# Amazing - Inginineerix Model 3 teardown



## KarenRei

I complied the following information from Ingineerix's posts on Reddit and Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwPiVR1Wtwc1cxO0vlvx5rDnHShUuHvXS

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252Fteslamotors%252Fcomments%252F7zyoas%252F


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252Fteslamotors%252Fcomments%252F7y3t8v%252Fmodel_3_teardown_videos_youtube%252Fduexrpf

Model 3 LR:

Wiring:
"Mostly CAN with a touch of Ethernet (including BroadR-Reach single pair)."

Wiring reduced by having 3 body controllers instead of 1

*No fuses* in Model 3. All solid state virtual fuses. You don't actualy blow anything, you just trigger a software shutoff of the power until you reset the "fuse".

Display:
"Connected by a 2 twisted pair system called FPD link III. There is a 4-pin Fakra HSD connector on the ICE (computer) module behind the glovebox area that can be easily accessed"

Suspension:
Top suspension arm FRP, curiously enough.
Massive front stabilizer

MCU/ECU (computers, incl. autopilot):
Liquid cooled by the main glycol loop

Seat heaters:
"Rear seats do indeed have heaters and they are connected. Just no way in the GUI as yet to enable them."

Drive unit:
"The drive unit contains the Inverter, Switched-Reluctance motor, a gear-reduction, and a differential to split the torque between the 2 wheels."

"The RWD has a higher capacity inverter than the AWD. (800A vs 500A) I don't know if there will be a "P" version yet, but maybe that one would retain the 800A in the rear and add a 500A in front."

Front motor:

There's a giant hollow already just waiting for it. "Cavernous space. You could put a small child in here." Note for if you need a smuggling compartment... 

Pack:
" I can tell you the voltage ranges haven't changed too much. BMS considers 100% SoC at 4.2v per cell but the bottom changed slightly; it's now 2.85v/cell for 0% SoC, whereas on S/X it was 2.5v/cell. Note that Tesla advises owners not to charge above 90% daily unless really needed, so that puts the top at around 4.1v/cell. There is also a bottom reserve of 3.5kWh that you can't touch."

4426 2170s, 96S46P arrangement, 4x modules

76kWh actual, 74kWh nominal. Possibly only 72.5 kWh usable due to the 3.5kWh "bottom reserve".

Max regen charge 192A, max discharge 1200A (ed: max discharge equates to 294-482kW / 392-646 max theoretical HP from the pack)
Min bus voltage 245V, max bus voltage 402V
Max regen 46,9kW, max discharge 370kW

Cooling:
Mounted on sizeable rubber gaskets and with a lot of acoustic foam, to keep it quiet.

Weights added to the cooling fan to ensure that it's properly balanced.

12V battery:
45 Ah. Not sealed.

Heat exchanger:
"It's a plate stack type on top of the drive unit. Looks similar to the one I showed in the 1st video where the glycol is chilled by the A/C refrigerant. "

"Yes, and not only that, but if it is super cold and they actually need to add heat (the motor/inverter is super efficient, so not much waste available), they purposely run the inverter in an inefficient mode to generate excessive waste heat to heat the pack. S/X had a ****ty electric battery heater in the glycol loop and these seem to be very unreliable. So on 3 they basically did it with software!"

Build quality and engineering:
"I've taken apart hundreds of cars so far, and I find the 3 to be well put together and a lot of thoughtful engineering throughout. Particularly impressed by the high levels of integration as compared to S/X. Also going to a electric pump and filter on the DU means they want it to last a long time. Really, the only maintenance most owners will need to perform is adding windshield washer fluid and replacing tires. Maybe a 12v battery every 5 years. Brake pads should do 100k unless you do a lot of aggressive stops."

"I think you must be referring to Sandy Munro. He had a lot to say about the fit/finish and went on and on about how the first responders can't get to the cut loop. First off, none of the fit/finish issues exist on recent the cars I've investigated, and secondly, Sandy's focus on the cut loop is silly. In any accident that would need first responders to cut into the car, the HV system has already been totally disabled by the RCM (Airbag Computer). Anything that matters seems to be really good. I welcome more objective analysis though!"

General safety:
"The RCM (Airbag ECU) blows the HV pyrotechnic disconnect in the HV pack as soon as there is an accident. Easy to safe the HV system by unplugging one low-voltage connector."

"The HV system is totally isolated from the chassis, and if the BMS detects that the isolation has been compromised, (due to a short from chassis to any part of the HV system) it will open the contactors."

"The fire vents relieve any pressure inside the hermetic pack enclosure, and if there are any hot gases, the deflectors redirect them to a safe place. There is a cabin filter, but it's inside, so a post filter, not a pre-filter like the S/X have."

"There is a lot of redundancy in critical systems. I've seen it in the BMS, Brakes, Power steering Rack, CAN buses, and Power distribution (no fuses). I haven't had the drive unit apart yet, but I expect it to have some redundancy, or at least built with fault tolerance in mind."

Power steering = 2 separate controllers; one can fail and you still have power steering.

Crash energy absorption structure is unboltable. If the car is in a crash, you can remove it and install a new one.

Automatic water vent if the pack somehow gets flooded.

From another user, about Ingineerix who took the car apart, in comparison to a person who posted a different teardown:
"I don't know what qualified that person to assess the quality of engineering, but I know Ingineerix personally and have never met anyone with a higher level of engineering skill and knowledge."


----------



## KarenRei

The only disappointment is that the pack is a bit smaller than claimed by the EPA. Otherwise... amazing!

Also, unfortunately we won't be seeing a pack teardown anytime soon, at least not on this car, as it's likely to ruin the pack. But he does plan to dig into the drive unit


----------



## garsh

KarenRei said:


> "The drive unit contains the Inverter, Switched-Reluctance motor, a gear-reduction, and a differential to split the torque between the 2 wheels."


Is it a simple open differential? If it is, then I guess traction control uses the brakes.


> "The RWD has a higher capacity inverter than the AWD. (800A vs 500A) I don't know if there will be a "P" version yet, but maybe that one would retain the 800A in the rear and add a 500A in front."


How does he know what the AWD will have???


----------



## garsh

Hmmm, I wonder if this is the same person as Ingineer on mynissanleaf.com.


----------



## KarenRei

garsh said:


> Is it a simple open differential? If it is, then I guess traction control uses the brakes.
> How does he know what the AWD will have???


Specs reported in "factory mode", I presume.

You can ask him about the differential over on reddit.

BTW, nobody's commented about the interesting part yet: _switched reluctance motor_. He wrote a couple posts about this. If he's right about this (I asked him for more information), then this is AFAIK the first switched reluctance motor in the auto industry. Tesla's engineers have talked before about working on it, but I didn't know that they had already gotten there! But that would contradict the claims of it being a PM motor

Ed: found the interview, from last summer

https://chargedevs.com/features/tes...ential-of-next-generation-motor-technologies/

Re-reading it, he's sort of playing coy in response to the question:



> *Charged: There is a lot of talk about switched reluctance machines (SRMs) as a possible next-generation EV traction motor. Do you have any thoughts on SRMs?*
> *KL: *An SRM is a very particular machine. It's very simple to manufacture, but it's difficult to control. It's got some acoustic noise and vibration challenges. With design you can make it a lot better, and you can control it in a way that you mitigate all these problems.
> It is not too bad in torque density, but the constant power is a bit of a challenge to build up, and you need constant power in traction applications. So, again, I'm always hoping to see new ideas and definitely it's attractive to have something that is so robust because it's a very simple rotor construction. It could potentially work for this class of problems.



SRMs are cheap, relatively torque dense, rugged, and very efficient in all operating conditions, without needing rare earths. They can hold a position without extra power input, but can also free wheel. There's no risk of shorting between phases if the insulation wears. Losses are in the stator and thus easy to cool. There's no back EMF like PM motors. Switching is slow (8x per rotation), which means low inverter losses. Etc. But they've been hard to make use of as traction motors for cars because of torque ripple. Easy to build, hard to control. If Tesla has mastered SRMs, that's a big deal.


----------



## garsh

KarenRei said:


> BTW, nobody's commented about the interesting part yet: _switched reluctance motor._


Someone on reddit asked if he's sure about this, but he hasn't replied.


----------



## KarenRei

garsh said:


> Someone on reddit asked if he's sure about this, but he hasn't replied.


That would be me


----------



## 3V Pilot

I really like what he said about the whole Sandy Munro video. It's exactly how I felt and he seems to apply common sense instead of looking for non-issues to complain about like Munro. The more I hear about the way this car was designed and built the more I'm excited about getting one.


----------



## RandyS

garsh said:


> Hmmm, I wonder if this is the same person as Ingineer on mynissanleaf.com.


Yes, it is Phil (Ingineer). One and the same...


----------



## KarenRei

Mike Land said:


> I really like what he said about the whole Sandy Munro video. It's exactly how I felt and he seems to apply common sense instead of looking for non-issues to complain about like Munro. The more I hear about the way this car was designed and built the more I'm excited about getting one.


Munro and Associates tore down that Model 3 on contract for an undisclosed, "not Tesla" client. So, take from that what you will.

I'm not normally one to cast aspersions about peoples' motives, and often caution others about crediting malice to cases that can just be differences of opinion. But you don't get much more of a conflict of interest than that.


----------



## garsh

KarenRei said:


> Munro and Associates tore down that Model 3 on contract for an undisclosed, "not Tesla" client. So, take from that what you will.


Full disclosure: Ingineer is a long-time EV-evangelist, and self-proclaimed "Tesla expert" who sells EVSE accessories. I'm not implying anything - it's just good to know about peoples' motives. I think he did a great job explaining this Model 3 teardown.


----------



## 3V Pilot

KarenRei said:


> Munro and Associates tore down that Model 3 on contract for an undisclosed, "not Tesla" client. So, take from that what you will.
> 
> I'm not normally one to cast aspersions about peoples' motives, and often caution others about crediting malice to cases that can just be differences of opinion. But you don't get much more of a conflict of interest than that.


Not only was that tear down motivated by other auto manufactures it was also painful to see him misrepresenting things that most people don't understand and playing the "expert" on the subject while making up silly nonsense. It's bad enough to have all the wrong info out there from YouTube to reviewers who just don't know what they are talking about but when I see someone who should know what he is talking about make things up, that's even worse. I still see lots of comments and videos that still give out bad info. It amazes me how little most people know and how much they guess. I've been to the Scottsdale showroom twice and both times heard people (and sales reps) giving out wrong information. Last time I was there the sales rep told a customer the 200K tax credit limit applied to each model, not to the total cars a manufacturer sells. Maybe I'm just too anal about wanting to the know the correct info but it bugs me when wrong facts are given out or made up.


----------



## KarenRei

> Full disclosure: Ingineer is a long-time EV-evangelist, and self-proclaimed "Tesla expert" who sells EVSE accessories. I'm not implying anything - it's just good to know about peoples' motives. I think he did a great job explaining this Model 3 teardown.


So long as he's not being paid for by Tesla or a Tesla competitor. I'll of course take any evangelism towards his own products with a grain of salt


----------



## JWardell

Thank you @KarenRei for compiling all the useful information from Reddit. I was trying to follow it this week but there are so many little things buried it gets difficult. I'm sure there's even more useful waiting to be gleaned from the videos as more folks see them.


----------



## mdfraz

Mike Land said:


> Not only was that tear down motivated by other auto manufactures it was also painful to see him misrepresenting things that most people don't understand and playing the "expert" on the subject while making up silly nonsense. It's bad enough to have all the wrong info out there from YouTube to reviewers who just don't know what they are talking about but when I see someone who should know what he is talking about make things up, that's even worse. I still see lots of comments and videos that still give out bad info. It amazes me how little most people know and how much they guess. I've been to the Scottsdale showroom twice and both times heard people (and sales reps) giving out wrong information. Last time I was there the sales rep told a customer the 200K tax credit limit applied to each model, not to the total cars a manufacturer sells. Maybe I'm just too anal about wanting to the know the correct info but it bugs me when wrong facts are given out or made up.


No, you're right to be annoyed. This goes for everything, not just Tesla cars, but when someone claims or purports to be an expert on a topic and gives incorrect information, either intentionally or inadvertently, it is damaging and dangerous.

If Joe Schmo walks into a Tesla showroom and tells his buddy "I've read that Model 3s can fly", that's one thing. If a Tesla sales rep says the same thing, it's a problem. Clearly I'm exaggerating to make the point, and I'm sure it's very difficult to educate every single sales rep in every single showroom, but it's MUCH preferable for a sales rep to say "I'm not sure on that, but I will do research and get back to you" rather than to disseminate inaccurate information to potential customers.


----------



## BluestarE3

KarenRei said:


> Seat heaters:
> "Rear seats do indeed have heaters and they are connected. Just no way in the GUI as yet to enable them."


This should finally put to rest any lingering doubts about whether or not the rear seats have heaters (at least for the PUP version).


----------



## 3V Pilot

So, I'm confused about one detail above (but it's not hard to confuse me...lol). He says the battery pack has "4426 2170s" and all other info I've seen the number is 4416. Here is the detailed article from Electrek: https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/tesla-model-3-exclusive-battery-pack-architecture/

Not that a difference of 10 cells means anything. I'm just wondering why the discrepancy and who has the more accurate data.


----------



## Frank99

96s46p - means there are 46 cells tied together in parallel, and then 96 of those groups in series. So the total number of cells is 96*46=4416. It's a simple typo in his response.


----------



## Bokonon

Quasi-informed (but mostly fun) speculation time!

I hopped over to the carspecs.us 0-to-60 calculator and entered 370 kW, 4045 lbs*, AWD and dual-clutch transmission**.

* 4045 lbs = 3814 RWD curb weight + 80% of the weight difference between a Model S85 and P85D
** To minimize transmission/shifting losses

It came back with a 0-to-60 of *3.6s*, which sounds about right for a non-Ludicrous Performance trim.

For Ludicrous Performance (i.e. sub *3.0s*), you'd need at least 480 kW according to this calculator and set of assumptions. That's right at the pack's theoretical maximum discharge rate, which doesn't seem likely in a real-world application. (This isn't too surprising given that this calculator significantly underestimates the performance of the P85D, P90D, and P100D.)

For non-Performance AWD, I entered 295 kW***, 3956 lbs (3814 + 80% of the weight difference between Model S85 and S85D), AWD and dual-clutch. Result: *4.25s*.

*** 295 kW = 236 kW (number I had to enter**** to get 5.1s with RWD, 3814 lbs, and DCT) * 125% (= 2 * 500A inverter / 800A inverter)
**** Yes, I am completely ignoring the 202 kW (271 HP) listed in Tesla's EPA filings.

Again, don't mistake this post as an exercise in scientific rigor just because it contains numbers.


----------



## Maevra

HA! Heated rear seats confirmed!!! *pops confetti* 

(Sorry, everything else got blurry after I read that bit). Re-reading now with calmer mindset.


----------



## Maevra

mdfraz said:


> No, you're right to be annoyed. This goes for everything, not just Tesla cars, but when someone claims or purports to be an expert on a topic and gives incorrect information, either intentionally or inadvertently, it is damaging and dangerous.
> 
> If Joe Schmo walks into a Tesla showroom and tells his buddy "I've read that Model 3s can fly", that's one thing. If a Tesla sales rep says the same thing, it's a problem. Clearly I'm exaggerating to make the point, and I'm sure it's very difficult to educate every single sales rep in every single showroom, but it's MUCH preferable for a sales rep to say "I'm not sure on that, but I will do research and get back to you" rather than to disseminate inaccurate information to potential customers.


Sadly I'm not surprised that sales reps or other Tesla folk *not* 100% in the know give out such info. I've had reps tell me something I know 100000% to be inaccurate but they believe it's true because "that's what they were told."

Guess it's like a big game of Telephone. Someone in the know says something and someone else gets a tiny detail wrong or embellishes and on it goes. Agree it's much better such folk say "I don't know". Leave the SWAG (scientific wild ass guesses) to us fans.


----------



## KarenRei

Bokonon said:


> It came back with a 0-to-60 of *3.6s*, which sounds about right for a non-Ludicrous Performance trim.
> 
> For Ludicrous Performance (i.e. sub *3.0s*), you'd need at least 480 kW according to this calculator and set of assumptions.


Indeed. That said, if the pack truly can support 1200A, then they should be able to modify it to handle higher max powers by upgrading the wiring. That's nearly 500kW max battery power at high SoCs.

The more I see this, the more I think that the next generation Model S and X will just be built on an elongated 3 chassis (making room for an elongated, aka larger and more powerful, battery pack in the process). Seriously, this design is a thing of beauty.


----------



## KarenRei

Ed: found another comment from Ingineerix that explains the contradiction in info about the motor:

"Tesla calls it a PMSRM, Permanent Magnet Switched Reluctance Motor. It's a new type, and very hard to get right, but Tesla did it! More information: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6180757/" [mod edit: fixed link]

Permanent magnets in the _stator, _enhancing the field (and torque density).

He also wrote:

"It's actually a permanent magnet switched reluctance motor. It has the highest efficiency of anything ever put in a production car. It's also a unit, the inverter is integrated, so DC goes in one side and kinetic energy comes out the other. Nobody else has figured out how to get a PMSRM to work smoothly and efficiently like this. It's not easy!"

I still want to know more about his info sources, of course. But this is great stuff


----------



## Frank99

Karen -
Quick fix to your link:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6180757/

By the way, great information in that link!


----------



## KarenRei

Interesting about the blue marks that you can see in the videos:

"Those are called "witness marks" and you see that anytime something is assembled in aerospace industries, but not very often in the automotive world. It usually means the torque specification was double checked."


----------



## BluestarE3

KarenRei said:


> Interesting about the blue marks that you can see in the videos:
> 
> "Those are called "witness marks" and you see that anytime something is assembled in aerospace industries, but not very often in the automotive world. It usually means the torque specification was double checked."


Some synergy from Space X perhaps?


----------



## KarenRei

BluestarE3 said:


> Some synergy from Space X perhaps?


Wouldn't be surprised in the least. Tesla and SpaceX frequently exchange engineering talent and advice.


----------



## 3V Pilot

KarenRei said:


> Ed: found another comment from Ingineerix that explains the contradiction in info about the motor:
> 
> "Tesla calls it a PMSRM, Permanent Magnet Switched Reluctance Motor. It's a new type, and very hard to get right, but Tesla did it! More information: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6180757/" [mod edit: fixed link]
> 
> Permanent magnets in the _stator, _enhancing the field (and torque density).
> 
> He also wrote:
> 
> "It's actually a permanent magnet switched reluctance motor. It has the highest efficiency of anything ever put in a production car. It's also a unit, the inverter is integrated, so DC goes in one side and kinetic energy comes out the other. Nobody else has figured out how to get a PMSRM to work smoothly and efficiently like this. It's not easy!"
> 
> I still want to know more about his info sources, of course. But this is great stuff


Didn't think I could be more amazed about the tech in this car.....well, I was wrong about that. It's so cool finding out this kind of info and makes me even more of a die-hard Tesla Fanatic!


----------



## 3V Pilot

KarenRei said:


> Interesting about the blue marks that you can see in the videos:
> 
> "Those are called "witness marks" and you see that anytime something is assembled in aerospace industries, but not very often in the automotive world. It usually means the torque specification was double checked."


What video? I don't see one in that link. We use witness marks in aviation as well, they not only tell you the appropriate torque was used but serve as an indicator if something starts to slip afterwards. Helicopters have lots of moving parts and lots of witness marks to pre-flight. I love the fact they are using aerospace techniques to build this car.


----------



## BluestarE3

Mike Land said:


> What video? I don't see one in that link. We use witness marks in aviation as well, they not only tell you the appropriate torque was used but serve as an indicator if something starts to slip afterwards. Helicopters have lots of moving parts and lots of witness marks to pre-flight. I love the fact they are using aerospace techniques to build this car.


I believe it's in the third video ("The Dark Side") of the You Tube link Karen provided in the OP of this thread.


----------



## BluestarE3

KarenRei said:


> "It's actually a permanent magnet switched reluctance motor. It has the highest efficiency of anything ever put in a production car. It's also a unit, the inverter is integrated, so DC goes in one side and kinetic energy comes out the other. Nobody else has figured out how to get a PMSRM to work smoothly and efficiently like this. It's not easy!"
> 
> I still want to know more about his info sources, of course. But this is great stuff


Something tells me he knows an engineer inside Tesla who would be privy to this sort esoteric information.


----------



## BluestarE3

Mike Land said:


> Didn't think I could be more amazed about the tech in this car.....well, I was wrong about that. It's so cool finding out this kind of info and makes me even more of a die-hard Tesla Fanatic!


Exactly. If it were just a matter of getting a long-range affordable EV, I could just get a Chevy Bolt and call it a day. It's no wonder the Germans were impressed when they tore a Model 3 apart.


----------



## 3V Pilot

BluestarE3 said:


> I believe it's in the third video ("The Dark Side") of the You Tube link Karen provided in the OP of this thread.


Yes, in that video you can see lot witness marks on suspension components and such, I thought the above comment was in reference to the motor. Would love to see a video of someone tearing the motor apart, guess I got too excited thinking that was what she meant.


----------



## roflwaffle

KarenRei said:


> The only disappointment is that the pack is a bit smaller than claimed by the EPA. Otherwise... amazing!
> 
> Also, unfortunately we won't be seeing a pack teardown anytime soon, at least not on this car, as it's likely to ruin the pack. But he does plan to dig into the drive unit


I don't think the pack being listed at 76kWh nominal and being able to discharge 78+kWh are exclusive. Lithium battery capacity is a function of temperature, so a cooler pack would have less energy available to use than a warmer pack.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6756/ff155ea5477dc075a0ad79deac21bc587369.pdf

On the nitpicky side of things, Tesla ran the test they submitted to the EPA, so if they say their car has a 76kWh pack and they also said it discharged 78+kWh on the EPA testing they did, I belive 'em.


----------



## Brokedoc

With the tear downs posted so far, I'm surprised there has been no mention of rear tow hitch mount points. The front motor mounts points are pointed out in a few videos already. Can anyone ask *Inginineerix *if they saw any unused bolt holes in the rear chassis?


----------



## Love

Brokedoc said:


> With the tear downs posted so far, I'm surprised there has been no mention of rear tow hitch mount points. The front motor mounts points are pointed out in a few videos already. Can anyone ask *Inginineerix *if they saw any unused bolt holes in the rear chassis?


What are you planning doc?


----------



## Dr. J

BluestarE3 said:


> Something tells me he knows an engineer inside Tesla who would be privy to this sort esoteric information.


Why do we believe this guy? Just askin'.....The videos are quite informative, but my impression was all this inside baseball stuff was in Q&A in Reddit. What's the supporting evidence?


----------



## Brokedoc

Lovesword said:


> What are you planning doc?
> View attachment 5979


Just for the occasional light duty tow...


----------



## 3V Pilot

Brokedoc said:


> Just for the occasional light duty tow...
> View attachment 5980


That's not a car towing a plane.....It's Porsche's new "Performance Upgrade Package"


----------



## Love

Brokedoc said:


> Just for the occasional light duty tow...
> View attachment 5980







Edit: I really need to add something on topic here... um... yeah I got nothing.


----------



## Niloch

Brokedoc said:


> With the tear downs posted so far, I'm surprised there has been no mention of rear tow hitch mount points. The front motor mounts points are pointed out in a few videos already. Can anyone ask *Inginineerix *if they saw any unused bolt holes in the rear chassis?


It was asked in the YouTube comments and he replied that it wasn't a priority for him to examine that right now... I too would have at least liked to see a pic of the the undercarriage at the rear end. I don't plan on towing but look forward to having a tow-hitch bike rack.


----------



## KarenRei

Dr. J said:


> Why do we believe this guy? Just askin'.....The videos are quite informative, but my impression was all this inside baseball stuff was in Q&A in Reddit. What's the supporting evidence?


He's long been tearing down Teslas (he makes and sells EV accessories), and posted screenshots of factory mode as well. You can also see comments from others in the thread - e.g.:

(In a topic about Sandy Munro, another user wrote) 


> I don't know what qualified that person to assess the quality of engineering, but I know Ingineerix personally and have never met anyone with a higher level of engineering skill and knowledge.


You can physically see most of what he talks about in the Q/A in the videos. E.g. you don't need to take his word for it that there's an oil filter and pump, you can physically see them. The only thing I don't know how he confirmed it is the PMSRM drive unit.


----------



## Frank99

>>> The only thing I don't know how he confirmed it is the PMSRM drive unit.
Agree - and it's the thing I'm most interested in knowing...


----------



## Dr. J

KarenRei said:


> He's long been tearing down Teslas (he makes and sells EV accessories), and posted screenshots of factory mode as well. You can also see comments from others in the thread - e.g.:
> 
> (In a topic about Sandy Munro, another user wrote)
> 
> You can physically see most of what he talks about in the Q/A in the videos. E.g. you don't need to take his word for it that there's an oil filter and pump, you can physically see them. The only thing I don't know how he confirmed it is the PMSRM drive unit.


But what about the measurement of the battery pack? Should we believe him over EPA? Or is there an explanation for the discrepancy, which my faulty memory recalls as 80.x total (vs. 78'ish) and 78'ish usable (vs. something?).


----------



## CoastalCruiser

Ah. A real forum! I normally hang out on the Tesla forums (don't know why exactly). But coming here is like ceasing to beat your head against the wall. ;>

This discussion speculating on the use of a Switch reluctance motor in the Model 3 is the best thread I've seen on the topic. I am one of the persons engaging Ingineerix in his dark side video (Steve Bakker). He has not responded to my offline inquires either (can't blame him at all).

I have written on the Tesla Induction motor here. Trying to put together an article on the Model 3 motor, but would like to get a second source on the reluctance motor theory. I can say that in researching the reluctance motor the past couple of days it tends to fit well into the other evidence seen (like contracts with Chinese suppliers of rare earths, in order to mitigate the Achilles Heal of reluctance machines), as well as a logical choice to achieve Tesla's design goals for the 3 (including double-duty as a heater for the battery).

It appears Toyota has used a version of the reluctance machine for sometime. It does not appear to be a switched design though. But it does use PMs.

UPS has announced an upcoming electric delivery truck will use a reluctance motor. How about that Mr. Fong!

I hope this thread continues!


----------



## c2c

KarenRei said:


> "witness marks" and you see that anytime something is assembled in aerospace industries, but not very often in the automotive world. It usually means the torque specification was double checked."


I thought the Model 3 was assembled by robots. Does that mean one robot is checking up on another robot?

Just joking.


----------



## CoastalCruiser

Like this?


----------



## roflwaffle

Dr. J said:


> But what about the measurement of the battery pack? Should we believe him over EPA? Or is there an explanation for the discrepancy, which my faulty memory recalls as 80.x total (vs. 78'ish) and 78'ish usable (vs. something?).


The EPA data is just the data Tesla submitted to the EPA. Tesla did the testing, not the EPA. Tesla can rate their own pack at 76kWh or whatever they want within reason, and also use 78+kWh driving the car to nothing with a 2+ kWh buffer. Lithium ion battery capacity is a function of temperature, so the pack's capacity varies based it's temperature.


----------



## JWardell

You know, I started thinking a few days ago that Tesla may have made some Frankenstein PM and SR motor after reading up on some technical SRM stuff. I don't see how imagineerix could know unless they literally tore the motor open with a chance of destroying it, but it is right up Tesla's alley to innovate with another one of its "why didn't I think of that" simple but brilliant solutions.

There were concerns that using PM instead of induction would put too much requirements for magnetic sources. But maybe making a PM/SRM hybrid allows for smaller magnets? And maybe the magnets smooth out the current noise that is the fundamental issue for SRM? I'm not a smart enough electrical engineer to know, but I can see that working. Especially when they have the unique ability to build the inverter around the motor and reduce paths of large current and noise.

I never bought the argument that they went PM just because it was slightly cheaper over induction. Especially once they put it in the Semi. Using the 3 motors in there means there is something super special about it, and I bet this is it.

Hopefully they do get a full teardown and analysis by the engineering industry as a whole, and it pushes innovation of motors everywhere. Tesla tends to have that effect!


----------



## Dr. J

roflwaffle said:


> The EPA data is just the data Tesla submitted to the EPA. Tesla did the testing, not the EPA. Tesla can rate their own pack at 76kWh or whatever they want within reason, and also use 78+kWh driving the car to nothing with a 2+ kWh buffer. Lithium ion battery capacity is a function of temperature, so the pack's capacity varies based it's temperature.


https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...sla-has-created-a-monster.95652/#post-2237905
Post #1, post #5.


----------



## roflwaffle

Dr. J said:


> https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...sla-has-created-a-monster.95652/#post-2237905
> Post #1, post #5.


I know, that's my thread. Manufacturers submit their certification data sets and any required supporting material to the EPA after they've tested their vehicles.



EPA said:


> *STEP 6: Submit the completed certification and/or fuel economy application materials in EV-CIS.*
> 
> Login to EV-CIS through the CDX portal: Central Data Exchange (CDX)
> Click the applicable industry role on the MyCDX homepage.
> 
> For more about roles, see: Information about "MyCDX" roles in EV-CIS
> Submit the completed certification and/or fuel economy dataset(s) and upload any required supporting materials.


https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-eng...-economy-light-duty-passenger-cars-and-trucks

The EPA has tested emissions/mileage in the past to make sure manufacturers weren't cheating, but the last I heard, the Tanchurian Candidate was going to effectively shut down the EPA's ability to do any testing by cutting out virtually all of it's vehicle testing budget.



> It represents a 99 percent federal cut to the vehicle testing budget and would require "pretty much shutting down the testing lab," said Margo Oge, who headed the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality under President Barack Obama.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-environment-idUSKBN1762R4


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> I never bought the argument that they went PM just because it was slightly cheaper over induction.


I don't think I ever heard that as a reason. Induction motors tend to be the least expensive due to the simplicity.

I heard they switched to PM motors because they're smaller & lighter than induction motors, and a bit more efficient.


----------



## KarenRei

Best description I've seen of the development and workings of a PMSRM:

https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitst...438_LOBO_NS_D_2011.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

If you already know the basics of a SRM and don't care about the history, skip first to the E-core SRM variant (starts end of page 15), then the PMSRM (which they call a DSPMSRM, DS = Doubly Salient) on page 49.


----------



## CoastalCruiser

Wow. That vtechworks link appears to be a great find. Will read later today, but it will be interesting to see if the paper points out what I finally realized after reading a dozen other descriptions of the reluctance motor lately that all those papers assume, without specifically noting: namely, one thing that makes the reluctance motor simple and cheap is the fact that it appears to work on the basis of only ONE magnetic field.

A conventional permanent magnet motor uses two magnetic fields interacting with each other between the fixed and rotating parts of the motor. An induction motor uses two magnetic fields interacting with each other. Now whether you create each of those two magnetic fields with permanent magnets, or *spend the power* to create an electromagnet or induce an opposing magnetic field .... it is still TWO magnetic fields.

As best I can tell the reluctance machine uses one field (permanent magnets or electromagnets in the stator), and simply uses a ferrous material in the rotor that the magnetic field pulls on (steel seems to be cited most often as the ferrous material).

So there's no push-pull relationship with reluctance machines, as there is with the aforementioned designs we may be more used to. It is simply a pull relationship. The steel rotor is always being pulled toward the area of least resistance, or rather least _reluctance_ of the stator... which is toward the energized magnetic fields surrounding the stator.

Now of course with Tesla they seem to have gone all Frankenstein and created a hybrid reluctance motor containing both electromagnets (that's the "switched" part) as well as rare earth magnets (to smooth out the torque). But it's likely still one overall magnetic field (turning on/off in sequence) generated from the stator. And this is where cost savings may come in; Tesla may have been able to dump the expensive and hard to cast pure copper rotor in exchange for a simple steel rotor with raised surfaces to form the (claimed) 6 poles. As to whether that offsets the cost of the rare earths, who knows?

JWardell was commenting how he never bought that the PM motor swap was due to lower the cost of the motor. For me the PM switch did not make sense because the Model 3 cannot do regen to 0MPH (I've asked several owners). When the GM Bolt EV came out with a PM motor and did regen to 0MPH (I have test driven the car), and then suddenly the Model 3 is rumored to have a PM motor, I figured it was to compete with that feature.

But no. Because I think JWardell is correct in his assumption they are using smaller magnets. And, the magnets are not on the rotor, as with a conventional PM motor. They are likely scattered around the stator in between the electromagnets.

Am I making sense?


----------



## 3V Pilot

CoastalCruiser said:


> Wow. That vtechworks link appears to be a great find. Will read later today, but it will be interesting to see if the paper points out what I finally realized after reading a dozen other descriptions of the reluctance motor lately that all those papers assume, without specifically noting: namely, one thing that makes the reluctance motor simple and cheap is the fact that it appears to work on the basis of only ONE magnetic field.
> 
> A conventional permanent magnet motor uses two magnetic fields interacting with each other between the fixed and rotating parts of the motor. An induction motor uses two magnetic fields interacting with each other. Now whether you create each of those two magnetic fields with permanent magnets, or *spend the power* to create an electromagnet or induce an opposing magnetic field .... it is still TWO magnetic fields.
> 
> As best I can tell the reluctance machine uses one field (permanent magnets or electromagnets in the stator), and simply uses a ferrous material in the rotor that the magnetic field pulls on (steel seems to be cited most often as the ferrous material).
> 
> So there's no push-pull relationship with reluctance machines, as there is with the aforementioned designs we may be more used to. It is simply a pull relationship. The steel rotor is always being pulled toward the area of least resistance, or rather least _reluctance_ of the stator... which is toward the magnetic fields surrounding the stator.
> 
> Now of course with Tesla they seem to have gone all Frankenstein and created a hybrid reluctance motor containing both electromagnets (that's the "switched" part) as well as rare earth magnets (to smooth out the torque). But it's likely still one magnetic field being generated from the stator. And this is where cost savings may come in; Tesla may have been able to dump the expensive and hard to cast pure copper rotor in exchange for a simple steel rotor with raised surfaces to form the 6 poles. As to whether that offsets the cost of the rare earths, who knows?
> 
> JWardell was commenting how he never bought that the PM motor switch was due to lower the cost of the motor. For me the PM switch did not make sense because the Model 3 cannot do regen to 0MPH (I've asked several owners). When the GM Bolt EV came out with a PM motor and did regen to 0MPH (I have test driven the car), and then suddenly the Model 3 is rumored to have a PM motor, I figured it was to compete with that feature.
> 
> But no. Because I think JWardell is correct in his assumption they are using smaller magnets. And, the magnets are not on the rotor, as with a conventional PM motor. They are likely scattered around the stator in between the electromagnets.
> 
> Am I making sense?


Not only did that make great sense but thank you for explaining in laymen terms some of what is going on. I was going to attempt to read the whole document @KarenRei posted and see if I could decipher any of it but I think you've saved me the trouble. Your explanation was great and even if it's a partial guess it still gives me all the info I wanted in an easy to understand and short post.

I hope this thread continues with more info and can't wait until someone does get a chance to tear into one of these motors to see exactly what is going on in there. Gotta love the Tesla Secret Sauce.......just can't get enough of this stuff!


----------



## JWardell

I'm so wishing I had more education and experience with electric motors right now...but I'm convinced that something is very special here, and I'm dying for a Model 3 motor teardown!


----------



## Oregonian

I just came to say that this thread is awesome.


----------



## CoastalCruiser

Oh man. That is one creepy avatar you've got there Oregonian. Nice job. Twilight Zone or Outer Limits?


----------



## CoastalCruiser

@KarenRei. Hello. I'm going through the document you posted. Thank you again for posting. The author is sort of talking to other electrical engineers, which I am not. I get the impression you have a background in engineering and/or the sciences?? Do you have an impression on the Double Salient Permanent Magnet Switched Reluctance Motor described in Chapter 3 as to whether Tesla may or may not have been likely to have use a salient design (or DS) as opposed to just a PMSRM? It seems integral to the design, but the paper refers to non-salient version. According to below link salient designs are limited on max RPM, whereas non-salient designs can spin up much higher RPMs.

Any thoughts?

http://www.electricaleasy.com/2014/03/salient-pole-rotor-vs-non-salient-pole.html


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> I'm so wishing I had more education and experience with electric motors right now...but I'm convinced that something is very special here, and I'm dying for a Model 3 motor teardown!


<getoffmylawn>
In the early 90's, I was an Electrical Engineering Intern at General Electric, working on diesel-electric locomotives. They all used DC motors with commutators (ie brushes) back then, which would spark & wear out. But power electronics were just starting to enter production that would allow the creation of variable-frequency alternating currents that could be used to operate AC induction motors. So during that time, I was able to work on the next-generation of locomotives that would use AC induction motors. It was pretty exciting stuff.

But I've been a programmer for the last 22 years, so I've forgotten most of my working knowledge about motors. 
</getoffmylawn>


----------



## Oregonian

CoastalCruiser said:


> Oh man. That is one creepy avatar you've got there Oregonian. Nice job. Twilight Zone or Outer Limits?


It's from the Twilight Zone. btw, the bluray quality is out of this world, I can't believe the level of detail from something 59 years old. HIGHLY recommended.


----------



## JWardell

garsh said:


> <getoffmylawn>
> In the early 90's, I was an Electrical Engineering Intern at General Electric, working on diesel-electric locomotives. They all used DC motors with commutators (ie brushes) back then, which would spark & wear out. But power electronics were just starting to enter production that would allow the creation of variable-frequency alternating currents that could be used to operate AC induction motors. So during that time, I was able to work on the next-generation of locomotives that would use AC induction motors. It was pretty exciting stuff.
> 
> But I've been a programmer for the last 22 years, so I've forgotten most of my working knowledge about motors.
> </getoffmylawn>


At least I spent some years making DC motor controllers, but that was relatively simpler, even the unusual separately excited ones.
However my new job should have me knee deep in PMAC motors and inverters and hopefully gain a lot more knowledge over the next year.
This stuff has all been around for many decades, but only recently have processing, high switching speeds, and miniaturization of power really come together to make many of these designs become viable for new purposes.


----------



## CoastalCruiser

In poking around around for Model 3 motor info I stumbled onto some news about how Toyota has developed a magnet requiring far less rare-earth materials. This may well have implications for all EV producers.

http://www.magnetnrg.com/news1/

--------------
By the way, if you'd like to have a look at the motor that Tesla's chief motor designer, Konstantinos Laskaris, worked on for an efficient electric car before coming to Tesla to develop the Model 3 motor here is a video animation. (see if you can spot what's really weird about this motor compared to most EV motors)


----------



## joehuber

Coastal, Great video.... so share with us the really weird part.... it all looks pretty interesting...


----------



## CoastalCruiser

(Haven't figured out how to get emails from a post I am following, even though the boxes are ticked)



joehuber said:


> Coastal, Great video.... so share with us the really weird part.... it all looks pretty interesting...


So what was weird for me is that the stator and rotor are reversed. The "car" they built uses a sort of bicycle type wheel as the drive wheel. They mounted the motor to the hub of the wheel. The stator is _inside_, mounted to the fixed part of the axle. The rotor rotates _outside_, spinning the wheel/tire. Direct drive.

By the way, in viewing the video again just now I saw the part about using "unequal teeth" on the stator to save weight. This provides yet another reason why it will be interesting to see inside the Model 3 motor. ;>


----------



## CoastalCruiser

KarenRei said:


> BTW, nobody's commented about the interesting part yet: _switched reluctance motor_. He wrote a couple posts about this. If he's right about this (I asked him for more information), then this is AFAIK the first switched reluctance motor in the auto industry. Tesla's engineers have talked before about working on it, but I didn't know that they had already gotten there! But that would contradict the claims of it being a PM motor


Karen, you may have picked this up since posting this, but it appears the both the Prius and the BMW i3 are already using some form of reluctance motor. The BMW patent indicates PMs, not sure about the Prius.


----------



## joehuber

CoastalCruiser said:


> (Haven't figured out how to get emails from a post I am following, even though the boxes are ticked)
> 
> So what was weird for me is that the stator and rotor are reversed. The "car" they built uses a sort of bicycle type wheel as the drive wheel. They mounted the motor to the hub of the wheel. The stator is _inside_, mounted to the fixed part of the axle. The rotor rotates _outside_, spinning the wheel/tire. Direct drive.
> 
> By the way, in viewing the video again just now I saw the part about using "unequal teeth" on the stator to save weight. This provides yet another reason why it will be interesting to see inside the Model 3 motor. ;>


Yes, I noticed that too about half way through just after they talked about the bearings and I realized which part was going to rotate. That's basically a "hub motor" where the outside rotates around a stationary and fixed mounted core.


----------



## CoastalCruiser

Right. Nothing new for anyone familiar with electrified bicycles I guess. But it was new to me. ;>


----------



## KarenRei

CoastalCruiser said:


> Karen, you may have picked this up since posting this, but it appears the both the Prius and the BMW i3 are already using some form of reluctance motor. The BMW patent indicates PMs, not sure about the Prius.


Those are IPMs.


----------



## CoastalCruiser

KarenRei said:


> Those are IPMs.


Ah, yes. You are of course correct. IPM as in *Interior Permanent Magnet* motor. As opposed to SPM or *Surface mounted Permanent Magnet *motor (not to be confused with Shaded Pole Motor).

I spent some more time looking at the BMW motor patent, and the drawings and references refer to a "buried magnetic layer". Indeed, the BMW design seems to have the magnets buried in the *rotor*, not attached to the *stator*.

So the BMW motor [my conjecture] seems to be more of a hybrid version of a BLDC (BrushLess DC motor), wherein both *magnetic torque* as well as *reluctance torque* are in play. A PM motor with reluctance characteristics. (?)

Whereas what is being termed the SRM (Switched Reluctance Motor) -which _may_ be what the Model 3 motor is- is devoid of magnets on the rotor, thus relying on reluctance torque exclusively. And with the magnets in the stator serving only/primarily (?) there to smooth torque.

I'm seeing now that one must step very carefully through the minefield of electric motor acronym-mania. For example the IPM is presumed to be of a "switched" design as well, -even though it is not named such- as it seems to have electromagnets in the stator that are switched in sequence. Only certain attributes seem to make it into the motor's name. Furthermore, as I look through some of the general reference material on modern motor designs, including some EV based articles drawing from the literature (including my own recent one) there are discrepancies in the defined use of certain terminology.

I am realizing now that if the Model 3 does indeed have a reluctance machine, then if the public had trouble understanding what the legacy induction motor was, they are in for a world of hurt trying to fathom the reluctance motor. Ha ha.


----------



## Rich M

I'm so glad work has been proceeding on the crudely conceived idea of an instrument that would not only provide inverse reactive current, for use in unilateral phase detractors but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. 
Now basically, the only new principal involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes its produced by the modial interaction of magneto reluctance, and capacitive duractance. The original Machine had a base plate of prefamulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two sperving bearings run a direct line with the panametric fam.
The lineup consists simply of six hydrocoptic marzel vanes so fitted to the ambiphasient lunar wang shaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotazode deltoid type placed in panendermic simi-boloid slots of the stator. Every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversable tremi pipe to the differential gurdel spring on the up end of the grammeters. Moreover, whenever fluorescent score motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciperocation dingle arm to reduce sinusoil depleneration.


----------



## CoastalCruiser

Well said.

(btw - never turn your back on those unilateral phase detractors)


----------



## Oregonian

Rich M said:


> I'm so glad work has been proceeding on the crudely conceived idea of an instrument that would not only provide inverse reactive current, for use in unilateral phase detractors but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters.
> Now basically, the only new principal involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes its produced by the modial interaction of magneto reluctance, and capacitive duractance. The original Machine had a base plate of prefamulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two sperving bearings run a direct line with the panametric fam.
> The lineup consists simply of six hydrocoptic marzel vanes so fitted to the ambiphasient lunar wang shaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotazode deltoid type placed in panendermic simi-boloid slots of the stator. Every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversable tremi pipe to the differential gurdel spring on the up end of the grammeters. Moreover, whenever fluorescent score motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciperocation dingle arm to reduce sinusoil depleneration.


----------



## Brokedoc

You motor geeks are WAAAY over my head. I saw that Tesla has a new design for sale that I'm sure several of you will want to buy. "Induction Motor" T shirt. I'm sure they will come out with a "Switched Reluctance" T-shirt if enough engineer geeks have seizures about the lack of the new motor design.

https://shop.tesla.com/us/en/product/apparel/men_s-induction-motor-t-shirt.html?sku=7527820-00-A
















Personally, I'm a stupid humor kind of T-shirt guy so I like this new design better but I wish it said "LUDICROUS":


----------



## Bokonon

Brokedoc said:


> Personally, I'm a stupid humor kind of T-shirt guy so I like this new design better but I wish it said "LUDICROUS":
> View attachment 6422


I've always liked this one. Too bad it doesn't come in adult sizes...


----------



## KarenRei

I really like that first one. It reminds me of galdrastafir (sigils used in Icelandic magic). For example, Ægishjálmur, a symbol for warding away all evils:










They're really popular here even to this day... tattoos... jewelry... even in music videos:






When the underflooring of my house is cemented, I plan to have a massive (room-sized), blood-red *inverted* Ægishjálmur painted onto it (aka, trapping evil _in_), ram's skull in the centre, with the following Old Icelandic written in runes around the whole symbol: "Allr mega koma / Engi má fara" (All may come / None may leave). And then pave over it all with the flooring. 

Should be a fun surprise for the next owner of the house long after I'm dead whenever they decide that the floor needs replacing


----------



## AO - Pete

This might be a somewhat dumb question on a really smart thread, but if there's no fuses, how does one 'reset' the fuse? Does it always need a visit to Tesla, or is it just a reboot of the screen?


----------



## Rich M

pete8314 said:


> This might be a somewhat dumb question on a really smart thread, but if there's no fuses, how does one 'reset' the fuse? Does it always need a visit to Tesla, or is it just a reboot of the screen?


The usual way to reset a resettable fuse is to disconnect the load or power down the circuit entirely, wait a few seconds and reconnect it (hopefully having fixed whatever was causing the overcurrent condition).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resettable_fuse

If it's something that keeps tripping the fuse, I'm sure it will require a trip to Tesla. I don't think there are any wiring diagrams available to us plebs yet.


----------



## TEG

By the way, I have met Ingineer a few times. He gets around. He gets a lot of knowledge from tearing things apart and studying them. He also knows people and probably "hears stuff" so I don't know what all sources he uses to become expert on all this, but he is just so curious he can't stop trying to understand everything. He is also enthusiastic about sharing information, so I would take that as the main reason why he studies and reports about this stuff.

He has done some business in the EV space, like added range battery packs for Prius, and upgrades to charging equipment, but I don't think he competes with Tesla in any way, and I don't think he works for anyone competing with them. Sort of an interesting free-lance loose cannon of sorts.

I suspect his individuality keeps him doing his own small business operations rather than taking a job "in the rat race" at one of these big companies.

Also, his info sharing is great for the rest of us, but the big guys might grit their teeth a bit about making this all public.

I am sure Tesla's real potential competitors (if there really is such a thing!) have already obtained Model 3s, and picked them apart by themselves, and know all of these things already, but they don't post their results publicly. Ingineer just likes to share !


----------



## AO - Pete

Rich M said:


> The usual way to reset a resettable fuse is to disconnect the load or power down the circuit entirely, wait a few seconds and reconnect it (hopefully having fixed whatever was causing the overcurrent condition).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resettable_fuse
> 
> If it's something that keeps tripping the fuse, I'm sure it will require a trip to Tesla. I don't think there are any wiring diagrams available to us plebs yet.


Thanks, I think you're right, although a Tesla engineer I spoke to thought they're meant to be self-resetting, once the offending load has been removed. So far, that's not proved to be the case (and rebooting doesn't resolve), but I find it difficult to believe Tesla require the main 12V battery to be disconnected each time to reset things; seems like that would place a large burden on the service centers/rangers as the fleet expands. I'm wondering if there's a 'factory reboot', that not known about yet.


----------



## Guest

pete8314 said:


> This might be a somewhat dumb question on a really smart thread, but if there's no fuses, how does one 'reset' the fuse? Does it always need a visit to Tesla, or is it just a reboot of the screen?


No fuse actually means no fuse. But what Tesla meant by that (likely) is that there are no small fuses to blow. What happens in case of overload is that current is interrupted by transistor. That same transistor that switches the device on and off. This has been a practice for high-end vehicles like BMW's for 2 decades for some parts (more and more lately). I've never seen a vehicle with zero small fuses (5-30A).

Actually, there are always fuses, but these are not the ones that blow in case of regular malfunction. When these blow, it's bad, really bad.
Usually in case of short circuit due to crash or extreme control module failure. I've never seen such fuses blown on BMWs without
a) crash or b) fire.

Electronic "fuses" reset themselves usually after few seconds or after vehicle restart.
Easiest example is frozen windshield wipers. In case of wipe, motor will try to move for a second and will give up soon after.
In case of fused windshield wiper motor, it will blow the fuse. In case of modern vehicle, motor will give up without blowing the
"big fuse". It appears Model 3 has ALL things "fused" like that.

"Big fuses" looks like that (yellow, red, blue)








Usually 6-12 per vehicle is enough. Model 3 looks to have like ~10.
Each going for distribution (usually a module input power:light module, body module, HVAC module, drivetrain module etc). In case of EV, one between 12V battery and DC-DC converter.

Fuses are for cables, not devices. Cars exploit fuses and it appears Tesla wants to fix that


----------



## Oregonian

KarenRei said:


> Ed: found another comment from Ingineerix that explains the contradiction in info about the motor:
> 
> "Tesla calls it a PMSRM, Permanent Magnet Switched Reluctance Motor. It's a new type, and very hard to get right, but Tesla did it! More information: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6180757/" [mod edit: fixed link]
> 
> Permanent magnets in the _stator, _enhancing the field (and torque density).
> 
> He also wrote:
> 
> "It's actually a permanent magnet switched reluctance motor. It has the highest efficiency of anything ever put in a production car. It's also a unit, the inverter is integrated, so DC goes in one side and kinetic energy comes out the other. Nobody else has figured out how to get a PMSRM to work smoothly and efficiently like this. It's not easy!"
> 
> I still want to know more about his info sources, of course. But this is great stuff


Wasn't that file public before? Now when I click on it it says I have to be a member and I don't know if you have to pay for that


----------



## CoastalCruiser

Oregonian said:


> Wasn't that file public before? Now when I click on it it says I have to be a member and I don't know if you have to pay for that


Whenever I've looked at it always showed a summary... and then you had to pay to see the whole document.


----------



## Oregonian

CoastalCruiser said:


> Whenever I've looked at it always showed a summary... and then you had to pay to see the whole document.


Then I must be thinking of another file on the same subject.


----------



## Bokonon

Ingineerix just posted a couple of new videos that provide a closer/cleaner look at the drive unit and battery pack.

Drive unit:





Battery pack:


----------



## Brokedoc

I’m amazed. 4 bolts and a couple of connectors and the whole rear drive/axle subassembly comes off. No kidding when Elon said this car was built to be easy to assemble.


----------



## KarenRei

More:


----------



## Kizzy

KarenRei said:


> More:


This is very cool. I wonder how the front motor of AWD vehicles fits into this. I love how all these components share the same cooling system and can potentially use wasted heat energy to heat the battery.


----------



## KarenRei

Kizzy said:


> This is very cool. I wonder how the front motor of AWD vehicles fits into this. I love how all these components share the same cooling system and can potentially use wasted heat energy to heat the battery.


Yep. The only way heat can't be routed is to the cabin; cabin heat is purely resistive. But the same compressor handles cooling for all components.


----------



## Bokonon

Kizzy said:


> This is very cool. I wonder how the front motor of AWD vehicles fits into this. I love how all these components share the same cooling system and can potentially use wasted heat energy to heat the battery.


I, for one, can't wait until he gets his hands on a salvaged P3D. Not that I'm actively rooting for anyone to launch their brand-new P3D into a tree, of course.


----------



## KarenRei

First drive unit vid:


----------



## Kizzy

KarenRei said:


> First drive unit vid:


Did I hear that driving it through a flood should be okay?

Now I want a test and a review of issues this might cause.


----------



## KarenRei

Fully expected that the drive unit would be okay submerged. More wondering about the battery pack.

I hope a couple people do some driving through water before next summer. I don't want to have to be the first


----------



## JWardell

Now on to the good stuff...the inverter:





I hope they add another showing the underside of it.


----------



## KarenRei

JWardell said:


> Now on to the good stuff...the inverter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they add another showing the underside of it.


Always amazes me how much power these things can run through a PCB without frying it.


----------



## JWardell

Yes, a lot of power can be tracked on a PCB, especially multilayered or 2 or 4 oz copper.
To be fair, they are using bus bars, at least for the phase outputs and the ground; yet another reason I want to see the underside.


----------



## SalisburySam

garsh said:


> Hmmm, I wonder if this is the same person as Ingineer on mynissanleaf.com.


Yes, I wondered that too. The MNL Ingineer is the person from whom I bought my HVAC control panel with the shunt to override the heating/cooling so I can just use fresh air and the fan speed for my 2012SL


----------



## KarenRei

He also rebuilds salvaged Teslas, if anyone is looking to get one cheap


----------



## JWardell

OK, found a picture of the FETs or IGBTs underneath, along with some discussion:

https://www.pntpower.com/tesla-model-3-powered-by-st-microelectronics-sic-mosfets/


----------



## Ingineer

Aha! Found you guys! =)

This is my first post here. I thought this thread would be a better place to answer some questions than Youtube (easier to search/read).


----------



## Ingineer

Also, I've released a few more videos today on my Youtube Channel.


----------



## KarenRei

From your latest video:






I have to say, I still can't wipe that smile off my face when I saw this from you: _"Note the size of these cables - they're huge! They're way bigger than you find in S & X. That implies that 3 is capable of a higher rate supercharge than S & X, at present. They are very big." 
_
I was hoping - even rather expecting - Model 3 would be designed for higher charge currents. And that long supercharging plateau sure suggested that the pack could take more. But it's great to see it confirmed! Can't wait to see the supercharging rates on a V3 charger, they're going to be mind-boggling at low SoCs! Strongly suspecting that V3 is going to be 500A. Could probably hit over 700 mph. 70 miles in 6 minutes!

Also nice to get confirmation that the inverters even on the RWD cars are MOSFET based. For some reason, some people have been convinced that only the Model 3 Ps use MOSFETS, which I always thought was rather silly.


----------



## Oregonian

Ingineer said:


> Aha! Found you guys! =)
> 
> This is my first post here. I thought this thread would be a better place to answer some questions than Youtube (easier to search/read).


I know this is a little outside of what you would expect, but can you show how to remove the outer door handles to be able to paint them.
Thanks


----------



## Brokedoc

Ingineer said:


> Aha! Found you guys! =)
> 
> This is my first post here. I thought this thread would be a better place to answer some questions than Youtube (easier to search/read).


What took you so long? We've been following you for months!


----------



## Ingineer

KarenRei said:


> I was hoping - even rather expecting - Model 3 would be designed for higher charge currents. And that long supercharging plateau sure suggested that the pack could take more. But it's great to see it confirmed! Can't wait to see the supercharging rates on a V3 charger, they're going to be mind-boggling at low SoCs! Strongly suspecting that V3 is going to be 500A. Could probably hit over 700 mph. 70 miles in 6 minutes!


Well, most of this higher charge current capacity is likely due to the improvements brought by the 2170 cells. Given that this is only a ~75kWh pack, I still expect to see a pretty rapid taper, but being able to slam some electrons in fast at low SoC will definitely be improved.


----------



## Ingineer

Brokedoc said:


> What took you so long? We've been following you for months!


Time! Forms and such eat up a ton of time I don't seem to have a lot of!


----------



## Brokedoc

Ingineer said:


> Time! Forms and such eat up a ton of time I don't seem to have a lot of!


I'll make it easy for you:

Quit the other forums and just post here. The other forums are full of uneducated haters. We're more mostly smart and more civilized.


----------



## Ingineer

Well, I'm here! I can't promise I'll spent a lot of time, but I'd rather share my knowledge where it can be enjoyed by the widest possible audience. This forum is well indexed by Google.


----------



## KarenRei

Ingineer said:


> Well, most of this higher charge current capacity is likely due to the improvements brought by the 2170 cells. Given that this is only a ~75kWh pack, I still expect to see a pretty rapid taper, but being able to slam some electrons in fast at low SoC will definitely be improved.


Indeed! Wherever superchargers aren't spaced that far apart, road trips are going to whiz by amazingly fast, with drivers running in the ~10-25% SoC range 

So dang much fun stuff to look forward to in the next 6-12 months


----------



## Ingineer

So someone in the comments pointed out that there is a possibility that the reason for the increased size is because the cables are aluminum rather than copper. This is a definite possibility. Doesn't mean that it can't still charge faster, but something I will need to investigate.


----------



## Oregonian

Ingineer said:


> So someone in the comments pointed out that there is a possibility that the reason for the increased size is because the cables are aluminum rather than copper. This is a definite possibility. Doesn't mean that it can't still charge faster, but something I will need to investigate.


Isn't copper like 50% lower resistance than aluminum? Not sure if that's the right way to ask it lol.


----------



## Dr. J

Ingineer said:


> Well, most of this higher charge current capacity is likely due to the improvements brought by the 2170 cells. Given that this is only a ~75kWh pack, I still expect to see a pretty rapid taper, but being able to slam some electrons in fast at low SoC will definitely be improved.


Have you tested the individual cells to determine the battery's total capacity, i.e., beyond the usable portion?


----------



## Guest

Oregonian said:


> Isn't copper like 50% lower resistance than aluminum? Not sure if that's the right way to ask it lol.


Aluminum conducts 60% compared to copper.


----------



## KarenRei

arnis said:


> Aluminum conducts 60% compared to copper.


Yes, but resistance is relative to conductor cross section. Also, resistance will be tiny in such a huge cable.


----------



## GDN

Very impressive - thank you for sharing.


----------



## PNWmisty

arnis said:


> Aluminum conducts 60% compared to copper.


Yes. Also, aluminum is 30% the weight of copper. So, an aluminum conductor with the same resistance as a copper conductor will weigh half as much. Tesla could have chosen aluminum for the weight savings alone. Aluminum, done properly, would likely be less expensive but perhaps not by a huge margin, in a custom made application like this. 5-10K/week might be mass production in terms of cars but not so much in terms of electrical cable. If Tesla wanted to Make the Model 3 with more charging capacity than models S/X, the weight may have been a consideration or even the deciding factor (assuming aluminium).

So the two big unanswered questions, at least on this thread:

1) Are they aluminum or copper. At the 9:05 mark, Ingineer tweaks the charge cables and, based on the way they vibrate, I'm guessing they're aluminum.
2. Is the current capacity significantly greater than Model S/X to allow for higher charge current.


----------



## Ingineer

Yup! confirmed Aluminum!

Made by Coroplast. FHALR series.


----------



## KarenRei

Ingineer said:


> Yup! confirmed Aluminum!
> 
> Made by Coroplast. FHALR series.


Dang. Doesn't mean that they can't handle V3 powers, of course - it just means that if they can, the cables on S&X probably can as well 

Have you looked up the maximum current rating for cables of this diameter? I know it depends on the type of wires and insulation...


----------



## JWardell

Imagine my reaction after working on my car most of Saturday with panels off attempting to find some good CAN signals, when I take a break to find the teardown and CAN video posted! Thank you for making these!



Ingineer said:


> So someone in the comments pointed out that there is a possibility that the reason for the increased size is because the cables are aluminum rather than copper. This is a definite possibility. Doesn't mean that it can't still charge faster, but something I will need to investigate.


I know an engineer who worked on the charging board. Confirms it is intentionally designed to handle the future 350kW V3 superchargers that the existing S/X can't.
I bet nothing will happen till they at least update the cables in Model S/X, and a software update to all cars and superchargers...then we should see some serious charging!


----------



## KarenRei

Lol, you won't be able to "software update" superchargers to higher powers  Not even sure that it makes sense to physically update most superchargers at all, rather than building new V3 stations, to simultaneously increase coverage.

Beyond increased per-vehicle charger powers, I'm expecting an increase in number of pedestals per charger.

1) The number of pedestals per supercharger site has been steadily rising over time.

2) There's already some degree of waste in the current system in that come chargers may be maxed out while others have a lot of slack, depending on the SoCs of the connected vehicles. The problem would become much worse at higher per-vehicle powers, since such powers can only be utilized at low SoCs. The more pedestals per charger, the more effectively you can use each given charger's maximum power on average.

The distribution-balancing algorithms of course become more complex with more vehicles; first come-first served is fine for two vehicles, but becomes increasingly inefficient the more vehicles you tack on.


----------



## c2c

KarenRei said:


> you won't be able to "software update" superchargers to higher powers


But could the Model 3 be field upgraded? At least more so than S/X?


----------



## KarenRei

c2c said:


> But could the Model 3 be field upgraded? At least more so than S/X?


How'd we jump from upgrading superchargers to upgrading the Model 3?


----------



## c2c

Sorry, I thought this was the Model 3 teardown, not Supercharger teardown. /sarcasm.

Both the car and the supercharger would need capabilities increased. The S/X would not be physically able to field upgrade as much as the model 3, if I understand the interest in the size/resistance of the cable. And the Supercharger would also need changes. In a world where cars have step increases in charging abilities, S/X could improve relatively less than model 3, and supercharger would hopefully support all members of the family, to feed each car in the shortest practical time.


----------



## garsh

JWardell said:


> ...I bet nothing will happen till they at least update the cables in Model S/X, and a *software update to all cars* and superchargers...





KarenRei said:


> How'd we jump from upgrading superchargers to upgrading the Model 3?


JWardell mentioned upgrading cars in his original statement. I assume this was the post you were replying to when you started discussing software updating of superchargers.

It sounds like he's saying a "software update to the superchargers", but I bet he simply meant "updating superchargers", and flubbed the English a bit.


----------



## JWardell

KarenRei said:


> Lol, you won't be able to "software update" superchargers to higher powers  Not even sure that it makes sense to physically update most superchargers at all, rather than building new V3 stations, to simultaneously increase coverage.


Right now you have Gen 1 S/C, designed to charge Model S batteries. (And superchargers manage the charging directly)
There is certainly a chance that Model 3 can physically be charged with a more aggressive curve. It's a possibility that when the new generation superchargers will arrive, 3s might need a software update to work with them, and it's even possible that an update to older superchargers could allow them to charge further before tapering their power if connected to a 3. 
We don't really know how much control lives in the car vs the supercharger.
The lack of support of the Chademo adapter gives some clue that there is more than meets the eye here.


----------



## Guest

KarenRei said:


> Doesn't mean that they can't handle V3 powers, of course - it just means that if they can, the cables on S&X probably can as well


Nobody has ever confirmed V3 powers to single vehicle (SX3 or Y size vehicle). Current vehicles can't even handle V2 SC power. SC is 135kW, stall(or plug, or both simultaneously) are limited to 120kW. There is no way Model 3 will EVER charge at (considerably) higher power. AFAIK, plug limitation arises much sooner, not the cable between the plug and battery. Also I see no (reasonable) solutions to extract that ~1-3% heat gain when charging.... at "V3 powers".


----------



## Ingineer

I was asked about proof of Aluminum:









Also, Rumor is the v3 SpC is going to use the liquid cooled cable/connector that has already been publicly shown by Tesla. I posit that even with the use of this 95mm2 Aluminum cable, the 3 LR pack should be capable of significantly higher peak charge currents, and we will indeed see it. Mark my words! (Oh, I just did! =)


----------



## KarenRei

arnis said:


> Nobody has ever confirmed V3 powers to single vehicle (SX3 or Y size vehicle). Current vehicles can't even handle V2 SC power.


Huh? Model 3 LR plateaus for nearly half of its SoC range.



> SC is 135kW, stall(or plug, or both simultaneously) are limited to 120kW


145kW per charger.


----------



## garsh

arnis said:


> Nobody has ever confirmed V3 powers to single vehicle (SX3 or Y size vehicle).


Of course - they don't yet exist.


> Current vehicles can't even handle V2 SC power.



All current Teslas can max out a supercharger's capabilities at low SOC.


> There is no way Model 3 will EVER charge at (considerably) higher power.


Seriously arnis, you really have to stop stating your opinions as facts. You're going to be proven wrong on this one.


----------



## JWardell

arnis said:


> Nobody has ever confirmed V3 powers to single vehicle (SX3 or Y size vehicle). Current vehicles can't even handle V2 SC power. SC is 135kW, stall(or plug, or both simultaneously) are limited to 120kW. There is no way Model 3 will EVER charge at (considerably) higher power. AFAIK, plug limitation arises much sooner, not the cable between the plug and battery. Also I see no (reasonable) solutions to extract that ~1-3% heat gain when charging.... at "V3 powers".


OOOOOOooooo I can't wait till Elon proves you so wrong! 

The new superchargers and connectors are liquid cooled. Model 3 is specifically designed to handle higher charge rates. Just you wait!


----------



## EvanLin

garsh said:


> All current Teslas can max out a supercharger's capabilities at low SOC.


I think it's SC max out the car.

SC has capability of 145kW. S/X has only 120kW.
https://electrek.co/2016/07/20/tesla-supercharger-capacity-increase-145-kw/

As for Model 3, we have no idea yet.


----------



## KarenRei

EvanLin said:


> I think it's SC max out the car.
> 
> SC has capability of 145kW. S/X has only 120kW.
> https://electrek.co/2016/07/20/tesla-supercharger-capacity-increase-145-kw/
> 
> As for Model 3, we have no idea yet.


SCs can only - by design - deliver 120kW per cable. You're confusing cabling with vehicles. This is by design; a charger serves two stalls, so you want it such that even if one stall is charging at full power, the other vehicle can still get something. Hence charger powers are higher than stall powers.

You can get a sense of what the batteries take by the charging curves. At low SoCs there's generally a relatively steady (often very-gently-upsloping) plateau, which then suddenly heads down on a (usually linear) decline to only a few kilowatts near 100%. So if the plateau is only a few percent SoC, or there is none and it never reaches the ~116-ish realizable kW from the 120kW per-stall power, then that vehicle's battery pack is maxed out. On the other hand if - like Model 3 LR - you have a long plateau to around half full - then the batteries are nowhere close to being maxed out.

There still can be other limitations - such as internal cabling or heat removal - but everything here suggests that there aren't. Which should be a "duh" situation. Tesla knows they're going to be making a V3 supercharger, so why would they leave such easy-to-remedy deficiencies when the batteries can take so much more? It would be rank incompetence to do so.


----------



## garsh

EvanLin said:


> I think it's SC max out the car.
> 
> SC has capability of 145kW. S/X has only 120kW.
> https://electrek.co/2016/07/20/tesla-supercharger-capacity-increase-145-kw/


It's not clear where the limitation lies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Supercharger
_Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 145 kW of power distributed between two cars with a maximum of 120 kW per car._


----------



## Krash

KarenRei said:


> ...I saw this from you: _"Note the size of these cables - they're huge! They're way bigger than you find in S & X..." _


I realize we have learned that these cables are aluminum but any chance the DU00 and DU01 S/X drive unit update increased their respective cable sizes? That would bode well for future 3 supercharging increases. JWardell, any chance you'd ask your friend about whether those new S/X inverters have the same optimization?


JWardell said:


> ...I know an engineer who worked on the charging board. Confirms it is intentionally designed to handle the future 350kW V3 superchargers that the existing S/X can't...


----------



## Guest

Going higher just to get more power between narrow range of SOC and narrow range of other variables doesn't make a lot of sense. Ideally, charging rate should be somewhat lower than absolute maximum. So if Model 3 battery can charge at 145-150kW in case:
a) new (less than 3-4 years old) 
and b) external temp below 25*C
and c) SOC between 10-35%
As of today. Model S/X can be thermally throttled at 120kW. Björn has demonstrated that. AFAIK, it was "fixed" with software mods doing that smoothing with plateauing charging rate. 
It could/should be limited to, for example, 120kW, but it will do that charging power in case:
a) battery is not degraded (SOH >80%)
b) external temp is up to 35*C
c) SOC between 5-60%

Investing into cabling and cooling for those few minutes per year is nonsensical. It does work as a selling argument. But Tesla doesn't need those. ESPECIALLY on a vehicle, that is NOT flagship. 

Also, me, as a customer, would rather take stable 120kW rather than expecting to get 140-150 and then being disappointed with 120.

V3 supercharger will solve other problems. Two vehicles sharing one charger is not optimal. 4 vehicles is much better.
6 stalls per 350kW for example. Cheaper while much more bang for a buck. (3 vehicles can charge at max speed simultaneously, in case of today's solution, we need 3 chargers for 3 vehicles).


----------



## Guest

KarenRei said:


> Huh? Model 3 LR plateaus for nearly half of its SoC range.


Yes, and 30kWh Leaf plateaus even longer:








But in the long run, it overheats.
My tiny 24kWh pack can do 40-50kW. 50kWh Tesla can definitely do 100kW and 75kWh Tesla can definitely do 150kW. But it's not just C rate.
Model S also had charging power increase, that resulted in overheat.
Even though battery is better, cooling system is not, notice the dip at 40%









Share the data about that Model 3 plateau. What was external temperature?


----------



## KarenRei

arnis said:


> Yes, and 30kWh Leaf plateaus even longer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in the long run, it overheats.
> Model S also had charging power increase, that resulted in overheat.
> Even though battery is better, cooling system is not, notice the dip at 40%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Share the data about that Model 3 plateau. What was external temperature?


And if Leaf had proper cooling, it could charge at a higher power. It doesn't. So it doesn't.

Seriously, comparing a car with _no cooling system_ (not even a fan!) to a liquid cooled one is just plain silly.

Surely you know how to search this forum for the threads on Model 3's charging profile; why can't you be bothered to do your own homework before starting an argument? It generally charges at the supercharger's max capacity up to ~45% or so on average - sometimes over 50%. There have been some exceptions (unfortunately one was Bjørn Nyland, so widely published), but they're the exception, not the rule.


----------



## JWardell

Another spectacular video by @Ingineer of the VCLeft body controller module, the same one I became very familiar with last weekend tapping 12v and snooping around for CAN:






Of interest is the "trailer" 15A 12V output which he notes is on when the car is awake. The problem is those pins are on the top half which are not easily accessible by removing the kick panels. Maybe we'll find another way.

Also interesting to me that there is another 12V output called "roof" which might be for a sunroof, but I would expect an H-bridge for that. So maybe it's for a police light roof rack? Ford cancelled the crown vic, maybe the Model 3 is America's next police car! 

PS: I love that Tesla labeled everything so clearly on the PCB!


----------



## CoastalCruiser

So nice to see you on this forum Ingineer! Thanx for all the recent videos. So what have you done for us lately? :>

I know, how about IDing this weird contraption from the other guy's teardown. I can't make out the label even at high magnification.. maybe the word "caliper"?


----------



## JWardell

That looks like a brake booster.


----------



## Frank99

I was getting ready to tap into the 12V that Ingineer's video points out. But now JWardell is dissuading me - "which are not easily accessible by removing the kick panels". Ouch. Am I going to have to use the cigarette lighter power?


----------



## lairdb

JWardell said:


> Of interest is the "trailer" 15A 12V output which he notes is on when the car is awake. The problem is those pins are on the top half which are not easily accessible by removing the kick panels. Maybe we'll find another way.





Frank99 said:


> I was getting ready to tap into the 12V that Ingineer's video points out. But now JWardell is dissuading me - "which are not easily accessible by removing the kick panels". Ouch. Am I going to have to use the cigarette lighter power?


Disclaimer: I haven't done it yet, but.

@Ingineer's original VCLEFT video has gone off the air due to a Youtube glitch, but he has made a pair of replacements. In one, he shows the VCLEFT on his skeletonized 3, so you can clearly see the shape and the target area:






In the other, he shows how to access the correct spot in-place -- it's not easy, but it does appear do-able with just the kick-panel removal and a little coordination:


----------



## JWardell

I still suspect the "youtube glitch" might have been a copyright takedown, just for showing details of the PCB. Wish I saved the video.


----------



## GDN

JWardell said:


> I still suspect the "youtube glitch" might have been a copyright takedown, just for showing details of the PCB. Wish I saved the video.


I wouldn't have a clue knowing what to do with most of this knowledge, but did he show anything that any mechanic couldn't get to or most electrical engineer/designers wouldn't be able to know? Just identifying parts and sources of power.


----------



## Frank99

GDN said:


> I wouldn't have a clue knowing what to do with most of this knowledge, but did he show anything that any mechanic couldn't get to or most electrical engineer/designers wouldn't be able to know? Just identifying parts and sources of power.


Using Ingineer's two videos that JWardell linked, a moderately competent mechanic, electrician, home tinkerer, etc would have no problem being able to connect to the switched 12V power terminal.

There appears to be one complication that I noted - Ingineer lists his location as Berkeley, CA, so I'd imagine that SAE and imperial measurements are second nature to him, but he specifically calls out a "5 mm female spade terminal". The vastly more common spade terminals here in the US are 1/4 inch wide - about 6.4 mm. The question in my mind is whether or not a 1/4" female spade terminal will fit in the space available - it doesn't look like it, so I guess I'm off to find a 5 mm spade terminal.


----------



## PNWmisty

Frank99 said:


> Using Ingineer's two videos that JWardell linked, a moderately competent mechanic, electrician, home tinkerer, etc would have no problem being able to connect to the switched 12V power terminal.
> 
> There appears to be one complication that I noted - Ingineer lists his location as Berkeley, CA, so I'd imagine that SAE and imperial measurements are second nature to him, but he specifically calls out a "5 mm female spade terminal". The vastly more common spade terminals here in the US are 1/4 inch wide - about 6.4 mm. The question in my mind is whether or not a 1/4" female spade terminal will fit in the space available - it doesn't look like it, so I guess I'm off to find a 5 mm spade terminal.


Doesn't the Model 3 use all metric fasteners? Because it would just be wrong for a car so futuristic to use SAE/Imperial fasteners!


----------



## Ingineer

CoastalCruiser said:


> So nice to see you on this forum Ingineer! Thanx for all the recent videos. So what have you done for us lately? :>
> 
> I know, how about IDing this weird contraption from the other guy's teardown. I can't make out the label even at high magnification.. maybe the word "caliper"?
> 
> View attachment 12709


It's the Bosch iBooster. See here for more info: https://www.bosch-mobility-solution...riving-safety-systems/brake-booster/ibooster/


----------



## Ingineer

Frank99 said:


> Using Ingineer's two videos that JWardell linked, a moderately competent mechanic, electrician, home tinkerer, etc would have no problem being able to connect to the switched 12V power terminal.
> 
> There appears to be one complication that I noted - Ingineer lists his location as Berkeley, CA, so I'd imagine that SAE and imperial measurements are second nature to him, but he specifically calls out a "5 mm female spade terminal". The vastly more common spade terminals here in the US are 1/4 inch wide - about 6.4 mm. The question in my mind is whether or not a 1/4" female spade terminal will fit in the space available - it doesn't look like it, so I guess I'm off to find a 5 mm spade terminal.


1/4" would be too large. I didn't say 5mm to be obtuse. If you look in the description for my video, you will find a link to ones that will work.


----------



## Ingineer

PNWmisty said:


> Doesn't the Model 3 use all metric fasteners? Because it would just be wrong for a car so futuristic to use SAE/Imperial fasteners!


Yes, all cars use metric. SAE is now fully metric, so now you can't really say "SAE" when referring to imperial.


----------



## Frank99

Ingineer said:


> I didn't say 5mm to be obtuse.


I didn't think you had - just caught the detail, and wanted to point it out to those who didn't catch it. YouTube doesn't expand comment replies by default for me, so I didn't see the useful replies you'd made to people pointing this out.



Ingineer said:


> If you look in the description for my video, you will find a link to ones that will work.


Turns out that the kit of crimp connectors I bought <mumble>ty years ago had a selection of 0.1875" (3/16") spade connectors which to the best of my knowledge I'd never used one of in all those years, so I'm good. 0.187" spade connectors got soft-metrified to 4.8 mm and/or 5 mm over the years. 
It'll be interesting to see, 100 years after the US finally adopts the metric system, how many things are still soft-metric - will some electrical connectors still have a 2.54 mm pitch? Will the 1/4 inch (oops, 6.3 mm) spade terminal still be ubiquitous?

Anyway, I'm truly fascinated by the teardowns you've done and the videos you've posted. I appreciate the work, money, and time you've put into doing them, and have learned an awful lot about that marvelous machine sitting in my garage at the moment. Thank you, and I think I'll go for a drive...


----------



## Ingineer

Yeah, the 3/16" should work is they don't have insulation on the spade.


----------



## 3V Pilot

@Ingineer .........

THANKS for all the great tear down videos and info! I love learning more about this car and seeing all the details, even though I may not understand all of it!

I've got a quick question that only you may be able to correctly answer. If the battery pack is nearly flat on top why is the passenger compartment floor so stepped in places? Specifically: about a foot aft of the pedals the floor steps up (I'm guessing this is where the battery starts). Then, just before each front seat it steps up again (Maybe for a little extra strength for the seat?). But the one that really has me confused is the small raised area under each front seat, in the front and to the left of center on each one. I would think all the motors and control electronics fit under the seat, is this something else?

Just curious, and Thanks again for all your hard work!!


----------



## GregRF

3V Pilot said:


> @Ingineer .........
> 
> THANKS for all the great tear down videos and info! I love learning more about this car and seeing all the details, even though I may not understand all of it!
> 
> I've got a quick question that only you may be able to correctly answer. If the battery pack is nearly flat on top why is the passenger compartment floor so stepped in places? Specifically: about a foot aft of the pedals the floor steps up (I'm guessing this is where the battery starts). Then, just before each front seat it steps up again (Maybe for a little extra strength for the seat?). But the one that really has me confused is the small raised area under each front seat, in the front and to the left of center on each one. I would think all the motors and control electronics fit under the seat, is this something else?
> 
> Just curious, and Thanks again for all your hard work!!


Looks mostly like seat rails.


----------



## JWardell

Over a month ago @Ingineer posted a video about VCLeft, and shortly after it was removed and never replaced. It had some useful info for me with labels on the PCB for various functions. I'm wondering if anyone has or can post a picture of the VCLeft board from the video (or maybe we can get the video reposted...) [I'm still looking for clues to find a spot to tap into CAN]


----------



## Mesprit87

Hi @JWardell , the one video that should really interest you is the one about the various maintenance menus and data on screen. I'm not sure you've seen it. Can't remember where I came across it but it seemed like more than we could ask for. Access is another thing probably. Do you have other plans than accessing data tapping into CAN because from what I saw on that video, pretty much everything is covered.


----------



## JWardell

Mesprit87 said:


> Hi @JWardell , the one video that should really interest you is the one about the various maintenance menus and data on screen. I'm not sure you've seen it. Can't remember where I came across it but it seemed like more than we could ask for. Access is another thing probably. Do you have other plans than accessing data tapping into CAN because from what I saw on that video, pretty much everything is covered.


I've seen it, that video is still on his channel. It's great that it illustrate all the data I could possibly access, but doesn't help because the rest of us can't access that data. Plus there's no fun geek graphs...


----------

