acoste

Ok. I think I will give it up.

You have not seen so much data from anyone else in this forum than me. I just shared the traction power for both cars in couple of posts above. I showed how tire grip affects power over speed on the Model S. Yet you ignore it and come back with some vague 189Wh.mile which you probably don't even know that is based on home charging AC power and EPA rating compared to what Tesla usually falls short in real world. I let the Tesla fans take over this thread. Enjoy.

daveo4porsche

@acoste long time viewers will note that Acoste and I rarely agree - but I want to publicly thank @acoste for that article - super read! really enjoy'd it.

Petevb

While we can argue about magnitude its clear there's a large gap, and the first and most obvious reason is simply the scale of the cars. While the interior volume of the Porsche is smaller the exterior is bigger: it has 7% more frontal area (which would result in 7% more aero drag if the CD was identical). The Porsche is also ~25% heavier, equating to a 25% increase in rolling resistance all else being equal. Thus the Porsche is behind out of the gate due simply to packaging. Much is also down to the build philosophy Tesla chose to pursue: the Model 3 in a light car for its size if one removes the battery, but that's not without cost- wind noise is higher, the build feels lower quality, there is no "dash", etc.

Starting with the M3P (on similar rubber to the Taycan and with similar sporting aspirations) one can begin to stack the various choices to understand where the energy went. Add losses from the 2 speed gearbox to the above, additional penalty for wider tires, higher electrical parasitics across the board, etc. Finally I do believe some of the apparent gap is down to the numbers being used. Porsche has long chosen to under-promise and over-deliver with regards to performance figures and I suspect some of that is going on here with the EPA rating.

Dyefrog

Hmmmm. seems to be a pattern when discussing Tesla's goals. The battle cry of the Tesla short. We shall see if this is yet another lofty ambition that is relegated to the pile of wishful thinking or mission accomplished.

daveo4porsche

I'll take battery advances from any where!!! it simply makes everything better!

daveo4porsche

it's worth noting the 2020 Chevy Bolt is now a 66 kWh vehicle with no change in weight/volume of the battery - but cell chemistry changes according to Chevy allowed them to up their capacity - who knows what is really the difference, but in less than 3 years we have a 10% bump in battery capacity for the 2017 vs. 2020 Chevy Bolt -making it a 259 mile vehicle for 66 kWh of battery capacity.

no question the Taycan can get better, but a combination of improved battery capacity changes and efficiency improvements/tweaks/configurations could add up to a lot of improvement over time.

Needsdecaf

Agreed, excellent insight. Porsche didn't just invest in Rimac for a laugh. This guy is going to be for real. My favorite quote from the article:

So....what's the car? Maybe the Formula E car? Or maybe something different for the street?

Whoopsy

Despite what people claim, modern EV cars are still in it's infancy, technology, no matter how 'advance' one thinks they are right now and the difference in tech level from each competitors, will all look like baby steps in a decade or so. Collectively, all models of Tesla since the beginning and all the competitors combined, are just one generation of EV cars when looking back. Like how we called cars from the 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. It sort fo is already since the oldest to the newest aren't even separate by 10 years.

I think those IBM batteries should be available commercially within 10 years of not shorter, EV cars made with those will run circles around our first generation cars.

Our 'early' EV cars right now should be considered disposable cars. Throwaways down the road. Like 80286 processors.

Whoopsy

Oh don't underestimate Porsche, they will learn a lot and develop a lot from the Formula E program.

Petevb

While I agree with the idea that EVs are in their relative infancy I'd disagree with the idea that we're in the first generation. The pace of technical evolution is rarely in lock-step with time. In 1936 Germany released a biplane as a front-line fighter; less than 10 years later they were deploying first gen jets- I'd argue at least 3 and possibly 4 generations were covered in those 9 years.

I'd suggest that most of the electrics we see from manufactures now are at least on their second generation, the first gen being electric retrofits of existing models (Fiat 500e, Tesla roadster, etc). The model 3 might even be considered the first Gen 3 car: the first car built based on lessons learned from a clean sheet design (the Model S).

Whoopsy

Beta cars? Proof of concept thingy?

Model S is definitely gen 1.

There isn't a definite breakthrough yet for the batteries, all running similar kind just with slightly different chemistry, and all under 400V, hence why I would just group all as gen 1, maybe some are gen 1.2 gen 1.3 etc.

The only breakthrough right now is 800V vs 400V, I would consider 800V cars as gen 2. But performance wise, the first of the gen 2 isn't much better than the best of gen 1s.

Now if Tesla would have had a battery breakthrough, say using those Maxwell batteries, but stay with 400V, that could be considered a separate fork of the gen 2 cars.

Zcd1

Exactly.

Petevb

Obviously you're welcome to disagree with the generation labels, there is no right or wrong answer (yet). I draw parallels with other industries- jet fighters for example are commonly broken into five generations based on their overall performance capabilities rather than specific technologies like battery chemistry or voltage:
1st: (Me 262, MiG 15, F-86) Subsonic gunfighters
2nd: (F-104, MiG 21) Supersonic, limited missiles
3rd: (F-4, MiG 23) Multi-roll, beyond visual range (BVR) combat capable
4th: (F-15, F-16, MiG 29, Su 27) High agility, all aspect BVR capable (look down/ shoot down)
5th: (F-22, F-35) Stealth

Based on this type of thinking for EVs I might suggest the following generations:
1st: (Nissan Leaf, GM EV1, VW E-Golf, BMW i3) Limited range (<150 miles), lower production volumes for their market segment, overall performance not competitive with gasoline cars at similar price points, relatively unprofitable.
2nd: (Tesla Model S, Chevy Bolt, Taycan) Longer range (>200 miles), moderate production volumes for their market segment, overall performance competitive with similarly priced gas cars, marginally profitable.
3rd: We don't know yet, but we might in hindsight group cars with longer range (>400+ miles?), performance superior to gasoline cars at a given price-point, high production volumes for their market segment and possibly self-driving capability as making up a 3rd wave of electrics: cars which are functionally superior to their gasoline counterparts and begin to displace ICE vehicles on an industrial scale.

I certainly don't see the Taycan as having capabilities worthy of putting it into a different class by metrics like the above- even if charge rate in miles per minute were particularly important the 800V capability doesn't make it stand out vs alternatives like the Model 3. The Model 3 on the other hand checks some of the hypothetical boxes above, however it might prove to be a gen .5 (ie a Eurofighter Typhoon for gen 4 fighters) when we look back with the benefit of hindsight. I do see many EVs convincingly beating ICE cars in most categories soon and I also see that capability as worthy of a new generation. The Model 3 is IMHO the car best able to go head to head with ICE alternatives in its price range currently, though one can debate if it's superior.

alexxs

I think it would be really helpful if you could post said data and the methodology you used. I've used chassis dynos many times and don't see how you can extrapolate power needed for constant speed.

Thanks

Whoopsy

You are very correct in assessing there is currently no right or wrong answer yet.

The jet analogy is not bad.

Because of my background and technology involved in EV, I was thinking in terms of silicon, like CPU progression. Like Intel vs AMD.

For successive generations, there are suppose to be 'major' changes, either from a die shrink, or longer pipeline, more cores or added functions. Or in Intel's case, sometimes they just call it a new generation for marketing purposes.

Tesla is the Intel of the EV car business, the dominant one. It is suppose to be the best in the segment. VAG and everyone else will be the AMD.

Between Model S and Model 3, there are changes and improvements, but there isn't quite a change big enough to warrant a next generation label, it's more like a refresh, staying in the same architecture and staying at 14nm. It's faster and higher frequency for sure, that to me is same thing as range in a EV.

Going to 800V to me it's like going to 7nm like AMD did. Initially they aren't faster than Intel's offerings. But going down to 7nm opens up the space to be creative down the road, they can add more cores, more cache, etc that would help later on. Now AMD's offerings are blowing Intel out of the water on work done, yet still can't touch Intel on frequency per core.

Intel still holds the frequency crown now, like Tesla holding the range crown. But some consumers doesn't need higher frequency per core, they want more cores to do more work in parallel, or their programming works better with more cache, etc. With that, they turned to using AMD processors. Not everyone needs the highest frequency on a single core. There are still people that need that though, like gamers, and they are still loyal to Intel processors as that gives them the best performance for their games.

Over simplified and not quite a complete analogy, but that's how I see things.