[Spoiler Alert + Mild Speculation] Tesla has created a monster!

[JRP3]

On one hand, if what Tesla submitted to the EPA is accurate, and their 55 battery is similar to the current 75 battery (aka really +5kWh with 2kWh as reserve to prevent bricking)

Seems unlikely from the data we have. Elon did say it's around 50kWh.

 

[SageBrush]

Could the EPA range be 240 miles ?

If we start from 53 kWh usable in the SR battery, that implies 53/33.7 = 1.572 gallons energy equivalent
Since the EPA range value is an amalgam of EPA city and EPA highway, either both of those tests are 240 miles or if one is less the other is more.

240/1.572 = 152.6 miles miles per gallon
We already know the combined City/Highway is MPGe is 126 from the wall, or 126/0.875 = 144 MPGe from the battery

In fact, we know the city MPGe is 131 from the wall, so 131/0.875 = 149 battery
And the highway is 120 MPGe from the wall, so 120/0.875 = 137 from the battery

No combination of city and highway cycles can reach the 152.6 MPGe needed for an EPA range of 240 miles.
But it is not that far away, either. I'm not sure of the exact mixture of City and Highway cycle that goes into the EPA range calculation but if they are in equal measure then the MPGe would be (137+149)/2 = 143
And the range would be 143*1.572 = 225 miles.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Yeah, I used 58 instead of 53. So yeah, that's ~227 miles with 53kWh. At the same time, I was lowering the 3 LR's EPA range testing to that of the 100D, so ~450 miles average using a 50/50 split of both tests, instead of the actual ~475 miles (also 50/50). That would push the range up to 240 miles. The 3 SR should also gain a bit in mpge with ~200lbs less to carry around.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't these reports indicate that the EPA ratings for the LR will be around 330 miles?
Hence, Tesla's advertised 310 miles is conservative?

Yup, assuming the data Tesla sent to the EPA is for the car they're going to start cranking out to current owners/line-waiters in a few months. If they send in a revised CSI with lower range on the two tests, then all bets are off the table.

 

[SageBrush]

It is interesting to speculate whether Tesla is using the 30% fudge factor to arrive at Monroney numbers or is actually running the prescribed full set of cycles. If the former then on-road results will over-perform the EPA numbers at the same speeds since Tesla has more efficient A/C and much lower Cd than the fleet averages the fudge factor are presumably based on.

Moreover, if an owner pre-conditions the battery and cabin prior to a drive then the entire EPA attempt to estimate cold engine start penalties is not in play.

 

[Snerruc]

You are allowed to advertise a lower range than EPA actual, and many car companies are conservative with these figures since the Hyundai/ Kia/ Ford fiasco of a few years ago. Bolt is conservative and M3 should be also.

 

[insaneoctane]

With all the attention this EPA document has created, has Telsa denied the use of PMAC yet?

 

[SageBrush]

With all the attention this EPA document has created, has Telsa denied the use of PMAC yet?

It will be TMC front page news if it happens.

 

[SageBrush]

I've thought about this some more, and tried to extrapolate range using the EPA data from other EVs.
The short answer is that the range is typically 5-10% longer than calcs imply.

I'm not sure I know why, but two big uncertainties exist:
70% fudge factor vs full 5 cycle testing
Sometimes unknown usable battery capacity

 

[JonathanD]

It will be TMC front page news if it happens.

I'm surprised Elon hasn't tweeted anything about it, I'd think he'd want to get ahead of the speculation.

 

[Zaphod]

With all the attention this EPA document has created, has Telsa denied the use of PMAC yet?

Has not been confirmed or denied.

 

[TEG]

It feels like a prize fight where the smart player is standing at the edge of the ring while we dance around and exhaust ourselves before they jump in.

By the time they say something about this, we will be tired of talking about it, and won't be so eager to make a big deal about it.

 

[JRP3]

I'm guessing we haven't heard anything because it's true and it's slightly embarrassing for "Tesla" to use something other than an AC induction motor.

 

[Zaphod]

I'm surprised Elon hasn't tweeted anything about it, I'd think he'd want to get ahead of the speculation.

And what does Elon or Tesla gain by clarifying the speculation? The layperson and majority of 3 buyers, they couldn't care less or even know the difference. The minority here that are into the details and posses the technical knowledge really don't matter in the scheme of things. I'm sure it will be determined soon enough.

 

[JRP3]

Here's why it actually does matter to some degree. One of the talking points for Tesla, which I've used often against the naysayers, is that Tesla's induction motors don't use rare earth elements, so all the FUD surrounding rare earth's don't apply, and that gives Tesla a potential advantage. Now if their highest volume vehicle is in fact using rare earth elements that advantage is gone.

 

[Zaphod]

Here's why it actually does matter to some degree. One of the talking points for Tesla, which I've used often against the naysayers, is that Tesla's induction motors don't use rare earth elements, so all the FUD surrounding rare earth's don't apply, and that gives Tesla a potential advantage. Now if their highest volume vehicle is in fact using rare earth elements that advantage is gone.

Okay, I will grant you that is probably the only thing I could think of where it would matter. Although "rare-earth" is misleading because they are really not that rare. I think most of the FUD regarding Tesla lies more in the battery composition as opposed to the motor construction.

 

[JRP3]

The bears will latch onto any aspect of the vehicle/company they can. I can already feel the "rare earth" FUD articles coming.

 

[TEG]

If it turns out to be true, I respect Tesla for going against their status quo when logic dictates they need to do something drastic to get costs down for the masses.
The better efficiency of this design means that they can make the car with less (expensive) battery capacity and still get a range that people will find useful.

I am sure that such a decision would not be done "lightly" and would have involved much debate.

 

[gregd]

Here's why it actually does matter to some degree. One of the talking points for Tesla, which I've used often against the naysayers, is that Tesla's induction motors don't use rare earth elements, so all the FUD surrounding rare earth's don't apply, and that gives Tesla a potential advantage. Now if their highest volume vehicle is in fact using rare earth elements that advantage is gone.

If I recall, part of the rare earth issue was regarding risk in the source of the material, with China being a significant player. I separately recall a report that said Tesla had signed an agreement with a supplier in China. If so, that could have two effects: mitigation of the supply risk, and perhaps more importantly, giving them a toe-hold for manufacture / sale of cars into the Chinese market. We also don't know if the characteristics of PMAC motors have significant advantages for the truck line, over their classic AC induction motors. But all of this is speculation on my part.

As others have noted, this is a complex topic, and one where we may never have all the background information. As such, I think the FUD Slingers will have a field day, unless Tesla gets ahead of this with a convincing argument why the advantages outweigh the risks.

 

[ikjadoon]

It seems plausible to me that the reason it's listed as dual motor is... that this actually is describing the results for a dual motor configuration.

....

I don't know if Tesla would also be required to have a filing for the RWD-only variant, and nor do I know how diligent the EPA is about getting filings quickly posted on their website if Tesla has also made RWD-only filings already. But this seems plausible to me.

Can't be dual motors, though. Unless Tesla has done something insane with a driveshaft (but no hump between the rear seats) or a centrally-mounted motor ( but, where? inside the battery??) linking both axles or a "non-drive front-axle generator" (but why not just include a proper motor? How much regen are they gaining for added weight, but no drive capabilities?), this report has a typo:

If it had a second motor/generator that could be enabled later, I'd imagine they would write "2 drive motor(s)/generator(s)", as they have a category how it was tested (if it had multiple modes):