Forums

Why didn't Tesla opt by Switched Reluctance Motors?

Why didn't Tesla opt by Switched Reluctance Motors?

Already asked on http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/156374/why-didnt-tesla-op...

After reading the virtues of Switched Reluctance Motors, I question why didn't Tesla opt by them instead of AC triphasic motors?

Svenssons | 21 February 2015

They were reluctance...

;)

Brian H | 21 February 2015

"opt by" is not English; what language is it?

srgloureiro | 23 February 2015

Brian H | February 21, 2015

"opt by" is not English; what language is it?

I was just opening Google and writing on its search text box

define:opt

just to criticize you.

But here the wrong person is me. The Google definition displays an example with "opt for". So "opt by" is the result from mistranslated Portuguese, because in Portuguese is really like that ("Optar por").

Timo | 24 February 2015

I'm guessing AC induction is good enough if not better for automotive use.

Brian H | 24 February 2015

Opt for makes sense. Opt by does not.

Boukman | 24 February 2015

Are Switched Reluctance motors better? If so in what way? And How would that make the MS better for example?

hpjtv | 24 February 2015

We are talking cars here right? SRM motors are types of stepping motors... better for use in hard drives to control the reading/writing head. The controller would be a little more complex and you will get far less torque.