Potential Performance

Potential Performance

OK - first post, but I thoguht I'd get people's thoughts :

Take all of the following with a grain of salt - I know there are a multitude of factors, but this is more of just a nice 'daydream' kind of exercise ;)

When you use one of those '0-60 calculator' websites and plug in the stats for a P90D, the results are actually very close to reality.

IE. 2200kg, 762hp, AWD and Dual clutch trans nets a result of 3.02 secs (very close to the claimed reality)

With the Model 3 being '4/5ths' the size, and the potential(hope?) that 2 years from now they might have a 110kwh battery - based on past improvements - you punch in 1750kg, 850hp, AWD and Dual clutch and get:

0-60MPH in 2.35 secs

GIDDYUP!!! :) ;) :)

jordanrichard | 13. April 2016

First, welcome.

That is a lot of salt... :-)

The exact size difference and weight are complete unknowns. Originally it was said the Model ≡ would be 20% smaller than a MS. That would make the M≡ only 12.5 ft long. and 3600 lbs.

Though Elon/Tesla did not specify a standard battery size, they have set the standard time of 0-60 in "less than" 6 secs. That translate to probably 5.8. So, if you want to get an idea of the difference between that and the PM≡, just look at the 0-60 difference between the MS 70D and P90D. There is a 2.1 second difference. So back to say a 060 time of 5.8, that would suggest that a PM≡ would hit 60 in 3.7 seconds.

Slightly off topic, but I do think we are entering a somewhat dangerous area when it comes to acceleration on public streets by people that are not professionals. I once drove/launched a P85D Insane mode. My brain went numb, nearly blacking out. My vision for quick second made the hood/dash and even my hands, stretch out. What happened is my eyeballs were physically be compressed.

There is a point where our brains can not process how fast things are happening. Professional drivers are conditioned/trained to handle these insane acceleration speeds, plus all the cars are going the same direction, in a controlled environment.

Red Sage ca us | 13. April 2016

Anyone who is used to the leisurely pace of a 1963 Volkswagen Beetle will still be able to reach 60 MPH from a dead stop in 38 seconds or more if they prefer. The great thing about electric cars is that no matter how much power is at hand your access to it is fully at the control of your own right foot.

I believe the Performance of a base Tesla Model ≡ will be on par with a BMW 340i, and climb from there. At the very least it will demolish the BMW 328i by achieving a 0-60 MPH time less than 5.7 seconds.

Sparky | 13. April 2016

Great points Jordan and Red but when it comes to acceleration performance I'm happy with anything under 5 seconds 0-60, which is impressively quick for a public road. I'm more interested in max range so that I can keep the battery happy with optimum charging and so that I can stretch over a long distance between SC's when necessary. Really quick acceleration is cool to impress friends once in a while but a really fast accelerating car which is almost silent takes a lot of restraint to keep things safe. I've got a motorcycle that will do 0-60 in 2.8 but you'd better have a good overview of all surrounding traffic and other threats before you show off with it. There are a lot of Youtube videos of guys slamming into things with super cars because they didn't realize that the laws of physics have no heart, and other traffic is not expecting someone to shoot out of an intersection like a bullet from a railgun.

dd.micsol | 14. April 2016

Just my thoughts-at 74 yrs old I don't want a 2.5 second car. 4.3 seconds is fast enough for me.
I drove Paul Newman's Porsche 959 bi turbo at Limerock and it was very difficult to control. Now all the weight was hanging off the ass end of the car so over steer was crazy. Had to make sure tires were warm-about 4 laps then I could punch it. Even Paul's car couldn't do 2.5 seconds- I think it was clocked at 2.9 if I remember correctly.
My car will be entry 3 with dual motor and maybe one other option. This car will outlive me-probably. I hope to pass it on to my nephew.

PeterPlt | 14. April 2016

@JordanRichard +1

jordanrichard | 14. April 2016

dd, a 2.5 second car is only a 2.5 second car, if you want it to be.

Haggy | 14. April 2016

With a Tesla, you get far more control than in other cars with similar 0-60 times. If you get into a P90D and floor it, the wheels won't spin, you won't fight to maintain control, and you will get a very smooth launch. But due to the tremendous torque at low speeds, it will feel much faster than other cars. Other cars that come close in 0-60 times won't come close in 0-30 times. The performance will be there if you need to accelerate quickly. The responsiveness will be there when you are at highway speeds and need to accelerate suddenly. There's no lag in responsiveness.

Even with a 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds, it will feel faster and be more responsive than other cars with similar specs on paper. The nice thing about a Tesla is real world performance. Regardless of what you see on paper, if you don't plan to exceed the speed limit by more than anybody else, then how well the car does at 150 mph won't be an issue. Once you are up to speed, you are up to speed. But acceleration helps in real life. It helps when you need to get into the carpool lane, which is going significantly faster than your lane, or any time you need to adjust your speed. It helps when you need to enter a freeway from a standstill, which is an issue in some parts of the US.

I wouldn't use a 0-60 calculator on an EV.

scott | 14. April 2016

It's funny - you punch the Power and weight specs for the Model S 70 RWD into the calculator and it's within .05 of a second too - maybe the calculators are actually MORE accurate with EV cars?

As for not wanting a car that does 0-60 in 2.5 secs - fair enough - buy the base model - but for the rest of us, I find it cool and exciting. :)

Red Sage ca us | 14. April 2016

dd.micsol: Tesla Motors has a very fine and precise control system for input of the exact speed you want to go. It allows you to reach a given speed exactly the way you prefer to do so. It is the long, skinny pedal on the right. You control it with your right foot. This is very easy, unlike getting a precision response from a 400 HP, 400 cubic inch, 4 barrel carburetor, dual exhaust V8 vehicle with four on the floor.

lph | 14. April 2016

HP has little to do with 0-60 times. It is mostly about torque.

dnland | 14. April 2016

I would be very surprised if even the top spec M3 makes it unto sub 4 sec territory. The MS and MX were always meant to be luxury performance cars to justify the price point necessary to make the funds available to make the M3. Tesla may very well want to keep it that way to drive customers to the MS and MX.
I'll hope for impressive performance numbers but we need to remember that a 911 Carrera S is still a 4.1 0-60 car.
4.0 in the M3 would be fine by me. :-)

cephellow | 15. April 2016

I'm amazed at comments to the effect 'I drove a P85D once and almost blacked out and therefor ther'll be lots of accidents etc etc. '. It is bad enough to listen to FUD coming from non-EV owners about EVs about all sorts of uninformed absurdities; it is even worse hearing about how 'handlin' all that power from a PD is so difficult from other Tesla owners. I have been driving my P85D (now DL) everyday and now have 40K miles on it. I keep it in insane, now Ludicrous mode, all of the time. I stab the 'Go' pedal hard 20-30 times a day. You get used to it and comfortable with it after maybe a week or two at most. After that, it is pretty much routine. If anything, it changes how you drive in a positive way. I am looking forward to Tesla producing a car in the next few years that can do better than 2,5s and NO, it won't cause our brains to explode.

RJT85 | 15. April 2016

I've driven other cars with Tesla type performance (Porsche and Ferrari), and a D-model Tesla accelerates differently. The car "squirts" forward, where the Ferrari and Porsche "squirm" forward. It might be the drive train, as the two wheel drive P85+ I had when my car was being serviced was definitely a bit trickier. Not as bad as a Ferrari, but definitely not as composed as a D. Will have to wait and see what this means for 2wd versus 4wd Model 3s.

Red Sage ca us | 15. April 2016

As I understand it, maximum acceleration from a dead stop is accomplished by rearing back and kicking the ever-lovin' [SNOT] out of the GO pedal as hard and fast as you can. This is not the same as an untamed Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche, Dodge, Chevrolet, or Ford sports/muscle car that requires a precisely balanced application of heel/toe with a deftly applied clutch to engage forward motion in a controlled creep. You don't have to worry about the car jumping the gun on its own, or reaching up and grabbing you unawares and out of nowhere. If you know how to drive at all, a Tesla Motors product should be the easiest thing you've ever been behind the wheel of to handle. So, yes... The fear mongering over limiting Performance to protect the buying public is absolute horse hockey. An inexperienced driver should probably not be given a top-of-the-line Camaro, Challenger, or Mustang as their first vehicle... But I'd hand them the fob to a Tesla with no hesitation. There's no better way to learn.

RJT85 | 15. April 2016

@Red sage - putting an inexperienced driver in a top of the line Mustang provides an awful lot of web-based entertainment for the rest of us.

Red Sage ca us | 15. April 2016

RJT85: Well, there is that...

slasher0016 | 15. April 2016

I just want a version that's faster than my current car. That's my rule...never buy a slower car than I purchased previously...

1989 Ford Probe (used from parents - probably in a car graveyard)
2002 Acura RSX-S (sold)
2005 Honda S2000 (will probably keep this forever)
2013 Audi S4 (will likely trade this in)
2018 Model ≡ P

velnosju | 15. April 2016

The 2016 BMW M3 has a 0-60mph time of 3.9 seconds... this tells me that the Ludicrous Tesla M3 (if there is one) should have a 0-60 of no more than that and probably less. "We don't make slow cars" and he means it. Tesla has always outperformed every other car in its class and I don't think the model 3 will be any different. Just my hopeful guess of course. I am excited to see what they do with the Model 3.

Hi_Tech | 15. April 2016

(Repeating from another similar thread: "Top 0-60 Time")

Looking at the 0-60 times of other vehicles in the class (A4, 3 series, etc), here are my estimates:
Base = 5.6 sec (because 328i and A4 are in the 5.8 sec range)
Dual Motors = 4.4 sec (because 335i does 4.6 sec)
Performance = 3.4 sec (because the M3 can do 3.8 sec and M5 can do 3.6 sec)

Red Sage ca us | 15. April 2016

dd.micsol: I sort of 'met' Paul Newman once... My buddies and I had pit passes to the Long Beach Grand Prix... We were making the most of it, poking our noses wherever we could the whole weekend.

One afternoon we were checking out cars parked in one area noting the damage some of them had from earlier races. Honestly? The guys and I were talking crap about one of the cars, a yellow Lotus, when I noticed a little old guy off to my left and slightly behind us ...

I turned back to the car after giving him a nod... Then noticed the name on the car, just above the driver's door... 'P. NEWMAN'... I thought to myself, "Oh, $#!+!" I looked over my shoulder again and realized that is who it was -- he was still in his racing suit -- not a crew uniform as I had thought at first glance.

As casually as possible, I suggested to my pals that it was time to move on... And whispered "That's HIM..." to them as we left. They looked back, remembered what we had all said, and cleared out of there. Man, he sure looked ANGRY...

biggestfan | 15. April 2016

I can't wait to see how quick the quickest version of the Model 3 will be. I am hoping to beat my already quick Infiniti G37S by a full 2 seconds 0-60. My sport model Infiniti is considered a fairly quick 4 door at 0-60 in 5.2

Red Sage ca us: Know what you mean. I remember one time sitting at a sorting table at work with a group of people talking about how my sister and her husband bought a house from someone who actually took the "globes" off of the ceiling fan because they were so cheap. One of my friends kicked me under the table. Didn't realize that one of the people at the table were related to said cheapskates because it was her step different last name.

Zebuf | 15. April 2016

@Scott: Reducing size by approx. 20% will not necessarily drop weight by the same factor as many, heavy core components are close to the same weight. Also you need to add the weight difference between 90 and 110 kWh worth of batteries.

That said, the P version 3 will be blazingly fast, nonetheless. P85D specs @ 1850 kg is gonna rip!

bb0tin | 15. April 2016

The Model 3 will be lighter, and have a lower cd and frontal area than the S/X. It will have the new battery pack. It does not need a 110Wh battery pack. Elon likes fast cars. He even owned and crashed an F1 early in his life. I believe Insane and Ludicrous modes were not there for any other reason that satsifaction that it could be there, and to stick it to ICE cars. The max performance Model 3 has the potential to go even quicker. As I posted on another thread, I am betting that the quickest 3 will be between 2.5 and 3.0 seconds, and likely closer to 2.5. I cannot see any reason why it would not be that quick.

bb0tin | 15. April 2016

110kWh not 110Wh

Red Sage ca us | 15. April 2016

Need? Who cares what is needed? What can be DONE is what matters. 135 kWh or BUST!

bb0tin | 15. April 2016

@Red Sage ca us
'Need' was used in reference to 110kWh not being necessary for either performance or range to be better than the S. I hope your latest post means you now understand this.

Red Sage ca us | 16. April 2016

bb0tin: It's not about being better than the Model S. It is about thoroughly embarrassing 3-Series, A4, ATS, C-Class, IS, Q50, and XE. And doing so for less money than their Performance versions -- while being more economical and efficient.

Supraman | 16. April 2016

Why does a P90D have 30 miles less range than a 90D? I'm trying to understand if the P version of the Model 3 will have a similar disadvantage?

bb0tin | 16. April 2016

@Red Sage ca us
My comment about the 110kWh was in reply to Zebuf and not a reply to you.

My reply to you was about your post:
"Need? Who cares what is needed? What can be DONE is what matters. 135 kWh or BUST!"
As in another thread, you are under the impression that a larger capacity battery is required for higher performance. It is not, as I have tried to explain to you in another thread. I have also said that I believe the performance 3 will be faster than the current performance S. You do not believe so. We will have to wait to see who is correct .

Ross1 | 16. April 2016

When my wife kicks me under the table, I say, why did you kick me. Usually stops the kicking UNDER the table...

Ross1 | 16. April 2016

Off the other thread, why do we have to have duplicate threads? Perhaps a duplicate thread would be called a rope.

I think the power needed to increase acceleration from say 2.8 to 2.5 could easily be double, given the same body aerodynamics. (You will correct me if I am wrong lol).
With gas cars, sometimes putting in a larger engine achieves sweet all because of the extra weight.
Same with batteries I guess. There must be a sweet spot somewhere.

Elon has spoken about the desirability of getting good aerodynamic numbers, so given that AND his sense of humour, my guess is a more slippery pocket rocket will be built to thrash any MS you can throw at it. And McLaren.

While TM is not into building racecars as a main game (they are a by-product), I think TM will have its fun trying for a 2.5. A 4 door sedan, 4 seats, same as Granma drives...
Expect a special formula for racing Unmodified Tesla Models 3.

Then when the Roadster arrives with Plaid, expect the unexpectable. Aim at 2.0. Up against Ariel.
My guess.

Red Sage ca us | 16. April 2016

bb0tin: Neither the Model S 40 nor the Model S 60 was capable of 0-60 MPH in less than 4.5 seconds, or 3.7 seconds, or 3.2 seconds, or 2.8 seconds. They did not have enough aggregate voltage to accomplish the feat. Perhaps the interconnects between cells and modules within those battery packs could have been arranged for higher voltage output... But then their range would have dropped precipitously.

The Model S 85 and Model S 90 have a larger energy reserve. That allows them to deliver higher voltage output to the motor(s) than the lower capacity battery packs. That garners both heightened Performance and increased Range as benefits. Yet, neither of those capacities maxes out the ~320 kW maximum capability of the motor(s). There is no battery pack on the market yet that can give you the ability to reach 762 HP at once, either instantaneously or for a sustained period.

I suggest simply that Tesla Motors is holding their cards close to the vest. They are likely very aware of how much battery pack capacity, and what voltage output, is 'enough' to accomplish their goals -- for Performance and Range. They have a lot of room for improvement on both fronts, and will do so when they deem necessary. The Tesla Model ≡ is the perfect platform, as a Generation III electric vehicle in a market of so-called 'entry level luxury sports sedans' powered by ICE, to fully demonstrate the complete dominance of electric drive in all aspects of Performance metrics. 0-60 MPH, 1/4 mile, 0-100-0 MPH, Braking Distance from 70 MPH, Slalom, Skidpad, Moose Test, Top Speed, Nürburgring/Laguna Seca/Willow Springs/Pike's Peak Hill Climb/Road of the Americas Lap Times... Pretty much any and all excuses -- including range and price point -- will fall to the wasyside. Thereby proving once and for all that no one can honestly ignore electric cars without getting their butts kicked.

bb0tin | 16. April 2016

@Red Sage ca us
You said "There is no battery pack on the market yet that can give you the ability to reach 762 HP at once, either instantaneously or for a sustained period." Your statement is incorrect. You do not know about battery packs and the power they have been delivering for years. I have suggested you, at least, lookup A123 (who supply spec sheets), and also look up Pike's Peak electric vehicles. It seems you have done neither. I again suggest that you do.

You said "Neither the Model S 40 nor the Model S 60 was capable of 0-60 MPH in less than 4.5 seconds, or 3.7 seconds, or 3.2 seconds, or 2.8 seconds. They did not have enough aggregate voltage to accomplish the feat. Perhaps the interconnects between cells and modules within those battery packs could have been arranged for higher voltage output... But then their range would have dropped precipitously."
As far as I am aware, the battery packs did not vary by voltage. They varied by capacity and current. The sizing of the connections etc is driven by current requirements, not voltage. Saying that their range would drop precipitously because of increased voltage shows that you have no idea how an AC battery/motor system works. You really should find out before repeatedly posting about it.

Sparky | 16. April 2016

Ultimately, performance is all about stressing the tires to the maximum and applying that force to the mass of the vehicle. So an AWD M3 should be able to generate about as much "G" force in acceleration as it can generate in the opposite direction by a maximum braking action ABS stop. In other words, more than adequate to provide the famous Tesla grin!

Red Sage ca us | 16. April 2016

bb0tin: Wow.

Uhm... I said 'on the market'... The presumption is something that can be purchased from Tesla Motors, for use in their cars, TODAY. No such high capacity high output maximum voltage battery pack exists at this time that can exhibit the full combined output of front and rear electric motors simultaneously on the Tesla Model S Performance Dual Motor platform. There isn't even one available that could max out the single rear motor on a Model S Performance + vehicle.

As for the Model S 40 and Model S 60... I am not an electrical engineer. I went to school for mechanical engineering... Then spent several years working in architecture instead. I was writing off the top of my head from my personal memory of descriptions of the differences between the battery packs for Model S that have been posted multiple times in the Model S forum here by people I trust.

Bottom line, no matter how you choose to measure the output, no matter what terms you choose to apply, the actual products that Tesla Motors has released for public consumption have specific limitations in terms of how energy, or power, or current, or voltage reaches the MOTOR from the BATTERY PACK. And thus far, NONE OF THE BATTERY PACKS on the market output enough energy, or power, or current, or voltage to fully use the MAXIMUM CAPABILITY of the motor used in the Performance variants of the Tesla Model S.

Tesla Motors currently uses the phrase, 'Battery limited maximum motor shaft power' to describe their motors' output in horsepower. That is what I am referring to here. Except, according to you, there is no limitation.

Here, this might help...

loudmouthtim | 16. April 2016

What other cars can be compared to the BMW 340i, 328i, and M3, and Audi A4 that the Model 3 is supposed to be compared to? Someone mentioned an Infiniti G37, how about that Hyundai Genesis (348 hp 3.8 V6) coupe?

I'd like to see the Model 3 lapping Laguna Seca and the Nurburgring with these other cars, for a real world comparison. And some quarter mile runs too.

Sparky | 16. April 2016

In a quarter mile the T3 would probably easily win a comparison but on a twisty track the weight of the car would work to its disadvantage compared to a lighter ICE vehicle running near redline. The tires can only do so much gripping against mass at the apex.

bb0tin | 16. April 2016

@Red Sage ca u
You said "The presumption is something that can be purchased from Tesla Motors,"
Not only did you not say that, but it is not what 'on the market means'.

Below is a battery pack, which if packaged into the battery pack size of the Tesla S, would produce thousands of horsepower. The point I have been making the entire time is that capacity does not equate to power, and that existing cells can produce many times what Tesla is delivering in the Model S. You keep thinking that a larger capacity is needed for higher power. It is not. A different cell chemistry and construction, and battery pack construction, can produce much more power from a lower capacity pack. Once again, I suggest you do some research.

Ross1 | 17. April 2016

So, a different cell layout could produce awesome drag racing, draining the battery in one run, swap batteries, another go.

Tesla needs to support third party apps like phone/computer people do. Everyone else in Silicon Valley.
But as I said, racing is a byproduct, not the main game.

Or if it just had a switch, like Ludicrous, but like, putting all the batteries into series or something

@Red: you know how to stop this roller coaster.

Red Sage ca us | 17. April 2016

Sparky: Please look at the weight ranges of the BMW 3-Series. Their highest performance versions are also the heaviest. The Base Model ☰ will not be as lightweight as the lightest of the BMW 3-Series, but the heaviest of the Performance versions will be right in line with the BMW M3.

bb0tin: I noticed the qualifier 'if' in your last post, and stopped reading. I'm done.

bb0tin | 17. April 2016

@Red Sage ca us
You should have kept reading. You may have learnt that your idea of how battery packs and AC motors work, and how they can and do currently perform, is completely wrong.

Supraman | 17. April 2016

Bump - why does a P90D have 30 miles less range than a 90D? I'm trying to understand if the P version of the Model 3 will have a similar disadvantage?

Red Sage ca us | 17. April 2016

Supraman: The higher output rear motor uses more energy per mile than the smaller one up front.

dachuyn | 18. April 2016

Get a stock model 3. Remove rear and passenger seats. Remove spared wheel/tire, and install smaller/lighter wheels and carbon fiber hood... Hope it can achieve 5s (0-60)

Red Sage ca us | 18. April 2016

Sub-5s... Sub-4s... Sub-3s... Coming right up!

Morlandoemtp061383 | 20. April 2016

My 0-60 guesses are as follows: the base will do about 5.5 seconds, Dual Motor will be in the 4.3 seconds, and the performance model will be about 3.65 seconds. I believe if you want to see something in the range of a 2.5 second 0-60 car it will be the new version of the roadster in about 5 years, it will be amazing.

PhillyGal | 20. April 2016

@loudmouthtim - When comparing to the Genesis Coupe, please instruct the driver to wear ear plugs to tolerate all the rattles from that piece of crap's interior. Bleh!

Give me a Model 3 so I can send my Gen Coupe packing.

Red Sage ca us | 20. April 2016

Remember: The Tesla Roadster did 0-60 MPH in 3.7 seconds.

Badbot | 22. April 2016

Just my take on the power part of the argument.
The bigger battery 'can' provide more power.
The usable power in Teslas is governed by the inverter. I am sure it has a hall effect sensor reading the current draw and only allowing what the designer choose for it to deliver.
That is why normal and ludicrous settings are different.
I think that I saw somewhere in the model S a * limited by battery footnote. If you do not limit the discharge current you risk making magma with your cells and possibly voiding your warranty.

All my experience with batteries was with Battlebots. I smoke tested a few cells along with speed controllers and motors. they all quit working after you let out the MAGIC smoke that they run on.

I suspect 2.5 0-60 will not be available! they want everything to out last the warranty and will limit current to allow the components to live a long and happy life.

Red Sage ca us | 25. April 2016

Point being: The much larger Model S and Model X in Generation II are, in Performance trim, already faster than the sports car from Generation I. Do not be surprised if the Performance version of Model ☰ is able to embarrass today's top marks from Generation II.