# Model 3 LR scored 334 miles EPA but Tesla voluntarily lowered it



## Troy

*Part 1: Introduction*

Hi, everybody. I decided to create this new thread to present the topic better. In my research during the last month, I came up with the theory that the Model 3 80 (aka Model 3 Long Range RWD) scored 334 mi EPA and Tesla voluntarily lowered it to 310 miles. I have lots of data to support this theory. However, this will take a few messages and I want people to be able to follow along easily. Therefore I will start with an analogy to explain what's happening here:

Imagine we are able to tell a person's birthdate by processing some data. The birthdate we can calculate is their actual birthdate and not necessarily what their ID shows. We know that a few people have ID's that show a different birthdate than the actual day they were born.

When we do the calculation for Dolores, the date we calculate is different than what her ID shows. We ask the reason but she doesn't say anything. Some people suggest that maybe the calculations don't work and that's the reason why it doesn't match.

Then we do the calculation for Maeve and it matches what her ID shows. We do it for Bernard and it also matches. Then we try it for Clementine but again it doesn't match her ID. We try to explain that it doesn't match because her ID doesn't show her actual birthdate but critics say the calculations must be wrong sometimes. Then Clementine pulls out another document that shows her actual birthdate and it matches.

In this analogy, Clementine represents the Model S P100D, Maeve the Nissan Leaf, Bernard the Bolt and Dolores the Model 3. What is special about the Model S P100D is that the EPA has published both the voluntarily lowered range and the range before it was voluntarily lowered.

Update: 334 mi was confirmed in a new document. See message #32 here.


----------



## Troy

*Part 2: Bernard
*
Like in the analogy, this is one of the calculations that match what is being declared and we do it to show that the method works. This calculation works perfectly for the Chevrolet Bolt because its range was not voluntarily lowered. In other words, the declared range is the actual test score from dyno tests. We want to calculate the following 3 numbers from EPA dyno test results:

238 mi EPA rated range
128 MPGe city fuel economy
110 MPGe highway fuel economy









Screenshot source: EPA

Here are the 4 numbers from the dyno test we will use as input data:

67.4206 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test (see page 6 here)

364.4 mi in city dyno score (see page 6 here)

66.508 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test (see page 7 here)

310.63 mi in highway dyno score (see page 6 here)
*Step 1:* City and highway range: To calculate these, you simply multiply the dyno scores by 0.7.
City range = 364.4 mi * 0.7= 255.08 mi
Highway range = 310.63 mi * 0.7= 217.441 mi

*Step 2:* Combined range: This is the EPA rated range. It is calculated from 55% of city range and 45% of highway range.
Combined range = 0.55*255.08 + 0.45*217.441= 140.294 + 97.84845 = *238.14 mi EPA rated range*

*Step 3:* MPGe numbers: MPGe means miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.

If city range is 255.08 miles per 67.4206 kWh wall consumption,
then city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 255.08 mi * 33.7 kWh / 67.4206 kWh= 127.5 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = *128 MPGe city fuel economy*

If highway range is 217.441 miles per 66.508 kWh wall consumption,
then highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 217.441 mi * 33.7 kWh / 66.508 kWh= 110.18 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = *110 MPGe highway fuel economy
*
We calculated 3 numbers from the dyno scores and they all match what was declared. MPGe numbers are not affected by voluntary reductions. Therefore, they will always match even when the EPA rated range is voluntarily lowered.


----------



## Troy

*Part 3: Maeve*

Again, this calculation is a match. It demonstrates that the method works. The EPA has published the following 3 numbers and we are able to calculate these from the dyno scores:

107 mi EPA rated range
124 MPGe city fuel economy
101 MPGe highway fuel economy









Screenshot source: EPA

Here are the 4 numbers from the dyno test we will use as input data:

31.78 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test (See page 4 here)
166.41 mi city score (See page 4 here)
31.78 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test (See page 6 here)
136.4 mi highway score (See page 6 here)
*Step 1:* City and highway range: To calculate these, you simply multiply the dyno scores by 0.7.
City range =166.41 mi * 0.7= 116.487 mi
Highway range = 136.4 mi * 0.7= 95.48 mi

*Step 2:* Combined range: This is the EPA rated range. It is calculated from 55% of city range and 45% of highway range.
Combined range = 0.55*116.487 + 0.45*95.48= 64.06785 + 42.966 = *107.03 mi EPA rated range*

*Step 3:* MPGe numbers: MPGe means miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.

If city range is 116.487 miles per 31.78 kWh wall consumption,
then city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 116.487 mi * 33.7 kWh / 31.78 kWh= 123.52 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = *124 MPGe city fuel economy*

If highway range is 95.48 miles per 31.78 kWh wall consumption,
then highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 95.48 mi * 33.7 kWh / 31.78 kWh= 101.25 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = *101 MPGe highway fuel economy*

We calculated 3 numbers from the dyno scores and they all match what was declared. By the way, it wasn't exactly a mystery that the Bolt and Leaf range were not voluntarily lowered. The EPA is not trying to hide this. They release yearly documents that show what range numbers were voluntarily lowered. The screenshot below is from an EPA document that you can download here. I found that file on this page under the first column called Datafile1.


----------



## Troy

*Part 4: Dolores*

What is interesting here is that the part of the data we can match contradicts the other data. These are the 3 numbers the EPA has published:

310 mi EPA rated range
131 MPGe city fuel economy
120 MPGe highway fuel economy










Here are the 4 numbers from the dyno test we will use as input data:

89.404 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test (see page 6 here)

495.04 mi in city dyno score (see page 6 here)

89.41 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test (see page 7 here)

454.64 mi in highway dyno score (see page 7 here)
*Step 1:* City and highway range: To calculate these, you simply multiply the dyno scores by 0.7.
City range = 495.04 mi * 0.7= 346.528 mi
Highway range = 454.64 mi * 0.7= 318.248 mi

*Step 2:* Combined range: This is the EPA rated range. It is calculated from 55% of city range and 45% of highway range.
Combined range = 0.55*346.528 + 0.45*318.248= 190.5904 + 143.2116 = *333.8 mi EPA rated range*

*Step 3:* MPGe numbers: MPGe means miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.

If city range is 346.528 miles per 89.404 kWh wall consumption,
then city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 346.528 mi * 33.7 kWh / 89.404 kWh= 130.62 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = *131 MPGe city fuel economy*

If highway range is 318.248 miles per 89.41 kWh wall consumption,
then highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 318.248 mi * 33.7 kWh / 89.41 kWh= 119.95 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = *120 MPGe highway fuel economy*

We have calculated 3 numbers from the dyno scores and two of them match what was declared but one doesn't.


----------



## Troy

*Part 5: Clementine*

In the analogy, Clementine was the girl who could document two different birth dates and I said she represented the Model S P100D. Here is the document for the Model S P100D. I found that 2017 file on this page under the first column called Datafile1. Here is a screenshot:










This EPA document says "Combined range voluntarily lowered to 315 miles" and when you select city range, you can see the original range in the formula bar. What they are doing here is, they are reducing the city and highway range retroactively at the same rate the combined range was reduced. In other words, the Model S P100D scored 324.3 mi EPA rated range and it was voluntarily lowered to 315 miles. The ratio of this reduction is 315/324.3. The city range originally was 305.9 miles but they want to reduce it by the same rate. That's why they are multiplying it by 315/324.3. The EPA is not trying to hide voluntary reductions. They are just trying to have consistent city, highway and combined range numbers where all of them are voluntarily reduced.

This 2017 file is very valuable because the EPA doesn't normally leave the original range numbers in the formula cells. Normally, this file should show 297.1 mi as static text and that's it. They were supposed to convert formula cells to static text. In Excel you do that by copying the cells and then right click to same cells > paste special > paste values. They forgot to do that in the 2017 file but they have done it in all previous years.

These 3 numbers were published for the Model S P100D:

315 mi EPA rated range
92 MPGe city fuel economy
105 MPGe highway fuel economy









Screenshot source: EPA

Here are the 4 numbers from the dyno test we will use as input data:

111.47 kWh wall consumption in city dyno test (see page 10 here)

414.45 mi in city dyno score (see page 10 here)

111.88 kWh wall consumption in highway dyno test (see page 11 here)

469.99 mi in highway dyno score (see page 11 here)
*Step 1:* City and highway range: To calculate these, you multiply the dyno scores by 0.738. The Model S and X use different multipliers. There are 3 different multipliers for different Model S trim levels. These are published in another EPA document.
City range = 414.45 mi * 0.738= 305.8641 mi
Highway range = 469.99 mi * 0.738= 346.85262 mi

*Step 2:* Combined range: This is the EPA rated range. It is calculated from 55% of city range and 45% of highway range.
Combined range = 0.55*305.8641 + 0.45*346.85262= 168.225255 +156.083679 = *324.3089 mi EPA rated range*

*Step 3:* MPGe numbers: MPGe means miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption.

If city range is 305.8641 miles per 111.47 kWh wall consumption,
then city range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 305.8641 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.47 kWh= 92.47 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption = *92 MPGe city fuel economy*

If highway range is 346.85262 miles per 111.88 kWh wall consumption,
then highway range is X miles per 33.7 kWh wall consumption
X= 346.85262 mi * 33.7 kWh / 111.88 kWh= 104.477 mi per 33.7 kWh wall consumption rounded to *115 MPGe highway fuel economy*

Similar to the Part 4, this calculation also ended up with a different EPA rated range number than advertised however we can see that the method is correct and the calculated number is the original number before the voluntary reduction because, the calculated 324.3089 matches exactly what the document shows.


----------



## Troy

*Part 6: Conclusion
*
It's not exactly clear why Tesla voluntarily lowered the range. I can think of a few reasons:

*Theory 1:* 334 miles was achieved with aero wheel covers and Tesla wanted to be more accurate about the range.

*Theory 2:* EPA rated range is slightly optimistic. Tesla wanted the range to be more realistic.

*Theory 3:* Tesla didn't want Model 3 buyers to complain about degradation. Therefore they are under promising and over delivering.

*Theory 4:* Tesla wanted to make the Model S/X look good.

Here are some data points to consider:

1. Elon said when somebody comes to a Tesla store and asks about the Model 3, they are anti-selling the Model 3 and they tell people to check out the Model S instead. He also said they are not trying to make the Model 3 waiting list longer.

2. As part of the anti-selling campaign, Tesla created a comparison page to compare the Model S and Model 3. That page was misleading because it used to show 215+ miles for the Model 3. There was no mention of 310 miles. Many media sources reported that the Model 3 is a cheaper and smaller car with 215 miles range. This is not correct because more than 60% of Model 3 buyers prefer the larger battery based on survey data. Also, the sales started with the larger battery but they didn't mention 310 miles at all until the very last day which was the delivery day.

3. The comparison page also compared the Model 3 55 performance to the Model S P100D, even though Tesla knows that they will make a Model 3 P80D. Before they created the compare page, Elon had already confirmed that there will be a Model 3 performance version with the Ludicrous mode. The correct comparison would be to compare the Model S P100D to Model 3 P80D or Model S 75 to Model 3 55.

In addition, the compare page said the Model 3 comes with coil suspension but that's misleading because later Tesla confirmed that smart air suspension will be available soon. Comparisons should be more accurate but that would defeat the reason why the page was created. It was created because they want to convert some of the Model 3 reservation holders to Model S buyers.

4. Tesla didn't release the battery sizes for the Model 3. If you look at the specs on the Tesla website here, the page has an incredible amount of Model 3 specs except the very basic one: battery sizes. The reason is that they didn't want the 75 kWh Model S to look bad because the Model 3 larger battery is 80 kWh.

5. Tesla changed the naming scheme to further hide the battery sizes. The names of the Model 3 trim levels should be Model 3 55, 55D, 80, 80D, P80D.

6. In the past, Tesla advertised incorrect specs for the cheaper models to encourage more sales of the expensive models. See the Model S 85D vs Model S P85D 0-60 times example here.

7. Tesla is not worried about advertising unrealistic range numbers. In Europe, they don't have the EPA rated range. Instead, they have the completely unrealistic NEDC rated range. For example, the Model S 100D has 393 miles NEDC rated range in the UK. See Tesla's webpage here. We know that even the 335 miles EPA is a little optimistic. However, outside of North America, Tesla uses the NEDC numbers to stay competitive with other car manufacturers.

8. To encourage the sales of more expensive cars, in the past Tesla didn't mind using some creative advertising methods. For example, when they launched the Model S P85D, they advertised 275 miles range. See the screenshot here. At that time, they needed more P85D sales. However, when they delivered the car, it came with 242 miles EPA range. See the screenshot here. Tesla's history shows that they are not exactly worried about overly optimistic advertisement or wanting to advertise realistic range numbers.

9. Tesla advertises EPA rated range numbers achieved with the smaller wheels even for the performance cars like Model S P85D, Model S P90D, and Model S P100D that are sold mostly with the 21" wheels. Tesla uses the EPA rated range with 19" wheels. See this message for data sources.

This undermines the argument that the voluntary reduction might be related to aero wheel covers. In other words, why would they not advertise the EPA rated range that is achieved with the aero covers even though the car comes with the aero covers while at the same time they advertise the EPA rated range for performance versions with the smaller 19" wheels even though those cars are mostly sold with 21" wheels.

---

Based on these data points, I think Theory 4 is more likely. I think the only reason for the voluntary reduction is that Tesla wanted to sell more Model S cars while they ramp up Model 3 production. Therefore advertising 334 mi EPA for the RWD Model 3 80 would make the 100 kWh Model S versions look bad. People are going to be less happy paying $140,000 for the Model S P100D with 315 miles EPA knowing that a much cheaper Tesla has more range. Now they don't have to worry about that.

Also if the Model 3 80 achieved 334 mi EPA, it would mean the Model 3 80D should achieve about 347 mi EPA. That makes it difficult to sell the Model S 100D with 335 miles EPA.


----------



## Michael Russo

Again, your simple moderator from Western Eu is definitely a Dolores type of guy...


----------



## SoFlaModel3

My brain just exploded. In a good way, but still it’s gone


----------



## garsh

@Troy makes the kinds of posts I wish I could make. Well, when I'm not trolling. Such attention to detail. I love it.


----------



## Watts4me

Awesome post!


----------



## garsh

Troy said:


> The correct comparison would be to compare the Model S P100D to Model 3 P80D or Model S 75 to Model 3 55.
> ...
> In addition, the compare page said the Model 3 comes with coil suspension but that's misleading because later Tesla confirmed that smart air suspension will be available soon.


Another way to look at it is: Tesla is comparing the cars that are available to order now. That's still not quite correct, since you can only order the large battery, but it does say 215+


----------



## JMart

Voluntarily lowering the range could also result in fewer battery warranty claims down the road


----------



## Troy

Hi, everybody. I want to comment on something that might surprise people in the next few months when the EPA rated range of the Model 3 80D and Model 3 P80D are released. It is likely that these cars will share the 310 miles number for a few months. In other words, it is likely that we will see this scenario for a few months:

220 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 55
220 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 55D
310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 80
310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 80D
310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 P80D

EPA rules don't require a subconfiguration to have its own EPA test as long as its sales don't exceed 33% of that category. In other words, all 80 kWh Model 3s can use the 310 miles number until the Model 3 80D reaches 33% of 80 kWh sales. This could take until August 2018. So don't be surprised.

This doesn't mean Tesla is taking cells out of the batteries of dual motor versions. This is just a technicality Tesla is able to make use of. For example, in 2013 when they had the Model S 85/P85/P85+, all three cars shared the 265 mi EPA rated range even though there was only one test done in 2012. I think Tesla will make use of this because their estimator shows 220 and 310 miles for dual motor versions.

The Model 3 80D will eventually have its own EPA test. My guess is, it will score 344 miles EPA and Tesla will voluntarily lower it to either 320 or 310 miles. This doesn't mean the car would actually have 344 miles real world range on average and Tesla is making it look like 310 or 320 miles. No, that's not the case because EPA rated range is already about 9% too optimistic.

For example, the Model S 75D has 259 miles EPA rated range but Consumer Reports tested the range at 65 mph (see this video) and they scored 235 miles. That means the EPA rated range is 235/259= 90.7% of real-world range at 65 mph. The voluntary reductions mean Model 3's advertised range will be much closer to real-world range than other Teslas. If Consumer Reports tests the Model 3 80, I think it will score 298 miles at 65 mph which would be 96.1% of advertised range. The Model 3 80D would score 309 miles.

Therefore voluntary reductions are a good thing in terms of making the advertised range numbers more realistic but the problem is, they make the Model S and Model 3 advertised range numbers uncomparable and misleading. Therefore I predict that the Model 3 80 and 80D will achieve more range than any 100 kWh Model S in hypermiling and the Model 3 80D will complete a cross-country trip in a shorter time than the Model S 100D.


----------



## Troy

Hi, everybody. Last week I made two predictions. One was about hypermiling and the other about cross-country trips. See the last sentence in my previous message. Now Teslarati reports that a Model 3 80 just broke the cross-country trip record in 51h 17m. The previous record was 51h 47m. Of course, the Model 3 80D will score even better because it has more range and shorter supercharge sessions than the Model 3 80.


----------



## KarenRei

Please don't call it a "Model 3 80" or "Model 3 55". That's not it's name, you're only going to cause confusion. Their names are "LR" and "SR". You don't make up names for models of cars because you don't like the manufacturer's naming scheme.


----------



## Kbm3

Troy said:


> Hi, everybody. I want to comment on something that might surprise people in the next few months when the EPA rated range of the Model 3 80D and Model 3 P80D are released. It is likely that these cars will share the 310 miles number for a few months. In other words, it is likely that we will see this scenario for a few months:
> 
> 220 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 55
> 220 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 55D
> 310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 80
> 310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 80D
> 310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 P80D
> 
> EPA rules don't require a subconfiguration to have its own EPA test as long as its sales don't exceed 33% of that category. In other words, all 80 kWh Model 3s can use the 310 miles number until the Model 3 80D reaches 33% of 80 kWh sales. This could take until August 2018. So don't be surprised.
> 
> This doesn't mean Tesla is taking cells out of the batteries of dual motor versions. This is just a technicality Tesla is able to make use of. For example, in 2013 when they had the Model S 85/P85/P85+, all three cars shared the 265 mi EPA rated range even though there was only one test done in 2012. I think Tesla will make use of this because their estimator shows 220 and 310 miles for dual motor versions.
> 
> The Model 3 80D will eventually have its own EPA test. My guess is, it will score 344 miles EPA and Tesla will voluntarily lower it to either 320 or 310 miles. This doesn't mean the car would actually have 344 miles real world range on average and Tesla is making it look like 310 or 320 miles. No, that's not the case because EPA rated range is already about 9% too optimistic.
> 
> For example, the Model S 75D has 259 miles EPA rated range but Consumer Reports tested the range at 65 mph (see this video) and they scored 235 miles. That means the EPA rated range is 235/259= 90.7% of real-world range at 65 mph. The voluntary reductions mean Model 3's advertised range will be much closer to real-world range than other Teslas. If Consumer Reports tests the Model 3 80, I think it will score 298 miles at 65 mph which would be 96.1% of advertised range. The Model 3 80D would score 309 miles.
> 
> Therefore voluntary reductions are a good thing in terms of making the advertised range numbers more realistic but the problem is, they make the Model S and Model 3 advertised range numbers uncomparable and misleading. Therefore I predict that the Model 3 80 and 80D will achieve more range than any 100 kWh Model S in hypermiling and the Model 3 80D will complete a cross-country trip in a shorter time than the Model S 100D.


i thought the CR test was debunked because they didn't charge to 100% (and there was some other flaw I can't remember)?


----------



## roflwaffle

Troy said:


> Hi, everybody. I want to comment on something that might surprise people in the next few months when the EPA rated range of the Model 3 80D and Model 3 P80D are released. It is likely that these cars will share the 310 miles number for a few months. In other words, it is likely that we will see this scenario for a few months:
> 
> 220 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 55
> 220 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 55D
> 310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 80
> 310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 80D
> 310 mi EPA rated range for the Model 3 P80D
> 
> EPA rules don't require a subconfiguration to have its own EPA test as long as its sales don't exceed 33% of that category. In other words, all 80 kWh Model 3s can use the 310 miles number until the Model 3 80D reaches 33% of 80 kWh sales. This could take until August 2018. So don't be surprised.
> 
> This doesn't mean Tesla is taking cells out of the batteries of dual motor versions. This is just a technicality Tesla is able to make use of. For example, in 2013 when they had the Model S 85/P85/P85+, all three cars shared the 265 mi EPA rated range even though there was only one test done in 2012. I think Tesla will make use of this because their estimator shows 220 and 310 miles for dual motor versions.
> 
> The Model 3 80D will eventually have its own EPA test. My guess is, it will score 344 miles EPA and Tesla will voluntarily lower it to either 320 or 310 miles. This doesn't mean the car would actually have 344 miles real world range on average and Tesla is making it look like 310 or 320 miles. No, that's not the case because EPA rated range is already about 9% too optimistic.
> 
> For example, the Model S 75D has 259 miles EPA rated range but Consumer Reports tested the range at 65 mph (see this video) and they scored 235 miles. That means the EPA rated range is 235/259= 90.7% of real-world range at 65 mph. The voluntary reductions mean Model 3's advertised range will be much closer to real-world range than other Teslas. If Consumer Reports tests the Model 3 80, I think it will score 298 miles at 65 mph which would be 96.1% of advertised range. The Model 3 80D would score 309 miles.
> 
> Therefore voluntary reductions are a good thing in terms of making the advertised range numbers more realistic but the problem is, they make the Model S and Model 3 advertised range numbers uncomparable and misleading. Therefore I predict that the Model 3 80 and 80D will achieve more range than any 100 kWh Model S in hypermiling and the Model 3 80D will complete a cross-country trip in a shorter time than the Model S 100D.


I think a manufacturer has to use different test for sufficiently different drivetrains. Tesla used two test groups for the S in 2015, one for RWD and one for AWD.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34291&flag=1
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34295&flag=1

Course, they can still bring the EPA rated range down at their discretion, but I'm pretty sure the CSI submission has to be accurate.


----------



## Cloxxki

Also interesting: will Tesla have the Model 3 LR just reflect around 310 mi when it's at 100%, or use the measured consumption as typical, resulting in a 334 mi shown range?

If Tesla took their time developing a really economical RWD motor for Model 3, more so than in Model S (and I do understand this to be true), there are fewer heat losses present in Model 3 non-D EPA cycles, and thus less range to be won by cleverly sharing the work between it and which-ever front motor will be placed. 
Is there data of heat losses as a percentage of total available capacity over an EPA dyno cycle, Model S RWD vs Model 3? I would expect Model 3 to have lower losses.


----------



## Troy

Kbm3 said:


> i thought the CR test was debunked because they didn't charge to 100% (and there was some other flaw I can't remember)?


Hi. The car was fully charged. See the first bullet point item here. The Bolt beat the Model S 75D and Tesla wasn't happy about that and they had some objections. However, Tesla is aware that the EPA rated range is too high. In fact, Tesla does not use EPA rated range anywhere outside of North America. Instead, they use a range unit they created called "Typical range". A new Model S 75D displays 241 miles Typical Range at 100% charge everywhere outside of North America.

We have the following range numbers for the Model S 75D:

*Model S 75D range:*
259 miles Source: EPA (This is city and highway combined range)
241 miles Source: Tesla (The Model S 75D displays 241 mi range outside of North America)
235 miles Source: Consumer Reports (this is range at 65 mph)
232 miles Source: Survey data. (This is based on lifetime average energy efficiency numbers. See cell H85 here.)


----------



## Troy

Hi, @roflwaffle. If I understand correctly, your argument is, the 33% rule wouldn't allow Tesla to use the 310 mi EPA for Model 3 80/80D/P80D even when the 80D is still below 33% of sales because of the motor difference. I guess that's possible. I don't have any objections to this argument. The voluntary reductions make this point irrelevant.

What I wanted to point out was the fact that, even if Tesla and the EPA say that the Model 3 80D has 310 miles rated range (like the estimator implies), the car will still have about 10 miles more real-world range than the Model 3 80. If your version is correct and they end up having a second test for the Model 3 80D early on (maybe in May 2018), it might score around 344 mi and Tesla could voluntarily lower that to 310 or 320 miles.


----------



## KarenRei

To reiterate:

There is no such thing as a "Model 3 80", "Model 3 80D", or "Model 3 P80D". Please stop making up names for the vehicle.


----------



## KarenRei

Cloxxki said:


> Also interesting: will Tesla have the Model 3 LR just reflect around 310 mi when it's at 100%, or use the measured consumption as typical, resulting in a 334 mi shown range?


Actual vehicles show around 310 when at 100%.

And 334 would be combined, 318 highway. The latter being more meaningful.


----------



## roflwaffle

Troy said:


> Hi, @roflwaffle. If I understand correctly, your argument is, the 33% rule wouldn't allow Tesla to use the 310 mi EPA for Model 3 80/80D/P80D even when the 80D is still below 33% of sales because of the motor difference. I guess that's possible. I don't have any objections to this argument. The voluntary reductions make this point irrelevant.
> 
> What I wanted to point out was the fact that, even if Tesla and the EPA say that the Model 3 80D has 310 miles rated range (like the estimator implies), the car will still have about 10 miles more real-world range than the Model 3 80. If your version is correct and they end up having a second test for the Model 3 80D early on (maybe in May 2018), it might score around 344 mi and Tesla could voluntarily lower that to 310 or 320 miles.


I'm only talking about test groups/CSI reports. My understanding is that different drivetrains, in this case RWD versus AWD, have to have different test groups and different CSI reports. They should still be able to drop the range of the AWD to 310 miles if they want to, even if it's range on the CSI report is greater than the range of the RWD 3.


----------



## $ Trillion Musk

If all this is true, and the same applies to the short range battery, then I’ll be content to stick with short range!


----------



## KarenRei

Safe Daddy Driver said:


> If all this is true, and the same applies to the short range battery, then I'll be content to stick with short range!


SR battery is the same as the LR battery except 31 cells per brick rather than 46. Hence the 318 mile highway range from the EPA data would become 214. However, due to the lighter weight the vehicle should be at least 2% more efficient on the highway (more in-city and in rough terrain). So at least 219 miles. Say 220. 

Note that the number of bricks is the same in both, meaning the voltage is the same, meaning that they should charge at the same speed when charger current limited. Due to the smaller pack, one would expect the SR to become pack current limited at a lower SOC. One expects them to share a common thermal management system, so thermal situations would be less likely to occur on the SR than the LR (e.g. if SR was charging at 90kW and LR at 110, LR would be experiencing a higher heat load until it's throttled back to 90kW, when their throttling behavior should be the same.

On charger current limited situations (such as CHAdeMO) or thermal limitations, SR should charge about 2% faster (in mph/kph) at any given SOC due to its greater efficiency. But since it becomes pack current limited sooner, if you want to add a fixed amount of range from a CHAdeMO you need to charge at somewhat lower average SOC, and thus voltage. The net effect is probably roughly a wash. But for non-thermally-limited supercharging, obviously that goes hands down to the LR. SR won't be "slow", it's just that LR is very fast 

An exception would be the urban superchargers, which are charger current limited (not pack current) at low SOCs), and thus more like CHAdeMOs. But LR should become pack limited around 40-50% SOC, and SR lower than that; once pack limited, it's back to "significant advantage LR"


----------



## Kbm3

Troy said:


> Hi. The car was fully charged. See the first bullet point item here. The Bolt beat the Model S 75D and Tesla wasn't happy about that and they had some objections. However, Tesla is aware that the EPA rated range is too high. In fact, Tesla does not use EPA rated range anywhere outside of North America. Instead, they use a range unit they created called "Typical range". A new Model S 75D displays 241 miles Typical Range at 100% charge everywhere outside of North America.
> 
> We have the following range numbers for the Model S 75D:
> 
> *Model S 75D range:*
> 259 miles Source: EPA (This is city and highway combined range)
> 241 miles Source: Tesla (The Model S 75D displays 241 mi range outside of North America)
> 235 miles Source: Consumer Reports (this is range at 65 mph)
> 232 miles Source: Survey data. (This is based on lifetime average energy efficiency numbers. See cell H85 here.)


Look at the 4th bullet point. They didn't put it in extended range mode.


----------



## UncleT

Still waiting to see one of these for the Model 3. Any owners up for the challenge? 










@RiggerJon, @RCvetter, @PTFI


----------



## PTFI

UncleT said:


> Still waiting to see one of these for the Model 3. Any owners up for the challenge?
> 
> View attachment 3808
> 
> 
> @RiggerJon, @RCvetter, @PTFI


After you @Riggerjon:sunglasses:


----------



## MelindaV

UncleT said:


> Still waiting to see one of these for the Model 3. Any owners up for the challenge?
> 
> View attachment 3808
> 
> 
> @RiggerJon, @RCvetter, @PTFI


it's not accessible on the Model 3 like on the S/X


----------



## Phil Kulak

KarenRei said:


> Please don't call it a "Model 3 80" or "Model 3 55". That's not it's name, you're only going to cause confusion. Their names are "LR" and "SR". You don't make up names for models of cars because you don't like the manufacturer's naming scheme.


I'm pretty sure Tesla has never called a car "short range". It's the Model 3 and the Model 3 Long Range.


----------



## KarenRei

Phil Kulak said:


> I'm pretty sure Tesla has never called a car "short range". It's the Model 3 and the Model 3 Long Range.


It's "Standard Range", not "Short Range"


----------



## Troy

Hi, everybody. When I created this thread, my theory was that the Model 3 LR (aka Model 3 80) scored 334 miles EPA rated range but Tesla voluntarily lowered it to 310 miles. Now, a newly discovered EPA document HERE confirms the 334 miles number (see the last page). Below is a screenshot from that document. This is the first EPA document that I have seen that shows the 334 miles number.

What this means is, the Model 3 80 has almost the exact same range as the Model S 100D. The difference is only 1 mile. Therefore the Model 3 80D will have about 10 miles more range than the current Model S 100D even though on paper, the Model S 100D will have more range.

It also means the advertised range of the Model 3 in North America will be more accurate compared to the Model S and X. For example, the Model S 75D has 259 miles EPA rated range but it scored 235 miles at 65 mph in a range test by Consumer Reports. Here is the video. 235 miles real-world range is 91% of the advertised 259 miles EPA rated range.

If Consumer Reports were to test the Model 3 80, based on EPA highway dyno test scores, I'm calculating that it would score 298 miles real-world range at 65 mph. That would be 96% of the advertised 310 miles EPA rated range. The Model 3 80D would score 308.6 miles in the same test. We don't know yet for sure what the advertised range of the Model 3 80D will be but Tesla's delivery estimator shows 220 and 310 miles for the AWD versions as well. In that case, if they stick with 310 miles for the Model 3 80D as well, the advertised range of the Model 3 80D will be 308.6/310= 99.5% accurate.

I created this table that shows the real-world range of different Tesla cars. The range numbers you see in the orange and purple cells are calculated from EPA highway dyno test scores shown in blue. For example, the Model S 75D scored 358.49 miles in EPA highway dyno tests. See page 19 here. The reason this number is high is that the test is performed at a low speed (48 mph on average). We also know that the Model S 75D scored 235 miles range at 65 mph in a range test by Consumer Reports. See the video here.

That means the range at 65 mph is 235/358.49= 65.55% of EPA highway dyno score. It would be excellent if the EPA took 66% of EPA highway dyno score and used that for EPA rated range. That would make EPA rated range very accurate. Instead, they use 70% for almost all EV's including the Model 3. However, historically, they have used higher multipliers for the Model S. For example, in 2012, the multiplier was 79.6%. Then it dropped to 75.4% and then to 73.8%.

Therefore EPA rated range numbers are messed up and you have to go back to dyno test scores to have comparable data. That's what I have done in this table. I went back to EPA highway dyno scores (shown in blue) and multiplied those by 65.55% to calculate the range at 65 mph.


















The reason I prefer the name Model 3 80 over Model 3 LR is that the name Model 3 LR is part of Tesla's sandbagging efforts. They are trying to hide the fact that the Model 3 80 has an 80 kWh battery which is more than the 75 kWh base Model S and X. The presskit page here contains lots of technical specs, except the very basic one, battery sizes. Tesla changed the naming scheme for the Model 3 because they want to hide the 80 kWh battery size. I don't agree with these manipulation tactics.

I love Tesla as a company. I like their mission and what they stand for. Tesla is excellent at engineering, innovation, and technology but not so great at marketing, advertising, and communication. For example, misleading battery sizes, misleading HP claims, misleading prices on the design studio, hidden launch mode counters and permanent HP reduction, hidden DC charge counters and supercharge tapering, dishonesty about fire-sale discounts, shady sales practices at the end of quarters, the unnecessity of selling FSD before it was ready etc are just a few examples. Naturally, people complain about these things. That's a good thing because Tesla seems to listen and improve things even though they are a bit stubborn and slow.


----------



## Neoforce

@Troy I assume the model 3 55 (aka SR) EPA highway Dyno test is not in blue because you had to estimate the value as the information has not been released. Can you explain how you estimated it? I'm still on the fence between SR and LR based on my driving habits and wonder how much better or worse that estimate might be once real data is available.


----------



## Troy

Hi, @Neoforce. Your assumption about blue color is correct and I like the question. Generally speaking, I like people questioning the data.

Page 7 of this document shows that the Model 3 80 scored 454.64 mi in EPA highway dyno test. Based on this article, the larger pack has 4416 cells and the smaller pack has 2976 cells. Therefore the Model 3 would have scored 454.64 mi * 2976/4416= 306.39 miles in the highway dyno test if it had 2976 cells and the weight was exactly the same as it is now. However, the score should be higher than 306.39 because the Model 3 55 weighs less than the Model 3 80 because it has much fewer cells.

The question is, what percent of additional range should I add on top of the 306.39 mi dyno score because of the weight difference? I came up with 6% based on comparing Model S 75D to Model S 100D and Model X 75D to Model X 100D. I'm 90% confident that 6% is accurate because I have just tested a different method and it also shows 6%. This second method is based on a range calculator I have created where I enter battery size, drag coefficient, weight and other data and it shows me the range. What this means is, if I reduce weight by 120 kg in cell V6 here, the range increases by 6.12%.

Going back to the first method, here is how I compared S75D to S100D:

If Model S 100D scores 455.37 mi with 98,400 Wh
Then it would score X miles with 72,600 Wh
X= 455.37 * 72600 / 98400 = 335.97 miles

335.97 miles is what an S75D would score if the weight was the same as the S100D. The actual score is 358.49 which is 6.7% higher. I took 6%.


----------



## KarenRei

It doesn't matter what you "prefer"; its name is not, and never will be, "Model 3 80". You don't get to rename the car.

Tesla is abandoning the kWh naming scheme, and you know what? Kudos to them! We don't want to emphasize pack size over efficiency.

(And it's not even a 80kWh battery anyway, you're rounding up)

Please stop this nonsense and refer to them by their actual names.


----------



## victor

Troy said:


> Hi, everybody. When I created this thread, my theory was that the Model 3 LR (aka Model 3 80) scored 334 miles EPA rated range but Tesla voluntarily lowered it to 310 miles. Now, a newly discovered EPA document HERE confirms the 334 miles number (see the last page). Below is a screenshot from that document. This is the first EPA document that I have seen that shows the 334 miles number.


*Subject: Request for issuance of a new certificate of Conformity - Initial application for MY2017 Model 3 ‐ Touring*
​Did they just call a long range model Touring?

Should we then call a long range dual drive model Grand Touring?


----------



## @gravityrydr

victor said:


> *Subject: Request for issuance of a new certificate of Conformity - Initial application for MY2017 Model 3 ‐ Touring*
> ​Did they just call a long range model Touring?
> 
> Should we then call a long range dual drive model Grand Touring?


Actually, I like that, "Touring"


----------



## garsh

KarenRei said:


> It doesn't matter what you "prefer"; its name is not, and never will be, "Model 3 80". You don't get to rename the car.


At this point, I think you two need to "agree to disagree".
Let's just stop arguing about it now, ok?


----------



## KarenRei

victor said:


> *Subject: Request for issuance of a new certificate of Conformity - Initial application for MY2017 Model 3 ‐ Touring*
> ​Did they just call a long range model Touring?
> 
> Should we then call a long range dual drive model Grand Touring?


Good catch! I didn't notice that before. We'll have to see if they update how they refer to it on their site, as thus far they've been referring to them as standard range and long range. Strangely, they also call it "Model 3 Long Range" in the same document they use the "Touring" terminology.

Lots of great tidbits in this doc! Just to list some:



> The battery is rated at 400V and is capable of delivering in excess of 1000 Amperes. The battery mass is less than 500 kg.





> Tesla's lithium ion battery packs do not contain heavy metals such as lead, Cadmium, or mercury. They are exempt from hazardous waste disposal standards in the USA under the Universal Waste Regulations. However, they do contain recyclable materials, and Tesla plans to recycle all battery packs removed from vehicles.





> The self‐discharge rate of the battery is likely to be less than 4% per month.





> ...which is used to operate the electrically‐actuated park brake.





> The max RGB deceleration also varies depending on vehicle speed. The maximum RGB profile is defined as a target total deceleration rate as a function of vehicle speed. The max RGB profile is tailored to everyday driving conditions, which typically exhibit higher deceleration rates at lower speeds.





> The dedicated High Power Connector (HPC) can be purchased separately from the vehicle and a certified electrician will confirm the capabilities of the residential supply circuit at the vehicle owner's location. Confirmation of a satisfactory residential electrical Supply will lead to the installation of a hard‐wired HPC unit, this will expedite vehicle charging at the most efficient rate. The HPC can supply available current up to a maximum of 80 amps


... wait, what? Model 3 can take 80A from a home charger? Is this DC or something? I thought the onboard AC charger was only 32 / 48A (SR / LR)?



> The vehicle is also capable of accepting DC current up to 525A from an off‐board charger (Supercharger).


525A? Hoooyaaah!



> The battery pack has a nominal operating voltage of 400 VDC.





> To maintain service life, the battery pack should be stored at a state of charge (SOC) of 15 to 50%.


(That's concerning storing it outside the vehicle, aka when it's not being actively maintained. Still, it would suggest that the chemistry prefers to be in that range)



> FIREFIGHTING MEASURES
> If a fire or explosion occurs when the battery pack is charging, shut off power to the charger. In case of burning lithium ion fires, flood the area with water. The water may not extinguish them, but will cool the adjacent batteries and control the spread of the fire. CO2, dry chemical and foam extinguishers are preferred for small fires, but also may not extinguish burning lithium ion batteries. Burning batteries will burn themselves out. Virtually all fires involving lithium ion batteries can be controlled with water





> Base wheel / Tire (F&R): 235/45 R18
> Sub configuration Wheel / Tire: 235/40 R19





> RLHP @ 50mph: 9.95
> Sub configuration Road Load HP @ 50mph: 11.13


DATA! So the 18" wheel config needs 7,42kW to cruise at 50mph, while the 19" wheel config needs 8,30kW, for a difference of 12%. Wow, if that's right you really lose range going with the 19" wheels...

Can these numbers really be right? I mean, I know they're road load horsepower, so they don't account for wiring, motor or transmission losses. But 7,42kW


----------



## zkmusa

Troy said:


> Hi, everybody. When I created this thread, my theory was that the Model 3 LR (aka Model 3 80) scored 334 miles EPA rated range but Tesla voluntarily lowered it to 310 miles. Now, a newly discovered EPA document HERE confirms the 334 miles number (see the last page). Below is a screenshot from that document. This is the first EPA document that I have seen that shows the 334 miles number.
> 
> What this means is, the Model 3 80 has almost the exact same range as the Model S 100D. The difference is only 1 mile. Therefore the Model 3 80D will have about 10 miles more range than the current Model S 100D even though on paper, the Model S 100D will have more range.


This is an excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

Do we know if the tests were performed with the aero caps on or off? I would assume it would have been tested with them "on" as this is the standard configuration. However, the pictures in the EPA document seem to show 18" wheels without caps.

If this test was done with the aero caps on, then is it right to assume the 19" sport wheels would probably give us a range closer to the 310 mile range?


----------



## roflwaffle

KarenRei said:


> DATA! So the 18" wheel config needs 7,42kW to cruise at 50mph, while the 19" wheel config needs 8,30kW, for a difference of 12%. Wow, if that's right you really lose range going with the 19" wheels...
> 
> Can these numbers really be right? I mean, I know they're road load horsepower, so they don't account for wiring, motor or transmission losses. But 7,42kW


They look right to me. Using Tesla's five cycle data, range at 55mph is ~360 miles, and based on that, estimated range at 50mph is ~394 miles. With it's 78.3kWh (usable) pack, that's ~199Wh/mile (energy/distance), and 9.95kW of power (energy/distance * distance/time) from the pack at 50mph, which is ~75% pack to wheels efficiency, or ~76% after accounting for the ~200W required to have the car in a ready state.

Inverter/Motor efficiency is I'm guessing around 95% and 85%-95% respectively (I'll call it 90%) at very low load/torque, which is a possibility given how efficient the car is.

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/ape006_burress_2013_o.pdf

Transmission efficiency is about 95%.

http://www.iea.org/media/workshops/2013/egrdmobility/nylund_vehicle_energy_efficiencies.pdf

Bearing and battery efficiency at 97% each puts pack to wheel efficiency at 76%.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that improve a bit as the car approached some factor of ~10k miles, but everything seems at least ballpark accurate.


----------



## Troy

Hi, @zkmusa. Yes, the photos don't show the aero caps but it's still possible they were included during the coasting test phase. The difference between the consumption numbers is 12%. That seems too much for just the wheel size difference.

What they do is, they accelerate to ~75mph and let it coast until speed drops to ~20 mph and take some measurements. Then they enter those numbers to the dynamometer. This way, the dyno test accounts for aerodynamic drag. They make it so that the car coasts the same distance on the dyno as actual roads.



zkmusa said:


> If this test was done with the aero caps on, then is it right to assume the 19" sport wheels would probably give us a range closer to the 310 mile range?


Not, exactly. See the table in message #32 for the real-world range numbers.


----------



## Dr. J

KarenRei said:


> DATA! So the 18" wheel config needs 7,42kW to cruise at 50mph, while the 19" wheel config needs 8,30kW, for a difference of 12%. Wow, if that's right you really lose range going with the 19" wheels...
> 
> Can these numbers really be right? I mean, I know they're road load horsepower, so they don't account for wiring, motor or transmission losses. But 7,42kW


Those 18" wheels with UWC are starting to look more attractive...


----------



## ölbrenner

Troy said:


> The difference between the consumption numbers is 12%. That seems too much for just the wheel size difference.


It's not just the wheel size imo, but the aero covers being rather more aerodynamic than the sport wheels (based on the numbers anyway).

Put another way...if you had a both an 18" aero wheel, and an 19" aero wheel of the same basic design/mass density, the difference imo would be much less than 12%.

Unless someone beats me to it, I want to do this test right after I get the M3. Charge fully, one long run with the covers on, charge fully, same long run back without the covers (which is basically a typical multi spoke alloy rim at that point), repeat with reverse ordering of covers or no covers, analyze the data. Should give a pretty good idea of actual real world aero cover gain.


----------



## Guest

Alloy wheel diameter has almost nothing to do with range at constant speed.
Different drag ratios, width of the wheel/tire and tire compound matter.
Model 3 non-performance models have two options, both
8,5" wheel and 235mm tire.
So the things that changes range/efficiency is different aerodynamic drag
due to wheel design and different tire compound. Smaller tire sidewalls
actually bend less and are more efficient. Though properly inflated 18"
are pretty darn close.
If tire compound would be the same, 18" without covers and 19" wheels should
have very similar range figures at constant speed. Same story if both options
would be aerodynamic. Miniscule difference.
But tire compound plays a major role. Europe has mandatory EuroLabel for tires.
Best A-class tires and worst G-class tires have efficiency difference (mileage) 7,5%.
Though there are no A and B class tires available on the market as of 2017 that fit under M3.


----------



## @gravityrydr

KarenRei said:


> ... wait, what? Model 3 can take 80A from a home charger? Is this DC or something? I thought the onboard AC charger was only 32 / 48A (SR / LR)?


I think this is just that the HPC is able to supply 80A the vehicle will still only able to accept 32/48A.


----------



## TrevP

@gravityrydr said:


> I think this is just that the HPC is able to supply 80A the vehicle will still only able to accept 32/48A.


Model 3's maximum amperage setting is 48amps from an EVSE, Tesla or otherwise. Even the Model S 75D is limited to 48amps. Only the 100kWh Model S or X can do 72amps since that charger is standard on them.


----------



## Twiglett

I really give up with threads like this.
Oooh look, Tesla _must_ be hiding something because the EPA "pretend tests" imply that an entirely dyno based test is higher than the manufacturer is comfortable with.
The wheel covers have no effect people - this is a mathematics test.
No conspiracy or (so called) under-selling is going on - its just a car and many, many other manufactures do the exact same thing. The Model 3 isn't magical, its a car.

In the end its this type ridiculous hyperbole and speculation that is the reason for why it is Short Range and Long Range instead of battery sizes.
Some pedant with a meter now can't complain that it's only 78.67kW and not 79kW - but I'll bet that someone will try anyway.
Want proof? There are even some folks _desperately_ clinging to battery size designations calling it an 80D or Model 3 55.


----------



## c2c

Twiglett said:


> "...The wheel covers have no effect people "...


Not so fast there.
Dr. Sigmund Hoerner's Fluid Dynamic Drag, 1961, at http://dl.kashti.ir/ENBOOKS/NEW/FDD.pdf, on page 12-16, figure 27-b, compares a car with wheel housing open at the sides , Coeffient of Drag of 0.23, with covered wheel housing with a Coeffient of Drag of 0.19. That is a 17% reduction in drag coeffient. Our Model 3 is not sealing the wheel wells, so cannot hope to approach that savings. I suspect that the Tesla VP that quotes the wheel covers helping by 10% is rounding. Plus or minus 5%.

Just because you can't see it does not mean something isn't happening. 
It's been over 30 years since I earned my degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics, and worked as a low speed and transonic wind tunnel test engineer, but the Reynolds numbers, q and coefficients haven't changed. I will be determining the drag difference between hubcaps and no hubcaps as soon as I get my LR with cheap wheels. But by the time Jan - Mar 2018 rolls around I am sure most of you will have returned to useful pastimes.

But checkout Hoener's pdf. It is fascinating.


----------



## garsh

Twiglett said:


> The wheel covers have no effect people - this is a mathematics test.


It all starts with a coast-down test from 75mph. At those speeds, the wheel covers will have an effect.


----------



## Guest

Wheel covers do not matter because EPA test is done with covers. And not without. And not with 19".
EPA test is based on base version of any model: LR, SR. 
LR has aero wheels (with covers) as standard. Same with SR.


----------



## KarenRei

> Smaller tire sidewalls actually bend less and are more efficient.





arnis said:


> Wheel covers do not matter because EPA test is done with covers. And not without. And not with 19".
> EPA test is based on base version of any model: LR, SR.
> LR has aero wheels (with covers) as standard. Same with SR.


Actually, the linked doc includes stats for 19" as well as 18". And they come in at 12% higher energy consumption.


----------



## Guest

So we have data for
1) 18" slippery wheels with A rubber blend and
2) 19" turbine wheels with B tire blend.
Difference is 11%. But that is only "road load", no drivetrain/accessories losses.
Actual load is more than 10-11kW at 50mph.
It would be awesome to have data with the same tire compound and real life
conditions: 60mph, real pavement, 500W HVAC load, tire wear 30% and
with drivetrain losses in mind. Definitely less than 10% at 60mph.


----------



## KarenRei

arnis said:


> So we have data for
> 1) 18" slippery wheels with A rubber blend and
> 2) 19" turbine wheels with B tire blend.
> Difference is 11%. But that is only "road load", no drivetrain/accessories losses.
> Actual load is more than 10-11kW at 50mph.
> It would be awesome to have data with the same tire compound and real life
> conditions: 60mph, real pavement, 500W HVAC load, tire wear 30% and
> with drivetrain losses in mind. Definitely less than 10% at 60mph.


12%, not 11%. And I see nowhere that they mention the rubber blend. Road load should be "roughly" linear with power demand from the pack. I don't know what sort of road you envision when you say "real pavement"; the MTD and IRI won't be that different between the dyno and a good road, compared to the difference between a good road and a bad one; the rolling coeff (Crr) should be about the same. Tire wear _decreases_ rolling resistance, not increasing it, and has no meaningful impact on the drag coeff (Cd). CdA is the bigger issue at hand, not Crr, and the importance of low CdA increases with increasing speed.

"Around 10%" is looking to be the right number; the rumour we heard before appears to have been accurate.


----------



## MelindaV

Twiglett said:


> ...In the end its this type ridiculous hyperbole and speculation that is the reason for why it is Short Range and Long Range instead of battery sizes...


to be clear though if we are going to be correcting what others are incorrectly calling the versions , it is not 'Short Range' but 'Standard' and 'Long Range'.


----------



## Guest

KarenRei said:


> 12%, not 11%.


What are the numbers we compare?



KarenRei said:


> And I see nowhere that they mention the rubber blend.


Stock tire selection? Different for 18" and 19". Anything else and the data would have less meaning.



KarenRei said:


> Tire wear _decreases_ rolling resistance,


Yes I know. Though at the end of tire thread it might actually spike again.
Higher speed will affect wheel drag more. At 20mph, difference between aero and turbine less than half compared to 50mph.
My understanding of "*up to 10%*" is "10% at top speed, 0% at walking speed". Top speed is vehicle limit, not road.

http://www.aanddtech.com/Docs/TTX 2013.pdf
Road load should be this.


----------



## KarenRei

arnis said:


> What are the numbers we compare?


The numbers from the EPA doc: 


> _RLHP @ 50mph: 9.95_
> _Sub configuration Road Load HP @ 50mph: 11.13_


_

11,13 / 9,95 = 1,11859296482.... ~= 12% more._



> Stock tire selection? Different for 18" and 19".


You're making an assumption that there's a different rubber blend. There might be, there might not be. The EPA doc says nothing about it.



> Higher speed will affect wheel drag more


I'm going to assume you mean Cd and not Crr here (although it affects both). The fact that Cd increasingly dominates at higher speeds means that the aero difference between the two wheel types will be _amplified_ at speeds higher than the stated 50mph, not reduced.

I only object to your use of the term "up to" 10%. Because that's not what the data says; the data shows _over_ 10%.


----------



## roflwaffle

12% at* 50mph*! It'll be more at higher speeds. The document I think describes higher rolling resistance with the 19" tires as well (Road Load parameter A over the test weight is > .01 with the 19s and .0093 with the 18s), but it's less than a percent difference.


----------



## ölbrenner

11.13 is ~12% greater than 9.95.
The percentage difference between 9.95 and 11.13 is ~11.2%.


----------



## KarenRei

ölbrenner said:


> 11.13 is ~12% greater than 9.95.
> The percentage difference between 9.95 and 11.13 is ~11.2%.


"Percentage difference" is ambiguous, as it can be relative to either number. But "percentage more" is not; 9.95 is from the baseline model (18" wheels w/aero covers), the model that all of our known stats come from. 19" "sport" wheels consume 12% _more _energy than 18" aero wheels from which we have our stats.

But this is kind of silly: my only point is that it's not right to say "up to" 10%, given that the 19" wheels take 12% more energy according to the EPA, and there's no good reason to try to "tamp down" that difference to below 10%. Some factors may work to the 19" wheels' favour, but a lot will work against them as well.


----------



## c2c

garsh said:


> It all starts with a coast-down test from 75mph. At those speeds, the wheel covers will have an effect.


I am thinking starting from a full stop at 47.3956427, -121.4765663, an on ramp on I-90 Snoqualmie pass, which is just shy of 3000 feet, and either rolling to a stop or measuring the time to the next exit, about 9.5 miles away at about 1900 feet. I rode my Cannondale down this slope about 20 years ago and hit 50 mph, jumping the big, honking expansion joints. (quite a thrill, not to be repeated) As slippery as the Model 3 is, I would not be surprised to hit 70, maybe more. But I can measure the potential energy through elevation change and calculate the drag coefficient delta with or without hubcaps.


----------



## Guest

KarenRei said:


> my only point is that it's not right to say "up to" 10%, given that the 19" wheels take 12% more energy according to the EPA, and there's no good reason to try to "tamp down" that difference to below 10%.


If discharge rate would be 10kW and vehicle travels at 50mph, it would get 400 miles on 80kWh (8 hours)
As I said, these numbers can not be used to compare overall efficiency (that ultimately expresses range directly).
Model 3 does not consume 9.95kW at 50mph. It appears to be "road load" only. Measured or math result, I do not know.
So the 12% difference is only part of the whole load. If road load is 50% of the whole discharge rate and something consumes
constant value per distance travelled (no matter what wheels we have) difference would be 6% between wheelsets.


----------



## alpinebum1

Twiglett said:


> I really give up with threads like this.
> Oooh look, Tesla _must_ be hiding something because the EPA "pretend tests" imply that an entirely dyno based test is higher than the manufacturer is comfortable with.
> The wheel covers have no effect people - this is a mathematics test.
> No conspiracy or (so called) under-selling is going on - its just a car and many, many other manufactures do the exact same thing. The Model 3 isn't magical, its a car.
> 
> In the end its this type ridiculous hyperbole and speculation that is the reason for why it is Short Range and Long Range instead of battery sizes.
> Some pedant with a meter now can't complain that it's only 78.67kW and not 79kW - but I'll bet that someone will try anyway.
> Want proof? There are even some folks _desperately_ clinging to battery size designations calling it an 80D or Model 3 55.


Actually, I love this type of thread. As an engineer, the fact-based speculation and the calculations that go with it make it very interesting and educational. I've learned an awful lot about EVs, neural nets, power engineering, etc, etc from this site as well as Tesla Motors Forum. Thank you very much @Troy for all your effort!


----------



## Scuffers

arnis said:


> If discharge rate would be 10kW and vehicle travels at 50mph, it would get 400 miles on 80kWh (8 hours)
> As I said, these numbers can not be used to compare overall efficiency (that ultimately expresses range directly).
> Model 3 does not consume 9.95kW at 50mph. It appears to be "road load" only. Measured or math result, I do not know.
> So the 12% difference is only part of the whole load. If road load is 50% of the whole discharge rate and something consumes
> constant value per distance travelled (no matter what wheels we have) difference would be 6% between wheelsets.


when all said and done, it's going to take a lot to convince me that there is a significant (as in >2%) difference in KWh/mile between the 18 and 19 inch rims, I can see with/without the aero covers making a difference, but not the size change.


----------



## roflwaffle

Yeah, the larger tires only make a ~1% difference. It's the Aero covers that really help.


----------



## @gravityrydr

Obviously the answer is after market aero covers for the 19" rims.


----------



## Grashelm

Is there a difference between the Model 3 55 and Model 3 80 with regards to charging rate?


----------



## Bokonon

Grashelm said:


> Is there a difference between the Model 3 55 and Model 3 80 with regards to charging rate?


Yes, those two configurations each have different maximum charging rates for both AC charging (e.g. typical home/public charging stations) and DC charging (ChaDeMo / Supercharger).

AC (Level 2) Charging:

The Long Range battery ships with a 48A on-board charger. Charging at 48A will add up to 44 miles of range per hour.
The Standard battery ships with a 32A charger. Charging at 32A will add up to 30 miles of range per hour.
(Source: https://www.tesla.com/support/home-charging-installation)

Supercharging:

The Long Range battery can add up to 170 miles in 30 minutes at a Supercharger
The Standard battery can add up to 130 miles in 30 minutes at a Supercharger
(Note: the Supercharging rates I've quoted above are taken right out of Tesla's Model 3 press kit, but there has been some speculation recently that these rates might be on the conservative side, at least as far as the Long Range configuration is concerned. Regardless, these numbers provide an answer your original question: yes, there is a difference.)


----------



## Scuffers

Not sure that's correct, the link you refer to is different for every market and has different info.

I am pretty sure the cars all come with the same 11KW charger (3x16 or 1x48A), but the UMC's are different, the LR 3 version appears to be limited to 32A (talked about here:).

The UMC we get in Europe is different in that it has a type 2 plug for the car end and supports up to 1x32A and 3x16A (so 11KW), annoyingly, we have to go aftermarket for a UMC to deliver more than 11KW, ie. 3x32A or pay stupid money for the Tesla wall connector.

Really not sure why Telsa are putting out so much conflicting info on this as it really does not help sell the cars, one of the major sticking points for the potential EV buyer is how long does it take to charge, and I just don't get why Tesla would not go with the best it can do?

All I can think is that for home charging with a UMC on your domestic Nema 14-50 you can't draw more than ??A continuous so it then would have people suing them that they can't achieve the advertised charge rate?

There's another issue with all of this too, here we have what's called night rate for electricity, typically this is a 7 hour window between midnight and 7AM, so it's pretty damn important that you can fully charge your EV within that 7 hour window, and at 1x32A that's simply not going to cut it ([email protected] = 53.8KWh x 90% charger efficiency = 48KWh

do the same for [email protected] = 80.6KWh x 90% = 72.5KWh (so still not a full charge but ~90% which likely is as much as required)

(For context, night rate elec here is ~1/3 the price of normal day rate)

This assumes it's plugged in for the full 7 hours, and therein lies another problem, the 7 hour window can be 1AM to 8AM and these times are all GMT, during the summer we are on BST, so that 8AM cut-off is now 9AM, and I don't know anybody that does not leave home for work till 9AM.

Now, I appreciate that most people don't need a full charge every day, but there are more than a few that do (me included), I often do 300+ miles a day, and having to plan round SC's in not really practical here (UK), I do however, go to places with 3 phase power readily available, so having a high power onboard charger would work for me (the 22KW dual charger option is perfect, ~66Mph charge rate makes a huge difference and if we could have duel 16.5KW chargers we could have 100+Mph charging!).


----------



## EValuatED

Scuffers said:


> Not sure that's correct, the link you refer to is different for every market and has different info.
> 
> I am pretty sure the cars all come with the same 11KW charger (3x16 or 1x48A), but the UMC's are different, the LR 3 version appears to be limited to 32A (talked about here:).
> 
> The UMC we get in Europe is different in that it has a type 2 plug for the car end and supports up to 1x32A and 3x16A (so 11KW), annoyingly, we have to go aftermarket for a UMC to deliver more than 11KW, ie. 3x32A or pay stupid money for the Tesla wall connector.
> 
> Really not sure why Telsa are putting out so much conflicting info on this as it really does not help sell the cars, one of the major sticking points for the potential EV buyer is how long does it take to charge, and I just don't get why Tesla would not go with the best it can do?
> 
> All I can think is that for home charging with a UMC on your domestic Nema 14-50 you can't draw more than ??A continuous so it then would have people suing them that they can't achieve the advertised charge rate?
> 
> There's another issue with all of this too, here we have what's called night rate for electricity, typically this is a 7 hour window between midnight and 7AM, so it's pretty damn important that you can fully charge your EV within that 7 hour window, and at 1x32A that's simply not going to cut it ([email protected] = 53.8KWh x 90% charger efficiency = 48KWh
> 
> do the same for [email protected] = 80.6KWh x 90% = 72.5KWh (so still not a full charge but ~90% which likely is as much as required)
> 
> (For context, night rate elec here is ~1/3 the price of normal day rate)
> 
> This assumes it's plugged in for the full 7 hours, and therein lies another problem, the 7 hour window can be 1AM to 8AM and these times are all GMT, during the summer we are on BST, so that 8AM cut-off is now 9AM, and I don't know anybody that does not leave home for work till 9AM.
> 
> Now, I appreciate that most people don't need a full charge every day, but there are more than a few that do (me included), I often do 300+ miles a day, and having to plan round SC's in not really practical here (UK), I do however, go to places with 3 phase power readily available, so having a high power onboard charger would work for me (the 22KW dual charger option is perfect, ~66Mph charge rate makes a huge difference and if we could have duel 16.5KW chargers we could have 100+Mph charging!).


Appreciate the points and the position you're making across the pond, but as @Bokonon stated:

AC (Level 2) Charging:

The Long Range battery ships with a 48A on-board charger. Charging at 48A will add up to 44 miles of range per hour.
The Standard battery ships with a 32A charger. Charging at 32A will add up to 30 miles of range per hour.
So Standard may still be limited to 32A in your market... we'll see.


----------



## Scuffers

EValuatED said:


> Appreciate the points and the position you're making across the pond, but as @Bokonon stated:
> 
> AC (Level 2) Charging:
> 
> The Long Range battery ships with a 48A on-board charger. Charging at 48A will add up to 44 miles of range per hour.
> The Standard battery ships with a 32A charger. Charging at 32A will add up to 30 miles of range per hour.
> So Standard may still be limited to 32A in your market... we'll see.


Until a std battery car turns up, we won't actually know, but I'll put money on the on-board chargers all being the same, it makes no sence for Tesla to have two different parts for the same job.

Yes, they may SW limit them, however, I bet the difference, _if there is one, _will be in the UMC's.


----------



## EValuatED

Scuffers said:


> Until a std battery car turns up, we won't actually know, but I'll put money on the on-board chargers all being the same, it makes no sence for Tesla to have two different parts for the same job.
> 
> Yes, they may SW limit them, however, I bet the difference, _if there is one, _will be in the UMC's.


Agree, though with the mass market (volume, cost) orientation for the Model 3, it's not unreasonable to conjecture the Standard might well be hardware limited to 32A. As you state, we'll have to see!

Personally, I was happy when we all learned the LR would AC change at 48A, as 'faster' charging is a great convenience feature for those of us who need to sometimes get back out on the road for longer runs or have widely variable drives each day, etc. That and supercharging help make a 100% switch to EV possible, sooner IMHO.

Edit: So far the Model 3 LRs are coming with a 32A 'UMC' which I was not pleased to see.


----------



## Guest

Scuffers said:


> I am pretty sure the cars all come with the same 11KW charger (3x16 or 1x48A), but the UMC's are different


Tesla CLEARLY states, that M3 SR has 32A onboard charger for US market.



Scuffers said:


> it makes no sence for Tesla to have two different parts for the same job.


This is why they are not different in terms of engineering, but part itself is different.
Whole Tesla works on the concept of modularity: superchargers, onboard chargers, powerwalls, powerpacks, vehicle batteries.
Out of these 5 different stand-alone products, there are only two main modules (with couple spec variations): two charger modules (16A and 24A) and two battery modules, one is from 18650 (actually two variations, one with extra row of cell) and one module out of 2170 cells.
And with different arrangement, Tesla outputs different versions of different things (powerpacks are made out of powerwalls, powerwalls are made out of 2 battery modules, batteries are made out of these same modules, superchargers are made out of onboard chargers. Onboard chargers are made out of identical modules:








M3 SR likely has two charging modules inside a case for 3. One spot will just be left empty. 
It's also possible that US M3 SR has 2x16A modules and US M3 LR has 2x24A modules, though EU still needs space for 2 in case of 3-phase output. Therefore I believe first version is more likely. When they get production numbers to hundreds of thousands, likely SR M3's will have a cheaper charger case (both 3phase regions and US) designed for 2 modules (and not 3 phases). LR M3's will continue with triple design.
It's speculation but that is how things will likely turn out. There is no need to charge 55kWh pack within 4 hours. Long daily commute legend again. Buy LR version, end of story.

PS: inverters are also made out of the repetitive PCB design.


----------



## Scuffers

OK, I see what your saying, but I simply do not believe they will do this, for starters it means stocking different assemblies when they don't have to, then it's yet another option to deal with during assembly (remember what Musk said about options?), then consider that having the high power charger built in but SW locked offers an easy and profitable way for Tesla to keep the list price low but have an almost guaranteed option box that will be a near mandatory tick (much like the dual charger option was almost universally chosen and the high power current option on S&X is).

You may be right, time will tell, but I'll put $10 on your not.


----------



## Kbm3

Troy said:


> Hi. The car was fully charged. See the first bullet point item here. The Bolt beat the Model S 75D and Tesla wasn't happy about that and they had some objections. However, Tesla is aware that the EPA rated range is too high. In fact, Tesla does not use EPA rated range anywhere outside of North America. Instead, they use a range unit they created called "Typical range". A new Model S 75D displays 241 miles Typical Range at 100% charge everywhere outside of North America.
> 
> We have the following range numbers for the Model S 75D:
> 
> *Model S 75D range:*
> 259 miles Source: EPA (This is city and highway combined range)
> 241 miles Source: Tesla (The Model S 75D displays 241 mi range outside of North America)
> 235 miles Source: Consumer Reports (this is range at 65 mph)
> 232 miles Source: Survey data. (This is based on lifetime average energy efficiency numbers. See cell H85 here.)


Did you check out the 4th bullet point in consumer reports Bolt Model S comparison attached below?


We make sure the car is in its version of normal drive mode, not extended range mode, because our goal is not to see what's the maximum range an EV can get when pushed to its limits, but rather to see the total number of miles a driver should expect under normal circumstances.
Did you account for the difference this would make in the test? As I understand it, EPA mileage is not tested this way.


----------



## Phil Kulak

EValuatED said:


> Edit: So far the Model 3 LRs are coming with a 32A 'UMC' which I was not pleased to see.


Eh, if you can drop 50 grand on a new car and need 16 more amps, you can probably scrape together $500 for the wall connector.


----------



## Guest

All other EVs come with up to 12A mobile charger. Even if onboard charger supports 32a
Portable chargers are not designed for daily use for years and years. That's the job for stationary EVSE.


----------



## Guest

Scuffers said:


> OK, I see what your saying, but I simply do not believe they will do this, for starters it means stocking different assemblies when they don't have to,


*Well, here is the beauty of Model 3*. Charger is within the battery. And 32A assembly is always inside smaller battery, 48A is inside bigger battery. Therefore, charger is not actually an assembly. Either it is a subassembly or part of an assembly (HV battery) when we talk about stuff in warehouse. Maybe even without housing because anything inside HV pack is already protected by HV case.
And that 9000$ option has not only extra cells but also one extra 16A module.


----------



## Scuffers

is it?

Where?


----------



## Guest

Nr4 - this is where magic happens:


----------



## KarenRei

Scuffers said:


> is it?
> 
> Where?


Whenever I see that diagram, I can't help but think of how easy it'd be for Tesla to enable that to jump to 800V for charging, even though the operational voltage is only a nominal 400V... Which makes me wonder if they actually have that option built-in, awaiting a need for it.


----------



## Guest

Aren't those 4 modules all in series? Pyro fuse disconnects them in the middle, though these two halves are 200V each.
How can they jump to 800V? They need modules that are 46 and 50 strings, plus some extra contactors doing magic.

Also, what's the point of 800V? It's the heat extraction rate that limits SC speed, not plug amp limit nor cable thickness.
I know Porsche gave some awesome promises. Though for me, just a dream.


----------



## EValuatED

Phil Kulak said:


> Eh, if you can drop 50 grand on a new car and need 16 more amps, you can probably scrape together $500 for the wall connector.


I will be installing a Wall Connector set for 48A. And I have a two distant destinations with 14-50s, capable of delivering 40A. So I would have preferred the Mobile EVSE to match.


----------



## Scuffers

arnis said:


> Aren't those 4 modules all in series? Pyro fuse disconnects them in the middle, though these two halves are 200V each.
> How can they jump to 800V? They need modules that are 46 and 50 strings, plus some extra contactors doing magic.
> 
> Also, what's the point of 800V? It's the heat extraction rate that limits SC speed, not plug amp limit nor cable thickness.
> I know Porsche gave some awesome promises. Though for me, just a dream.


What she's getting at is with a wiring change, it's possible without having to make fundamental hardware changes.

All that said, I fail to see the advantage in 800V charging at this point, the current cells charge rate can already be exceeded.

If a new iteration of 2170 could take C4+ charging, then maybe 800V is the way to go?


----------



## Scuffers

arnis said:


> Nr4 - this is where magic happens:


OK, so you're saying the charger is in with the the inverter (4)?

I guess that makes sence for cutting down modules etc, but it does mean at a sub-assembly level, you then have to have different builds.

Was this the same for the older Model S with the option of dual charges? if yes, then that would suggest that post-manufacture upgrade is practically impossible (bit like laptops with soldered in CPU's).

It also will make fixing them problematic, now a simple module change involves stripping the battery down, I really hope these are 110% reliable?


----------



## Guest

Inverters are with motors. This brown thingy has many functions, incl 12V supply. 
Well, many parts here might vary according to battery capacity. Pyrofuse for example.
It's unavoidable. But I wouldn't say installing 2 boards instead of 3 adds any complexity.
It actually lessens. The point is, we need to get a vehicle for half the price.
Model S/X chargers, and other EVs - they are damn reliable, compared to door handles,
trim pieces, pumps, fans, falcon doors etc. And lifting rear seat to get access to all these
components - another beauty of M3 design.


----------



## JWardell

arnis said:


> Tesla CLEARLY states, that M3 SR has 32A onboard charger for US market.
> 
> This is why they are not different in terms of engineering, but part itself is different.
> Whole Tesla works on the concept of modularity: superchargers, onboard chargers, powerwalls, powerpacks, vehicle batteries.
> Out of these 5 different stand-alone products, there are only two main modules (with couple spec variations): two charger modules (16A and 24A) and two battery modules, one is from 18650 (actually two variations, one with extra row of cell) and one module out of 2170 cells.
> And with different arrangement, Tesla outputs different versions of different things (powerpacks are made out of powerwalls, powerwalls are made out of 2 battery modules, batteries are made out of these same modules, superchargers are made out of onboard chargers. Onboard chargers are made out of identical modules:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M3 SR likely has two charging modules inside a case for 3. One spot will just be left empty.
> It's also possible that US M3 SR has 2x16A modules and US M3 LR has 2x24A modules, though EU still needs space for 2 in case of 3-phase output. Therefore I believe first version is more likely. When they get production numbers to hundreds of thousands, likely SR M3's will have a cheaper charger case (both 3phase regions and US) designed for 2 modules (and not 3 phases). LR M3's will continue with triple design.
> It's speculation but that is how things will likely turn out. There is no need to charge 55kWh pack within 4 hours. Long daily commute legend again. Buy LR version, end of story.
> 
> PS: inverters are also made out of the repetitive PCB design.


I can see how it might be easy to think that the US would have two modules for their chargers when Europe has three, but that's not the case.
Three phase power needs three modules as they are each attached across each phase to neutral, or each between two different phases.
But the US chargers only connect across the two phases (and really it's one phase at opposite amplitude) so it's really just one 240v connection. So it will just be one charger.
But I very much look forward to see the first one torn down!


----------



## Guest

JWardell said:


> US would have two modules for their chargers when Europe has three, but that's not the case.


I know that but charger modules must be in parallel to get appropriate amperage. Same in EU, in case of 3 phase power, each module is dealing with different phase. In case of 1 phase power, two modules are used on that one phase.
There are no modules from Tesla that support 32A or 48A each.


----------



## JWardell

arnis said:


> I know that but charger modules must be in parallel to get appropriate amperage. Same in EU, in case of 3 phase power, each module is dealing with different phase. In case of 1 phase power, two modules are used on that one phase.
> There are no modules from Tesla that support 32A or 48A each.


How do you know for sure?


----------



## Guest

JWardell said:


> How do you know for sure?


Common sense. There is no reason to have 32A and 48A PCB boards - non-US vehicle* will still need *3x 16A PCBs with same mounting and cooling points (otherwise more new parts to mount them according to new dimensions, new wire gauges, socket dimensions). Therefore there must be space for 3x 16A boards.
32A board will be larger than 24A piece, 48A board will be larger than 32A board. 
In this case, we need at least 3 different designs for Model 3: 32A, 48A and 16A and one more for S/X (upgraded charger has 3x 24A).
It will cost more. With no advantages.

One design, either 2 or 3 modules per vehicle depending on battery size. Pretty simple and reliable (imagine new 32A or 48A design will have a design flaw noticed after 100 000 vehicles are already produced). Idea of S/X is to experiment and develop tech for 3/Y. BMW does the same. First they add new stuff to their flagships 7-series. Then slowly bring it down the line for mass production. Just in case.
Bonus feature. Theoretically it is possible to have redundancy (single 16A module failure does not mean vehicle can not be charged).
Future proofing - in case of Tesla imaginary motorcycle, they already have a suitable 16A module design. Optimal for 10-25kWh pack.

Common sense - that's for sure.

Does anybody know, is 24A module on S/X (upgraded charger) same size as standard 16A module?


----------



## roflwaffle

Going back to the earlier posts, I wonder if Tesla's shaving off some range to mimic the (roughly) gallon of gas someone has left when they hit empty on an ICE. I thought I saw that mentioned somewhere else, and given that the 3 is a relatively mass market car, Tesla may have decided to go with it.


----------



## JWardell

arnis said:


> Common sense. There is no reason to have 32A and 48A PCB boards


I disagree again. Please don't state speculation as fact. I think it would be simpler and more cost effective to have a single charger then the added complexity for


arnis said:


> Common sense. There is no reason to have 32A and 48A PCB boards - non-US vehicle* will still need *3x 16A PCBs with same mounting and cooling points (otherwise more new parts to mount them according to new dimensions, new wire gauges, socket dimensions). Therefore there must be space for 3x 16A boards.
> 32A board will be larger than 24A piece, 48A board will be larger than 32A board.
> In this case, we need at least 3 different designs for Model 3: 32A, 48A and 16A and one more for S/X (upgraded charger has 3x 24A).
> It will cost more. With no advantages.
> 
> One design, either 2 or 3 modules per vehicle depending on battery size. Pretty simple and reliable (imagine new 32A or 48A design will have a design flaw noticed after 100 000 vehicles are already produced). Idea of S/X is to experiment and develop tech for 3/Y. BMW does the same. First they add new stuff to their flagships 7-series. Then slowly bring it down the line for mass production. Just in case.
> Bonus feature. Theoretically it is possible to have redundancy (single 16A module failure does not mean vehicle can not be charged).
> Future proofing - in case of Tesla imaginary motorcycle, they already have a suitable 16A module design. Optimal for 10-25kWh pack.
> 
> Common sense - that's for sure.
> 
> Does anybody know, is 24A module on S/X (upgraded charger) same size as standard 16A module?


My point is please don't state your opinion as fact.
In my opinion, a single charger would be simpler and lower cost, and that's what Tesla is more likely to put in a Model 3. Part of the reason why all of Europe needs to wait much longer for 3s as things like this aren't made for them yet.
I agree the parallel chargers offer some redundancy although more complex as they have to share outputs actively. Certainly smart for Model S design where they have more cost headroom.
Have we ever heard of any Tesla where charging only partially failed, and they were limited to two thirds of the current?


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> Please don't state speculation as fact.


@arnis, I think this might be the main reason why you seem to aggravate others. Perhaps it's just a regional difference, or the result of English not being your primary language. I don't know. But it would probably go a long way if you would preface many of your statements with "IMO", or some other indication that you're providing a guess or opinion.


----------



## Scuffers

arnis said:


> Common sense. There is no reason to have 32A and 48A PCB boards - non-US vehicle* will still need *3x 16A PCBs with same mounting and cooling points (otherwise more new parts to mount them according to new dimensions, new wire gauges, socket dimensions). Therefore there must be space for 3x 16A boards.
> 32A board will be larger than 24A piece, 48A board will be larger than 32A board.
> In this case, we need at least 3 different designs for Model 3: 32A, 48A and 16A and one more for S/X (upgraded charger has 3x 24A).
> It will cost more. With no advantages.
> 
> One design, either 2 or 3 modules per vehicle depending on battery size. Pretty simple and reliable (imagine new 32A or 48A design will have a design flaw noticed after 100 000 vehicles are already produced). Idea of S/X is to experiment and develop tech for 3/Y. BMW does the same. First they add new stuff to their flagships 7-series. Then slowly bring it down the line for mass production. Just in case.
> Bonus feature. Theoretically it is possible to have redundancy (single 16A module failure does not mean vehicle can not be charged).
> Future proofing - in case of Tesla imaginary motorcycle, they already have a suitable 16A module design. Optimal for 10-25kWh pack.
> 
> Common sense - that's for sure.
> 
> Does anybody know, is 24A module on S/X (upgraded charger) same size as standard 16A module?


I agree with your line of thinking.

NOT installing modules at assembly to me means that later upgrade is not possible (without huge work), it would make more sence to install the max modules/rating and if they want to charge extra for the high power charger option, do this in SW (I have been told that this is what is done now with S/X and that all the chargers are the same, but I don't know if this is true or not?)

PS. Not sure what the beef with your post is? I read it without taking any other inferences from your use of English? (and I am English!)


----------



## Guest

I don't get it. What is something on this list (my statements), that are on the level of "my opinion" and not taken as "true until proven otherwise"?

a) charger modules must be in parallel to get appropriate amperage 
b) in case of 3 phase power, each module is dealing with different phase.
c) two modules are used on that one phase
d) there are no modules from Tesla that support 32A or 48A each.



JWardell said:


> I think it would be simpler and more cost effective to have a single charger


Here we see three identical modules








All inside single charger.



Scuffers said:


> NOT installing modules at assembly to me means that later upgrade is not possible (without huge work), it would make more sence to install the max modules/rating


Well, less capable onboard charger comes only with a cheaper vehicle (M3 SR). Somewhat around half of Model 3's ordered will be SR. So let's assume 200 000 M3 SR's per year. That means 200 000 extra modules that must be manufactured and installed. And upgrading (paying like 500€) for unlock will be (for those who already chose StandardRange M3 due to price and commute needs) rare (looking back at Model S/X). Even if module with installation will cost 300€ to Tesla, it translates to something like 60 millions in unjustified losses per year. 
There are people working and thinking at Tesla (not an opinion). If they estimate that it would be better to have that 48A charger onboard SR M3, it would have that. And cost of baseprice M3 would not be the same any more. There would be more unhappy customers. Including me (and others) who, in any case, will never charge at those levels at home.

Model S was more capable years ago (dual charger). And Tesla downgraded that capability, for a vehicle that costs triple and has battery almost twice as large. I'm not going to give my opinion, it's should be black and white to where I'm going with M3 SR onboard charger.

I know that AP hardware is always there and bigger SW-locked batteries were mounted on S/X. Let's not mix that with onboard charger.


----------



## MelindaV

arnis said:


> I don't get it. What is something on this list (my statements), that are on the level of "my opinion" and not taken as "true until proven otherwise"?
> 
> a) charger modules must be in parallel to get appropriate amperage
> b) in case of 3 phase power, each module is dealing with different phase.
> c) two modules are used on that one phase
> d) there are no modules from Tesla that support 32A or 48A each.


That is just it. You are not inside Tesla, do not know what is going into these cars, therefore you are speculating. It's not the same as true until proven otherwise, it's your opinion.


----------



## Scuffers

arnis said:


> Well, less capable onboard charger comes only with a cheaper vehicle (M3 SR). Somewhat around half of Model 3's ordered will be SR. So let's assume 200 000 M3 SR's per year. That means 200 000 extra modules that must be manufactured and installed. And upgrading (paying like 500€) for unlock will be (for those who already chose StandardRange M3 due to price and commute needs) rare (looking back at Model S/X). Even if module with installation will cost 300€ to Tesla, it translates to something like 60 millions in unjustified losses per year.
> There are people working and thinking at Tesla (not an opinion). If they estimate that it would be better to have that 48A charger onboard SR M3, it would have that. And cost of baseprice M3 would not be the same any more. There would be more unhappy customers. Including me (and others) who, in any case, will never charge at those levels at home.


I understand what you're getting at, but in reality, the difference in cost for the 24A vs. 16A module will be naff all (English expression!), and making 1 version of the modules has to be cheaper than making 2. I honestly can't see the difference per charger being more than $50 (and likely a tenth of that), so way I see it, to charge an extra $1000 for the high capacity option is money for old rope, it keeps the base price low and almost guarantees the actual purchase price will include the $1000.

As you say, back in the dual charger days, I have yet to see an older S without the option.


----------



## Scuffers

MelindaV said:


> That is just it. You are not inside Tesla, do not know what is going into these cars, therefore you are speculating. It's not the same as true until proven otherwise, it's your opinion.


with respect, in his 4 points, all are 100% valid no matter if you work for Tesla or not, they are all known facts.


----------



## Guest

Scuffers said:


> I honestly can't see the difference per charger being more than $50 (and likely a tenth of that)


If that would be true, SuperCharger (for 2 stalls) would cost less than 10 000 $ as there are 36 modules of those 16A PCB's. If difference between 16A and 24A PCB would be less than 50$, then 16A module would cost very little as well (power electronics is major cost of the whole thing). 
Of course making 24A board would cost less (per amp) compared to 16A board (per amp). 
Though, I also would suspect 2x16A and 2x24A is possible on M3. That would make 48A US variant cheaper (compared to 3x16A).

Shouldn't Tesla deliberately make M3 not as capable as flagships? M3 SR would get 300km of range back faster than MS 75 if it would charge at 48A, like 75 does. Imagine ticking all M3 boxes making M3 better car (except cargo) in every category compared to flagship for much cheaper (M3 already has some advantages we know, interior quality, rear headroom..)

I have noticed, that many reviewers (bad reviewers) compare theoretical charging time (0-100%) at home. I'm pretty sure that huge portion of regular people (who do not understand this stuff like we do) would get a better impression of Leaf's 4h charging time rather than 90D's, that take twice as long. 
Another thing I would consider. Just to make LR M3 more wanted. Otherwise majority would prefer M3 SR and then unlock LR battery portion, unlock LR charger option if they consider the actual need that. And as some crazies are happy with 110V charging...
And software unlocking of capacity and charger, AFAIK, is rare. Those who bought cheaper variant are therefore happy.

Also I would like to hear the answer for the post that was moved to off-topics here:
https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/relocated-off-topic-conversations.1785/page-15#post-54150


----------



## Rusty

roflwaffle said:


> Going back to the earlier posts, I wonder if Tesla's shaving off some range to mimic the (roughly) gallon of gas someone has left when they hit empty on an ICE. I thought I saw that mentioned somewhere else, and given that the 3 is a relatively mass market car, Tesla may have decided to go with it.


Don't bet on it. I tried it in my MS. There is no reserve!


----------



## roflwaffle

Rusty said:


> Don't bet on it. I tried it in my MS. There is no reserve!


I can see that with the S, especially with free supercharging. On the other hand, people might try to "make it" more often with the 3, and end up needing an extra twenty miles or so. Course, we won't know until someone tries it in their 3.


----------



## Michael Russo

garsh said:


> @arnis, I think this might be the main reason why you seem to aggravate others. Perhaps it's just a regional difference, or the result of English not being your primary language. I don't know. But it would probably go a long way if you would preface many of your statements with "IMO", or some other indication that you're providing a guess or opinion.


@arnis , I have been observing many of these exchanges for a while and often wondered where you get all this information from. Since you are obviously pretty bright, I trust you will take @garsh 's constructive feedback, with regards to _how you position _many of your affirmative posts, in good stead...
Be sure that we value your participation, your insights and opinions, yet it will certainly help if you more clearly qualify them as such.


Scuffers said:


> with respect, in his 4 points, all are 100% valid no matter if you work for Tesla or not, they are all known facts.


My concern is not everyone here seems to view all these as undisputed _known_ facts... hence some reactions...


----------



## Dr. J

roflwaffle said:


> Course, we won't know until someone tries it in their 3.


Warning: Professional driver on a closed course. Do not attempt.


----------



## JWardell

arnis said:


> I don't get it. What is something on this list (my statements), that are on the level of "my opinion" and not taken as "true until proven otherwise"?
> 
> a) charger modules must be in parallel to get appropriate amperage
> b) in case of 3 phase power, each module is dealing with different phase.
> c) two modules are used on that one phase
> d) there are no modules from Tesla that support 32A or 48A each.


See, all of your statements above are false from an engineering perspective. Your language states a, c, and d as always true definitive facts. But they are not. You DO NOT KNOW, nor does anyone else outside of Tesla, how many charger modules are in the Model 3. You are using photos from a disassembled older European Model S to make arguments about a North American Model 3, At least in b you do specify it applies to a three phase car. But please remember most Teslas are not made for three phase.

There's nothing I love more than an intense engineering discussion and argument. But an engineer knows something is not fact unless it is 100% proven true. And the real problem is that most people in this forum are not engineers and will not know any better and take your statements as full fact.

It's not just this specific conversation, but regularly occurs in your statements. I do realize that this is probably just due to international or language differences, but I will still step in to counter your statements often so others know there can be other opinions or possibilities.

The fact that we have lively technical engineering arguments on this forum is one of the many things that make M3OC great.


----------



## MelindaV

JWardell said:


> The fact that we have lively technical engineering arguments on this forum is one of the many things that make M3OC great.


^ this.

But to all, please do keep in mind the tone taken in these arguments. 
We often hear members really appreciate the overall positive vibe M3OC has, and we would like to keep that going here.


----------



## Scuffers

JWardell said:


> See, all of your statements above are false from an engineering perspective. Your language states a, c, and d as always true definitive facts. But they are not. You DO NOT KNOW, nor does anyone else outside of Tesla, how many charger modules are in the Model 3. You are using photos from a disassembled older European Model S to make arguments about a North American Model 3, At least in b you do specify it applies to a three phase car. But please remember most Teslas are not made for three phase.
> 
> There's nothing I love more than an intense engineering discussion and argument. But an engineer knows something is not fact unless it is 100% proven true. And the real problem is that most people in this forum are not engineers and will not know any better and take your statements as full fact.
> 
> It's not just this specific conversation, but regularly occurs in your statements. I do realize that this is probably just due to international or language differences, but I will still step in to counter your statements often so others know there can be other opinions or possibilities.
> 
> The fact that we have lively technical engineering arguments on this forum is one of the many things that make M3OC great.


err...

With respect, unless the 3 is designed around an entirely different philosophy, (and all the info so far does not support this), he is 100% correct.

in order:
a) charger modules must be in parallel to get appropriate amperage 

Correct - each module is either 16 or 24A, with a single phase supply, multiple modules are run in parallel to achieve the 48/72/96A charge rates.

b) in case of 3 phase power, each module is dealing with different phase.

Correct - when presented with a 3 phase supply (like the 3 Phase version of the TWC or EU type 2) the three modules serve each phase as if they were individual single phases.

c) two modules are used on that one phase

Correct - In the context of the original discussion (ie, given a single phase supply the modules are all run in parallel)

d) there are no modules from Tesla that support 32A or 48A each.

Correct - currently, there are no other modules apart from 16/24A ones (that does not mean Tesla might not have or be planning more)

Look, we are all searching for more info, and yes sometimes people make a leap that's not 100% backed up by documented fact yet, however, given what is currently known, I don't believe we have strayed into wild un-supported speculation yet.


----------



## Guest

Scuffers said:


> not 100% backed up by documented fact yet, however, given what is currently known, I don't believe we have strayed into un-supported speculation yet.


Thank you. It should be simple enough to reason but it appears that due to cultural differences, that isn't happening.

Documentation changes opinions to facts? What is documentation? For me, past actions and knowledge of how stuff works, are documents I (and we, whoever knows/learns) can use to make conclusions (not opinions).

I'm bringing back moon landing example. It's been documented. It's been recorded. And science backs it all up. But if general knowledge (physics for example) says otherwise? Therefore "not directly documented" information/knowledge has a major role. Therefore, when Mr Musk sends people to Mars, he can (and should) conclude (not assume) things from Moon landing (as they are backed up by knowledge known to mankind, even though we can never be sure because documents can be fake, whatever). 
Model 3 (Mars) is not something completely different to Model S (Moon) - both subjected to same principles.
For me, saying that "Model 3 might have totally different charger design" is as wild as saying: "It's just your opinion that people can't breathe on Mars! Moon is not the same thing."

If everything people say is their opinion, they can never be wrong. Including me. Opinions can not be wrong.
I want to make conclusions and be wrong in addition to sharing opinions like:
I guess it's not worth a hassle to have 24A modules onboard Model 3.
Buyers will likely regret choosing black Model 3 due to soft paint.


----------



## garsh

arnis said:


> For me, past actions and knowledge of how stuff works, are documents I (and we, whoever knows/learns) can use to make conclusions (not opinions).


You're drawing conclusions based on assumptions (namely, that Tesla is doing the same thing for the 3 that it did for the S). That's not documentation. That's an educated guess. I think your assumptions are well reasoned and I believe you will be proven correct. It certainly explains the 32amp vs 48amp onboard charger differences between standard and long-range batteries.

But note the difference between these two statements:


Scuffers said:


> I'll put money on it has the very same onboard charger that the S&X do.





arnis said:


> Onboard charger has three 16A modules connected parallely in US and not elsewhere (for 3-phase input).


----------



## Scuffers

garsh said:


> You're drawing conclusions based on assumptions (namely, that Tesla is doing the same thing for the 3 that it did for the S). That's not documentation. That's an educated guess. I think your assumptions are well reasoned and I believe you will be proven correct. It certainly explains the 32amp vs 48amp onboard charger differences between standard and long-range batteries.
> 
> But note the difference between these two statements:


??

As of now, we don't know that the 3 will ever be shipped with a 32A charger, all we do know is that the UMC supplied is limited to 32A.

I actually expect it to be shipped with the same config as the LR's (but maybe SW limited), but currently, that's an un-known.


----------



## Troy

Hi. The EPA has released similar files for the Model S/X too. Based on the new data, I'm not sure anymore whether aero covers are included in the 11.8% consumption difference between the Model 3 with 18" vs 19" wheels. They might not be included. 

The MS/MX documents are here:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39829&flag=1 << Model X
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39827&flag=1 << Model S RWD
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39828&flag=1 << Model S AWD

The numbers for the MS are as follows:

11.6% more consumption for Model S 60/75 with 21" vs 19" wheels.
11.8% more consumption for Model S 60D/75D/90D with 21" vs 19" wheels.


----------



## c2c

Here is what I plan to do: I will in theory get my 3 between February and April, with the big battery, premium upgrade, rear wheel drive, cheap hubcap wheels, delivered in Washington State. It should be relatively early compared to most folks. Then I take it up into the mountains, to a freeway that drops 1000 feet in just under 10 miles. I turn off regenerative braking, turn off creep mode, place a video camera to view the car's display, the A pillar and the road's shoulder. I make 10 runs, alternating between hubcaps mounted and hubcaps stowed. I start rolling at the same spot, marked with spray paint on the road, relative to B pillar while the door is opened. 
I might hit terminal velocity in either configuration, but more likely my best measurement set will be the time splits between mile posts for the acceleration (dx/dt), and alternatively just letting the car roll to a stop for total distance for the same power source. My goal is to find the relative difference of the coefficient of drag, hubcaps or no hubcaps.
I want at least 3 significant digits of accuracy. It should not take more than 2 hours, so weather changes (temp, pressure, wind, etc.) should be negligible. I will ask around for the risks of coasting in Neutral for that drivetrain. I might have to do it in Drive.
This is essentially the same method I used for my Aeronautical Senior Lab project. Professor R.G. Joppa was so proud. 
If the method was good enough for Papa Joppa, it should be good enough for anyone.

So if you are not in the US of A, you should have the figures long before your decision point.


----------



## Scuffers

Using coastdown runs, hill descent, etc to work out aero figures is notoriously difficult.

The theory is fine, but getting consistent results is damn near impossible.


----------



## c2c

Scuffers said:


> Using coastdown runs, hill descent, etc to work out aero figures is notoriously difficult.
> 
> The theory is fine, but getting consistent results is damn near impossible.


For my senior project, fluid dynamic drag of a scuba diver, using a 12 inch artists model in a swimming pool as a tow tank, propelled by a falling mass, captured by timed strobe flashes on a photo, adjusted for Reynolds number, with bolt on configuration changes, it worked quite predictably.

For the hubcaps the key will be getting as close to terminal velocity as the law will allow, with a statistically significant numbers of runs. At 30 frames a second, doing better than 60 mph, any variation in the 1500 frames per mile should be measurable in my video editing software. and easy enough to post the raw data so those without model 3s in hand are occupied.
If the results are not obvious, then the hubcaps likely are cosmetic.
Worst case, I have fun visualizing my winning each soap box derby race, of one entrant.


----------



## Thomas Mikl

Did I not see it or is there no final number on aero vs. 19inch wheels?


----------



## Guest

c2c said:


> I will ask around for the risks of coasting in Neutral for that drivetrain.


There is no neutral. And actually, getting 0W in/out is also not possible. Drivetrain does it's best to be as close to 0W as possible,
but actually, depending on motor RPM (vehicle speed), there is like 100-2000W of power going in/out.
At usual speeds and "neutral", usually up to 500W, though near top speed of my Leaf, I see like 1200W of power going
into the motor. In true "neutral" (HV battery disengaged, inverter not powered up) this should end up with burned inverter electronics.
When vehicle is switched on, this will never happen.

*Leaf and M3 both have permanent magnet motors.


----------



## roflwaffle

Scuffers said:


> Using coastdown runs, hill descent, etc to work out aero figures is notoriously difficult.
> 
> The theory is fine, but getting consistent results is damn near impossible.


The wheel covers should have a large enough difference to detect when testing, knock on plastic.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...coastdown-testing-can-register-open-8863.html


----------



## Dr. J

c2c said:


> the key will be getting as close to terminal velocity as the law will allow,


The Law of Gravity, or....?


----------



## c2c

Dr. J said:


> The Law of Gravity, or....?


Law of Gravity? What's that?
Law Enforcement. Or my nerve.
There is a right hand turn at the bottom.
I have no plans on a detour through the median, or putting it up on 2 wheels.


----------



## roflwaffle

Troy said:


> Hi. The EPA has released similar files for the Model S/X too. Based on the new data, I'm not sure anymore whether aero covers are included in the 11.8% consumption difference between the Model 3 with 18" vs 19" wheels. They might not be included.
> 
> The MS/MX documents are here:
> https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39829&flag=1 << Model X
> https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39827&flag=1 << Model S RWD
> https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39828&flag=1 << Model S AWD
> 
> The numbers for the MS are as follows:
> 
> 11.6% more consumption for Model S 60/75 with 21" vs 19" wheels.
> 11.8% more consumption for Model S 60D/75D/90D with 21" vs 19" wheels.


MotorTrend's MPGe estimate came in at 128 versus the 120 EPA estimate, and that's with the 19" wheels/tires and 4.8s 0-60 runs.

At this point, I would not be surprised to see drivers getting 350-400 miles of range at 55-66mph if they opt for the Aero wheels.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see them getting < 325 miles in the same situation. So... yeah. Big shrug?


----------

