-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Have you ever tried to get on 495 near Rt 2, or even worse, getting on Rt 2 near 495?
Come down from Maine and you'll notice that acceleration is a very real (and potentially life saving) feature.
I have a genII Prius , and I used to drive it like I stole it, it was a means to an end for my job: highest mileage vehicle I could get at the time. Not all Prius drivers hyper-mile. I'm 'that guy' in my office though, someone asked me what I get for mileage in the Prius . I hadn't been paying attention before that, but when I reported back my usual 50 mpg, they weren't happy. I've embraced the role, and gleefully share my mpg and tank range when I fill up!
I'm mid-trip right now, but I regularly run between Syracuse NY and Harrisonburg VA. Traffic lately has been heavy, so running just over the speed limit is about all I can manage without constantly battling the flow. I got a respectable 480 miles and 49 mpg though.
I'm waiting for a model 3, and having Fun in my Prius in the meantime.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
Exactly! I don't personally drive 215 mi round trip daily and I don't know anyone that does (personally, I know statistically some people do) . However, I do know many people who accelerate from a stop or switch lanes in heavy traffic.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
I bet you stopped once in awhile where you could potentially be charging...
You also therefore might know a greater percentage of people who also drive long ranges per day... so I pose this question: Do the Majority of people you know drive those kinds of distances in a single day without stopping? Do the Majority of people you know drive those kinds per day at all? Statistically the answer to both of those questions should be No.
Jeff you're correct. I did stop, and if I had a M3 or perhaps an MY for the same job I could afford to do it. I would have to do a different Route, but I could hit two SC stations if I needed them. I tried to stop only once per trip/day for fuel, mostly to control the quality of the gas I used.
These days I would charge at home, or at a SC or two en route on a frequent long distance trip I make. Yesterday I made four stops, one for a soda, one for fuel/food & two rest room breaks on a 470 mile trip.
These days I would charge at home, or at a SC or two en route on a frequent long distance trip I make. Yesterday I made four stops, one for a soda, one for fuel/food & two rest room breaks on a 470 mile trip.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Yes. I am confused. Because I have no idea what you are talking about. When you wrote this, it didn't seem to be speculation, but a statement of fact:
"However, as we see with the 8% increase in range by going to smaller 'smarter' motors in the TS60D, there are ways to increase range and range is THE issue for all EV buyers due to the issues with recharging on the road, time it takes mostly and, as yet, the not so numerous charging stations."
What is the 8% you are talking about? And what did you mean by 'smaller'? Smaller than WHAT? The Performance motor and inverter? Once again, they are the exact same motors used in the Model S 90D. The same ones used in the Model S 70D and Model S 75D. The EXACT same ones.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
I expect to require sub-4 second 0-100 MPH times, and sub-3 second 0-60 MPH times as a possibility. All the better to thoroughly embarrass, mystify, and leave behind noisy Mustang, Camaro, and Hellcat drivers. One must be careful of slower, ICE based traffic, of course.
w00+! 1,500th post!
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
I submit, the Concord (MA) rotary, which carries Rt 2 east and west, Rt 2A and 119, 111, Barrett's Mill Rd, Commonwealth Ave, and also has within 100 ft of the circle a gas station, and the employee parking lot to a state prison, as well as the prison itself.
I've taken the liberty of showing you the "typical" 5pm Friday traffic. And keep in mind, Friday is a "lighter" day for the intersection.
I argue that we'd all get through it so much faster if we had sub-4 second cars.
It's usually the rubes who are timid and cause the backups.
diamond.g
Active Member
To be exact the dual motor vehicles typically have more power and torque than the single motor equivalent. The improvement in range is usually due to different gearing.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Yes. Different gearing, plus the 'torque sleep' effect that Tesla Motors employs between cycles. Details per JB Straubel can be seen here:
Driving Range for the Model S Family
The two AWD motors in the TS60D are smaller than the single rear wheel drive motor. By making the motors smaller, Tesla gained 8 miles of range. The speculation is that may be a route to increasing range with the same batter pack, use smaller motors that lower acceleration while increasing range.
It is implausible that when traffic is jammed and moving very slowly that 4 second 0-60 acceleration would do anything except cause accidents. Slow speed zipper merges are what works in jammed traffic. It is the aggressive drivers fighting for a car length that cause the traffic jams.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
OK. Here the thing is, though... The motors aren't actually any 'smaller' at all. They just have a lower horsepower rating. The motor used in the Toyota RAV4 EV had the exact same motor as the Model S 40 and Model S 60. In the RAV4 EV it was rated at 154 HP. In the Model S 40 and Model S 60 it was rated at 302 HP. So, why do you keep saying 'smaller'...?
And for the record? The Model S 40, with 302 HP, had a greater range than the RAV4 EV, which had a 154 HP motor. This, even though the rear wheel drive Model S 40 had perhaps 40 kWh of usable juice (at best), and the front wheel drive RAV4 EV had 41.8 kWh (of 50 kWh) battery storage. Sure, the RAV4 EV had a comparatively brickish 0.31 coefficient of drag, compared to the 0.24 for the Model S 40... But really, most of the range tests are done at rather low speed anyway, 45 MPH or less to simulate stop-n-go traffic, so that shouldn't matter too much. But those who insist that front wheel drive and low power motors are automatically more efficient for ICE, and therefore the same should be true for electric cars, can't seem to figure out exactly why it is that the more powerful Model S 40 could go 139 miles on a single charge, while the less powerful RAV4 EV could only manage 103 miles. You don't have to believe me, but it's true. Here, read 'em and weep:
Compare Side-by-Side
Here's my point again... It is not less powerful motors that increase range. It is the torque sleep function that does so using dual motors, regardless of their individual output. It is having a battery pack with a sizable unused amount of capacity (40/60 kWh or 60/75 kWh) that allows a greater range as well. There is evidence that proves that in a single motor application, a more powerful motor can be more efficient than a low powered one.
Please, stop it with the 'smaller motor' thing.
Because Tesla says they are smaller on the web site. 382 HP rear wheel vs. 259 HP each on the AWD. Tesla's diagram shows them of smaller physical size.
And the fact they are smaller motors on the dual motor setup. It would make sense that smaller motors would have slower acceleration and longer range. 300+ HP for the TS60/775 is a lot of power. We'll have to wait and see how Tesla increases the range which is the important factor.
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
And... you keep saying 'smaller' anyway. Wow.
The diagram shows a larger INVERTER. The motors, inside the casing, are the same physical size and shape, because they are the same units.
This is two parts of a motor:
This is an inverter:
If the hardware is the SAME and the physical size is the SAME one is NOT 'smaller' than the other.
OK, I'll put it this way, then... The base version of Tesla Model ☰ will be rear wheel drive. That car will NOT have less than 300 HP. Thus, as a $35,000 car, it will very likely have performance that rivals the much more expensive BMW 340i, while being priced about the same as a BMW 320i. That is a good thing. But, if for some utterly ridiculous reason, someone decides to put a 300+ kW capable drive unit in the Model ☰, and limit it to less than 150 kW output, the assembly will still be the same size. Even though one has a 400+ peak horsepower output, and the other is under 200 horsepower.
Last edited:
