EndlessPlaid
⚡EV/Tesla Nerd 🔋
Additionally, no one (especially Tesla) rate their cars at the wheel. They always take the bigger number for marketing.COMPLETELY AGREE
it's well documented that the loss with EVs are very very low
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Additionally, no one (especially Tesla) rate their cars at the wheel. They always take the bigger number for marketing.COMPLETELY AGREE
it's well documented that the loss with EVs are very very low
Hello, this is Keith Ritter. Just joined TMC and started following this thread.
George S Bower and I do a lot of reverse-engineering technical analysis on Tesla products, especially on the packs and drive trains and write our findings on InsideEVs. We've been trying to figure out the new MS pack/drive train and get it dialed in.
First, kudos to those that zeroed in on the pack S and P configuration. I'm about 99% sure you got it right at the 108S72P configuration. Getting it down to 72P was vital to building this new pack. I'll post something later on other aspects of the pack innards I think we'll find when Sandy Munro or others do an actual teardown. How the modules are likely built and the cooling details and why.
Second, regarding the apparent discrepancy between the pack kW output and the motor ratings at peak acceleration. The pack kW output is almost exactly what I'd expect for 1,020 HP motor load. Let's not forget that engineers who want to build light, cost-effective products do not design systems for peak efficiency at the extreme condition. They engineer for the system to survive and drive another day. Efficiency is for the "most-likely" condition...i.e. highway speeds. I believe Tesla's engineer also follow that mantra.
Let's walk through where power losses will occur between the pack itself and the motor shaft.
HV Busbars/HV connectors/HV cables from pack to DU: resistance is probably about 3 milli-ohms, based on the conductor sizes and connectors they use. 2300 amp, I x R = about 7 VDC or about 2% loss. Doesn't sound like much, but this a short burst of 15 kW of heat...like about 10 plug-in wall heaters.
Drive unit inverter: They have SiC, which is about as good as you get. these are typically about 99% efficient at "design" load. But this is way higher than design. Figure 98%. So another 2% loss.
Motor windings/rotor: Tesla did change from induction to PM rotor, which got them about 3% more efficiency and more consistent torque. The carbon sleeve doesn't buy any more efficiency. It just was imperative to hold the rotor together at the higher redline RPM. It wasn't clear if Tesla changed from round wire windings to square hairpin to improve fill, but I'd think it would be required to reduce winding losses at high amps. PM motors built that way can get 96-97% efficiency. Say 3.5% losses here.
Reduction gears: The last part of the drive unit before you get to the axle driveshaft HP. Double-reduction helical gearset. 98% efficient. 2% losses.
Adding up the losses: 2 + 2 + 3.5 + 2 = 9.5% losses. about 77 kW subtracted from the 818 kW leaving the pack. So the net is about 741 kW output or just under 1000 HP.
Totally with @TorqueMonster on his post! So great to see you here Keith.Hello, this is Keith Ritter. Just joined TMC and started following this thread.
George S Bower and I do a lot of reverse-engineering technical analysis on Tesla products, especially on the packs and drive trains and write our findings on InsideEVs. We've been trying to figure out the new MS pack/drive train and get it dialed in.
First, kudos to those that zeroed in on the pack S and P configuration. I'm about 99% sure you got it right at the 108S72P configuration. Getting it down to 72P was vital to building this new pack. I'll post something later on other aspects of the pack innards I think we'll find when Sandy Munro or others do an actual teardown. How the modules are likely built and the cooling details and why.
Second, regarding the apparent discrepancy between the pack kW output and the motor ratings at peak acceleration. The pack kW output is almost exactly what I'd expect for 1,020 HP motor load. Let's not forget that engineers who want to build light, cost-effective products do not design systems for peak efficiency at the extreme condition. They engineer for the system to survive and drive another day. Efficiency is for the "most-likely" condition...i.e. highway speeds. I believe Tesla's engineer also follow that mantra.
Let's walk through where power losses will occur between the pack itself and the motor shaft.
HV Busbars/HV connectors/HV cables from pack to DU: resistance is probably about 3 milli-ohms, based on the conductor sizes and connectors they use. 2300 amp, I x R = about 7 VDC or about 2% loss. Doesn't sound like much, but this a short burst of 15 kW of heat...like about 10 plug-in wall heaters.
Drive unit inverter: They have SiC, which is about as good as you get. these are typically about 99% efficient at "design" load. But this is way higher than design. Figure 98%. So another 2% loss.
Motor windings/rotor: Tesla did change from induction to PM rotor, which got them about 3% more efficiency and more consistent torque. The carbon sleeve doesn't buy any more efficiency. It just was imperative to hold the rotor together at the higher redline RPM. It wasn't clear if Tesla changed from round wire windings to square hairpin to improve fill, but I'd think it would be required to reduce winding losses at high amps. PM motors built that way can get 96-97% efficiency. Say 3.5% losses here.
Reduction gears: The last part of the drive unit before you get to the axle driveshaft HP. Double-reduction helical gearset. 98% efficient. 2% losses.
Adding up the losses: 2 + 2 + 3.5 + 2 = 9.5% losses. about 77 kW subtracted from the 818 kW leaving the pack. So the net is about 741 kW output or just under 1000 HP.
Hi Keith, if you don't mind, I have a question:Hello, this is Keith Ritter. Just joined TMC and started following this thread.
George S Bower and I do a lot of reverse-engineering technical analysis on Tesla products, especially on the packs and drive trains and write our findings on InsideEVs. We've been trying to figure out the new MS pack/drive train and get it dialed in.
First, kudos to those that zeroed in on the pack S and P configuration. I'm about 99% sure you got it right at the 108S72P configuration. Getting it down to 72P was vital to building this new pack. I'll post something later on other aspects of the pack innards I think we'll find when Sandy Munro or others do an actual teardown. How the modules are likely built and the cooling details and why.
Second, regarding the apparent discrepancy between the pack kW output and the motor ratings at peak acceleration. The pack kW output is almost exactly what I'd expect for 1,020 HP motor load. Let's not forget that engineers who want to build light, cost-effective products do not design systems for peak efficiency at the extreme condition. They engineer for the system to survive and drive another day. Efficiency is for the "most-likely" condition...i.e. highway speeds. I believe Tesla's engineer also follow that mantra.
Let's walk through where power losses will occur between the pack itself and the motor shaft.
HV Busbars/HV connectors/HV cables from pack to DU: resistance is probably about 3 milli-ohms, based on the conductor sizes and connectors they use. 2300 amp, I x R = about 7 VDC or about 2% loss. Doesn't sound like much, but this a short burst of 15 kW of heat...like about 10 plug-in wall heaters.
Drive unit inverter: They have SiC, which is about as good as you get. these are typically about 99% efficient at "design" load. But this is way higher than design. Figure 98%. So another 2% loss.
Motor windings/rotor: Tesla did change from induction to PM rotor, which got them about 3% more efficiency and more consistent torque. The carbon sleeve doesn't buy any more efficiency. It just was imperative to hold the rotor together at the higher redline RPM. It wasn't clear if Tesla changed from round wire windings to square hairpin to improve fill, but I'd think it would be required to reduce winding losses at high amps. PM motors built that way can get 96-97% efficiency. Say 3.5% losses here.
Reduction gears: The last part of the drive unit before you get to the axle driveshaft HP. Double-reduction helical gearset. 98% efficient. 2% losses.
Adding up the losses: 2 + 2 + 3.5 + 2 = 9.5% losses. about 77 kW subtracted from the 818 kW leaving the pack. So the net is about 741 kW output or just under 1000 HP.
Hello! Great to have you here as other have stated! Curious on your take on the carbon sleeving. If the sleeve helps control back EMF and therefore help the motor maintain power at higher RPMS, wouldn't this also make it more efficient? I thought I remember that the sleeving was for both holding the rotor together AND limiting backflow, but I could be remembering wrong. Welcome to the forum!Motor windings/rotor: Tesla did change from induction to PM rotor, which got them about 3% more efficiency and more consistent torque. The carbon sleeve doesn't buy any more efficiency. It just was imperative to hold the rotor together at the higher redline RPM. It wasn't clear if Tesla changed from round wire windings to square hairpin to improve fill, but I'd think it would be required to reduce winding losses at high amps. PM motors built that way can get 96-97% efficiency. Say 3.5% losses here.
Beautifully put! Elon himself stated that the carbon-wrapped rotors allowed for tight tolerances as super high rpm, and that in turn allows for a massively efficient EM field.Hello! Great to have you here as other have stated! Curious on your take on the carbon sleeving. If the sleeve helps control back EMF and therefore help the motor maintain power at higher RPMS, wouldn't this also make it more efficient? I thought I remember that the sleeving was for both holding the rotor together AND limiting backflow, but I could be remembering wrong. Welcome to the forum!
Hi Keith, some things have occured since I first asked you about the power curve. Our dutiful member @omarsultan has presented some new graphs, and a video of his run where he made 818 kw:Hello, this is Keith Ritter. Just joined TMC and started following this thread.
George S Bower and I do a lot of reverse-engineering technical analysis on Tesla products, especially on the packs and drive trains and write our findings on InsideEVs. We've been trying to figure out the new MS pack/drive train and get it dialed in.
First, kudos to those that zeroed in on the pack S and P configuration. I'm about 99% sure you got it right at the 108S72P configuration. Getting it down to 72P was vital to building this new pack. I'll post something later on other aspects of the pack innards I think we'll find when Sandy Munro or others do an actual teardown. How the modules are likely built and the cooling details and why.
Second, regarding the apparent discrepancy between the pack kW output and the motor ratings at peak acceleration. The pack kW output is almost exactly what I'd expect for 1,020 HP motor load. Let's not forget that engineers who want to build light, cost-effective products do not design systems for peak efficiency at the extreme condition. They engineer for the system to survive and drive another day. Efficiency is for the "most-likely" condition...i.e. highway speeds. I believe Tesla's engineer also follow that mantra.
Let's walk through where power losses will occur between the pack itself and the motor shaft.
HV Busbars/HV connectors/HV cables from pack to DU: resistance is probably about 3 milli-ohms, based on the conductor sizes and connectors they use. 2300 amp, I x R = about 7 VDC or about 2% loss. Doesn't sound like much, but this a short burst of 15 kW of heat...like about 10 plug-in wall heaters.
Drive unit inverter: They have SiC, which is about as good as you get. these are typically about 99% efficient at "design" load. But this is way higher than design. Figure 98%. So another 2% loss.
Motor windings/rotor: Tesla did change from induction to PM rotor, which got them about 3% more efficiency and more consistent torque. The carbon sleeve doesn't buy any more efficiency. It just was imperative to hold the rotor together at the higher redline RPM. It wasn't clear if Tesla changed from round wire windings to square hairpin to improve fill, but I'd think it would be required to reduce winding losses at high amps. PM motors built that way can get 96-97% efficiency. Say 3.5% losses here.
Reduction gears: The last part of the drive unit before you get to the axle driveshaft HP. Double-reduction helical gearset. 98% efficient. 2% losses.
Adding up the losses: 2 + 2 + 3.5 + 2 = 9.5% losses. about 77 kW subtracted from the 818 kW leaving the pack. So the net is about 741 kW output or just under 1000 HP.
Yes, the carbon fiber, though not interacting with the EM field, reduces rotor expansion at 20K+ RPM and allows the engineers to keep the the field gap between the rotor and stator tighter than would otherwise be required at these high RPMs, reducing magnetic losses. But mere- mortal-level PM EV motors also have extremely tight gaps to reduce magnetic losses (albeit operating at lower RPMs, so usually using metallic magnet containment sleeves). .Beautifully put! Elon himself stated that the carbon-wrapped rotors allowed for tight tolerances as super high rpm, and that in turn allows for a massively efficient EM field.
Keith, thank you so much for your well thought out reply! There definitely has been some efficiencies that have been made to the powertrain as a whole. Tesla has pretty much been able to cut those losses in half, to a 7% loss at top speed. Regardless, I think this is an incredibly impressive advancement that Tesla has achieved. Once again, thank you for the reply!Yes, the carbon fiber, though not interacting with the EM field, reduces rotor expansion at 20K+ RPM and allows the engineers to keep the the field gap between the rotor and stator tighter than would otherwise be required at these high RPMs, reducing magnetic losses. But mere- mortal-level PM EV motors also have extremely tight gaps to reduce magnetic losses (albeit operating at lower RPMs, so usually using metallic magnet containment sleeves). .
I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of the inverter electronics and motor windings to comment on whether the reduced V/rpm is also a factor.
Tesla has some things going on here I just can't explain. The comparative older MS motor map curves in that illustration fit classic induction motor behavior, with a short flat-HP section, then about 30% peak HP sag at redline. Typical PM EV motors have typically a longer flat spot and then about 10-15% sag as RPMs really pick up- mostly the gear box drive unit, bearing rolling resistance and gear tooth loading friction, windage, etc.
I here Munro is now fully funded for buying a Plaid. Hopefully his teardown will illuminate us!
New here, didn't see if there was an edit mode a reply after posting. I mis-spoke above about the carbon sleeve. The carbon sleeve does not interact with the EM field, but that is a +. As noted in that twitter thread, steel sleeves attenuate the field strength some.Yes, the carbon fiber, though not interacting with the EM field, reduces rotor expansion at 20K+ RPM and allows the engineers to keep the the field gap between the rotor and stator tighter than would otherwise be required at these high RPMs, reducing magnetic losses. But mere- mortal-level PM EV motors also have extremely tight gaps to reduce magnetic losses (albeit operating at lower RPMs, so usually using metallic magnet containment sleeves). .
I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of the inverter electronics and motor windings to comment on whether the reduced V/rpm is also a factor.
Tesla has some things going on here I just can't explain. The comparative older MS motor map curves in that illustration fit classic induction motor behavior, with a short flat-HP section, then about 30% peak HP sag at redline. Typical PM EV motors have typically a longer flat spot and then about 10-15% sag as RPMs really pick up- mostly the gear box drive unit, bearing rolling resistance and gear tooth loading friction, windage, etc.
I here Munro is now fully funded for buying a Plaid. Hopefully his teardown will illuminate us!
Totally understood! Thanks for the explanation!New here, didn't see if there was an edit mode a reply after posting. I mis-spoke above about the carbon sleeve. The carbon sleeve does not interact with the EM field, but that is a +. As noted in that twitter thread, steel sleeves attenuate the field strength some.
It charges fine at V2Hi small question, the new Plaid pack seems to have internal cell connection of 108s (110s) which leads to a maximal charging voltage of around 460V. I assume that there is no problem with charging on the SuC V2, which according to the label has an output range of only 50-410V? Thx.
Thanks for the info. This problem was also related to the issue of opening the SuC network for other car manufacturers, where I considered that the voltage limit of 410V for SuC V2 is the main technical reason and was waiting for the V3, which has 500V support from the beginning. However, Tesla was obviously able to solve it.It charges fine at V2
Yeah, Tesla is doing some wizardry there--thinking is maybe the superchargers is more capable than published.Thanks for the info. This problem was also related to the issue of opening the SuC network for other car manufacturers, where I considered that the voltage limit of 410V for SuC V2 is the main technical reason and was waiting for the V3, which has 500V support from the beginning. However, Tesla was obviously able to solve it.