gas car, except no one can seem to crack the system and modify it.
Maybe I should clarify, I don't think the Plaid is restricted in a way that is meant to nanny or knee cap the performance in a way that is arbitrarily to slow it down without a reasonable trade off for durability. Of course Tesla is not allowing the thing to run 10/10 of its capability, because that would lead to more breakage of parts.
As Sam1 said, " if you put something like slicks on it and did a hard launch and it had full power at 0mph, you're going to start breaking stuff on the drivetrain."
I myself do not "need" mine to be the fastest. The stock configuration is, at least for now, plenty fast enough for me. I fully understand the dynamic that there is a certain inherent hierarchy motivation that generally comes with a y chromosome which is at play here. I don't need to play that game, I'm just enjoying the cars as toys to play with and have fun....that being said, I am ordering and waiting for a roadster2
So if anyone wishes to continue an argument, they are going to have to pony up some more $ ala:
As Sam1 said, " if you put something like slicks on it and did a hard launch and it had full power at 0mph, you're going to start breaking stuff on the drivetrain."
I myself do not "need" mine to be the fastest. The stock configuration is, at least for now, plenty fast enough for me. I fully understand the dynamic that there is a certain inherent hierarchy motivation that generally comes with a y chromosome which is at play here. I don't need to play that game, I'm just enjoying the cars as toys to play with and have fun....that being said, I am ordering and waiting for a roadster2
So if anyone wishes to continue an argument, they are going to have to pony up some more $ ala:
Last edited:
Lindenwood
Active Member
Honestly it sounds like the plaid example isn’t particularly relevant to the question of whether a Model 3 deliberately limits acceleration (whether linear or angular) to a fixed amount regardless of weight.
It also doesn’t sound like anyone at this point is going to be convinced outside of their current beliefs.
The thing that puzzles me is that a lot of people were saying that the software limits acceleration back when the quickest 0-60 mph was 3.07. Now, someone has gone 2.98 they are still saying the same thing but the goal posts have moved.
When someone goes 2.91 are they still going to be saying that the acceleration is software limited?
I just want someone to give us a number that they think is impossible to beat because the software limits it to slower than that. Then when someone beats that number they can put this whole thing to rest.
Yes, I updated my wheels and tires in the configuration settings screen. I chose 18” wheels without Aero caps and summer tires. It doesn’t change anything for acceleration though.
I tested this at the track. First two runs were with a 100 lb passenger. 0-60 mph times were within .01 seconds of each other. Same lane of the same track with everything else the same.
Then I ran the same lane with just me in the car. It was .12 seconds quicker. 3.42/3.43 vs. 3.31. This was a 100% stock 2022 Model 3 Performance about 3 weeks after I got it.
For sure. Was just curious if I needed to. I changed it to the same
Just thinking out loud here (and sorry, I admittedly didn't read all 8 pages of this thread)... but how about slapping 15" wheels on a Model 3?
If the 18's are faster / more efficient than the 19's and 20's, I'd be game for 15's if it were possible. I'm less concerned with looks, and 15's would be cushier and less likely to experience curb rash.
If the 18's are faster / more efficient than the 19's and 20's, I'd be game for 15's if it were possible. I'm less concerned with looks, and 15's would be cushier and less likely to experience curb rash.
Lindenwood
Active Member
They won’t fit over the brakes, unfortunately. I am not sure if even 17s will fit.
Certain 17" might fit, I can check clearances. But honestly, I don't think there would be any benefit because there's not really many tire setups offered in 17" that aren't in 18" for the 3/Y.
I was able to get an 18" wheel to fit a plaid OEM brake setup, but it's outside the certification parameters and am not going to do that.
Very few engineering challenges are linear and monotonic. The fact that (supposedly) 18's are "faster" and "more efficient" than 19/20's means that if you could just go to 15's that trend would continue is a very simple view.
I mean, brake rotors are about 13"- driving on those must be the most efficent, right?
Remmeber that there is very little data here that it's just the wheel diameter that matters. Very few tests have been run using identical model tires in the same width and identical circumference.
I don’t think the acceleration benefit of 18s is linear. I think it depends on tire weight as much as wheel weight. After all the tires weigh almost the same as the wheels I have and ALL of the tires mass is outside of most of the wheels mass.
I used 235/35/20 vs. 235/45/18 for my controlled tests on the same lane of the same track. Yes, the tires were different brands but they were actually within 1 lb of each other.
I used an 8.5” wheel for the 18s and a 9” wheel for the 20s. The 9” wheel stretches the 20” tire even more than its rating for outer diameter. The 20” tire OD was measured at 26.5” on tire rack but that was with an 8.5” wheel. It is possible that the stretched 20” PZ4 tire actually has a smaller OD on the 9” wheel than it is rated for.
I honestly believe that the 26.3 18” OD matches the OD for the 235/35/20 tires mounted on a 9” wheel.
Similar threads
- Article
