RE: New Tesla Model 3 Performance gets 510hp
Discussion
This fixes a lot of the issues that caused me to sell my 2020 M3P. Shame finance % is a bit crazy atm.
There’s no way I’d buy one outright again, the depreciation is horrific. As I said in the Tesla thread I am tempted to dip back in to a 2020-2021 generation model 3 performance as at £19-26k, there’s little that can keep up with it.
I’d fit aftermarket suspension (which wasn’t available when I bought mine) and likely improve the sound deadening though…
There’s no way I’d buy one outright again, the depreciation is horrific. As I said in the Tesla thread I am tempted to dip back in to a 2020-2021 generation model 3 performance as at £19-26k, there’s little that can keep up with it.
I’d fit aftermarket suspension (which wasn’t available when I bought mine) and likely improve the sound deadening though…
Itsallicanafford said:
I’m 3 years into plain Jane Model 3 dual motor ownership as part of my only buy petrol for fun policy (for track days or exhibiting our classic) as I think 30 years of being ripped off by oil companies is quite enough. After nearly 50k miles in the Tesla, I absolutely love it. In appliance white, on 18 inch wheels with plastic hub caps and circa 400bhp, it is, hands down, the greatest sleeper of all time. It is laugh out loud fun. I’m having one of these new performances, in black so you would had to look real hard to see it’s a performance. My only slight regret is they didn’t do something nutty, like give it 800bhp…
No Tesla are sleepers. Everyone knows they're fast.
Howard1650 said:
Is this thread the end for Pistonheads?
Has the love of ICE finally be reduced to a hobby for the old generation?
Nah. EV’s have academic curiosity and are sometimes even admirable, but not viable for me and have zero appeal beyond simple effectiveness anyway. A 2005 4.2 Landcruiser took the kids and me 850 miles to the Alps this winter, and a 2004 Z4 with a few gentle mods is the daily. I’m claiming environmental benefit of extended useage. Has the love of ICE finally be reduced to a hobby for the old generation?
Unless late 40’s is old generation
Terminator X said:
Puzzles said:
hemidom said:
Is there a need for one? Majority of Teslas I come across are bimbling along 10mph under the limit.
The polar opposite to what I see on a daily basis 
TX.
What's your point?
Boom78 said:
Even though I’m an ICE owner I think these look great,
Are you serious? Tesla couldn't make a more unforgettable car to look at both inside and out if they tried. Fast yes, great looking not a chance for me. My wooden garden shed is more inviting inside than this is, and Elon is having a laugh as far as I'm concerned. Baddie said:
GT9 said:
As with most EVs, Tesla propulsion motors don't ever reach peak power below 60 mph.
The motors have a single gear and below 60 mph operate in a fixed torque regime.
Without loss of traction, it is impossible to reach peak power below 60 mph.
The purpose of this is to deliver an (almost) fixed torque at the driven wheels for the 0-60 run.
Fixed wheel torque = fixed acceleration, with power rising linearly with road speed.
The reason powertrain designers want power to rise linearly is that kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared.
Providing too much power at low road speed will simply break traction or force traction control to kick in and is entirely unnecessary to accelerate the car.
(I can guarantee that someone brought up on ICEs will be along to dispute this...)
Anyway, at some speed, the motor controllers enter into a fixed power regime, above 60 mph.
Above this speed the motor (and wheel) torque will decay.
If that speed is lower in one car than the other but both have the same wheel torque up to 60 mph, they will both accelerate at the same rate up to 60 mph.
The universal formula to calculate the power require to accelerate the car is 6 bhp per ton per mph per g.
Once drag kicks in, the total power required will increase in excess of this value.
Drag power is proportional to speed cubed and the CdA of the car, so it takes a bit more info to assess the impact of drag.
For the sake of 0-60 mph discussions for rapid acceleration of a high mass car, it can pretty much be ignored.
The rolling resistance of the tyres adds a fixed 1% to the power required to accelerate at 1g, independent of speed, so it can also be ignored.
TLDR: power only tells half the story.
Acceleration is defined by the torque at the wheels OR in alternative terms, by the instantaneous power divided by the road speed.
Unless you know at what speed the peak power is being delivered at, you cannot use the power rating alone to determine acceleration.
Think I get what you’re saying, trying to relate it to the physics. The motors have a single gear and below 60 mph operate in a fixed torque regime.
Without loss of traction, it is impossible to reach peak power below 60 mph.
The purpose of this is to deliver an (almost) fixed torque at the driven wheels for the 0-60 run.
Fixed wheel torque = fixed acceleration, with power rising linearly with road speed.
The reason powertrain designers want power to rise linearly is that kinetic energy is proportional to speed squared.
Providing too much power at low road speed will simply break traction or force traction control to kick in and is entirely unnecessary to accelerate the car.
(I can guarantee that someone brought up on ICEs will be along to dispute this...)
Anyway, at some speed, the motor controllers enter into a fixed power regime, above 60 mph.
Above this speed the motor (and wheel) torque will decay.
If that speed is lower in one car than the other but both have the same wheel torque up to 60 mph, they will both accelerate at the same rate up to 60 mph.
The universal formula to calculate the power require to accelerate the car is 6 bhp per ton per mph per g.
Once drag kicks in, the total power required will increase in excess of this value.
Drag power is proportional to speed cubed and the CdA of the car, so it takes a bit more info to assess the impact of drag.
For the sake of 0-60 mph discussions for rapid acceleration of a high mass car, it can pretty much be ignored.
The rolling resistance of the tyres adds a fixed 1% to the power required to accelerate at 1g, independent of speed, so it can also be ignored.
TLDR: power only tells half the story.
Acceleration is defined by the torque at the wheels OR in alternative terms, by the instantaneous power divided by the road speed.
Unless you know at what speed the peak power is being delivered at, you cannot use the power rating alone to determine acceleration.
Work = force x distance
Power = work / time
Therefore
Power = force x speed
In a rotating system this is torque x rpm.
Electric motors can produce close to max torque at zero rpm, but until the car starts to move, are producing zero power; if the torque is fixed, power then rises linearly with speed. It’s torque at the wheel hub, which translates to force at the contact patch, which challenges traction rather than power (power being a speed-dependent variable).
Electric motor torque falls off at higher speeds, which with a single-speed transmission will correspond to a fixed vehicle speed. So whether due to electric motor characteristics or software design, the power could stay constant above a certain speed if the torque drops off at a rate proportional to the increase in rpm. The car theoretically could be producing 510 hp by 60 mph, which then stays constant until 163 mph.
If this is what happens, there must be software intent as my limited understanding is that electric motor torque falls off higher up than from 38% of peak speed. Don’t understand why they’d design it to do that though.
Edited by Baddie on Wednesday 24th April 05:32
Thus, to achieve peak power at maximum intended road speed (which has to happen to achieve that maximum speed), the maximum motor rotational speed (rpm) is designed to coincide with max applied voltage and max applied frequency.
Most EVs have fixed gearing and, due to inefficiencies of using high applied frequencies (IGBT commutation losses), top speeds are limited.
Having a 2 speed gear box enables the peak power in 'gear 2' to be at a much higher road speed without the otherwise higher motor frequency/ rpm and still get good efficiency.
Edited by Andy86GT on Wednesday 24th April 07:58
Edited by Andy86GT on Wednesday 24th April 08:03
howardhughes said:
Howard1650 said:
Is this thread the end for Pistonheads?
Has the love of ICE finally be reduced to a hobby for the old generation?
I've mentioned this many times previously. The rate of EV's making headlines on this site is alarming. In my opinion the site should be split ICE / EV's This way we can choose between the two and not force-fed the tripe of electric cars every time you hit the home page.Has the love of ICE finally be reduced to a hobby for the old generation?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff