Model S Performance launch with cheetah stance

[@kasmopaya2676]

My god this car looks gorgeous! It looks like it came from the factory yesterday...

[@TheStopwatchGod]

Kasmopaya Even though he got his car back in October or November

[@chrisgati]

possible reason for acceleration dip in the end: the wind resistance is pushing against the car. Constant power output will decrease rate of acceleration. The power would have to gradually increase to maintain constant rate of acceleration.

[@0Tijmen0]

It's not the wind, wind resistance at 80-90 kmh is probably only around 10 kW (not much when motor power is 614 kW). The problem is kinetic energy. kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2. That means doubling speed quadruples kinetic energy. in other words accelerating from 50-100 kmh takes 3 times more energy than accelerating 0-50 kmh. This is why at low speed cars are usually torque or grip limited and only power limited at higher speeds or inclines.

[@BradsHacks]

You don't even have to account for wind resistance to get to this conclusion. It is indeed because of constant power. At lower speeds the PM motor is constant-torque. Later it becomes constant-power, which means torque is inverse with RPM. At this transition, the torque (and therefore acceleration rate) drops abruptly. www.researchgate.net/profile/Jiangbiao_He/publication/263272422/figure/fig1/AS:650030444716038@1531990743204/Typical-characteristic-curves-of-torque-power-vs-speed-of-IPMSMs.png

[@jimmurphy5355]

From zero to some RPM, EV motors are approximately constant torque. Torque is limited by the maximum current the battery, inverter, and motor can supply/withstand. The voltage needed to maintain constant current rises more or less linearly with RPM. In this part of the curve, HP is rising as the RPM rises. And then, at some RPM the voltage cannot rise anymore - because the full voltage from the pack is being applied. At that point the maximum horsepower is reached and any further increase in RPM has to come at the expense of less torque. Current is at, and remains at maximum. Voltage is at max, and remains at max. Power is at max, and remains at max. But since HP = torque x RPM, if rpm goes up, torque MUST go down to keep the product constant. The above is simplified, and leaves out factors that reduce the power at very high RPMs - power is only constant up to some fairly high RPM, and above that falls for a variety of reasons. But the speed where the power starts to drop is well above the break point you note at 100kph. That bend in the curve is where the motors have reached maximum power and can no longer increase.

[@EngineeringEssentials]

The reason for the acceleration drop is in the control strategy of electric motor. Initially from zero rpm to its rated rpm Full torque will be available, where you see constant acceleration- torque is constant irrespective of speed. But power output will be increasing. Once motor reaches its rated power output. Now power almost constant while decreasing torque with respect to increase in speed. Reduction in torque means reduction in acceleration. If Taycan get rid of the gearbox it's EPA range will increase for no doubt, but they won't do that- The only purpose Taycan is built for-"To beat Tesla model S on track" - but I highly doubt whether they achieved that.

[@АлексейКастевич]

Getting rid of gearbox will NOT increase the range, actually vice versa.

[@rafardzrba]

Bjorn is the main Cheetah.

[@DG-uv3zw]

Tyres! *Added Maybe side of the road has lots of dirt, sand and all sorts of crap lol....

[@eakerz5642]

Is that road really flat? After the bridge it's mountain up.

[@bjornnyland]

Check the Dragy reports (slope). It's really flat.

[@EyeDreamMellowDees]

why everyone obsessed with best acceleration; why no one obsessed with best range; I bow down to King of Best Range...

[@bjornnyland]

The funny part is that this car (Model S Performance) also has some of the best range.

[@EyeDreamMellowDees]

everyone talk tricks cut tenth second 0-60; where are heroes giving tricks get 5 more miles, 10 more miles? Model S get 400mi officially, some heroes figure how get 410, 415; my heroes Range Kings & Queens

[@АлексейКастевич]

After 80 kph the electric "second gear" kicks in (it is called constant power speed range). In gasoline cars upshifting gears also reduces wheel torque while the wheel power remains the same.

[@Podandre]

hello Bjørn, I’ve been watching you for a couple of years and respect your knowledge of electric cars very much!) I want to buy a trailer, and attach it to my s p85 / 2013.but in my country there are no people who can tell what weight the trailer can tow .. I know what model x has a trailer mode, but you constantly carried loads, as you think, if you carry 1200kg carefully, everything will be fine with the engine or gearbox ..? please tell me if you have an understanding .. very grateful for this opportunity!

[@NIAtoolkit]

With 4:1 you'll need a lot of power for it to be useful to overcome aerodynamic drag at higher speeds. 745kw (1000hp) should get you past 300kph easily

[@mdemin]

The drivetrain can't sustain that anyway probably. You would discharge the battery in what ... 4-5 minutes, range would be 25-40km

[@Samosayummyyay]

@@mdemin Well...an Lamborghini Urus with regular, combined driving does 6km with 1 Liter Benzine. At ~300km/h, it'll probably do around 1km/Liter benzine or less. With an 85L Benzine tank, the Urus should last ~40-80 km. So, an Urus at that speed lasts ~8-16 minutes. Twice as much as the Tesla!

[@MacGyver1908]

Great video 🤩😎😍

[@Haveagrated]

Thanks for your input :) Ślicznie dziękuję i pozdrawiam z UK. Może kiedyś wpadnę do was z rodziną (żona ma przyjaciółkę w Norwegii) ale chyba Hondą na ropę bo moja Kia z 30kwh będzie do was jechać kilka dni a dzieci mnie po drodze zjedzą hahaha). Dobrą robotę tam robicie. Piotr

[@rowanbroekman3929]

4:00 I guess between 0-80 the wheels don't have 100% grip and above that it does.

[@MrKnoppersesser]

The Taycan has the additional gear only for launch control. Driving normal the car won't even shift gears.

[@mleussin]

There is a test from nextmove between a lowered m3p and a taycan with speeds around 200kmh that shows that a Tesla isnt that batterysaver anymore

[@miguellopez3392]

having a second gear helps a lot with high speed efficiency, tesla compensates with high efficiency software and electronics, model 3 can get 345 miles at around 90kmh because ts designed for these speeds.

[@AbroadinChina]

Just as a heads-up Bjorn, I can see ads on this video, while the one you posted previously still has none for me.

[@CFG39]

2.9 is fast, but that’s not much quicker than a Model 3 Performance. It’s also not close to the 2.3 seconds they’re quoting now. I could have two Model 3 Ps or one Model S Performance. I don’t think there’s enough in a Model S to be worth that much more money. The interior of the 3 just feels greatly improved and newer. I hope Tesla releases a new generation Model S and X soon. The interiors really need to complete overhauls, as does the chassis under the shell and battery cells need to be updated away from 18650s.

[@miguellopez3392]

road conditions are very important, on a warm day people have pushed 2.4 seconds, on a drag strip 2.24 (both with rollout) cold tires and road pavement type can severely effect launch speeds as the vehicle will cut back power to reduce the chance of spinning out. upgrading from 18650 will probably not he;lp it performance, theoretically it makes it harder to cool down, but it should really matter, cell chemistry does.

[@CFG39]

Miguel lopez yeah but typically Tesla’s claims have been pretty much repeatable 9/10 times. Model 3 P will run a 3.2s 0-60 all day long. Now it’s even faster through two updates and can beat it’s claimed times. 2.3 to 2.9 seconds is a pretty large difference.

[@geoffreyplatt9251]

Kinetic energy of the car is proportional to velocity squared. So as the speed increases more and more power is needed to produce the same change in velocity (acceleration). Eventually you reach the car’s maximum power limit and acceleration slows down.

[@RufftaMan]

That doesn't make sense. The only thing making it harder to accelerate (ignoring the motor's limitations and such) is wind resistance, which goes up by the square of the velocity and rolling resistance. But accelerating from 10 to 20 km/h takes the same amount of energy as from 110 to 120 km/h. When you look at the energy needed for a change in velocity, E = 1/2 m Δv^2, you have to take delta-v (the change in velocity), which is 10km/h in both my examples, resulting in the same amount of energy.

[@wermagst]

​@@RufftaMan The difference in energy is 0,5 m (Vend² - Vstart²). Accelerating 110 ->120 km/h takes 7,67 times the energy compared to 10 -> 20 km/h

[@RufftaMan]

@@wermagst Hmm.. I know that the kinetic energy of a moving object increases exponentially with speed, but we agree that constant acceleration requires constant force, right? F=ma. So how is it possible that accelerating from 110 to 120 km/h requires more energy than from 10 to 20 km/h? Surely the force applied to the object will be the same. It doesn't make sense. I have to admit that it's been a while since I had any physics classes. Edit: Also, an astronaut travelling at 28'000 km/h doesn't need more energy to accelerate an object inside the space station as opposed to you, doing the same on Earth. The frames of reference change, physics doesn't.

[@wermagst]

@@RufftaMan Energy or work is force times distance. You can use the same force to accelerate a car from 10 - 20 or 110 - 120 in the same time, but the distance will be very different. The same is true for the astonaut. In his frame of reference he only applies the force to the accelerated object over a very short distance. When you look at it from earth, the distance will be huge.

[@PlanetCypher_]

800bhp wow!

[@1472fred]

Tesla plaid has 1020 hp

[@cobrachannel100]

Electric motors have this interesting torque curve where it goes down with rpm going up. Hence, the second gear definitely helps. however, there is a reason Tesla and Rimac gave up on the 2 speed transmissions. I think it is a tradeoff between speed and complexity, reliability, weight, efficiency, ease of manufacturing, cost, etc.

[@CoolSilver]

That's amazing stuff. I still haven't unlocked my AWD 3 with the acceleration boost to get below 4 seconds. 0-60 MPH

[@DerBlauzahn]

For sure battery is limiting factor for decreasing motorpower. Car pulls over 6C from battery.

[@DG-uv3zw]

6c is nothing... Current Li-ion have over 10c constant and up to 20c burst. Look at up...(sony, samsung, Lg, etc... Panasonic/Tesla is probably even better...)

[@DerBlauzahn]

@@DG-uv3zw Incorrect. Not for Automotive use and NOT for cylinder cells, like tesla is using. You need pouch-cells an way other chemistry.

[@EngineeringEssentials]

Cylindrical cells do have a 7C rating you can check that. But for charging its way below 2C

[@bradleycross5987]

Cheetah Stance = Tesla marketing.

[@youtubeaccount5631]

its a free update

[@Knights2theEnd]

@@youtubeaccount5631 still marketing for those that don't own a model s p

[@ZynionThe1337]

3:58 - Electric motors lose torque with an increase in rotational speed. This is exacly why ICE cars catch up to EVs when the distance is longer.

[@rkan2]

Yeah, but the real reason is the lack of a gearbox.

[@ouethojlkjn]

@@rkan2 I have been thinking about this - I guess it depends on where you put the gearbox and what rotation is being reduced? So putting the gearbox between the rotor and then driveshaft isn't going to make the motor rotate slower? But it may make it harder for the rotor to turn.

[@NRG1985]

ICE+gearbox behaves exactly in the same way, torque at the wheels decreases with speed. The point is that with many gears you can play better keeping the maximum power output kind-of-constant as the speed increases (of course in an ICE you must use gears). In an EV with single speed transmission, the torque at the wheels (which is proportional to the torque at the motor) is decreasing but it is not easy to get constant power (torque reduces according to 1/speed) in a very wide speed range. This is an example: allens-home.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/0911_10_z-camaro_rs_vs_tesla_roadster-dyno_results.jpg

[@DG-uv3zw]

@@rkan2 Yes, but as the weight of the car drops you don`t need gears!!! So, its somewhere in between. Its better with gears with current battery density but it adds complexity and costs(also weight). Thats why Taycan is so expensive...

[@michelmelinot]

*Laughs in Roadster*

[@cenakaze]

with limited top speed around 250 kph, there's no need for Taycan to have lower gear ratio, 8.05/1 already provides better high speed acceleration, while the 2-speed gearbox gives low end acceleration. At the same time 8.05/1 gear ratio would also provide great highway efficiency, while city range suffers.

[@EngineeringEssentials]

But Taycan will loose drag races with Tesla so they purposefully did that.

[@HansKruse]

I could hear on the video that the grip at start was not perfect which might be because of winter tires.

[@bjornnyland]

He used summer tires of course.

[@HansKruse]

@@bjornnyland Well, of course, spring is in Norway :)

[@topgunm]

Talk about Phantom braking please. Tesla needs to fix this. I have a bit over 2k KM on my 2020 TM3LR (HW3). Tesla are talking about self driving? What a joke. It's so bad, that I don't even use CC or AP unless I am on the highway.

[@blah123kkllll6]

freaking fossils 5:00 hahahahha

[@mattaut88]

when i commented that gear ratio and rpm stuff to nextmove video about Taycan vs. Model 3 they claimed it makes no big impact. man are they clueless...

[@colla555]

So why is it 0,4 seconds slower than Tesla advertises? (2,5s for 0-100 km/h)

[@rudolphxu7882]

colla 555 roll out and cold tires and batteries

[@colla555]

@@rudolphxu7882 Temperature or a different type of tarmac I would have thought of. But what do you mean by "roll out"?

[@youtubeaccount5631]

because he had cold tires and a bumpy road

[@pepstein]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollout_(drag_racing)

[@kasmopaya2676]

@@rudolphxu7882 Battery was heated to 50 degrees, that can be ruled out. But the tires and the street surface could be a factor. On a drag strip it can do the claimed numbers.

[@crazzyman6]

Rear motor at second gear in Taycan is 5965rpm at 100kmh compare to 7033 in Model S

[@wildepawthefox]

So?

[@ridewithjamal3356]

Are those factory wheels? Or did he put aftermarket or dipped them?

[@rennyba]

Wow - what a difference! And actually because of a SW-change?

[@MacGyver1908]

Renny B. Amundsen Only SW change 👍

[@philipclaeys6920]

I thought a Model S is a family car, why does Tesla suddenly consider it as a sports car, what is changed? Is this since they have been beaten by Porsche? What do they expect, Porsche is a sport car manufacturer! Come on Tesla, there is so much to improve in your cars, don't waist your time to this kind of trivial things.

[@ihsahk]

Hey it gives some attention...

[@bjornnyland]

Tesla never called it a sports car. The journalists did.

[@clasqm]

Well, it is the Performance model, not the SR or LR.

[@philipclaeys6920]

@@bjornnyland maybe Tesla don't call it a sports car, but Tesla behaves like it is one, for what other reason so much effort for 0,1 sec accelaration improvement?

[@youtubeaccount5631]

@@philipclaeys6920 because it's fun and they can you got a problem? jealous much? there's no other reason...

[@ReevansElectro]

Impedance increases as a function of frequency and limits the current and therefore the torque. Z = R + XL and XL= 2 (pi) f L and I = E / Z and Torque is proportional to current.

[@schutzf]

1kw=1.36hp means 614 kw=835hp. And not 824hp. European horsepower

[@iKaGe01]

This wasn't a Tesla Model S P100D then? I thought that could do 2.3 seconds

[@bjornnyland]

2.3 s is 0-60 mph with rollout.

[@iKaGe01]

@@bjornnyland Ahhh

[@ihsahk]

@@bjornnyland When will we see new official record 0-60 for S Performance do you think?

[@PeterJurasek]

isn't model S supposed to make 2.3s 0-100?

[@bjornnyland]

0-60 mph and with rollout

[@chrhelm]

U make me facepalm! Friction loss (air and rolling) is around 20 kW at 100 km/h. This is not relevant when accelerating with 600 kW. Quick Math: P=F*V with F=m*a. Assume 600 kW max battery output (1500 A at 400 V ?) 2500 kg and 9,81 m/s^2. Calculation: 600 kW = 2500 kg * 9,81 m/s^2 * V. Result for V is around 25 m/s that is 90 km/h. At that speed you hit 600 kW and will be in battery current limit.

[@chrhelm]

Assumed accelerating with 1 g = 9,81 m/s^2. That is what tyres can do on a road. For more acceleration you need something better, like cold air thrusters for example...

[@bjornnyland]

Why the facepalm, dude?

[@chrhelm]

Facepalm because I expected You to know that and other comments were close but not exactly right. You could make a video and check the calculation using ScanMyTesla when You are back in Norway. Would be interesting.

[@daniel635biturbo]

100-200 km/h in 10 seconds ?

[@laur.vphotographie2017]

7-8 sec ;)

[@StephanBuchin]

This car needs Porsche 911 rear tires.

[@NRG1985]

"Peak power is for boys, continuous power is for men."

[@KyleHubb]

BTICronox Not really. It’s capped at 616hp to manage drivetrain heat. 1000hp will burn the car to the ground.

[@wermagst]

Meanwhile Tesla's website advertizes 2,5 seconds...

[@bjornnyland]

That's with rollout.

[@wermagst]

@@bjornnyland Then they are pretty good at hiding this, there's no mention of it anywhere.

[@bjornnyland]

Not that hard to find out about actually: www.google.com/search?q=tesla+acceleration+rollout

[@wermagst]

@@bjornnyland Only official information from Tesla I could find, was this link: www.tesla.com/en_AE/support/your-future-tesla And it's actually behind a password protection without any link from the sales data sheet or the actual support page. That's what I would call hidden.

[@youtubeaccount5631]

@@wermagst its a 0-100 time stop acting like your life depends on it. go spend millions investigating and make a full report.

[@TheEdmaster87]

Rather want about 300 electric hp and 824km of range then useless 824HP...

[@ignaciomainardi5501]

That's why the Model S and X have a non-performance version with the highest range of all electric cars.

[@bjornnyland]

824 km of range is useless because the driver needs to stop long time before that. Only people who has never used a Tesla think they need more than 500 km of range.

[@adrirm7645]

Bjørn Nyland useless? I think that the limited range It’s the main reason why people doesn’t buy EV’s.

[@bjornnyland]

You should subscribe to my channel to know how Teslas work ;) The reason why people don't buy EVs is because they think they don't have enough range.

[@TheEdmaster87]

Ohh I know how Teslas work. I still would prefer the range at this point Even with longer charging times because I can drive longer and still have more than half of the range. I dont need 800hp to drive maximum 120km/h on Norwegian roads... Even if I could drive much faster on german roads with 800hp, the range would still be an important factor. Especially in higher speeds at longer periods of time, the range will be more important. Charging speed is important of course but I dont need to charge to 90% Even with a range of 800km wltp. Spending 30 min for a 450km of 824km charged range would be more than enough. In other words there is No need to have 824hp u less you drive on track for sports🙂

[@Zedus-rl9hp]

At higher temperature its a little bit better kzbin.info/www/bejne/faPPm2qVntl3jpo

[@bjornnyland]

Not really. 60 mph = 96 km/h.

[@Zedus-rl9hp]

@@bjornnyland by that I meant that the acceleration (g) drops a little flatter/stable, not the time. But the road surface can also cause this

[@mihaicostescu]

0-100 it’s Impressive but let’s be honest...it’s zero importance in day to day driving...and from 100-200 it’s not that impressive for a 800+ hp car...rather disappointing.

[@MatteAnalys]

1

[@loganrossignol]

2

[@davepermen]

3

[@timr.6864]

4

[@lazarperic4191]

5

[@pmj_studio4065]

6...?