True or False - reduce 0-60 times = increased range?

True or False - reduce 0-60 times = increased range?

Can’t find it now, but saw some comments recently that suggested that if Tesla really wanted to increase the range of it’s existing cars without having to increase the size of their batteries that all they would have to do is reduce the 0 to 60 times by 15 or 20 %.

If that Range Mode switch would allow one to reduce acceleration by 10%, 15%, 20% etc would it make any difference?

The commenter did not suggest a direct relationship but for the electrical engineers out there, would such an adjustment make any sort of substantial difference in range?? Could a 240 mile range easily be increased by 10 or 15 percent with such a programmable feature?? 70D 240 max to 264 -- 90D 275 to 302 ...

Is the theory nonsense or feasible and if feasible any thoughts on how much difference it would make?

As Tesla owners, we all know how tempting and easy it is to hit that accelerator and zoom through that yellow light or jump out into that passing lane. We also know that by slowing down on long trips we can increase range with existing settings so is the concept so far fetched?

Just throwing it out there for your thoughts. (now I'm going to duck)

Bighorn | 08. september 2016

Range up is determined by your foot. 550 miles on a charge has been accomplished without a firmware tweak.

David N | 08. september 2016

there are times you need the fast acceleration (passing cars) (entering highways).
From a stop, simply use a gentle acceleration and you'll gain range and still have the burst if needed.
You can your cake and eat it too!

johndoeeyed | 08. september 2016

Yes. No. No. Yes. No. No. Yes.

ram1901 | 08. september 2016

...but would such an optional setting as noted in the original post, make a significant difference in range?
i.e. optionally limited acceleration times and top speed OR has Tesla squeezed all the range they can out of their 'ev-systems' as currently designed?
(again, just throwing it out there for hypothetical discussion.) | 08. september 2016

What @Bighorn says. The only reason the performance models have less EPA range than the non-performance models is the more powerful, less efficient rear drive unit.

You can personally increase range in stop and go traffic by accelerating very gradually to the speed limit and by using regeneration braking to slow down for stops. Doing this reduces the energy lost to air friction by up to a factor of three and recovers a maximum amount of the energy lost acquiring the kinetic energy at the speed limit. The rest of the energy used will be about the same. Or you can just say: "Screw it." and launch the beast.

ram1901 | 08. september 2016

@george... and therein lies the problem.... just can't resist the launch... it's too addictive. :)
Thus, the query about a sort-of governor as an optional setting...

Bighorn | 08. september 2016

Valet mode is an option if you lack the self control.

johndoeeyed | 08. september 2016

No. No.

NKYTA | 08. september 2016

? Now you are just posting to post. Begone.

johndoeeyed | 08. september 2016

I answered the OP's questions.
You did not answer the OP's questions.
It is yourself who posted just to post. | 09. september 2016

It was a trick. He really asked three questions by inserting an "or" between "nonsense" and "feasible" in the second question. Joke's on us.😀

Rocky_H | 09. september 2016

Let me rephrase it this way:

OP: "Would putting a lower limit on the stereo volume make the volume be less?"

Everyone: "Um, yeah, but you could just do that yourself by not turning it up so much."

ram1901 | 09. september 2016

:) Glad I ducked .. you folks are brutal. :)
Enough already.. time to move on... Thanks for playing along.

Remnant | 09. september 2016

@ ram1901 (OP, September 8, 2016)

<< True or False - reduce 0-60 times = increased range? >>

False, of course.

You should correct the title. Reduced 0-60 times mean higher acceleration and that would reduce range rather than increase it.

Efontana | 09. september 2016

Shorter 0-60 times indicate a more efficient path between the wheels and the batteries. So range is improved with 0-60 capability through less loss in normal operation.
That path is also available for regenerative braking in autopilot mode.

NKYTA | 09. september 2016

@Sybil (thanks BH), how can you respond the the fifth question?

Read the entire paragraph, starting with "As Tesla Owners". Are you an owner, or just a tertiary Turing bot?

Red Sage ca us | 09. september 2016

Depends upon what you mean by 'reduce'. I suspect you may be using the term upside down and backwards.

T90KWH | 09. september 2016

@Remnant - good spot. Of course the answer to the question in the title is "no". The answer to the intended question is "yes" but it's already there using the pedal on the right (gently).
Some of the later questions are "either/or" and can't be answered with yes or no, so I don't understand the more terse responses above.

Remnant | 11. september 2016

@ T90KWH (September 9, 2016)

<< Of course the answer to the question in the title is "no". The answer to the intended question is "yes" but it's already there using the pedal on the right (gently). >>

As @Efontana points out above, it is the capability of shorter 0-60 times that can increase range in NORMAL operation, that is, if you don't actually use that capability very often, if at all.

As you indicate though, you can limit the use of the short 0-60 times with your right foot, without the help of a switch.

bgbythsea | 23. oktober 2016

As I await the delivery of my MS, I currently drive a lowly i-MiEV which has an "eco" setting that limits the acceleration. Whereas one could theoretically "govern" ones own foot to maximize range (aka hyper-mileing), having the limit artificially imposed would most likely improve miles per charge. At this point I'm with georgehawley and say "launch the beast."

leskchan | 23. oktober 2016

From my personal experience and anecdotal evidence frequent acceleration does use up more energy. From my personal preference I don't care. I bought the Model S 75D for its acceleration. I wish it can go faster, but I can't afford the P100DL. If I wantet 0-60 in 10 seconds, I could have saved a lot of money on some cheap EV.

JeffreyR | 23. oktober 2016

Just like in an ICE, an EV will have more range if you drive it like a hyper-miler. If you drive it like you stole it, then the range will be less than normal.

Another reason the answer to the title is a definite, "NO!" is that you get the best performance from the biggest battery. Of course the OP re-makes the question inside the post so that is less of a point.

Want the best range:

1) Buy a Tesla (no other BEVs come close, today; Chevy's Bolt will be a good start, but they cannot use SCs)
2) Buy an AWD w/ the biggest battery
3) Put it in "Range" and "Valet" mode, and drive like you have a scalding hot cup of coffee in your lap, w/o a lid.

Bonus points for after-market wheels, tires, and aero-packages.

But unless you are trying to do Cannonball Runs, don't worry about it. A Supercharger or destination charger is all you will need on your trip.

For example, this place is on my list:
Post Ranch Inn, in Big Sur

And they have a charger for their guests. Plus there are several Superchargers not too far away.

Once you have had yours for a little while you will stop worrying about range and start worrying about how you are ever going to catch @Bighorn's SC count.

poloX | 24. oktober 2016

Everybody is talking about driving gently, don't drive too aggressively, use valley mode...all of you are assuming the current same electrical motor and drive unit. It is possible to have a less powerful motor and that will give you range but will take away acceleration totally.
So my answer to the OP is yes, of course. But yes too is what many has said above but less effective in term of range than using a smaller and less powerful motor.

Earl and Nagin ... | 24. oktober 2016

Actually, your statement that "It is possible to have a less powerful motor and that will give you range" is not correct.
A less powerful electric motor is less efficient than a well-designed, more powerful motor -- that's the difference between the ICE and EV paradigms. if you want more range, you have a more powerful motor but don't use all of the power available.

poloX | 24. oktober 2016

So it depends on where the sweet spot is for the size of the motor, right? You can't possibly put the huge motor that is powerful enough for an 18-wheeler and just tag the gas pedal 2% and expect it to be very efficient and use very little juice from the battery and expect no impact to the range, right?

brando | 28. oktober 2016

Earl and Nagin +42

poloX, no, please re-read Earls post. Electric motors are not like Internal Combustion Engines.

For example, ICE waste vast amounts of energy - open up the hood and see how hot it is.
So even when it isn't moving an ICE creates a lot of heat.
Electric motors do not. When they aren't moving they aren't using any energy.

Heat is the main form of wasted energy. So a bigger electric motor that doesn't have to work as hard might well get better mileage at cruise speeds than a smaller more overworked motor. Now I think you are starting to get the idea.