# Tesla Model 3 Revealed



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Its got no grill, its just a featurless blank face.
even the Model S had a grill


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

200,000 deposits of $1000 gives Tesla a $200m starter fund !
One of the most successful "Kickstarter" offerings i have seen !


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> Its got no grill, its just a featurless blank face.
> even the Model S had a grill


A fake "grill" is just a pointless leftover from the ICE age. We don't need no stinkin' grill


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

JRP3 said:


> Rather surprised there is nothing in the news section here of what is probably the most groundbreaking EV ever to hit the planet. Three days after the reveal, with hundreds of people lined up at Tesla stores, and thousands more registering online, (me being one of them  ), they have already hit over 250,000 registrations for the Model 3, or, Model ≡.


well, there was some discussion here....http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/model-3-preorder-171242.html


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

This is NEWS not chit chat


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

Based on the output of most journalists these days there is not much difference.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> A fake "grill" is just a pointless leftover from the ICE age. We don't need no stinkin' grill


Not a leftover.
grills have many purposes.
practical: cooling, ok EV's dont produce even a quarter of the heat ICE vehicles do but there are still Air conditioning condensors and motor / controller water cooling systems that could benefit from frontal air flow.
Aesthetic: The grill has always been an important part of the cars personality.
Designers personify cars to make them more likable, lovable or intimidating.
The Tesla seems to have had half of its face photoshopped out of it.
This is the first image that came into my head when I saw the front of the "3".


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> Not a leftover.
> grills have many purposes.
> practical: cooling, ok EV's dont produce even a quarter of the heat ICE vehicles do but there are still Air conditioning condensors and motor / controller water cooling systems that could benefit from frontal air flow.


I'm guessing Tesla took that into account, and found it wasn't necessary on the S, X, and 3. So no, there are no practical reasons for a large grill area on an EV.



> Aesthetic: The grill has always been an important part of the cars personality.


Or not:






















> Designers personify cars to make them more likable, lovable or intimidating.


Luckily Tesla's designers are more concerned with actual engineering and achieving good aerodynamics, which is far more important. The fact is you are just used to the look of a grill, that's all. If EV's had remained dominant from the beginning you'd never know what a grill looked like. I think most people can adapt to the look once they understand it. Frankly with almost 300K reservations in 3 days I'd say it's just not an issue.


> The Tesla seems to have had half of its face photoshopped out of it.
> This is the first image that came into my head when I saw the front of the "3".


I guess you weren't familiar with the X then?










The other thing to consider is any state that requires a front plate will break up the look of the smooth front anyway.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Both the X and the "3" look as if they were designed with a grill, but at the last moment somone "in a position of influence". had the grill airbrushed out !.
infact the whole Tesla design trend looks very similar to some other existing conventional cars ??....
But. Either way it doesnt seem to matter with that level of preorders before anyone knew what it would look like !


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> Luckily Tesla's designers are more concerned with actual engineering and achieving good aerodynamics, which is far more important. Frankly with almost 300K reservations in 3 days I'd say it's just not an issue.


I can assure you Tesla designers are concerned with everything and affinity for the car is high on their list.
300k reservations is just a trend or even a frenzy. A lot of these will be retracted. After these people have taken delivery they will realise they just bought a car with no mouth.
How come every image you see in Google has a grill then it gets photoshoped for the release.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Read what Auto Express magazine has to say about the "no grill look"
under the 3rd photo.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tesla/...-3-price-specs-video-and-2017-uk-release-date


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Karter2 said:


> Both the X and the "3" look as if they were designed with a grill, but at the last moment somone "in a position of influence". had the grill airbrushed out !.


You don't get the lowest cd of any SUV, and lower than most cars, by using "last moment" designs.




> infact the whole Tesla design trend looks very similar to some other existing conventional cars ??....


Again, better aero than probably 99.99% of all other vehicles.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

RIPPERTON said:


> Read what Auto Express magazine has to say about the "no grill look"
> under the 3rd photo.
> http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/tesla/...-3-price-specs-video-and-2017-uk-release-date


Maybe those who want a grill can just stick on a big black sticker in that front part?

That's more or less what the Model S has. Black plastic with a chrome trim ring.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> I can assure you Tesla designers are concerned with everything and affinity for the car is high on their list.


Which they obviously achieved.




> 300k reservations is just a trend or even a frenzy. A lot of these will be retracted. After these people have taken delivery they will realise they just bought a car with no mouth.


You must be joking. People have eyes just like you do, they can all see the same pictures. Can you really not understand that your opinion is not shared by all? Yes the look is new and different, and some people can't seem to handle that. Fine, don't buy the vehicle. It's pretty obvious that hundreds of thousands will, even if a percentage will not follow through, many more will jump on board once the car is closer to delivery.



> How come every image you see in Google has a grill then it gets photoshoped for the release.


Not sure what you mean, but that pic you posted was a pre-release Photoshop of what someone thought the car might look like. They were wrong.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

My tuppence worth
I like the no grille look - 
IMHO having a grill or a different coloured bit to look like a grill on the S was a sign of cowardice - if you don't need it - flaunt it!


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

I never liked the Tesla fake grill so naturally I like the new look better. At the turn of the century 1800-1900 gun makers had a new design for the action of shot guns. It was a superior hammerless design. The problem was the British gentry would not purchase the new design so gunsmiths attached fake hammers. My EV is not the first car I have owned that had no front grill. In the 70’s I had a 63 Renault Caravel that attracted a lot of attention. The new Tesla sort reminds me of that car.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Duncan said:


> My tuppence worth
> I like the no grille look -
> IMHO having a grill or a different coloured bit to look like a grill on the S was a sign of cowardice - if you don't need it - flaunt it!


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> You don't get the lowest cd of any SUV, and lower than most cars, by using "last moment" designs.
> Again, better aero than probably 99.99% of all other vehicles.


Well lets see if they can back up their aero with awesome energy consumption figures. If they cant do better than 220Wh/mi, they failed and if their previous models are anything to go on (350Wh/mi) they will fail and then they might go back and put a grill on it.

Ive estimated the battery pack at 60kWh.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

RIPPERTON said:


> Well lets see if they can back up their aero with awesome energy consumption figures. If they cant do better than 220Wh/mi, they failed and if their previous models are anything to go on (350Wh/mi) they will fail and then they might go back and put a grill on it.
> 
> Ive estimated the battery pack at 60kWh.



The aero numbers don't lie, and your arbitrary 220Wh/mi is meaningless. By the way, the Model S85 has a max of 77kWh usable, so it's 265 mile EPA range means it's a 291Wh/mi car. Both it and the X have a cd of .24.
I will say that the Model 3 that we've seen is a prototype, so they still could change the front somewhat.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Also, this car was sort of popular










This not so much, but still a good looking vehicle










You might have seen some of these as well










So I think it's rather safe to say a grill is not a required design element, even on an ICE.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Jrp, there certainly have been many vehicles produced without a front grill, but unlike the Teslas, nearly all of those shown at least look as if the designer never intended there to be a grill, and the designs are more "complete" and integrated in shape.
I just dont understand why Teslas look like they were designed with grills and then had them crudely blanked off with some color coded plastic wrap !


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Jrp all the cars youve shown at least have chrome trims or rubber strips and some kind of feature that fills in the blanks, gives you something to look at.
The 3, something missing.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> your arbitrary 220Wh/mi is meaningless.


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Hey Jrp.....made in China man....wooo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjCKYBkH1kc

ps you know this vid could be bullshit because Elon looks like an android like hes had a makeover and a facelift.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

From the video
"it will eventually be made in China"
Which makes perfect sense the way that a lot of Toyota's are made in all sorts of countries including the USA
China will be either the biggest car market in the world or the second biggest (after India) - of course Tesla will be making cars in China!


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Duncan said:


> of course Tesla will be making cars in China!


Thats ok if your a mechanic. Everything Ive ever received from China had to be repaired or redesigned


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm pretty sure that there are a large number of electronic devices we use every day that were either made in China or a number of their components were, and they work fine. Not to mention the lithium cells that many of us have been using for years in our EV's.

Anyway it's all part of Tesla's plan for world domination, factories in every major market area. Plus if you want to sell vehicles in China and not get hit with extra tariffs you need to have a factory in country. Besides, the Chinese made vehicles will likely only be sold in that area.

As for the front, looks are subjective, and as I mentioned they might add some extra design elements to the actual production vehicles.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Duncan said:


> From the video
> "it will eventually be made in China"
> Which makes perfect sense the way that a lot of Toyota's are made in all sorts of countries including the USA
> China will be either the biggest car market in the world or the second biggest (after India) - of course Tesla will be making cars in China!


Someday maybe, but for the next few years they have got their hands full figuring out how to increase home production by a factor of 2, 4, 10, or more , cars per year , more cars than they have produced in total over the last 5 years !
They have yet to show they can truely be a viable volume car maker.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Elon:



> In response to a question about the Model 3's aerodynamic performance, Musk said the company was hoping for 0.21 drag coefficient. That's exceedingly sleek. Perhaps the only car in production with less drag is the Volkswagen XL1, a pod-like car that was designed for fuel-economy bragging rights. With a coefficient of .19, the XL1 costs more than $150,000 and is only available in Europe.





> "Some tweaking underway," Musk wrote in response to a critic of the front-end design. Musk welcomed suggestions but also pointed out that design work is tricky. "Edge and contour refinement are ongoing," he said, but even a tenth of a millimeter matters.


It's all about the aero, which is critical to getting enough range from an affordable battery pack.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-04/tesla-intrigue-deepens-with-musk-s-twitter-barrage


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

RIPPERTON said:


> Thats ok if your a mechanic. Everything Ive ever received from China had to be repaired or redesigned


Oh for crying out loud. The Teslas will make Model 3s in China FOR THE CHINESE MARKET. Primarily because of tariffs. 

I think we've established that Ripperton isn't going to be buying a Model 3. But let's keep the bullshit down to manageable levels here.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

When I built the darker blue Metro in the picture below, I wanted to block out all of the air, instead of having the traditional opening like the one on the lighter blue Metro. I was concerned that it might look kinda blah if I just covered it, so I built a little bit of style into my new bumper as I built it. I am no engineer, but I think that even my home made front bumper that eliminates a grill has more style than the front end look of the Model 3 Tesla, even though the Metro was built to be the furthest thing from being a sexy car.










The rest of the Model 3 looks pretty cool, and it sounds like it will be a pretty good value for the price. I wonder if they have caught up with us lowly DIY builders yet and have variable on demand regen yet? 


.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

evmetro said:


> I am no engineer,


And you probably didn't end up with the cd the 3 is likely to achieve. 





> I wonder if they have caught up with us lowly DIY builders yet and have variable on demand regen yet?


Yes, it's called the accelerator pedal, where regen belongs


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> And you probably didn't end up with the cd the 3 is likely to achieve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would certainly be willing to trade off a little cd for a better looking front end. 

Regen does not belong on the accelerator of an EV if you are concerned enough about cd to drive a car around with a front end that looks like that. Regen on the accelerator pedal is just meant to make a car feel like an ICE, but the accelerator does not correctly correspond with when the appropriate time is to use regen. This waste of kinetic energy is not a problem if you use only use regen when it is appropriate.

It could be that this latest EV from Tesla may actually have taken kinetic energy into account, with as much research has gone into it. I have done plenty of my own research, enough to be convinced that off throttle specific regen wastes energy, while regen in lieu of friction brakes increases range. If they are still wasting range to make it feel like an ICE, they might as well waste a little more and make the front look right.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

In fact with the strong regen on the A pedal an EV does not feel like an ICE at all and allows one pedal driving. It's also quite possible to find a neutral pedal position that allows coasting. Further, Tesla allows different over all regen settings, Standard and Low.
I think the front end of the 3 looks nice, and frankly, anyone driving a metro really shouldn't be commenting on looks  I mean, do you really think your metro looks better than the Model 3 as a complete vehicle?
Also, you contradict yourself when you say you'd rather have worse cd for better looks, which will cost you range, then you express concern over losing range from regen. You're kind of all over the place here.


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

It is a safe bet that I will never own a Tesla but I still like them. The 3 is still in my opinion a nice looking car but the longer you look at things the more they can remind you of other things.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That can be said for many vehicles


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> In fact with the strong regen on the A pedal an EV does not feel like an ICE at all and allows one pedal driving. It's also quite possible to find a neutral pedal position that allows coasting. Further, Tesla allows different over all regen settings, Standard and Low.
> I think the front end of the 3 looks nice, and frankly, anyone driving a metro really shouldn't be commenting on looks  I mean, do you really think your metro looks better than the Model 3 as a complete vehicle?
> Also, you contradict yourself when you say you'd rather have worse cd for better looks, which will cost you range, then you express concern over losing range from regen. You're kind of all over the place here.


One pedal driving makes sense, but not if the one pedal introduces regen. That would be energy wasting off throttle regen that is occurring based on pedal position rather than the appropriate time to use it. Hunting for the neutral position is not realistic and will inevitably waste energy. 

I am pretty sure that I made it clear in my posts that Metros were not designed to be sexy looking cars in the first place, and that I prefer specifically the "front end" look alone of my own DIY solution on a car that was not even designed to be a beautiful car in the first place, over the remarkably unsexy "front end" look of the production car. If I am not mistaken, I gave Tesla due credit on the rest of the car.

I also expressed my hopes that Tesla had finally stumbled onto the truth about regen and implemented it into their new model, instead of trying to make it feel like an ICE. It sounds like you are most likely unaware that off throttle regen is stupid on an EV if it is used for any purpose other than simulating an ICE.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I have off throttle regen on my car, not because it stimulates ICE, since it does not, it allows me to do most of my driving without touching the brakes, and I don't have any problem "hunting" for a neutral throttle position to allow coasting. You seem to have formed an opinion about off throttle regen which does not necessarily reflect reality. You also might consider that Tesla has spent more man hours on this issue than all of us combined, they might know a thing or two about it, even if it contradicts what you think.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> I have off throttle regen on my car, not because it stimulates ICE, since it does not, it allows me to do most of my driving without touching the brakes, and I don't have any problem "hunting" for a neutral throttle position to allow coasting. You seem to have formed an opinion about off throttle regen which does not necessarily reflect reality. You also might consider that Tesla has spent more man hours on this issue than all of us combined, they might know a thing or two about it, even if it contradicts what you think.


I have done my homework. Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests. If one applies himself, he can use a diciplined driving style that can yield a tiny gain in some driving conditions, but nothing like zero off throttle with huge amounts of variable on demand regen as the primary braking system. This system also allows me to enjoy driving with only one pedal as well, including when I shift gears. It does not matter how many hours of research Tesla has done, since kinetic energy still remains the same. They may research what is more likely to sell, but they can't out research the rules of the universe.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

JRP3 said:


> I mean, do you really think your metro looks better than the Model 3 as a complete vehicle?


Although I was referring specifically to the front end look, there are other things that I suspect that I would miss if I had a model 3 instead of my own build. I suspect that I would miss having FaceTime, skype, and streaming television where the speedo and tach go, but who knows, maybe Tesla has caught up to us lowly DIY builders with the mobile technology. I suspect that I would have to downgrade my instrumentation, and maybe I would not be able to pull it out and bring it into a restaurant at lunchtime to read my email or surf the diy forum. I am pretty certain I would miss my trivial annual registration fees, and I would probably have some problems if I dropped by to hang out with a buddy at his non EV household and wanted to charge. I don't know what I would have to do to enjoy a faster charge at my shop, since all of my EVs are setup to plug into the universal power grid, but I would not be surprised if I had to buy something to enjoy using my welding circuits at the shop like I do now. Most importantly, I think that after a decade, my diy will have more value in it with its universal components than the Tesla that will be in need of a pack that costs more than the the 3500 that the Tesla will be worth at that time with its proprietary components.


----------



## Rachel (Apr 5, 2016)

I think that this is going to be a game changer, especially with a quarter of a million pre-orders already in the last 4 days. God knows how much that will increase by the end of the month! 

It's definitely the first electric car from Tesla that's within post people's price bracket, just a pity about the 2 year wait for the car


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

evmetro said:


> I have done my homework. Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests.


You seem unable to grasp the concept of coasting with a neutral pedal position, it's not that hard. Obviously I'm not going to change your mind so I won't bother trying, but you might ponder one of the "rules of the universe" allows a vehicle to coast without motor production positive or negative torque.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests.


Please cite sources


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

frodus said:


> Please cite sources


From wiki:

In*physics, the*kinetic energy*of an object is the*energy*that it possesses due to its*motion.[1]*It is defined as the*work*needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated*velocity. Having gained this energy during its*acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

Off throttle specific regen changes the speed of an EV at inappropriate times while it is moving, it recovers energy that should not have been wasted in the first place.

Variable on demand regen with zero off throttle regen changes the speed of the EV at the appropriate time, and can recover energy that was going to be wasted specifically by using friction brakes.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

evmetro said:


> I also expressed my hopes that Tesla had finally stumbled onto the truth about regen and implemented it into their new model, instead of trying to make it feel like an ICE. It sounds like you are most likely unaware that off throttle regen is stupid on an EV if it is used for any purpose other than simulating an ICE.


You need to explain the above statement.

It is always best to coast down allowing the normal drag forces to slow the vehicle. This wastes the least energy. But you can't always do that. In the situation where you can't it is always better to regen some of the energy back into the battery instead of converting it to heat with the brakes. The controlled application of regen is the important thing.

A Model S doesn't feel like an ICE car with regen on the standard setting. It takes a few hours of driving to get the hang of it so that you can coast down instead of the strong regen. I have a theory that if you use the low regen setting instead of standard you can improve your efficiency. I am generating the standard setting data set on this charge and I will switch to the low setting. The attached photo of the dash shows the energy utilization on the drive to dinner last night and the energy since the last charge on Saturday. With a couple of people in the car it weighs over 5000 lbs. About 12 of those miles were on the interstate at 65 mph. The rest were in town. The last 4.7 mile trip was at a max of 35 mph on city streets. One foot driving can be very effective at conserving energy.

I originally thought this was the wrong approach but the way they have implemented it is very controllable. What you are commanding with the pedal position is not torque or current which is the norm for our DIY cars. It seems more like it is the vehicle speed. And the farther away you are from the commanded speed the more torque is applied to get you there. There is no one spot where it will coast. This position depends on the vehicle speed.

Is this optimum? I don't know. But is is easy to learn and seems pretty effective. On my best day in stop and go driving in my RX-7 I get a worse Wh/mi than the average day in the Tesla. RX-7 weighs 2400 lbs or less than half that of the Tesla. RX-7 does a lot better on the highway. It may not have as good a Cd as the Tesla but it has a lot less frontal area.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

evmetro said:


> Variable on demand regen with zero off throttle regen changes the speed of the EV at the appropriate time, and can recover energy that was going to be wasted specifically by using friction brakes.


And this is your reasoning. Thanks for that.

And the Tesla gives you variable on demand regen if you choose to use it that way. It does not give you zero off throttle regen but you can place the car in neutral and coast down if you find that more to your liking. I have found that I use the brake pedal only when coming to a complete stop. The regen will typically get you down to around 4 mph at which point you pretty much have to step on the brake to come to a complete stop.

I assume you have driven one and there was something about it you didn't like.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

evmetro said:


> I suspect that I would miss having FaceTime, skype, and streaming television where the speedo and tach go,


Could you update the location portion of your profile so that I know where I need to stay the hell off the road in order to preserve my life?

Thanks.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> From wiki:
> 
> In*physics, the*kinetic energy*of an object is the*energy*that it possesses due to its*motion.[1]*It is defined as the*work*needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated*velocity. Having gained this energy during its*acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.
> 
> ...


Please link directly to the source, or indicate what you used from the wiki, versus what you are writing as your own. 

I asked you to cite the source for this: "Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."

You failed to cite the source for that. Your interpretation is incorrect.

Regen is only used with regen braking when you let off the throttle to slow down (neutral braking). When you're accelerating or when you're cruising (not touching the throttle) there's no neutral braking, hence no regen, hence you're only wasting energy because you're maintaining speed or accelerating. There's no regen here. The motor controller is either accelerating, doing nothing, or going into neutral braking. There's a grey area you forget. 

You act like it's black and white with regen/acceleration and that you go immediately from accelerating to neutral braking (off throttle regen). This is not true in any of the vehicles I've driven nor in any of the controllers I've programmed and used, nor in my motorcycle. 

In fact, it is very easy to sit there and "cruise" without really touching anything. If I want to accelerate, I push. if I want to stay, I let it sit in the deadband (no regen at this point, and no acceleration). if I want it to decelerate, I let off the accelerator and let the vehicle go into neutral braking like I do my A4 and let the engine do the braking ONLY when I want to slow down. If I cruised, I wouldn't slow down. If I were to brake, I'd lose that energy that could have been recovered using regen.

And yes, I've tried without any neutral braking regen on my bike and it absolutely sucks.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

I am quite impressed about a great many things on the Teslas, and my distaste for the less than optimal regen system is not unique to the Tesla. I see the same problem with other production EVs as well.

There is more to the off throttle regen problem that meets the eye. The obvious is that off throttle regen is not limited to optimum usage of regen, and the inevitable use of regen at non optimum times will disturb the speed of the EV, wasting energy.

The less obvious is that off throttle setting are much lower than those of an EV with zero off throttle, but equipped with variable on demand regen. The amount of regen that I use with my on demand regen system is used as my primary braking system, allowing me to recover ALL of the energy that would have been wasted with friction brakes, minus losses. It is possible to exclude the use of friction brakes with an off throttle configuration, but not without creating serious disturbances in the kinetic energy.

What I learned from the engineers here on this forum, and from reading the perpetual motion thread here, is that there is no free energy. We can take advantage of situations where energy is there for the taking, and kinetic energy is most certainly available on EVs. To best use this energy, we must use it wisely, since we already paid for it in battery energy. Off throttle regen will inevitably be introduced to your kinetic energy at the wrong time, so it is not wise. If you want to maximize this already paid for kinetic energy to its maximum potential, you must preserve your speed, but if you do need to change it, you need to recover as much of it as you possibly can. Off throttle regen is a disaster for preserving and recovering kinetic energy. Regen is a great way to harvest energy that is there for the taking, but you can only take it at the correct time.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

frodus said:


> Please link directly to the source, or indicate what you used from the wiki, versus what you are writing as your own.
> 
> I asked you to cite the source for this: "Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."
> 
> You failed to cite the source for that. Your interpretation is incorrect.


I copied exactly what I used from wiki, which was a description of kinetic energy. Proper management of kinetic energy in an EV is apparently my own invention. I maintain that my interpretation is correct, and that the rest of the EV industry has not focused on proper management of it yet. The EV industry is young.



frodus said:


> Regen is only used with regen braking when you let off the throttle to slow down (neutral braking). When you're accelerating or when you're cruising (not touching the throttle) there's no neutral braking, hence no regen, hence you're only wasting energy because you're maintaining speed or accelerating. There's no regen here. The motor controller is either accelerating, doing nothing, or going into neutral braking. There's a grey area you forget.


Off throttle regen is also used at another time, which seems to be the source of our communication failure. Humans are unable to precisely match deadband. We may be able to approximate it with some practice, but even if we apply ourselves we can not precisely match deadband. Deadband matching is simply not practical or realistic to expect of a driver. I have the experience to be able to agree that one can in fact achieve a trivial gain by "approximating" deadband, but this is not an appropriate expectation of a driver. Deadband mismatch error is inevitable.




frodus said:


> You act like it's black and white with regen/acceleration and that you go immediately from accelerating to neutral braking (off throttle regen). This is not true in any of the vehicles I've driven nor in any of the controllers I've programmed and used, nor in my motorcycle.


Human error in matching deadband is black and white, since our perception of the terrain, wind conditions and speed are not perfect. Nor is our attention span. Deadband mismatch error by humans is inevitable.




frodus said:


> In fact, it is very easy to sit there and "cruise" without really touching anything. If I want to accelerate, I push. if I want to stay, I let it sit in the deadband (no regen at this point, and no acceleration). if I want it to decelerate, I let off the accelerator and let the vehicle go into neutral braking like I do my A4 and let the engine do the braking ONLY when I want to slow down. If I cruised, I wouldn't slow down. If I were to brake, I'd lose that energy that could have been recovered using regen.


I am confident that you have a good intuition when you drive, but am also confident that you can not precisely or consistently match deadband. Every little error that you make and don't notice will add up.




frodus said:


> And yes, I've tried without any neutral braking regen on my bike and it absolutely sucks.


 That is why we have a DIY EV community. There are some great engineers here who may be able to help you design a proper kinetic energy management system that works well with your bike. If your bike is a production model, I feel your pain.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Question for the Tesla community. I am curious what impact the flood of new Teslas and charging stations will have on the overall charging grid. Do Teslas have their own unique charging connection for Tesla charging stations? What charging connections come on Teslas, and can non production EVs access Tesla charging stations?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> I copied exactly what I used from wiki, which was a description of kinetic energy. Proper management of kinetic energy in an EV is apparently my own invention. I maintain that my interpretation is correct, and that the rest of the EV industry has not focused on proper management of it yet. The EV industry is young.


No, you failed to use quotes, nor did you cite your exact source for others to go look at what you were referencing. Looking back, No one can tell where the quoted material ends and your assumptions begin.

I asked you to cite the source for: "Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."
So far I can't tell that this is proven anywhere, other than your assumptions. Butt-feel doesn't count here.

You defined kinetic energy. I asked you to prove your statement with a source, which you did not. So, again, Please cite the source for "Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests.", as I'd love to read up on the experiment, what the control was for the experiment, what conditions were tested and their findings.



> Off throttle regen is also used at another time, which seems to be the source of our communication failure. Humans are unable to precisely match deadband. We may be able to approximate it with some practice, but even if we apply ourselves we can not precisely match deadband. Deadband matching is simply not practical or realistic to expect of a driver. I have the experience to be able to agree that one can in fact achieve a trivial gain by "approximating" deadband, but this is not an appropriate expectation of a driver. Deadband mismatch error is inevitable.


No, *YOU* may lack the coordination to match deadband (which is fairly wide by default on these controllers). Please do not speak for others, unless you can directly quote them as saying such. I've had no problem with it on any AC vehicle I've driven or helped build. In fact, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about how terrible neutral braking is, except for you.

Best of luck to you


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> Question for the Tesla community. I am curious what impact the flood of new Teslas and charging stations will have on the overall charging grid. Do Teslas have their own unique charging connection for Tesla charging stations? What charging connections come on Teslas, and can non production EVs access Tesla charging stations?


Tesla vehicles have a Tesla-specific connector. Adapters for Tesla to J1772 are included with the cars to charge at a J1772 station. Only the Superchargers have a Tesla connector on them and only Teslas can charge there.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

frodus said:


> No, *YOU* may lack the coordination to match deadband (which is fairly wide by default on these controllers).


I am disappointed that you of all people would not be able to conceive that something exists that is beyond your immediate five senses. This kind of limitation is why we perpetually see folks wanting to put windmills and alternators on EVs. You would be one of the people who I would most expect to recognize how unrealistic it is to think that people would drive around matching deadband or that the inevitable mismatch would occur on a regular basis.



frodus said:


> Please do not speak for others, unless you can directly quote them as saying such. I've had no problem with it on any AC vehicle I've driven or helped build. In fact, I can't recall anyone ever complaining about how terrible neutral braking is, except for you.


Just because you have failed to recognize something that takes more than your five senses to recognize, doesn't mean that it isn't there. I have done enough testing and research to feel confident in speaking for others when I say that others, including yourself, will inevitably fail on a regular basis to precisely and consistently match deadband.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Cool theories about kinetic energy, EVMetro. Unfortunately they are completely divorced from how driving actually works. The throttle isn't a binary controller, with only "on" and "off" states. In actuality, the human brain is essentially a speed controller, controlling the throttle, which is a torque controller. So there is nothing magical about the "zero torque" point on your throttle, and you don't have to "hunt for it". When that's the torque you need to go the speed you want to go, your foot will find it just like it finds all of the other appropriate torque positions.

There isn't any "slowing down at inappropriate times". It's not like you are "I don't want to slow down right now, but regen is slowing me down and I am powerless to stop it, I guess I'll have to speed back up when it is done". That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. You will slow down when you choose to do so. And if you use regen, you will get some energy back. Regardless if it off pedal, from a paddle or a brake transducer. And if you slow down using friction, that's lost opportunity. Regardless if the friction is from your wheels, the air, or your brakes.

There are debates that can be made about the driving aesthetics or experience of having off pedal regen. But your assertion that it wastes energy is completely off base. Maybe if you focused more on driving and less on videoconferencing, you'd have more realistic theories.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> I am disappointed that you of all people would not be able to conceive that something exists that is beyond your immediate five senses. This kind of limitation is why we perpetually see folks wanting to put windmills and alternators on EVs. You would be one of the people who I would most expect to recognize how unrealistic it is to think that people would drive around matching deadband or that the inevitable mismatch would occur on a regular basis.


5 senses and basing my statements on years of scientific experimentation is what I go by, not one person speaking about what he feels should be the answer. I'm disappointed that you cannot properly cite any of your sources to prove that *"Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."*

I have no qualms with you disliking the way almost all production EV's work. The problem I have, is that you cannot prove your statement (in bold, above, in case you forgot).

See Paul's reply above. It says all that I want to say, and both him and I have worked extensively with EV's.



> Just because you have failed to recognize something that takes more than your five senses to recognize, doesn't mean that it isn't there. I have done enough testing and research to feel confident in speaking for others when I say that others, including yourself, will inevitably fail on a regular basis to precisely and consistently match deadband.


So you're saying that I should ignore proper scientific method? No thanks.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

EVMetro, As far as I can deduce, the root of your misconception--and it most certainly is a misconception--is that you think that the most optimum method of coming to a stop from an energy standpoint is to coast as long as you can. This is not the case if regen is an option.


----------



## miscrms (Sep 25, 2013)

Don't want to get my nose shot off here, but it seems to me this conversation makes an excellent case for having regen behavior user selectable. It shouldn't be surprising that different people will find different interface methods more intuitive.

As much as I personally dislike it, default should probably continue to be light pedal off regen to conform to what most drivers are going to be familiar with. It may not be the most efficient, but IMHO this will be one of the least inefficient things about how most people drive most of the time.

At a minimum having heavy pedal off regen mode for single pedal driving, and freewheel mode with no pedal off regen should be included. Customization of levels would be awesome. Defining a custom profile of max regen vs. speed would probably be even cooler.

Single pedal driving and deadbanding might not be intuitive to everyone, but after driving a Prius for 8 yrs its pretty much autopilot. Its certainly a lot less demanding of the driver than driving a stick. I definitely wish I could turn up pedal off regen and use a lot less brake pedal, and consequently never using the friction brakes without meaning to. I would think this would maximize efficiency when slowing/stopping, at the possible expense of some efficiency due to deadband error while coasting.

I can also see why some people might like freewheeling better too, and not using either brake system without pressing the brake pedal to preserve momentum. I would think this could maximize efficiency coasting, at the possible expense of some inefficiency due to inadvertent friction brake usage when stopping.

Kind of six of one, half dozen of the other in my book.

Rob


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

I don't disagree with that, Turning neutral braking off, turning down, or turning to max should be something user settable.


----------



## evforme? (Jul 23, 2015)

I think it's a pretty good looking car, certainly far and away better looking then any of the other "budget" pre or current production EV's I've seen. 

Saying that a future hatch variant or even a concept of one would be nice to see.

As for "user selectable variable regen" I think people get it and it has the potential for being marginally more efficient then single pedal control under the most rigorous of control and in certain situations but the vast majority of people are used to off pedal/engine braking especially in hilly situations, it would throw a lot of people off and I would personally shit my pants going down a steep'ish curvy hill on a motorcycle without engine braking.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> Cool theories about kinetic energy, EVMetro. Unfortunately they are completely divorced from how driving actually works. The throttle isn't a binary controller, with only "on" and "off" states. In actuality, the human brain is essentially a speed controller, controlling the throttle, which is a torque controller. So there is nothing magical about the "zero torque" point on your throttle, and you don't have to "hunt for it". When that's the torque you need to go the speed you want to go, your foot will find it just like it finds all of the other appropriate torque positions.
> 
> There isn't any "slowing down at inappropriate times". It's not like you are "I don't want to slow down right now, but regen is slowing me down and I am powerless to stop it, I guess I'll have to speed back up when it is done". That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. You will slow down when you choose to do so. And if you use regen, you will get some energy back. Regardless if it off pedal, from a paddle or a brake transducer. And if you slow down using friction, that's lost opportunity. Regardless if the friction is from your wheels, the air, or your brakes.


Are you trying to tell me that your human attention span and your perception of grade, speed, and terrain fluctuations is so accurate that you are able to consistently and precisely match deadband? I am not asking if you can maintain deadband for a short duration to prove a point, I am talking about consistent and precise deadband matching. I just got back from lunch, and played around in off throttle mode while I was out and about, so the results are fresh on my mind.



Hollie Maea said:


> There are debates that can be made about the driving aesthetics or experience of having off pedal regen. But your assertion that it wastes energy is completely off base. Maybe if you focused more on driving and less on videoconferencing, you'd have more realistic theories.


For this to be true, you have to answer yes to my question above, which would mean that you are not being rational. I am having a hard time imagining that you have done any objective testing to see what really happens with your deadband while you drive normally, considering your tone about my research.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Finding deadband perfectly is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

frodus said:


> 5 senses and basing my statements on years of scientific experimentation is what I go by, not one person speaking about what he feels should be the answer. I'm disappointed that you cannot properly cite any of your sources to prove that *"Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."*
> 
> I have no qualms with you disliking the way almost all production EV's work. The problem I have, is that you cannot prove your statement (in bold, above, in case you forgot).
> 
> ...


Two wrongs do not make a right. You and the other guy have my deepest respect for your knowledge and for literally being my instructors, but it appears that both of you are evaluating human deadband matching with your "perception" of how well humans do this. I have several dedicated runs for my research, and I know that you are aware of how accurate my instrumentation is. I am able to consistently achieve better efficiency through my dedicated runs when using zero regen (actually 3% to facilitate optimum clutchless AC shifting), and a variable on demand pot set to give me full primary braking control of the car. I have tested these same runs in off throttle mode experimenting with many settings between 0 and 20% regen, and can not replicate the efficiency. Off throttle settings above 15% negatively effect the driveability of the car.

I have done my best to present my method, and have offered the scientific explanation of how I achieve better efficiency by eliminating off throttle regen and limiting regen use to the correct time. I am not aware of where information can be found to prove my repeatable results, other than my own testing, but I believe my results enough to confidently claim that your doubts are not backed up by similar tests or tests that prove how accurately humans match deadband. 

Your buddy Hollie accurately described how our reactions to maintain torque approximate what happens when my bench DC power supply is presented with a varying load while set to constant current or voltage, but he is as mistaken as you are about just how accurate our reactions to changing torque needs really is. I strongly encourage you to investigate my discovery a bit deeper and see if you can objectively determine just how accurate humans are at matching deadband. My research shows that off throttle regen is a disaster for proper management of kinetic energy.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

evforme? said:


> ....... a future hatch variant or even a concept of one would be nice to see.......


^^+1
My personal preference would be for a hatch at least..or a waggon.
But i guess thats the compromise you make for a better Aero figure.
....and for the sales team to nudge you up market to a Model X !


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Evmetro, and the other guys with re-gen
My device is crude DC monster and does not have any type of re-gen so I have zero experience with this

However my IC cars have cruise control and I find that on a long run - or just about anything out of town - I drive using the cruise control only tapping the pedal to go back to throttle control when I get to a town

I assume that the Tesla is the same (but much better) so on a long run the pedal won't be used very much??


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Finding deadband perfectly is utterly irrelevant.


It is my whole point. Non perfect deadband matching disturbs the speed of the car. What you perceive to be close enough adds up to much more, more than anybody I have ever talked to about this can conceive. Regen is not the problem, humans are. What humans can do easily and kinda accurately is apply regen via a variable on demand pot and set the off throttle to the minimum level that allows your motor to stop spinning within a second or two when in neutral. Eliminating off throttle and switching from friction brakes to regen brakes for the primary braking system yields breathtaking efficiency from less than perfect creatures like humans.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

evmetro said:


> It is my whole point. Non perfect deadband matching disturbs the speed of the car. What you perceive to be close enough adds up to much more, more than anybody I have ever talked to about this can conceive. Regen is not the problem, humans are. What humans can do easily and kinda accurately is apply regen via a variable on demand pot and set the off throttle to the minimum level that allows your motor to stop spinning within a second or two when in neutral. Eliminating off throttle and switching from friction brakes to regen brakes for the primary braking system yields breathtaking efficiency from less than perfect creatures like humans.


As I said, you started with the premise that in order to optimize energy savings it is necessary to freewheel. This is false WHEN REGEN IS AVAILABLE. So, you are starting with a false premise, so you are screwed no matter how sound your logic is. Your "disturbs the speed of the car" "problem" doesn't exist.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Duncan said:


> Hi Evmetro, and the other guys with re-gen
> My device is crude DC monster and does not have any type of re-gen so I have zero experience with this
> 
> However my IC cars have cruise control and I find that on a long run - or just about anything out of town - I drive using the cruise control only tapping the pedal to go back to throttle control when I get to a town
> ...


I would be interested in understanding what Tesla uses for cruise control. Cruise that is able to use regen and forward torque to maintain an exact speed would seem likely to yield better efficiency than than what a human can do on flat ground, but could be less than optimal in hilly country. Your DC rig uses free energy that is available for the taking when you go down a hill, but an EV that is harvesting that same energy and storing it in batteries sees a lot of energy loss.

When I drove a big rig for a living, my engine brake was integrated with the cruise control so that I would pick up about 5mph before the first two cylinders of engine brake would kick in. Another 5mph faster down a hill, and two more cylinders of engine brake would kick in, and then the same for the last two cylinders to kick in for full on engine brake. This kind of incremental braking could be really cool if used on an EV to control the regen with cruise control.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> Are you trying to tell me that your human attention span and your perception of grade, speed, and terrain fluctuations is so accurate that you are able to consistently and precisely match deadband? I am not asking if you can maintain deadband for a short duration to prove a point, I am talking about consistent and precise deadband matching. I just got back from lunch, and played around in off throttle mode while I was out and about, so the results are fresh on my mind.
> You obviously have not read about what we've said, nor do you understand it. Throttle commands torque in most cases. You either command positive torque, no torque or negative torque (regen). It ain't hard to find.


Who cares about dead band. I get that you don't like it.

What I'm saying, is you fail at proving your argument:* "Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."*

Prove that statement.

Here's a better idea...... just withdraw your statement above in bold.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Duncan said:


> ....
> However my IC cars have cruise control and I find that on a long run - or just about anything out of town - I drive using the cruise control only tapping the pedal to go back to throttle control when I get to a town
> 
> I assume that the Tesla is the same (but much better) so on a long run the pedal won't be used very much??


Cruise control is a given ,...i hope !
But zero off throttle regen is not available according to a previous post !
...which leads me to think that any opinion on this depends on previous driving experience and hence habit/preferences etc..
Drivers of manual (stick shift) cars will be used to significant off throttle retardation and have the requsite muscle memory for that type of single pedal control .
But drivers moving from conventional autos (torque converter) will not be used to a "2 way" throttle and may find it an unatural experience if they have been used to a "pulse and coast" driving style .
Most people would be able to adapt im sure, but with modern electronic controls it ought to be possible to "programme" the control functions to suit individual driving preferences.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

frodus said:


> Who cares about dead band. I get that you don't like it.
> 
> What I'm saying, is you fail at proving your argument:* "Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."*
> 
> ...


I would be honored to have you ride along for a day of road testing. I have a nice selection of EVs to use, one configured with off throttle only regen, a DC one, and the white 93 that I most recently finished. I have the circuits that you helped me design in the 93 white one that allows me to switch regen configurations with a toggle switch, which allows for repeating various test runs using the same vehicle. 

There is another guy who has documented similar results as mine, and he was part of what inspired me to pursue my research. The guy has a show called EVTV, and his name is jack richards. He did regen vs no regen testing and found off throttle regen to be a wash, but he never took it the extra mile that I did by implementing variable on demand regen to time the use of regen correctly to gain optimum efficiency. I doubt he has any idea who I am, I just stumbled onto his testing a few years ago and picked up where he left off.

It is not that I don't like off throttle regen as you suggested above, it is simply that it stands in the way of efficiency. I still enjoy driving my off throttle only conversion, but am anxious to repair it soon. When I built that, I was still unable to conceive what exactly my Orion was besides a way to top balance a pack, and I was studying what the early DIY guys were doing with the HPEVS products. Much has changed since then.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

A throttle is not a trombone.
Single pedal deadband matching requires more fuzzy logic than most drivers have. Sure most of us DIYers have it but when we are talking about OEM mass production, a dedicated regen pedal would be the most usable method.
It could be offered as a bolt and plug optional 3rd pedal that auto configures when you plug it in.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

Oh sh---, Jack Rickard has been invoked! Debate's over, guys.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Jeez Ripp,...an extra pedal ! 
That would confuse the crap out of the average joe and possibly lead to a whole new cause of wrecks..... ( good for recycled Tesla parts though ! )
..but why could it not be just integrated into a regular brake pedal ?
light touch = low regen
more pedal = more regen
big push = max regen
hard push = add in mechanical brakes

the "average" driver doesnt want /need to have to mess with extra controls.
..or maybe we should have the option of a F1 type steering wheel ! !


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> As I said, you started with the premise that in order to optimize energy savings it is necessary to freewheel. This is false WHEN REGEN IS AVAILABLE. So, you are starting with a false premise, so you are screwed no matter how sound your logic is. Your "disturbs the speed of the car" "problem" doesn't exist.


I maintain that in order to optimize energy savings, you must freewheel and only use regen at the correct time. I established my system of properly managing kinetic energy prior to you entering the discussion, which included the use of regen that is USED AT THE PROPER TIME.

I am not screwed as long as I have the most efficient EV around. King of the hill in the world of efficient cars. I even beat the big boys like Nissan and Tesla with my kinetic energy management system. Who knows, maybe the new Model 3 will come up to date with a good kinetic energy management system! Maybe they will come with video conferencing streaming television too...


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Karter2 said:


> Jeez Ripp,...an extra pedal !
> That would confuse the crap out of the average joe and possibly lead to a whole new cause of wrecks..... ( good for recycled Tesla parts though ! )
> ..but why could it not be just integrated into a regular brake pedal ?
> light touch = low regen
> ...


These were all things that I pondered when I developed my system, but I stuck to my guns on the physics part. No off throttle, correctly timed regen. I played around for awhile until I figured out that my shifter knob felt ergonomically correct for my regen control. I am still toying with how to have a paddle behind my steering wheel that is easy to use, but I have found that my shifter knob was super easy to get used to. I only drive with one pedal, since the lack of off throttle regen allows me to do really nice clutchless shifts, and my shifter mounted control is easier to use than a brake pedal. As it turns out our hands have better dexterity than our feet, so braking action is much more intuitive when done with the hand control. The key is to locate the brake pot in the best spot possible.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

This whole thread:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFsOUbZ0Lr0


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

evmetro said:


> I maintain that in order to optimize energy savings, you must freewheel


You've been maintaining that all day.

But so far, your evidence has been limited to "My research shows" and "Here's the Wikipedia article for Kinetic Energy".


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

RIPPERTON said:


> A throttle is not a trombone.
> Single pedal deadband matching requires more fuzzy logic than most drivers have. Sure most of us DIYers have it but when we are talking about OEM mass production, a dedicated regen pedal would be the most usable method.
> It could be offered as a bolt and plug optional 3rd pedal that auto configures when you plug it in.


Wow, it is nice to see you drop in on this one! You are the only other person out there who I know of who is conscious of how regen can be properly used.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> You've been maintaining that all day.
> 
> But so far, your evidence has been limited to "My research shows" and "Here's the Wikipedia article for Kinetic Energy".


And what proof do you have that off throttle regen is more efficient than freewheeling while using variable on demand regen as needed?


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> And what proof do you have that off throttle regen is more efficient than freewheeling while using variable on demand regen as needed?


BUT that isn't what you said, is it: *"Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."*

You're changing your original statement to fit the argument properly.... that's all I wanted. I just wanted you to either prove it, or change your statement to be correct.

We're not saying that being actively in off throttle regen is going to be more efficient than freewheeling. Read what we said, we're saying you can achieve the same results with both enabling it or disabling it. Just don't go into neutral regen, merely let off slightly and coast. It's doing the same thing inside the controller with the same end result.


Myself, I prefer both. Off throttle regen enabled, slight and with a slow roll-on, and a braking regen enabled with a brake transducer to really kick it on.


----------



## onegreenev (May 18, 2012)

After driving my Leaf since 2011 I can say I'd love to have a way to turn on or off the off throttle regen and to have a way to configure it but to be limited to what the factory says is safe. I'd like to have that same control on the brake regen as well. I'd prefer brake regen and the ability to turn off the off throttle and to configure it. They have a light off throttle regen and a heavy one in eco mode but over all I'd say regen is mostly for the braking function rather than the extending your range function. On my daily commute it does not change enough if I use heavy or light off throttle regen. I can't coast so I can't test to see if I could get more or less but Im betting that they don't have freewheeling on a car because you are not supposed to depress a clutch while going down hill because it can be dangerous. We know people do but the car companies are not going to build that in. They build in regen to make it feel like a regular gas powered car in thinking that's what people want. I bet the masses would love some change. Or the ability to change some things to better conform to their driving. 

I don't think that regen takes away enough or gives back enough to really make a difference on total range with normal driving.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

I cant believe people on here still ignore the fact I got 27% range extension in my Mira by using a dedicated variable regen pedal as my primary brake.
If you cant get the same, youre doin it wrong.

Steep descents and red light stops are no brainer full regen events where OTR is not relevant
The grey area is the gradual descents where wind and rolling resistance offer all the speed limitation you need to keep your vehicle at the speed limit. This is where you dont want OTR messing with your driving. OTR is a hamfisted prescripted autocontrol that just isnt detailed enough to deal with the intricate practice of rolling down a gradual hill.
I maintain you never let a machine make decisions for you (autopilot included) and if the driver doesnt feed any control inputs into the car, the car does nothing (freewheel) A machine is a slave and does only what its told.
Engine braking is an outdated ICE relic


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

frodus said:


> BUT that isn't what you said, is it: *"Off throttle regen wastes as much energy as it harvests."*
> 
> You're changing your original statement to fit the argument properly.... that's all I wanted. I just wanted you to either prove it, or change your statement to be correct.
> 
> ...


I agree that the cherry picked remark is controversial , since it would depend on the type of driving and terrain and such, but I am greatly disappointed that on a forum like this that is loaded with engineers and people who are interested in efficiency and electric cars, that I would encounter so many people who have no interest when an established builder who has demonstrated awareness of the basics of thermal dynamics and energy describes a way to maximize the efficiency of an EV. Do people just stop learning once they become engineers? I just saw two knowledge people post denials to my research, claiming that humans are able to accurately and consistently match deadband, and completely dismissing the notion that their perceived ability may not be what they think. I usually consider assertions from engineers to be the truth, but I have now learned yet another thing today. The knowledge of engineers is valuable and should be respected, but that does not mean that it is the truth. Some of us are destined to drive production EVs, and some of us are destined to make better ones.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

RIPPERTON said:


> I cant believe people on here still ignore the fact I got 27% range extension in my Mira by using a dedicated variable regen pedal as my primary brake.
> If you cant get the same, youre doin it wrong.
> 
> Steep descents and red light stops are no brainer full regen events where OTR is not relevant
> ...


I suspect that people may have to witness and test for themselves to be able to process the breathtaking results of properly managed regen and understand what we know. It has felt like I am trying to explain why we can't put windmills and alternators on our cars to a non educated EV newcomer. Riperton, if I was ever on your continent, I would pay money to ride in another EV that does it right. In the meantime, I have a Cadillac in the works right now, and it is being built around an ergonomic hand pot.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

evmetro said:


> claiming that humans are able to accurately and consistently match deadband


I said no such thing. 

At some point, perhaps you should consider reading what I said.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Hollie Maea said:


> I said no such thing.
> 
> At some point, perhaps you should consider reading what I said.


I have re read all of your posts on this thread since reading your above post. It appears to me that you have doubt that there is any significant difference between zero off throttle regen with a variable on demand regen pot, and using the human brain as a speed controller that manages off throttle regen. My research and test vehicles indicate otherwise. What you think is your business, but unless you actually can scientifically prove my claims to be false, I would not recommend writing them off. Things may look different if you ever get used to using regen up to the threshold of traction, and limit its use to the correct time. Once you see what you have been missing, you will see that off throttle regen was limiting efficiency.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

27% range improvement from re-gen
Either means you are driving like a hooligan or you live in a very hilly area

I have just been for a 200km drive in my Subaru
I left my drive, used my brakes once to stop at a junction - then it was no brakes all the way to Invercargill
In the city I did have to use my brakes a couple of times - then it was all of the way back with no brakes
If I had been re-gennning - maybe 1%?


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Duncan said:


> 27% range improvement from re-gen
> Either means you are driving like a hooligan or you live in a very hilly area
> 
> I have just been for a 200km drive in my Subaru
> ...


Did you use engine brakes though like brushing off speed for a corner ?
Majority of EV users would drive their EVs in the city or suburbs commuting to and from work where regen is used all the time.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

No no need here - speed limit is 100kph and there aren't any slower corners on that route
The Subaru is an auto - it only slows gently - mostly wind drag 

I know I'm probably an outlier with the roads and speeds around here - but I reckon 27% is an outlier in the opposite direction!


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

I wouldn't doubt if the front gets tweaked a little, but if the lack of the unnecessary "grill" is all people can complain about, they are doing something right. I thought it looked a little like the EV1, a modernized one, but the front of the EV1 doesn't have a grill.

The bigger story is that if Tesla can make the cars fast enough, they will double the number of electric vehicles on US roads in a year or two.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

evmetro said:


> I agree that the cherry picked remark is controversial , since it would depend on the type of driving and terrain and such, but I am greatly disappointed that on a forum like this that is loaded with engineers and people who are interested in efficiency and electric cars, that I would encounter so many people who have no interest when an established builder who has demonstrated awareness of the basics of thermal dynamics and energy describes a way to maximize the efficiency of an EV. Do people just stop learning once they become engineers? I just saw two knowledge people post denials to my research, claiming that humans are able to accurately and consistently match deadband, and completely dismissing the notion that their perceived ability may not be what they think. I usually consider assertions from engineers to be the truth, but I have now learned yet another thing today. The knowledge of engineers is valuable and should be respected, but that does not mean that it is the truth. Some of us are destined to drive production EVs, and some of us are destined to make better ones.


I only wanted you to clarify/modify your statement, because it was incorrect. You did, and now I'm done. 


Seriously, let it go.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

evmetro said:


> Question for the Tesla community. I am curious what impact the flood of new Teslas and charging stations will have on the overall charging grid.


This is a tough question to answer. The superchargers are intended for long distance travel. I suspect that with a flood of Model 3's in a couple of years there will be people who try to abuse the network. I use the supercharger that is about 5 miles from me once or twice a week. Even though it is free and only about 10 minutes drive away it is inconvenient enough that I don't go out there just to charge up. I charge to 90% when I use the Supercharger and at home I have the setting to charge set to 50%. If I charge on Friday to 90% I might see it actually charge at home on Wednesday.

Today there are 257 Supercharger sites with an average of 6 charge terminals at each site. This is supposed to more than double by the end of 2017. Pairs of terminals share a Superchargers 120 kw capability. This means there are approximately 771 of these 120 kw load points spread across the country. It is therefore possible that if every station planned for at the end of 2017 was occupied and the cars were all pulling maximum allowed power the grid would see a supercharger load of 93 megawatts. At night the power companies would like this. During the day in many regions probably not so much.

In normal use these cars are charged at night just like our DIY cars. According to several reports the grid can handle more than 10 million EV's if they charge at night with no change in infrastructure. It doesn't matter what kind of EV they are because we know how much people drive and about how much energy this will take.



evmetro said:


> Do Teslas have their own unique charging connection for Tesla charging stations? What charging connections come on Teslas, and can non production EVs access Tesla charging stations?


Tesla has their own connector capable of doing at least 350 amps at 405 volts. Included with the car is a J1772 adaptor that converts J1772 into the Tesla plug. There is also a cable with this connector on one end and on the other end their version of a portable EVSE with several different plugs to match different power receptacles. Included are the standard 110 VAC 15 amp which the car will pull a max of 12 amps settable to less and a NEMA 14-50 plug which does 240 VAC at up to 40 amps, again settable to a lower value. The Roadster has a different connector and I don't think it is capable of L3 at the superchargers or Chademo.

You can also purchase a Tesla specific EVSE that can provide 80 amps at 240 VAC for your garage called the Wall Connector (used to be called HPWC for High Power Wall Connector). This is the device that Tesla provides free to qualifying businesses as destination charge stations. To take full advantage of this you need to buy the optional second charger for the car. With a single charger you can charge at 10 kw and with the dual chargers you can charger at 20 kw.

You can also buy a Chademo adapter which converts Chademo to Tesla. Most Chademo stations are limited to 125 amps or less at up to 500 volts. The adapter is rated at 220 amps if I remember correctly. I suppose this is to future proof the adapter.

Elon has stated a couple of time that other OEM's can take advantage of the Supercharger Network if they are willing to pay for their share of it. I would love to use the supercharger for my DIY EV's but I see this as unlikely unless you can take the charging stuff from a salvaged Tesla and put enough of it in your EV. And then it would work only as long as they allow it. We believe that the negotiation between your car and the Supercharger includes your Vehicles information like the VIN so they can validate you.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

Duncan said:


> However my IC cars have cruise control and I find that on a long run - or just about anything out of town - I drive using the cruise control only tapping the pedal to go back to throttle control when I get to a town
> 
> I assume that the Tesla is the same (but much better) so on a long run the pedal won't be used very much??


You set the cruise and it controls the throttle to hold speed, applying throttle and regen at appropriate levels to hold the set speed. On my car the max power is 320 kw and the max regen is 60kw. 60 kw is 80 HP. so there is rather a lot of braking power available. I assume the 60 kw figure is due to max charging current limitations. At the nominal pack voltage of 405 volts and 60000 watts the charge current would be 148 amps. At a low state of charge this would be 189 amps so not really pushing it too much. If I do a 100% range charge I cannot do much regen for the first 20 or 30 miles of travel because the battery is just too full to accept the high regen currents. But yes, in the Model S you leave the Supercharger, get on the interstate, set the cruise to 80 mph and drive to the next Supercharger about 140 miles away. Rinse and repeat until you reach your destination. If you have the autopilot features you can probably turn on the autopilot and mostly ignore even steering the car too. I've heard that a few people have driven clear across the US mostly on autopilot. I actually like driving so this does not interest me all that much.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

evmetro said:


> I would be interested in understanding what Tesla uses for cruise control. Cruise that is able to use regen and forward torque to maintain an exact speed would seem likely to yield better efficiency than than what a human can do on flat ground, but could be less than optimal in hilly country. Your DC rig uses free energy that is available for the taking when you go down a hill, but an EV that is harvesting that same energy and storing it in batteries sees a lot of energy loss.
> 
> When I drove a big rig for a living, my engine brake was integrated with the cruise control so that I would pick up about 5mph before the first two cylinders of engine brake would kick in. Another 5mph faster down a hill, and two more cylinders of engine brake would kick in, and then the same for the last two cylinders to kick in for full on engine brake. This kind of incremental braking could be really cool if used on an EV to control the regen with cruise control.


It is clear from your comments you have not driven a Tesla. The throttle is not the same as in an ICE or even like our DIY EV's. You are commanding the speed with the throttle pedal setting. The farther away you are from the commanded speed the more power is applied. The same applies to the regen when you are above the desired speed. If you are only a tiny bit above the car will coast or apply a very small amount of regen. The regen is completely variable from 0 to 60 kw. It is not a all or nothing thing. The amount Tesla has chosen is a little aggressive when you first move over from an ICE driving experience but you quickly get used to it and there is no difficulty attaining a precise setting. Tesla has tuned this very well. Cruise will maintain speed through the application of variable amounts of regen up to 60 kw when descending a steep grade. I have played with it and it is easily capable of holding the speed to 65 mph down a 10% grade.

You really need to go test drive a Tesla. All your criticisms should go away. What you will be left with is trying to figure out how to do on your own car what they have done.


----------



## Hollie Maea (Dec 9, 2009)

dougingraham said:


> It is therefore possible that if every station planned for at the end of 2017 was occupied and the cars were all pulling maximum allowed power the grid would see a supercharger load of 93 megawatts.


Spread out around the country, that's really a tiny amount. The "homes" metric that power companies love to use is 5kW per home. So that's the equivalent of 18600 "homes". Essentially a small town, but spread out over the country.

By contrast, the dam near my house has a nameplate rating of about 1200MW.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

Karter2 said:


> Cruise control is a given ,...i hope !
> But zero off throttle regen is not available according to a previous post !


Throttle off regen is available. You put the car in neutral with a partial tap of the control stalk. To place back in drive you pull the stalk down fully or raise it to go into reverse. If your foot is off the pedal when you do this you will get max regen.



Karter2 said:


> ...which leads me to think that any opinion on this depends on previous driving experience and hence habit/preferences etc..
> Drivers of manual (stick shift) cars will be used to significant off throttle retardation and have the requsite muscle memory for that type of single pedal control .
> But drivers moving from conventional autos (torque converter) will not be used to a "2 way" throttle and may find it an unatural experience if they have been used to a "pulse and coast" driving style .
> Most people would be able to adapt im sure, but with modern electronic controls it ought to be possible to "programme" the control functions to suit individual driving preferences.


Until you have driven it for a couple of hours your tendency is to take your foot off the pedal. This applies max regen. You soon learn to gradually lower the speed so as to bring you to a comfortable stop. If something happens and you need to stop now your natural inclination is to remove your foot from the throttle and stand on the brake pedal. You get max regen and friction brakes.

The only time I have had a problem with the Tesla regen was on ice or in low traction situations. Because I have rear wheel drive and the regen is only applied on the rear the car fishtails every so slightly before the traction control straightens it out. So I switch to the low regen setting which seems to eliminate this one issue. I expect an all wheel drive car would not have this issue or it would exhibit differently.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

dougingraham said:


> It is clear from your comments you have not driven a Tesla. The throttle is not the same as in an ICE or even like our DIY EV's. You are commanding the speed with the throttle pedal setting. The farther away you are from the commanded speed the more power is applied. The same applies to the regen when you are above the desired speed. If you are only a tiny bit above the car will coast or apply a very small amount of regen. The regen is completely variable from 0 to 60 kw. It is not a all or nothing thing. The amount Tesla has chosen is a little aggressive when you first move over from an ICE driving experience but you quickly get used to it and there is no difficulty attaining a precise setting. Tesla has tuned this very well. Cruise will maintain speed through the application of variable amounts of regen up to 60 kw when descending a steep grade. I have played with it and it is easily capable of holding the speed to 65 mph down a 10% grade.
> 
> You really need to go test drive a Tesla. All your criticisms should go away. What you will be left with is trying to figure out how to do on your own car what they have done.


I am not as critical of the Tesla as I apparently sound, and am in fact quite impressed with many things on them. As a custom car builder, the gaps between panels like the doors and hood and such are breathtakingly precise for a production car, and the overall engineering is leaps and bounds beyond what I see in other high end cars. I have studied the under body chassis that is at my local dealer that has the body off, and immediately incorporated their vacuum pump isolation system into my Cadillac build. The under chassis construction was less impressive than than what I saw on the body, but the choice of materials was nice. I am excited about what they are doing with the cruise control system, but there is something that it is lacking that I am unable to articulate, even to the engineers here on this forum, which has to do with off throttle regen. Off throttle regen is regen that is introduced via pre determined parameters that can not be accurate enough to allow peak efficiency. Most folks on this forum have a hard enough time just conceiving that, let alone just how much it adversely effects efficiency. Ripperton and I are the only ones who are conscious of the problem. I could still enjoy a Tesla that passes up such a great opportunity to harvest mother natures gift, just as I enjoy my one conversion that is still running off throttle regen. It would be pretty cool for those of us who have interest in optimum efficiency if Tesla could step up to the plate and at least have a switch that would allow using an unencumbered mode with a way to correctly time the right amount of regen based on the immediate road conditions.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

frodus said:


> I only wanted you to clarify/modify your statement, because it was incorrect. You did, and now I'm done.
> 
> 
> Seriously, let it go.


I am good with that as long as we are clear that the controversial statement is in fact controversial since it can be and often is correct. I clearly see my error in making such a general statement as if it was true all the time, and it was most likely you who taught me the the value of being precise and specific in regard to scientific discussion. Either way, I feel very comfortable stating that off throttle regen "generally" impedes optimum efficiency. Only Ripperton and I know just how much.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

dougingraham said:


> Throttle off regen is available. You put the car in neutral with a partial tap of the control stalk. To place back in drive you pull the stalk down fully or raise it to go into reverse. If your foot is off the pedal when you do this you will get max regen.
> .........
> Until you have driven it for a couple of hours your tendency is to take your foot off the pedal. .......


Doug, 
I think you may have miss read my point that..... "ZERO off throttle regen". is not available ?
But thanks for confirming that long time drivers of conventional autos will ahve to adapt to a very different control/throttle technique.

There is also a huge issue with test driving a Tesla...easy to do (Tesla regularly Email me oportunities !) but i fear the financial consequences may be highly detrimental to my nights sleep !
I actually booked a test drive when the Tesla store opened on Sydney, but when the day came, i could not trust my will power to resist a deposit.....so for my own sanity ..i cancelled !.
In many ways i am a ideal Tesla owner, an EV enthusiast, .....frequent short city trips, garage charging facilities, and less than 2 miles from the Tesla Service center......BUT, Dispite having a financial situation which would easily allow me to own a Mod S, i just cannot justify that scale of investment in a car....of any type. To us , a Mod S costs over 3 times the averave income (Au$200k !) , and sadly even the Mod 3 looks like it will be Au$50-60k when it gets here.
Im hoping by then there will be other EV options from GM, Ford, Mitsubishi, etc at more " acceptable" prices


----------



## Kamleshgk (May 24, 2012)

I cant believe some people here are saying this

```
regen takes away enough or gives back enough to really make a difference on total range with normal driving
```
Check out my Trip A reading of the dash. The car did 116 km and still has 26% SOC left. Granted i descended from an altitude of 650 m (Pune) to 0 m (Mumbai)

But having this magical feature enabled me to not halt at a stop to charge. My car goes 100 km, but throttle regen enables me to go beyond 100km all the time.










Having regen when you take your foot off the accelerator (throttle regen) can be useful. Which helped me a lot during my drive to Mumbai.

But i do agree, there are definitely times when coasting is preferred to aggressive re-gen though.
Not only because it covers more ground on the energy you have already used to accelerate and uses the kinetic energy of the car to carry you farther with the only losses coming from aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance.

Maybe, having three modes of driving: acceleration, coasting, and braking is much more efficient than having just two: acceleration and braking.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

My Mira data shows every 1km of vertical descent is worth 2kWh. The road in question was 62km long so 1:62 decline.
I also did 116km on 8.2kWh of battery charge because of this descent.

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/mira-inboard-hub-motors-82349p25.html


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

Kamleshgk said:


> But having this magical feature enabled me to not halt at a stop to charge. My car goes 100 km, but throttle regen enables me to go beyond 100km all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know I would like the ability to coast, and in the flat part of the world that I live in, I would think that using 0 Wh of power to coast down the road would be better than having to use a consistent amount of power to keep the regen off. But, I'm not sure how much more distance you will get, and how real world driving conditions will effect it.


----------



## RIPPERTON (Jan 26, 2010)

Caps18 said:


> having to use a consistent amount of power to keep the regen off.


Is that what is really happening though. Isnt there a dead spot in the throttle between power and regen where nothing happens ?


----------



## Ampster (Oct 6, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> ......, I would think that using 0 Wh of power to coast down the road would be better than having to use a consistent amount of power to keep the regen off..


Does feathering the pedal use much, if any, power to keep the Regen off? My guess is no. Sure, there is a miniscule amount of power used to run the controller but that is already on anyway. The motor is already turning so no additional power required there. When I first ran my conversion, there was no regen. I had to hook up another pot to my brake pedal and change the programming in the software. Until then, there was no energy being consumed to "keep the regen off"
NOTE: Ripperton said essentially the same thing at the same time above.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

Kamleshgk said:


> Check out my Trip A reading of the dash. The car did 116 km and still has 26% SOC left. Granted i descended from an altitude of 650 m (Pune) to 0 m (Mumbai)
> 
> But having this magical feature enabled me to not halt at a stop to charge. My car goes 100 km, but throttle regen enables me to go beyond 100km all the time.......


Im sure there is benefit from regen, ...
....but im afraid your example is more than a little invalidated by the elevation change .!


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> I know I would like the ability to coast, and in the flat part of the world that I live in, I would think that using 0 Wh of power to coast down the road would be better than having to use a consistent amount of power to keep the regen off. But, I'm not sure how much more distance you will get, and how real world driving conditions will effect it.


The key here is that there is a mystery amount of energy that is available for those who want to take advantage of it. The concept that there is energy available that nobody is taking advantage of appears to be quite controversial, as you can see by the amount of debating that has occurred in regards to my findings and claims. If I remember right, you are running an HPEVS kit, which means that you have the technology needed to properly manage kinetic energy and to harvest what others don't. You can do your own testing to see what is really going on. You can log tests as your car is now, and then reconfigure it to zero off throttle regen. It will take a few tests to determine what setting to use for the on demand regen pot, but the idea is to set the on demand regen just below the threshold of traction. For my little 2000 lb Metro, 50 kW is my threshold for safety. These settings will give you the kinetic harmony of a DC rig, but will use the AC regen capability to slow or stop the car as needed. There is no documented evidence that this will do anything for you, other than some know nothing guy who converts Metros to electric, and some guy in Australia with a Mira both claiming remarkable results. If you are curious yourself, all you have to do is test it and see. My research indicates that off throttle regen harvests some kinetic energy that was already paid for with battery energy, and it blocks harvesting some kinetic energy that becomes available as the terrain changes. The inopportune regen tends to cancel out the energy that it harvests at opportune times.


----------

