Tesla Model 3 Acceleration Software Limited? [model 3P]

[skylarracing]

I've seen people say the 0-60 times of the Model 3, specifically the M3P is software limited. Wanted to start a little discussion to see what your thoughts are on if the M3P acceleration is software limited due to how consistent the 0-60 times are. I know some of the LR AWD model 3's have the same rear motor as the M3P but a slower 0-60 time, which would only make sense that the LR AWD rear motor is software limited (of course) but what about the MP3? Could it see a potential 2.99 or lower 0-60 with the help of Tesla or even a 3rd party controller / invertor hacker.

 

[DwightKSchrute]

There's a whole thread on acceleration boost that will get more attention.

"Acceleration Boost" option, discussion as to which models and how much quicker

AB was fun for a day and I’m a speed junkie, but to me I just couldn’t tell that huge of a difference to feel good about the 2K. The LR is just a dang fast car as is. For the price it is a great bang for your buck, however like any vehicle modification your body quickly adapts to the feeling...

teslamotorsclub.com

There is both the acceleration boost option and a third party option to improve acceleration.

 

[jjrandorin]

There's a whole thread on acceleration boost that will get more attention.

"Acceleration Boost" option, discussion as to which models and how much quicker

AB was fun for a day and I’m a speed junkie, but to me I just couldn’t tell that huge of a difference to feel good about the 2K. The LR is just a dang fast car as is. For the price it is a great bang for your buck, however like any vehicle modification your body quickly adapts to the feeling...

teslamotorsclub.com

There is both the acceleration boost option and a third party option to improve acceleration.

Not the model 3P (that thread is about the LR AWD). The general thinking here is that the model 3P is pretty tapped out, acceleration wise, on what the battery can provide (not motor limited but peak power output limited).

=====================

(Moderator note)

Adding note to thread title that this is specific to model 3P, otherwise, OP if you are talking "in general", this thread does belong merged with the one @DwightKSchrute linked to.

 

[GtiMart]

Well, the acceleration is controlled by software for sure. Saying "limited" sounds like it's a design flaw or a trick to gouge clients. The motors, the battery, the wiring, cooling system, everything is engineered for a certain power. The software stays within this limit. As such, the results might be more consistent than an ICE engine. Note that human reflexes are almost eliminated in an EV acceleration since there are no gears, you don't need to pre-rev etc. That's another aspect to consider.

 

[DwightKSchrute]

Not the model 3P (that thread is about the LR AWD). The general thinking here is that the model 3P is pretty tapped out, acceleration wise, on what the battery can provide (not motor limited but peak power output limited).

=====================

(Moderator note)

Adding note to thread title that this is specific to model 3P, otherwise, OP if you are talking "in general", this thread does belong merged with the one @DwightKSchrute linked to.

Sorry, missed that nuance.

 

[Candleflame]

the battery can definetely provide more power - as evident by the smaller Model S batteries supplying way more hp/torque. and high performance even at low SOC.

I'm pretty sure the universal agreement is that the performance 3 IS slightly gimped and may even just be completely software limited. Apparently people run it up inclines and still getting the same 0 to 100km/h which would be a bit odd.

Even with the smaller inverter being a (chosen) bottelneck, it looks the model 3 isnt using full power at takeoff anyway.

 

[Sam1]

I've seen people say the 0-60 times of the Model 3, specifically the M3P is software limited. Wanted to start a little discussion to see what your thoughts are on if the M3P acceleration is software limited due to how consistent the 0-60 times are. I know some of the LR AWD model 3's have the same rear motor as the M3P but a slower 0-60 time, which would only make sense that the LR AWD rear motor is software limited (of course) but what about the MP3? Could it see a potential 2.99 or lower 0-60 with the help of Tesla or even a 3rd party controller / invertor hacker.

The m3p already does sub-3-second 0-60 times. Mine and one other guy have 2.97 logged on Dragy already.

 

[Candleflame]

The m3p already does sub-3-second 0-60 times. Mine and one other guy have 2.97 logged on Dragy already.

with rollout....

 

[Sam1]

with rollout....

Get off of the with and without rollout thing, every freaking car manufacturer on the planet has used the rollout measurement for multiple decades.

All these people pretending to be car enthusiasts all of a sudden are familiar with a one foot roll out with The 0 to 60 times only because Tesla started typing it on their statistics pages, before that no one knew anything about it except for actual car people

 

[Candleflame]

Get off of the with and without rollout thing, every freaking car manufacturer on the planet has used the rollout measurement for multiple decades.

All these people pretending to be car enthusiasts all of a sudden are familiar with a one foot roll out with The 0 to 60 times only because Tesla started typing it on their statistics pages, before that no one knew anything about it except for actual car people

its just a bit misleading as the other cars and not advertised with rollout. so the gap is smaller than what tesla is trying to make people believe. the lack of consistency is the issue.

 

[Sam1]

its just a bit misleading as the other cars and not advertised with rollout. so the gap is smaller than what tesla is trying to make people believe. the lack of consistency is the issue.

It's not misleading if they literally tell you on the spec sheet.

If anything, every statistic for every car 0-60 ever posted from every manufacturer is misleading because they do not specify with or without rollout.

I will give you $1000 if you can prove with verifiable time-stamped data, if you can show me a single time prior to when Tesla started announcing the 1ft rollout spec, where you were concerned about the existence of it. You won't be able to, because you didn't know it was even a thing, until Tesla mentioned it. At no other point in history, were you ever concerned with any vehicle saying 0-60 in 3.0, when in fact that counted the rollout, and technically it would've been 3.2. Yet here you are, angry, that a company is being more accurate with the explanation of their measurement, than any other company on record.

 

[Mahamilto]

its just a bit misleading as the other cars and not advertised with rollout. so the gap is smaller than what tesla is trying to make people believe. the lack of consistency is the issue.

It's not misleading if they literally tell you on the spec sheet.

If anything, every statistic for every car 0-60 ever posted from every manufacturer is misleading because they do not specify with or without rollout.

I will give you $1000 if you can prove with verifiable time-stamped data, if you can show me a single time prior to when Tesla started announcing the 1ft rollout spec, where you were concerned about the existence of it. You won't be able to, because you didn't know it was even a thing, until Tesla mentioned it. At no other point in history, were you ever concerned with any vehicle saying 0-60 in 3.0, when in fact that counted the rollout, and technically it would've been 3.2. Yet here you are, angry, that a company is being more accurate with the explanation of their measurement, than any other company on record.

It’s misleading only because you have to read Tesla reports performances data 0-60 with rollout and the LR without. Just makes the gap look bigger than it is when you look at the numbers. When you read the fine print then you realize the gap isn’t as big as seen in the numbers, assuming you know what rollout is (and not everyone does).

it’s not misleading when you compare apples to apples, but Tesla’s choice is misleading as it compares apples to apples (the cars) with their data reported not being the same.

 

[Sam1]

It’s misleading only because you have to read Tesla reports performances data 0-60 with rollout and the LR without. Just makes the gap look bigger than it is when you look at the numbers. When you read the fine print then you realize the gap isn’t as big as seen in the numbers, assuming you know what rollout is (and not everyone does).

it’s not misleading when you compare apples to apples, but Tesla’s choice is misleading as it compares apples to apples (the cars) with their data reported not being the same.

So you're saying that Tesla is misleading people by providing specific test criteria used in their spec sheets?

Could you show me the other manufacturers' spec sheets that count the rollout, but do not specify it, that you would consider "not misleading"?

 

[Mahamilto]

So you're saying that Tesla is misleading people by providing specific test criteria used in their spec sheets?

Could you show me the other manufacturers' spec sheets that count the rollout, but do not specify it, that you would consider "not misleading"?

It’s misleading because it’s not standardized across their own trims in the same mode of car with the rollout subtracted only on the performance model.

It’s not misleading by industry standard, but they 100% chose to present data the way they did so that at a glance (or to the untrained eye/non car enthusiast) the performance appears to have a bigger advantage in 0-60 over the LR than it actually does.

Imagine if a company was selling you wheels and they reported the weight of their standard wheel with a tire installed, and then they reported the weight of their “ultra lightweight performance wheel” with no tire…

Sure, they may put an asterisk that directs you to their admission of the difference, but at a glance the difference would look much bigger than it is.

Tesla did this on purpose.

 

[Brenden3010]

So you're saying that Tesla is misleading people by providing specific test criteria used in their spec sheets?

Could you show me the other manufacturers' spec sheets that count the rollout, but do not specify it, that you would consider "not misleading"?

I think what @Mahamilto is saying is that it's misleading because they pick and choose when to apply that metric within a seemingly standard measurement across the entire model lineup. It would be akin to Tesla marketing some cars' range as highway only range, and some as EPA range, in order to widen the gap between the different trim levels.

Go to Teslas website, and click on order. When clicking on the different trim levels, nowhere on that page does it tell you that the performance statistics listed between the models are not standardized between models. In fact, it says nothing about roll out whatsoever on any of the purchase pages. Only when you click on "learn more about range and performance" (which is not under the Long Range or Performance variants), does it tell you that they measured the Standard and LR by a different metric than the Performance model.

Tesla does this with their entire lineup to make the performance gap between their most and least profitable trim levels seem larger than it really is. How many people may not have picked up a Model S Plaid if they easily realized the difference between rollout to 60 was only about half a second, versus the 1.1 second difference they have it listed as on the order page?

 

[TwoK4drSi]

the P 980 motor is maxed out per Ingenext. I already asked if they can extract more power and they cannot safely. I’m sure they’ve tried because they did advertise a “stage 3” at one point.

Little known fact to add in…plaid uses dual 980 motors in the rear and to activate plaid is almost instant. Tesla moving to the 980 motor for the S is a super smart move bc the motor is stout and requires no preconditioning.

 

[Knightshade]

I think what @Mahamilto is saying is that it's misleading because they pick and choose when to apply that metric within a seemingly standard measurement across the entire model lineup. It would be akin to Tesla marketing some cars' range as highway only range, and some as EPA range, in order to widen the gap between the different trim levels.

Exactly this.

Other car makers, if they use rollout varies by maker, but does not vary by model

If BMW picks a method (they, as most EU brands, use no rollout) then they list all their cars that way.

Only Tesla uses 2 different measurements depending on the model (and hides the fact they do this even more deeply than they used to)

the P 980 motor is maxed out per Ingenext. I already asked if they can extract more power and they cannot safely. I’m sure they’ve tried because they did advertise a “stage 3” at one point.

I'd take that with something of a grain of salt.

All their "products" so far for performance bumps have been copying existing Tesla config code of models that already exist.

The SR "boost" is just a copy of the LR RWD code.
The AWD "boost" is just a copy of the LR AWD AB code.
The "ghost" upgrade is just a copy of the P code.

So it's more likely they can't offer a bump to the P because Tesla doesn't have a config they can copy for that.


It's similar to how Jason Hughes was able to offer various battery/motor upgrades in older models but only if they were some combo of things that already existed to reuse Tesla config parameters for them.


Perhaps most famously he had to actually build a "fake" front motor to be able to put a P90DL battery in a RWD P85, because the software needed to "think" the car was dual motor for the battery pack to work... since there's no such thing as a single-motor P90, and you can only make the car think it's a car that Tesla actually ever made and has a config setup for.

 

[Brenden3010]

the P 980 motor is maxed out per Ingenext. I already asked if they can extract more power and they cannot safely. I’m sure they’ve tried because they did advertise a “stage 3” at one point.

Little known fact to add in…plaid uses dual 980 motors in the rear and to activate plaid is almost instant. Tesla moving to the 980 motor for the S is a super smart move bc the motor is stout and requires no preconditioning.

Did Ingenext say the motor itself was maxed out, or that the pre 2021 battery pack was the limiting factor?

 

[TwoK4drSi]

Did Ingenext say the motor itself was maxed out, or that the pre 2021 battery pack was the limiting factor?

To @Knightshade point he’s he’s correct on all counts but my discussions with them is that they “can” apply more volts/amps value to the DU but they don’t believe the mosfets can handle it. Tesla has a built in safety factor but taking up that factor leaves no room for any electrical spikes in the system

I’m totally paraphrasing the “concept” as I’m not an EE but everything is mosfet driven per my phone call with Ingenext. That’s why I mentioned the plaid as doubled the number of mosfets to get that power for the rear DU.

 

[Brenden3010]

To @Knightshade point he’s he’s correct on all counts but my discussions with them is that they “can” apply more volts/amps value to the DU but they don’t believe the mosfets can handle it. Tesla has a built in safety factor but taking up that factor leaves no room for any electrical spikes in the system

I’m totally paraphrasing the “concept” as I’m not an EE but everything is mosfet driven per my phone call with Ingenext. That’s why I mentioned the plaid as doubled the number of mosfets to get that power for the rear DU.

I'm not an EE either but it doesn't make sense to me that a M3P driving uphill will (reportedly) pull more power than on a flat surface if the M3P's motors are at the max safe limit already.

On a slightly related note, the 2021 M3P seems to be affected by the battery charge state much more than the Standard or LR trim levels, and I'm not sure why.