Forums

is 0-60 mph possible in less than 3.1 seconds?

is 0-60 mph possible in less than 3.1 seconds?

A friend of mine which is studying in electrical engineering states that the capacity of a battery to deliver an amount of energy in an certain amount of time without damaging the cells is proportionate to its size. So a 90 kwh battery pack with a ludicrous speed and a $10 000 fuze might be able to do 60 mph in 3.1 seconds without damaging the battery pack however even if you cut 20% weight, you'd have to cut less than 20% of battery pack size to be able to accomplish more, which I don't think will be profitable to Tesla for a $35 000 car...

Any one here read on that subject and found some divergent facts?

yongliangzhu68 | May 28, 2016

Ludicrous mode won't be $35,000. It will be under 6 seconds for the base M3. It will likely be near 2x that for a Ludicrous equipped M3.

david.jones24 | May 28, 2016

Immediately out the door, we'll see. The battery capacity continues to improve in density and performance, albeit incrementally. I have no doubt that in the future, the Model 3 will be able to beat that time. Not sure if it will happen next year though. We'll see at the second reveal.

Badbot | May 28, 2016

The motors are smaller for the 3 and the gross weight will be only about 500 pounds at best.
I assume that sub 3.5 will barely be reachable. I think sub 3.0 unreachable.

diverderek | May 28, 2016

I am hoping for 3.2 - 3.4. Twin motor, for around $65,000. Figuring out the engineering is beyond me. Remember, this will be a piece of history in 20 years, like a old corvette. Don't over analyze it.

bb0tin | May 28, 2016

@EVolution
Available power is limited by capacity only when the batteries are delivery max power, and that max power is less than what the system can handle.
You can make a battery system output as much as a Tesla 90kWh pack when it is has far less capacity. I have provided links on another thread showing that you can already get an order of magnitude more power. The Model 3 will have a new battery cells, new battery pack, and probably new power electronics, motors etc. It will have a lower weight, lower cd and lower frontal area.
I expect the high spec Model 3 to have a 0-60mph time less than 2.8 seconds.

Red Sage ca us | May 28, 2016

I believe that a 0-60 MPH time of below 2.5 seconds will be reserved for the Tesla Model R as 'MAXIMUM PLAID' around 2019 or so. The Model ☰ should be able to manage sub-3.0 seconds in Performance trim with LUDICROUS engaged. I expect INSANE mode to be better than a BMW M3 by half a second, and LUDICROUS to knock another half second off that. Top speed will probably be limited to 155 MPH... But I would argue it should be able to achieve 300 kph, or 186 MPH. Through the 1/4 mile I expect absolutely RIDICULOUS results, but maybe not the 135+ MPH trap speeds that some crave. And, if a version of the car can complete the Nürburgring in around 7:30 or so, that would be just AWESOME.

bb0tin | May 28, 2016

@Red Sage ca us
You have posted that the Model 3 'is unlikely to achieve the mark below the 3.0-to-3.5 second range.'
Now you post 'The Model ☰ should be able to manage sub-3.0 seconds in Performance trim with LUDICROUS engaged.'
So which is it?
And more importantly, what is your evidence for it?

jordanrichard | May 29, 2016

bb0tin, "evidence" is used to prove something as fact. Red Sage didn't word anything as being "fact". He used the words "believe" and "should" which are opinion in nature.

carlos | May 29, 2016

The answer should be "why". IMHO the M3 is a family car, not a sports sedan. How often will you "drag race" your family car?

Chargedmr2 | May 29, 2016

The Model X is also a family car, so that reasoning is out.

yongliangzhu68 | May 29, 2016

carlos: If I had $100 for every "family car" MX drag race I have watched on Youtube I could almost afford one. :)

apa.hooft | May 29, 2016

I would say...possible yes...likely, no. The 3 in base trim will dor around 5.5-5.8 probably. The bigger battery D will do 5-5.3 probably and the performance model 4.5-5. Maybe there will be a L that will do 4. 4sec is fast enough to beat a BMW M4.

Maximum Plaid is reserved for a new roadster (probably around 2019). I guess that beast could get into the 1.7-2.5 range. Who knows.

yongliangzhu68 | May 29, 2016

apa.hooft: I think Musk and others at Tesla LOVE watching the MS a& MX blow conventional expectations and the doors off exotic and muscle cars (I do too) drag racing. I just don't think Musk will be happy unless the M3 is 5 star crash AND sub 3 to 60mph. I don't think he will settle with 'just being as fast' or a tiny bit faster.

Remember Tesla is rapidly building a surprising, unanticipated but well deserved reputation of building cars that far exceed all expectations on how quick they are 0-60 and even in the ¼ mile. Average people hear and talk about it because they are SO quick. To now have the M3DL perceived as an also-ran would be a publicity letdown.

bb0tin | May 29, 2016

@jordanrichard
You said ""evidence" is used to prove something as fact."
From the dictionary evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
Note the words 'belief or proposition', not 'fact'

The point of my post was that he had posted self-contradictory statements, whether they are opinion or fact.

Red Sage ca us | May 29, 2016

jordanrichard: +1! Thank you for taking note of the qualifiers I so desperately attempt to use with regularity. Wouldn't it be nice if others were to learn how to use some of them as well...? :-D

carlos: The Tesla Model ☰ will be marketed directly against the BMW 3-Series (M3), AUDI A4 (S4), Cadillac ATS (ATS-V), Jaguar XE (S), Lexus IS (F-Sport), and Mercedes-Benz C-Class (AMG C63 S/C63/C450) -- all of which are undeniably 'sports sedans'... At least, until the Model ☰ arrives and kicks all their butts.

bb0tin | May 29, 2016

@Red Sage
I see that you did not even attempt to explain how it can be 'likely' that the Model 3 will not achieve below 3 seconds, but 'should' achieve less than 3 seconds. They both cannot be correct.

You have previously done the same thing with the expected Model 3 reservations. You predicted both a very low number and a very high number. When the number turned out high you then posted that your prediction was correct. You likely would have done the same if the numbers turned out low.

PS:
I predict it will likely not rain tomorrow and it should rain tomorrow.
I predict the share market is likely to rise in the next year, and it should fall in the next year.

Ross1 | May 29, 2016

@BB:
You are so.o.o predictable

a laugh a minute

carlk | May 29, 2016

@Red Sage ca us
" I expect INSANE mode to be better than a BMW M3 by half a second, and LUDICROUS to knock another half second off that. "

You do know this is no longer $80K M3/AMG C63 territory but $200K 911 Turbo S territory don't you? I have no problem with it but I don't think we will be so lucky to have a <$80K car that can do that..

bb0tin | May 29, 2016

@Ross
Predictable in what sense? That I challenge falsehoods and lies?
Do you consider preferring truth and honesty, rather than falsehoods and lies, the funny bit?

bb0tin | May 29, 2016

@carlk
Red Sage doesn't know what he thinks the 0-60 time will be.
He says it will not likely be less than 3.0-3.5.
He says it should be less than 3.0.
Since the M3 is 3.8 it means that he also thinks it should be 2.8.
Take your pick.

warren_tran | May 29, 2016

So who let the dog out?

Red Sage ca us | May 29, 2016

carlk: The goal is to prove a point. That a long range fully electric vehicle will be able to soundly defeat every known benchmark vehicle in an entire market segment. Not to preserve the market value of over-priced, highly polluting, obnoxiously loud ICE vehicles. I'm sure that people who value tradition, heritage, luxury, and exclusivity will still be able to be convinced to part with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars on cars that get their butts kicked by Tesla Motors branded EVs for years to come. :-D

It really isn't that hard to beat a BMW anyway, everybody is doing it these days... As evidenced by the folks over at Motor Trend:

2015 BMW 335i M Sport vs. 2016 Jaguar XE S! - Head 2 Head Ep. 67
YouTube -- -3YFTFLmcfk

2015 BMW M4 vs. 2016 Chevrolet Camaro SS - Head 2 Head Ep. 74
YouTube -- D87tO7VUs2I

2016 Chevrolet SS Sedan: The New Benchmark Sport Sedan - Ignition Ep. 152
YouTube -- YbLweooe3aM

Red Sage ca us | May 29, 2016

Yeah. I'm really confident that a Tesla Model ☰ in Performance trim will absolutely demolish these numbers:

Cadillac ATS-V -- 464 HP, 0-60 MPH in 3.9 Seconds, 185 MPH Top Speed, 109.3" Wheelbase

Mercedes-AMG C63 S -- 503 HP, 0-60 MPH in 3.9 Seconds, 180 MPH Top Speed, 111.8" Wheelbase

BMW M3 -- 425 HP, 0-60 MPH in 3.9 seconds, 156 MPH Top Speed, 110.7" Wheelbase

Jaguar XE S -- 340 HP, 0-60 in 4.5 Seconds, 161 MPH Top Speed, 111.6" Wheelbase

AUDI S4 -- 354 HP, 0-60 MPH in 4.7 Seconds, 155 MPH Top Speed, 110.7" Wheelbase

Lexus IS 350 F-Sport AWD -- 306 HP, 0-60 MPH in 5.7 Seconds, 131 MPH Top Speed, 110.2" Wheelbase

bb0tin | May 30, 2016

@Red Sage
Since your latest prognostication is effectively a 2.8 second 0-60mph then it should not take a genius to work out that 2.8 is indeed less than 3.9, 4.5, 4.7 and 5.7.
Help me out here, will 2.8 demolish 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5?
Porsche 918 Spyder 2014 2.2 sec
LaFerrari 2015 2.4 sec
Bugatti Veyron and Veyron Super Sport 2006 2.5 sec
Porsche 991 Turbo S 2016 2.5 sec

PS:
You still haven't answered if you stand by your 'is unlikely to achieve the mark below the 3.0-to-3.5 second range.'
or stand by your 'should be able to manage sub-3.0 seconds'
At the moment you are standing by both.

Chargedmr2 | May 30, 2016

bb0tin - perhaps you and Red Sage could arrange a private conversation to resolve your differences (or perhaps just let it go).

SamO | May 30, 2016

bb needs therapy, not a private place to work through things with @RS

yongliangzhu68 | May 30, 2016

Red Sage ca us: Also as I'm sure you would agree in 2 years a couple or more of those will be even quicker. Tesla can't make an M3 and call it Ludicrous without it actually be Ludicrously quick. Also for an M3DL to be considered a true sports sedan I think it should be quicker than any SUV/CUV (MX 3.2) in your line.

david.jones24 | May 30, 2016

Who knows what the speed will be? Not any of us yet. Who cares about who can guess it right, anyway? Oh well, it wouldn't be a good 0-60 thread without bb calling out Red Sage, and RS ignoring it. Gotta respect someone who isn't drawn easily into a petty argument over something that doesn't matter a whole lot in the first place.

As for my guess, I say under 4 seconds. Maybe that's hopeful, but we'll see.

jordanrichard | May 30, 2016

If the M≡ range follows the suit of the MS, then a top performance version of the M≡ should be able to hit 60 in about 3.5 seconds. The 0-60 difference between the MS70 and the P90D (L) is 2.4 seconds. Elon sated that the M≡ will go 0-60 in under 6 seconds. Assuming he was talking about the entry level version of the M≡, let's say "under 6 seconds" means 5.9. 5.9 - 2.4= 3.5

yongliangzhu68 | May 30, 2016

jordanrichard: The 0-60 difference between the MS70 and the P90D (L) is 2.7 (5.5-2.8). So that makes the M3 3.2 0-60. :)

SamO | May 30, 2016

The Model 3 will be faster than the Model S Ludicrous with 20% smaller size/weight. And will cost the same as the entry level Model S.

yongliangzhu68 | May 30, 2016

SamO: IMO, plausible The MSDL is a luxury sedan (or a luxury sports sedan, but luxury first) and the M3DL will be marketed as a true sports sedan.

Red Sage ca us | May 30, 2016

wj: If any of those Competitors are quicker, they'll also be getting even worse fuel economy. Still a 'Win-Win' for Tesla Model ☰.

Cadillac ATS-V -- 19 MPG, 304 miles range

Mercedes-AMG C63 S -- 20 MPG, 360 miles range

BMW M3 -- 19 MPG, 300 miles range

Jaguar XE S -- 18 MPG, 300 miles range

AUDI S4 -- 21 MPG, 338 miles range

Lexus IS 350 F-Sport AWD -- 21 MPG, 365 miles range

bb0tin | May 30, 2016

The M3 will beat these times by these animals:
Brown Bear
Three legged dog
Fluffy duck

If it has a weight less that 2000lbs and a power of 1MW I expect it will likely do 0.60mph in less than 2.1 seconds
If If it has a weight less that 2000lbs and a power of 1MW I expect it will unlikely do 0.60mph in less than 2.1 seconds

Nexxus | May 31, 2016

@Red Sage,

As an avid reader and commenter on this forum, I find your posts to be illuminating, well written, and documented to the degree possible. Since most of these threads are purely speculative and based on the ideas we have, I find that being forced (or coerced) to provide facts and evidence to such speculative matters to be so much BS. Or better yet, most of these threads are purely based on the "wants" that we all share individually and as a whole Teslarite group. Some people seem to disregard this in this forum, but keep up the good postings as your ideas have the better value for us all.

Besides, the haters gotta hate, and the best you can do is ignore them and go about your daily business. I for one, don't real the silly ramblings of a 14 year old wannabe.

Catch you later.

bb0tin | May 31, 2016

@Go_Peddle_4_me
Assuming your post was directed at me...
You said "the haters gotta hate".
You are incorrect depending on what you mean. I do hate wanton ignorance, falsehoods, hypocrisy, lying and cowardice. Colour me guilty. I do love knowledge, truth, ethical behaviour, honesty and bravery. Colour me guilty again.

You said "the silly ramblings of a 14 year old wannabe"
Incorrect again on both counts.
Not only are my posts attempting to discuss what is not silly, unlike Red Sage, but I am not 14, nor do a wannabe 14.
But well done with the ad hominem attack.

Just for you:
I think there may be a 3 fingered pink space monkey giving birth to a giraffe soon.
You should be able to buy this giraffe for $US35,000.
When being born the giraffe will shoot out at 60mph within 3.0 seconds.

And just for me:
Ignorance is not knowledge
Opinion is not fact
Repetition does not create truth

Nexxus | May 31, 2016

@BB0tin,

Go stifle yourself. I have no intention of reading any of your posts again, so bugger off!

Nexxus | May 31, 2016

And no. I didn't bother to see what you said in the last one either.

Red Sage ca us | May 31, 2016

Go_Peddle_4_me: Thanks for the support. As your Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Motors Certified Apologist Fanboy, those words help a lot when it comes to my decision to stay the course. Die Forum Gestapo have begun to demand sources, evidence, and proof at TMC of late, also on threads that were begun purely for the sake of speculation. Luckily, that site has a very effective [IGNORE] option.

DISCLAIMER: I guarantee and warrant that if I'm wrong, I will be absolutely, infallibly, inherently, 100% incorrect -- every time!

georgehawley.fl.us | May 31, 2016

Assuming that the 90 kWh pack has the same 7,104 cell configuration as the old 85 kWh pack, there are 96 parallel strings of 74 cells in series. Each cell, if it follows the Panasonic spec. for 18650 cells (http://industrial.panasonic.com/cdbs/www-data/pdf2/ACA4000/ACA4000CE240.pdf), operates at a nominal voltage of 3.6 volts. Therefore 96 in series produce 345.6 volts, nominally. This might droop a bit during a heavy current discharge due internal cell resistance. Tesla in Ludicrous mode draws up to 1500 amperes from the pack ( that's 1500/74=20.3 amperes per cell!!!) for a total output power of about 518.4 kW. Some energy is dissipated internally so maybe 90-95% of that makes it to the gear box. No one knows outside of Tesla knows the design details of the M≡. This invites us all to speculate.

Speculation: It's likely that the base battery pack for a car to go 215 miles needs to pack about 55 kWh of energy for a car that is 20% lighter and has 20% less drag than the MS. (I am discounting Elon's goal of a .20-.21 coefficient of drag as being too optimistic.). It should therefore take about 80% as much power to get the M≡ from 0-60 in under 3.0 seconds or something in the area of 400 kW. Assuming the same pack voltage (WAG) of 345 volts, to to simplify the design of the drive unit, this suggests a total current requirement of about 1160 amps. At 20 amps per cell, that suggests 58 cells in each parallel string and 5568 cells in all.

(5568/7104) X 90= 70 kWh for the hypothetical pack. My fanciful conclusion is that 0-60 is feasible, if they can squash (technical term) that many cells into the M&#8801 pack. YMMV &#128519

georgehawley.fl.us | May 31, 2016

Whoops. HTML problem -maybe Mollom block :-))

georgehawley.fl.us | May 31, 2016

testing 1, 2, ≡

Red Sage ca us | May 31, 2016

President georgehawley: Since we are all relatively certain the battery cells used in Model ☰ will not be of the 18650 configuration, I tend to use relative volume as a measure of speculation. Either way, my calculations pretty much match your own. I go a bit further though, as I expect an improvement in energy density between the battery cells used in the 2017 Model ☰ and the 18650 battery cells used in the 2012 Model S. If that improvement is only 30%, that means that the volume that would have held 60 kWh in 2012, will hold 85 kWh in 2017. Similarly, a volume that would have held 70 kWh in 2012 would allow 100 kWh in 2017. As a point of reference, JB Straubel has said he observed about a 40% improvement in energy density for 18650 cells between the introduction of the Tesla Roadster in 2007 and the release of Model S in 2012. So a speculative hope for a 30% improvement is not out of line. And, if there had only been a 5% improvement year over year since 2012, a 27.6% improvement would be observed for Model ☰.

DISCLAIMER: I guarantee and warrant that if I'm wrong, I will be absolutely, infallibly, inherently, 100% incorrect -- every time!

bb0tin | May 31, 2016

@georgehawley.fl.us
You said "and has 20% less drag than the MS. (I am discounting Elon's goal of a .20-.21 coefficient of drag as being too optimistic.)."
The Model S has a cd of 0.24.
The Model 3 already has a cd of 0.21.
20% less than.24 gives 0.19.
The statements are contradictory.

bb0tin | May 31, 2016

@georgehawley.fl.us
You said "and has 20% less drag than the MS. (I am discounting Elon's goal of a .20-.21 coefficient of drag as being too optimistic.)."
The Model S has a cd of 0.24.
The Model 3 already has a cd of 0.21.
20% less than.24 gives 0.19.
The statements are contradictory.

bb0tin | May 31, 2016

More speculation:
The Model S, and other cars, probably only use one side of the batteries. If they could use the other side then they would get twice the range. This could be done using something like a spit roast, but that might introduce a few issues. I propose that instead they put another set of contacts on the battery, another charge port, and allow two supercharger cables to plug in at the same time.

jordanrichard | May 31, 2016

wj, you are correct, I was looking at the 70D's numbers and not the 70.

bb0tin | May 31, 2016

@Go_Peddle_4_me
Congratulations on the ad hominem attack and abuse.
I am afraid I have totally lost the point of your posts. Are you saying that I should be rude and insulting, you know, like yourself?

Timo | June 1, 2016

@bb0tin, drag and coefficient of drag are not the same thing. Halving the frontal area halves the drag with same coefficient of drag. 20% less drag with smaller frontal area is possible (but I think not likely, since frontal area wont drop that much, and Cd considerably less than 0.24 is really really hard to achieve).

bb0tin | June 1, 2016

@Timo
This has already been discussed and you are incorrect.
To recap, drag is related to the product of cd and frontal area. The Model 3 already has a cd of 0.21 and Elon hopes to reduce it even more.

Pages