# How do the wheels effect real life range? (FACTS)



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

Artdept said:


> for long diffrence travel?
> better range? or no?


There's still very little data out there that supports the idea that those aero covers really provide that much more range. Guy at the tesla store claims about 3% difference between aero and sport wheels. Even at 5% is the extra 10-15 miles really worth it?


----------



## Artdept (Nov 6, 2017)

thanks.. back to the 19's we go


----------



## rxlawdude (Sep 12, 2017)

ng0 said:


> There's still very little data out there that supports the idea that those aero covers really provide that much more range. Guy at the tesla store claims about 3% difference between aero and sport wheels. Even at 5% is the extra 10-15 miles really worth it?


In a word, YES. It's worth it. Any power consumption saved ultimately helps the planet.


----------



## Sandy (Jun 3, 2017)

ng0 said:


> There's still very little data out there that supports the idea that those aero covers really provide that much more range. Guy at the tesla store claims about 3% difference between aero and sport wheels. Even at 5% is the extra 10-15 miles really worth it?


It's not just the aero covers. The 18" wheel/tire combo is significantly lighter than the 19" Sport wheels. Less mass to accelerate, maintain and slow down. It's the combo of the weight and aero cover that increases range.


----------



## ghoticov (Dec 31, 2017)

The 18" will also ride better than the 19" wheels. More rubber = better ride


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

Sandy said:


> It's not just the aero covers. The 18" wheel/tire combo is significantly lighter than the 19" Sport wheels. Less mass to accelerate, maintain and slow down. It's the combo of the weight and aero cover that increases range.


I would agree with that, but there still isn't any data to backup the assumption.


----------



## tracksyde (Apr 20, 2017)

ng0 said:


> I would agree with that, but there still isn't any data to backup the assumption.


The data is here in the EPA document:

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/datafiles/FOI_HTSLV00.0L13_APPIPT1.PDF

Page 16 of the pdf

Vehicle configuration #0 is 18" Aeros, road load hp @ 50mph = 9.95
Sub configuration #1 is 19" Sports, rlhp @ 50mph = 11.13

So the Model 3 with 19s takes ~12% more hp to maintain 50mph


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

A reminder:
less rim weight => less energy use during city drives
aeros (less air resistance) => less energy use during highway drives
higher sidewalls of tyres => more comfortable ride (equal rubbercompound and pressure)

narrower tyres => less frontal area and less air resistance


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

tracksyde said:


> The data is here in the EPA document:
> 
> https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/datafiles/FOI_HTSLV00.0L13_APPIPT1.PDF
> 
> ...


Interesting. So what does that translate to in real world range?


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

I know there have been multiple discussions on other threads about this, but I'd like to discuss FACTS here. What is the real world range difference between:

1) 19" sport wheels
2) 18" aero wheels
3) 18" aero covers taken off
4) Other after market wheels?

I know comfort is pretty subjective, so I don't really wanna go there, but at some point we should be able to come up with a definitive understanding of what the range difference is. There have been many assumptions between 2%-10% range difference, but nothing substantial to backup any of those claims.

Any thoughts of what would be the best way to test this out? I assume we'd have to have apples to apples comparison. Two people charge their cars to 80% and then drive on freeways/side roads at a certain speed for a certain amount of miles?


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2018)

There are two main components:
component 1) aerodynamic drag. 19" vs 18" without covers are similar, though not the same. 19" vs 18" with covers are very different. But this difference is mostly noticeable at high speed (not city driving) - more than 5% is expected in this configuration (tire blend included)
component 2) tire rolling resistance. Not about factory wheels but about tire itself. Of course any tire with correct size can be mounted. So YMWV according to how flexible/sticky the blend is. Is not speed dependent.

Model 3 ride is not soft on neither wheels. And it is definitely stiff on 19". This has been confirmed by many owners. 


*if you have emotional distress with word "stiff" - replace it with "sporty".


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

ng0 said:


> Interesting. So what does that translate to in real world range?


You still don't seem to believe it. With 18" Aeros 12% more range for a car driving with 50 mph on a highway than with 19" sport rims. Effect will be even higher at higher speeds. Aeros are intended for just that.


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

MichelT3 said:


> You still don't seem to believe it. With 18" Aeros 12% more range for a car driving with 50 mph on a highway than with 19" sport rims. Effect will be even higher at higher speeds. Aeros are intended for just that.


yup, you're right, I absolutely don't believe it. Reports so far have stated that the LR version with the sports wheels actually do get 310 miles per charge on the freeway. If what you say is true, then the Aero wheels would get a range of 347.2 miles and even more on side roads. There's no way that could be true. My friend with a model 3 with 18s said the car reported a 314 mile range. I don't know how accurate that is, but that makes a whole lot more sense than 347+ miles.


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

ng0 said:


> yup, you're right, I absolutely don't believe it. Reports so far have stated that the LR version with the sports wheels actually do get 310 miles per charge on the freeway. If what you say is true, then the Aero wheels would get a range of 347.2 miles and even more on side roads. There's no way that could be true. My friend with a model 3 with 18s said the car reported a 314 mile range. I don't know how accurate that is, but that makes a whole lot more sense than 347+ miles.


What the car reports depends on previous driving habit. 
EPA reports max 334 m for 18" Aero with 55 mph. 19" sport will get you in the region of 290.


----------



## Troy (Sep 18, 2017)

Check out this video. The consumption was 270 Wh/mi with 18" aero covers on and 282 Wh/mi with 18" wheels aero covers off. That means without the covers, it was (282-270)/270= 4.4% higher.


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

Troy said:


> Check out this video. The consumption was 270 Wh/mi with 18" aero covers on and 282 Wh/mi with 18" wheels aero covers off. That means without the covers, it was (282-270)/270= 4.4% higher.


This is awesome and exactly what I was looking for! Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Now if someone could do an identical video between the 18s and 19s that would be awesome!


----------



## Agon (Jan 8, 2018)

tracksyde said:


> The data is here in the EPA document:
> 
> https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/datafiles/FOI_HTSLV00.0L13_APPIPT1.PDF
> 
> ...


Very interesting! And those numbers would be calculated by some sort of "coastdown" test in which drag and resistance are measured?


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

tracksyde said:


> The data is here in the EPA document:
> 
> https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/datafiles/FOI_HTSLV00.0L13_APPIPT1.PDF
> 
> ...


That document is a very interesting read, lots of neat bits of info in there or maybe I'm just a automotive geek. Info like 3 quarts of synthetic ATF in the trans-axle and my favorite quote that describes the motor in detail: The motor is a 3‐phase AC internal permanent magnet motor utilizing a six‐pole, high‐frequency design with inverter‐controlled magnetic
flux. So, I'll have a Magnetic Flux controlled Inverter Capacitor thingy....just like back to the future!


----------



## Agon (Jan 8, 2018)

Based on the coefficients (that are calculated by a "coastdown" test) in the document and the formula:

Drag = (speed*A + speed*B^2 + speed*C^3)/375

i tried to calculate drag at different speeds. The difference in percent seems to be almost constant regardless of speed. Does it look right?


----------



## Agon (Jan 8, 2018)

Btw: I guess we cant be sure that the 18 inch profile is in fact WITH the aero cover?


----------



## tracksyde (Apr 20, 2017)

Check out this thread, if you haven't already seen it. @Troy does some calculations as well. There are a couple of other threads on TMC. The one I've been trying to find had a graph of energy consumption/mile vs speed based on the road load hp and coast down measurements. I can't find it (still looking). But from what I recall, as speed increases, the difference between 18s and 19s diminishes.

https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/range-of-the-tesla-model-s-x-3-at-65-70-75-80-mph.5496/


----------



## MichelT3 (Nov 16, 2016)

So


Troy said:


> Check out this video. The consumption was 270 Wh/mi with 18" aero covers on and 282 Wh/mi with 18" wheels aero covers off. That means without the covers, it was (282-270)/270= 4.4% higher.


and
https://teslaownersonline.com/attachments/skærmbillede-2018-01-18-kl-15-26-36-png.5073/
lead to reaffirmation of MY standing conclusion that the difference between 18" with Aeros, 18" without, and 19" is in the order of 4 + 10 = 14 %. Of course there will be differences at different speeds.

If we start with a range of 310 miles (Tesla) or 334 (EPA) for the 18" Aeros (MY assumption), that leads for 19" to a range in the order of 271 miles (Tesla) and 292 miles (EPA). For ME that is more than enough to accept the less nice Aeros.
Even 4.4 % is enough to use Aero's, especially on longer trips and winter drives.
And I will certainly be getting the more comfortable 18" wheels.

Afterthought: Maybe Tesla published 310 as range because it's somewhat of an average between 292 and 334 ??? 
With the average weighed down a bit, on the assumption that more people will choose 19" over 18" Aero?

What your (and my) real life range will be, will of course depend on the way we drive and on our driving conditions.


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

MichelT3 said:


> So
> 
> and
> https://teslaownersonline.com/attachments/skærmbillede-2018-01-18-kl-15-26-36-png.5073/
> ...


So wait, maybe I'm super dumb or slow, but I'm not seeing how that image of the spreadsheet you posted supports the 10% reduction of range from aeros without covers to sport wheels. Mind explaining that a little?


----------



## actong (Aug 27, 2017)

Agon said:


> Btw: I guess we cant be sure that the 18 inch profile is in fact WITH the aero cover?


The aero wheels with covers and the sport wheels are the two configurations that Tesla sells, so I think it makes sense that it would correspond with the two configurations in the document provided to the EPA. Couple that with that comment from a VP of engineering about a 10% difference between the wheels, and I think it's a safe assumption that the 18" configuration is with the aero covers.


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

nikola3 said:


> This recent real road comparison over a short highway distance showed a 4%+ improvement for the Aero covers on vs. covers off. This is just the aero difference for the same 18" wheels. I assume 19" Sport wheels, being heavier to boot, would result in an even greater improvement figure.


Someone beat you the punch up above.  Great video and I would guess that Sport wheels will be slightly worse than 4% range loss, but probably not that much worse. This is me completely throwing out guesses, but I would guess that Sport wheel's design will actually be more efficient than aero without covers, but the weight/size will make it less efficient than the aero without covers. The big question is, will the more aerodynamic design make up for part of the weight/size difference or is there going to be a big hit to range still?


----------



## nikola3 (Aug 29, 2017)

Troy said:


> Check out this video. The consumption was 270 Wh/mi with 18" aero covers on and 282 Wh/mi with 18" wheels aero covers off. That means without the covers, it was (282-270)/270= 4.4% higher.


This demonstrated the improvement from the aero effect alone on the same 18" wheels. I imagine the improvement might be slightly greater over the heavier 19" wheels, but perhaps not much since the weight would be less a factor at constant high speed. Thoughts?


----------



## Troy (Sep 18, 2017)

I didn't want to write in this thread about something else other than actual tests like in the video but probably I should clarify the current situation. @Agon's numbers a few messages ago are same as mine. The data on the EPA document shows 10.7% higher consumption with the 19" wheels compared to 18" at 70 mph. However, it is unclear whether 18" is with or without aero covers. There are two options:

Option 1: The 10.7% difference based on EPA data is between 18" wheels with aero covers and 19" wheels. In this case, the situation looks like this:

104.4% = 18" -aero vs 18" +aero
106.3% = 19" vs 18" -aero
110.7% = 19" vs 18" +aero
Option 2: The 10.7% difference based on EPA data is between 18" wheels without aero covers and 19" wheels. In this case, the situation looks like this:

104.4% = 18" -aero vs 18" +aero
110.7% = 19" vs 18" -aero
115.1% = 19" vs 18" +aero
I don't know which option is correct. We need to wait for somebody to test it.


----------



## gregincal (Sep 30, 2017)

ng0 said:


> yup, you're right, I absolutely don't believe it. Reports so far have stated that the LR version with the sports wheels actually do get 310 miles per charge on the freeway. If what you say is true, then the Aero wheels would get a range of 347.2 miles and even more on side roads. There's no way that could be true. My friend with a model 3 with 18s said the car reported a 314 mile range. I don't know how accurate that is, but that makes a whole lot more sense than 347+ miles.


The car is going to report the same range no matter what wheels you have on. How much range you actually get is another matter.


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

Agon said:


> Btw: I guess we cant be sure that the 18 inch profile is in fact WITH the aero cover?


The pic in the document shows the 18 wheel without the cover but I'm not sure if that pic was taken during the cost down test or not.


----------



## tracksyde (Apr 20, 2017)

Check out this thread on reddit


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252Fteslamotors%252Fcomments%252F7rg5g6%252F

Some insight into the 18" aero design from the (former) head of aerodynamics at Tesla, Robert Palin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-palin-2127ab6/

For the lazy:



> Comment 1: I was the head of aero at Tesla for MS, MX, and M3, and I can confirm that wheel design & size can be the biggest influence of all on the aero efficiency of a road car. The aero, design, and chassis teams put a huge amount of effort into these wheels, and they do really work!
> 
> Comment 2:
> With casting there's a minimum thickness of 10-12mm at the perimeter, making wheels like this obscenely heavy. With the cap approach they're the lightest wheel design Tesla has ever done, & with very low rotational inertia. A lot of effort went into the integration of the cap so that it sits flush at the rim, and not on the outside if it, as on all the other wheel caps you'll see. Having multi-part & multi-material wheels is the best way to satisfy multiple optimization goals. The thought with these wheels that having the latest tech on the latest car would be more appropriate than more traditional rims.
> ...


----------



## Michael Russo (Oct 15, 2016)

ng0 said:


> This is awesome and exactly what I was looking for! Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Now if someone could do an identical video between the 18s and 19s that would be awesome!


Just caught this part of You You's most recent post on his T≡SLA Model 3 Roadtrip Facebook page and trust this will ultimately address that open question! 

Quote
_Also looking to get two Model 3s in the SF Bay Area (one with 18" aero and one with 19" sport wheels) to do a side-by-side range efficiency test. The tests so far have been less than scientific and we want to see exactly what kind of improvement we should expect from the 18" wheels. If you're available to do this, please message us._
Unquote


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

Michael Russo said:


> Just caught this part of You You's most recent post on his T≡SLA Model 3 Roadtrip Facebook page and trust this will ultimately address that open question!
> 
> Quote
> _Also looking to get two Model 3s in the SF Bay Area (one with 18" aero and one with 19" sport wheels) to do a side-by-side range efficiency test. The tests so far have been less than scientific and we want to see exactly what kind of improvement we should expect from the 18" wheels. If you're available to do this, please message us._
> Unquote


yea, I saw that! I'd like to think part of that was because I posted a message on one of his threads about range and wanting a comparison.  I know I'm not the only one curious, but I was so happy to see this! I know if anyone is able to get this to happen it'll be him.


----------



## Tchris (Nov 22, 2017)

Do we know definitively, whether the EPA Rating of 334 was with 18” wheels and the Aero covers? I have never seen anything that clearly states this.


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

@ng0 , you need to amend your poll question to define more precisely what you mean by "range difference".
I assume from the discussions so far, and some of the rudimentary testing vids seen, that we're talking about steady-speed highway driving where the only really significant factor is going to be the aero properties of the wheel (I exclude tire here as both sizes offered use the same width). However as has been noted in this and other threads, the weight will be a far more significant factor in lower speed stop-and-go driving. Based on the data I've seen so far the aero differences between the two sizes/styles offered are much more significant than the weight differences. There will also be some minor variables due to the rolling resistance properties of the two different tires, however as both are LRR designs I don't think that will play a huge factor.
But we need to know which type of range - city, highway, or a mix - we're talking about before we can offer any kind of valid guesses.


----------



## ng0 (Apr 11, 2017)

Mad Hungarian said:


> @ng0 , you need to amend your poll question to define more precisely what you mean by "range difference".
> I assume from the discussions so far, and some of the rudimentary testing vids seen, that we're talking about steady-speed highway driving where the only really significant factor is going to be the aero properties of the wheel (I exclude tire here as both sizes offered use the same width). However as has been noted in this and other threads, the weight will be a far more significant factor in lower speed stop-and-go driving. Based on the data I've seen so far the aero differences between the two sizes/styles offered are much more significant than the weight differences. There will also be some minor variables due to the rolling resistance properties of the two different tires, however as both are LRR designs I don't think that will play a huge factor.
> But we need to know which type of range - city, highway, or a mix - we're talking about before we can offer any kind of valid guesses.


Good point. I can't update the poll, but for anyone confused about this, just assume a mixed/average range. I'm not really sure what that would mean, but I guess some combination of normal freeway/city driving.


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

ng0 said:


> Good point. I can't update the poll, but for anyone confused about this, just assume a mixed/average range. I'm not really sure what that would mean, but I guess some combination of normal freeway/city driving.


Good call, I think that's what most folks should be looking at when deciding how to weight it in their configuration decision.
Maybe one of the mods can fix the title for you?


----------



## Brokedoc (May 28, 2017)

There are numerous variables that will magnify the effect of the aero wheels. Obviously faster speed but smaller variables like colder temperature and lower altitude. Basically anything that increases air density will show more of a benefit from improving aerodynamics.

And low atmospheric density makes aerodynamics less important. That's why the Borg Cube shape is irrelevant in the vacuum of space.


----------



## 3V Pilot (Sep 15, 2017)

Brokedoc said:


> There are numerous variables that will magnify the effect of the aero wheels. Obviously faster speed but smaller variables like colder temperature and lower altitude. Basically anything that increases air density will show more of a benefit from improving aerodynamics.
> 
> And low atmospheric density makes aerodynamics less important. That's why the Borg Cube shape is irrelevant in the vacuum of space.


Borg Cube....LOL, now it all makes sense, that's how Elon got to earth from Mars. Resistance is futile, you will all be assimilated to electric cars!


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Mike Land said:


> Resistance is futile, you will all be assimilated to electric cars!


That's the exact line I use around the office on a daily basis


----------



## JMac (Sep 26, 2017)

Mad Hungarian said:


> That's the exact line I use around the office on a daily basis


Wait... I thought Resistance was Voltage over Current... ?


----------



## Mad Hungarian (May 20, 2016)

Jeff MacDonald said:


> Wait... I thought Resistance was Voltage over Current... ?


----------



## dogfood (Jun 9, 2017)

Jeff MacDonald said:


> Wait... I thought Resistance was Voltage over Current... ?


I thought resistance was futile...


----------



## garsh (Apr 4, 2016)

Jeff MacDonald said:


> Wait... I thought Resistance was Voltage over Current... ?





dogfood said:


> I thought resistance was futile...


----------



## Oregonian (Dec 30, 2017)

garsh said:


>


I saw that skit live and never laughed so hard in my life.


----------

