thanks SageBrush. wow, it seems like this 354 mile calculation may be the comp to 348 miles of range IIRC for the 100D at 70 mph, default temp, and no climate control use that the Tesla website range calculator indicates (your caveat about assuming 78 kWh usable noted).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster!
- Thread starter omgwtfbyobbq
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
thanks SageBrush. wow, it seems like this 354 mile calculation may be the comp to 348 miles of range IIRC for the 100D at 70 mph, default temp, and no climate control use that the Tesla website range calculator indicates (your caveat about assuming 78 kWh usable noted).
The range tests should include wind drag, simulated on dyno of course. The 100D has a bit more range on the unadjusted highway test 470 vs 455, but I'm pretty sure Sage is right about the 3 LR pulling ahead as speed increases, since the unadjusted HWFET averages ~50mph and the 3 has a better drag area than the S.
Hi, everybody. I recommend being cautious about advertised Model 3 range and performance numbers because both might be under reported and this wouldn't be the first time if it happens. In October 2014, Tesla had a big event called the D event to launch the dual motor Teslas for the first time. Here is the official video. At that time, the advertised performance numbers were like this:
85D deliveries started on 18 February 2015 (source)
Notice the two months gap between these two dates. During these two months, nobody had a chance to test the 85D because the deliveries hadn't started yet. When people started taking delivery of the 85D, they noticed that the performance was much better than advertised. See the Reddit topic here. Then Tesla changed the times to these:
By the way, Tesla's official delivery estimates show 220 miles and 310 miles for both the RWD and AWD versions. Here is an example. However, all AWD Teslas released so far had more range than the RWD versions. It looks like Tesla might be under reporting the Model 3 80D range. This is allowed under EPA rules. See this article. It shows that the Model S 90D initially had 270 mi EPA and then it had 294 mi EPA. The reason is that at that time Tesla didn't have a chance to test the range so they used the 85D's 270 mi EPA range for 90D as well. The EPA website also displayed the 270 miles number and then it displayed 294. In fact, it still shows both numbers here (see the 270 and 294 mi numbers under the small car icons).
Of course, it's possible the reason Tesla shows 310 miles range for the long range AWD version is simply that they haven't built any yet. Whatever the reason, the AWD Model 3s might eventually display longer range numbers than RWD versions. This would move the Model 3 80D closer to the Model S 100D.
My estimated EPA rated range numbers are as follows. For calculations, I have used the weight and drag coefficient numbers displayed on Tesla's presskit page here. The assumption is 310 miles is the correct EPA rated range number for the Model 3 80. I'm not sure about that either considering that both the 220 and 310 numbers appear to be rounded down.
Model 3 55: 227 mi
Model 3 55D: 238 mi
Model 3 80: 310 mi
Model 3 80D: 326 mi
Model 3 P80D: 305 mi
- Model S 85D: 5.2s (source) << click here to see the design studio screenshot
- Model S P85D: 3.2s
85D deliveries started on 18 February 2015 (source)
Notice the two months gap between these two dates. During these two months, nobody had a chance to test the 85D because the deliveries hadn't started yet. When people started taking delivery of the 85D, they noticed that the performance was much better than advertised. See the Reddit topic here. Then Tesla changed the times to these:
- Model S 85D: 4.2s (source) << click here to see the design studio screenshot
- Model S P85D: 3.1s
By the way, Tesla's official delivery estimates show 220 miles and 310 miles for both the RWD and AWD versions. Here is an example. However, all AWD Teslas released so far had more range than the RWD versions. It looks like Tesla might be under reporting the Model 3 80D range. This is allowed under EPA rules. See this article. It shows that the Model S 90D initially had 270 mi EPA and then it had 294 mi EPA. The reason is that at that time Tesla didn't have a chance to test the range so they used the 85D's 270 mi EPA range for 90D as well. The EPA website also displayed the 270 miles number and then it displayed 294. In fact, it still shows both numbers here (see the 270 and 294 mi numbers under the small car icons).
Of course, it's possible the reason Tesla shows 310 miles range for the long range AWD version is simply that they haven't built any yet. Whatever the reason, the AWD Model 3s might eventually display longer range numbers than RWD versions. This would move the Model 3 80D closer to the Model S 100D.
My estimated EPA rated range numbers are as follows. For calculations, I have used the weight and drag coefficient numbers displayed on Tesla's presskit page here. The assumption is 310 miles is the correct EPA rated range number for the Model 3 80. I'm not sure about that either considering that both the 220 and 310 numbers appear to be rounded down.
Model 3 55: 227 mi
Model 3 55D: 238 mi
Model 3 80: 310 mi
Model 3 80D: 326 mi
Model 3 P80D: 305 mi
Last edited:
It might, but we'll only have a good idea about that when Tesla submits the certification data for the base version.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I don't have a deep understanding of rolll-down (coast down) tests, but here goes:
A car is brought up to a speed, and then allowed to coast down to a stop. The forces acting on the car to slow it down are air, road, tyres, and the mechanical drivetrain. These forces, expressed as power, are fit into a third order polynomial of the form
Power = av + bv*v + c*v*v*v
where v is speed.
This is the polynomial used to make the above graphs, using the EPA supplied coefficients.
It then follows that the reverse -- getting up to and staying at speed -- has these additional losses:
Losses related to pulling energy out of the battery;
related to inverter conversion from DC to AC;
and motor losses.
I'll guess that these add another 5-10% to the total, but people versed in the subject will hopefully chime in.
A car is brought up to a speed, and then allowed to coast down to a stop. The forces acting on the car to slow it down are air, road, tyres, and the mechanical drivetrain. These forces, expressed as power, are fit into a third order polynomial of the form
Power = av + bv*v + c*v*v*v
where v is speed.
This is the polynomial used to make the above graphs, using the EPA supplied coefficients.
It then follows that the reverse -- getting up to and staying at speed -- has these additional losses:
Losses related to pulling energy out of the battery;
related to inverter conversion from DC to AC;
and motor losses.
I'll guess that these add another 5-10% to the total, but people versed in the subject will hopefully chime in.
Last edited:
my memory was off, quite a bit. the interactive calculator for range on Tesla's website shows 319 miles of range for a 100D at default outdoor temperature (70), no climate control used, and 70 mph, with 19" wheels. we don't know that these variables the website calculator uses match up to what SageBrush was able to use in the Model 3 calculation, so, a comparison of these two range figures is not necessarily reliable, but, I'm feeling even better tonight about my M3 reservation : )
link to Tesla's calculator for the Model S,
Model S | Tesla
Why did you say the pack energy density is expected to be less for the model three? I thought the new 2170 batteries would be more energy dense than the 18650s? I thought that, in general, cost of the battery declined with higher energy density?
Thomas Edison
Active Member
So, I did a bit of work on the different models:
A note: this is not wall to wheels, or even pack to wheels. It's propulsive energy. It's what you'd have to spend if there were zero powertrain losses and zero parasitic electricity consumption. One can make graphs that add in some assumed parasitic draw and some assumed power consumption, but this one is the pure data - how much force is trying to make the vehicle stop.
At low speeds, the M3 is unimpressive for some reason or another - but at high speeds it's amazingly sleek, bested only by the tiny Prius Prime weirdmobile (only two seats wide in the back). And high speed performance is what matters most when it comes to range.
A note: this is not wall to wheels, or even pack to wheels. It's propulsive energy. It's what you'd have to spend if there were zero powertrain losses and zero parasitic electricity consumption. One can make graphs that add in some assumed parasitic draw and some assumed power consumption, but this one is the pure data - how much force is trying to make the vehicle stop.
At low speeds, the M3 is unimpressive for some reason or another - but at high speeds it's amazingly sleek, bested only by the tiny Prius Prime weirdmobile (only two seats wide in the back). And high speed performance is what matters most when it comes to range.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I hate to consider what you would call a lot of work, but are these curves only from aero and road frictions ?
The EPA roll down data also includes the drivetrain frictions.
Oh, and by the way: As an owner of a Prius Prime let me just say it is not a small car, it is not weird, and I like it a lot. A Model 3, it is not. But then it cost me $17k USD after tax credits.
kingjamez
Member
Excellent chart thank you. Nice to see that the numbers reported for the 3 fall in line with other cars.So, I did a bit of work on the different models:
View attachment 240184
A note: this is not wall to wheels, or even pack to wheels. It's propulsive energy. It's what you'd have to spend if there were zero powertrain losses and zero parasitic electricity consumption. One can make graphs that add in some assumed parasitic draw and some assumed power consumption, but this one is the pure data - how much force is trying to make the vehicle stop.
At low speeds, the M3 is unimpressive for some reason or another - but at high speeds it's amazingly sleek, bested only by the tiny Prius Prime weirdmobile (only two seats wide in the back). And high speed performance is what matters most when it comes to range.
Also excellent is that the Model 3 is nearly as efficient as the Nissan Leaf... a car that is really efficient but optimized around efficiency not looks. Tesla gives us both.
The small battery pack on the S and X is 350V. It's the same for the old 60, 70, and 75.
Dynastar
Member
So, I did a bit of work on the different models:
View attachment 240184
A note: this is not wall to wheels, or even pack to wheels. It's propulsive energy. It's what you'd have to spend if there were zero powertrain losses and zero parasitic electricity consumption. One can make graphs that add in some assumed parasitic draw and some assumed power consumption, but this one is the pure data - how much force is trying to make the vehicle stop.
At low speeds, the M3 is unimpressive for some reason or another - but at high speeds it's amazingly sleek, bested only by the tiny Prius Prime weirdmobile (only two seats wide in the back). And high speed performance is what matters most when it comes to range.
Awesome graph but a little hard to read. Could you do one that's just S75D, S100D, X75D, X100D?
These are from the EPA rolldown data. A, B and C target coefficients. Rolldown data does not break things out into "aero and road frictions" and "drivetrain frictions", it's coefficients corresponding with velocity squared (C), velocity (B) and linear (A).
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Then they include drivetrain frictions.
"The leg bone is connected to the thigh bone..."
It's a children's song. Sing along if you know the tune.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I don't think so, but wait for someone who actually understands this stuff to answer.
And by the way --- I don't think motor losses are included either, which would I think be the largest of the uncounted losses (excluding things like weather and accessories. That said, modeling drivetrain+road+tyre+aero is going to give a pretty good graph to go by.
Similar threads
