-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Model 3 spoler efficiency question
- Thread starter Fadiawesome
- Start date
Candleflame
Active Member
Doesnt the vorsteiner kit improve range slightly? They broke it down on their website and i think the spoiler increased range by like 0.5%
This is really facile marketing junk, anyone can put together on Autodesk or, in this case, Ansys. It needs to be validated by physical testing.
There's a popular aphorism in science "all models all wrong... some can be useful".
Any model simulated on the computer (FEA, CFD, etc) needs to be calibrated and iterated and validated by physical testing... after spending millions on "desk" engineering, car industry still uses crash testing, wind tunnel testing, and on-road testing. It goes for any industry really...
So did your wh/mile increase? like did it go from 245 to to 270 or did it go from 295 to 270? And wow your car looks amazing!!!!!!!! I love those wheels.
It’s went down. I’m on 20s open face wheels flush fitment and still down in the 260s-270s. Haters are gonna hate so don’t listen to them. Yeah you can get “solid” wheels and get way better efficiency but fcuk that...my car isn’t gonna be boring for efficiency. This solves that problem and looks awesome.
eaiser said then done.
Cost of labor+parts+health insurance+training+overtime ... does it justify the option? will people buy it?
How much time is added in production cost?
all genuine questions with real calculations
sometimes it's better for aftermarket company to solves issues OEM don't want to touch
Let's flip your question - you assume unplugged has the resources to support everything you quoted above? (Or, a generic aliexpress shop?!?)
They will get the production scale anything close to tesla? They can sale in the volume anywhere close to tesla, to pay back that development cost?
What's easily done is drafting a base spoiler design and running stochastic simulation to tweak the shape and optimize for aero. What's not (because it's costlier) is to prototype the shapes and run actual physical testing on it. Where are the wind tunnel results?
My grandma can produce a fancy looking 3d render with blue and green streamlines by paying 4$ to a kid on Fiverr to draft it up on a pirated copy of solidworks.
I don't have the exact answer since I don't work for Tesla
I just know that's the thought process for manufactures
Maybe in the future they will incorporate...idk
Damn dude...who pissed in your coffee this morning? No one has a gun to your head to make you buy it. There’s a button at the top called “unwatch thread”. Do you know how big Unplugged is? It’s pretty obvious they have the resources to do CFD testing. No one else in the aftermarket space is claiming any benefit except them. You think they would put their reputation on the line for a false claim?
You're missing the point - CFD modeling takes next to no resources at all. So their "white paper" serves no substantiation except to impress lay people.
Theyre not exactly Dinan. A new upstart Tesla centric vendor doesn't exactly have any reputation to protect. And I'm not saying they make outright lies -- I'm saying it's low grade marketing wankery just like the countless "reputable" aftermarketer vendor who claim their intakes and exhausts adds 15 horsepower each.
It's not malicious enough to be punitive -- nobody is going to take AEM and Steeda and Borla to court over it -- but we're all within our rights to flag bullshit when we see it.
Can’t really call bullshit when people are actually backing up their data with their data soooooo....
Let me know when you want more screenshots. If I can beat this number daily...it’s not bullshit. Also my mods occurred during half of this lifespan of the car and the mods are especially worse ie wheels/tires.
like I said...don’t buy if you don’t believe. Let other people make their choice but you cant call bullshit if you don’t own
Last edited:
FWIW, while I'm in the "I'd love for this to work" camp and am generally really sour on the "It'll never work because..." mentality that's all to pervasive when it comes to something new/different, I'd maybe suggest a little more data driven to your data set. Its easy to pick holes in an analysis when the error bars are unknown to the audience (other vehicle modifications, seasonality, software versions, etc); if you're really fixin' to justify efficiency gains more diligent record keeping would go a long way.
While @holmgang's delivery might be a little salty, the points are valid. Like, even if Unplugged did some best-effort real world before/after test, it would go a long way to validating their claims in the white-paper-that's-not-really-a-white-paper. Even if they could reproduce, say, 4% efficiency vs their claimed 6%, most reasonable minds would allow Unplugged to hand wave the 2% difference with a rational explanation of 'real world' variables. Or, you know, just advertise 4% ("But calculations show it can be more like 6%").
FWIW, I have Unplugged mild springs on my M3 and love them (installed at Unplugged, in fact). 100% the way the car should come from Tesla.
Yeah, I agree with this. I think there very well could be manufacturers that will come with parts that could improve efficiency. But as @bxr140 said about @holmgang response, it may sound harsh but technically many valid points. Even claiming there are people out there who have 'proven' to have better efficiency cannot be called proof. Did they test in exact same conditions? same temps, same humidity, same road, same traffic, same wind, tire pressure, tire temp, and tire wear? That's impossible to do. The only way to accurately do this is in a controlled environment and with accurate measurements in place.
So I'm not saying their parts don't improve efficiency, but there's not really any true data to back it up. Someone saying now they're able to beat their efficiency consistently from previous just leaves way too many other possible variables to call that 'proof'.
As I already mentioned...to buy these parts as the sole purpose of efficiency gain is foolish. You are better off buying solid wheels like the BMW i3 and run 185 series tires. I bought them for the sole purpose of looks. To see my wh/mi go down through the years despite not moving and not changing my driving habits ONLY leads me to the conclusion that it works. To what degree based on where you live or how you drive varies of course. That should be understood. UP did this in a lab and that’s nowhere near real life but how many parts and test is done in a lab and then taken to the road?
For me, in Texas, on open faced 20s...it works for me. Can I make that statement?
Let's Drive
Member
Personally, I think it's entirely too easy to be a skeptic on the internet, as it's a relatively safe position to argue from. Nothing on the line, the burden of proof is on everyone else, and there is always an "out", by calling some variable into question. So I agree with you, the general air around this topic isn't the best.
I decided to test for myself, since it's an area I'm interested in. In my 3, I decided to drive a regular ~30 mile route that I often take my cars on, which consists of long stretches of highway, using an average cruise speed of 70mph (in the 65mph zones), and 60mph (for the 55mph zones). I warmed the battery before starting the factory spoiler test, to better balance temps against the following UP efficiency spoiler test, but otherwise, my tires were inflated to 45psi, it was a mild 70 degree day, dry and clear. Distance travelled was exactly 29.3 miles, using the same 7kwh. With the factory spoiler, I averaged 236 Wh/mi, while the UP averaged 233 Wh/mi, start to finish. There was naturally more variation once I pulled off the highway, but as I monitored the tests for the highway portion, I was consistently 2-3 Wh/mi lower than the factory Performance spoiler on each stretch, which was indicative of the entire run.
My takeaway is that it's negligible by itself and I wouldn't tell someone to buy the spoiler for the purpose of saving money on Wh/mi. Even if the difference were twice as much, it would be very difficult to notice in day-to-day, as your right foot will have much more bearing on efficiency. That said, I consider this similar in approach to weight reduction modifications-- individually, 2-5lbs here and there aren't noticeable, but when you get to a cumulative hundreds of lbs in savings (as I have with one of my other car projects), you do feel the difference. So my goal with the 3 is to continue with more aero mods/considerations, to see how much cumulative difference they will make. Right now, there is a downward trend, which is good.
One last takeaway as to why Tesla may not have done this from the factory (and this is just my personal opinion), is that building cars for aerodynamic considerations (primarily) is very polarizing. The Honda Insight wore rear wheel covers and people either loved or hated it. The 3 has a very "distinctive" front end. The aero wheels on most EVs aren't the most attractive. If you've seen some of the mods people do in extreme hypermiling, it gets really out there. Likewise, a spoiler which trails the car (even this much), will turn a lot of people off. The reason the Model S was so popular? It performed well AND looked distinctively good. Once you start to deviate from the norm, you really do divide opinion and I think aerodynamics definitely play in the realm of function over form, and sometimes practicality.
Skepticism is the right of every consumer, so let's squash the notion that questioning marketing claims is done out of malice. It's also a pretty healthy exercise in itself, and behooves everyone to have to churn their cogs every once in a while.
We should be allowed to scrutinize your opinion without making it vengeful or personal: you think Tesla didn't make the "efficient" spoiler on grounds of aesthetic polarization. But given that this UP spoiler looks basically identical to the OEM version, then that rationale doesnt make sense. It is nowhere as radical as the Insight full fender cover.
This isn't even a different spoiler type, that requires commitment to the design base. It's a slight variant on existing spoiler that the software iterates through with a few clicks. To even start the R in Rigor you would need a physical test.
How many significant digits for the energy display? 7001W and 7999W over 29.3 miles makes a pretty big difference. A single MPH of tailwind makes a bigger difference than 236 --> 233Wh per mile consumption you showed.
If you're happy, you're happy. But any claim that gets put in the public domain is fair game for the public.
Candleflame
Active Member
the number doesnt mean very much because it depends on how much you have to use the heater/AC and how fast you drive. I .e. my lifetime efficiency is fair deal lower than yours.
edit: uh thought you were talking about efficiency gains.
