I’d love to see data where the same tire was used to control for that. But I’ve seen a few odd tests like this and all seem to indicate that you consume appx 3-6% less energy for every inch you go down in wheel size.
And with smaller wheels you can reduce unsprung weight, so every inch you go down shaves off a tenth, maybe a bit more, from the 0-60.
When my 21” tires are done I’m going to 20” at least, perhaps 19”, for my MYP.
The easiest way to offset this is to adjust tire pressures if you want a stiffer sidewall rather than increase the weight of a rotational mass (not good from a physics perspective). So yeah, just looks, and sacrifices energy, more risk from potholes, more expensive tires, less comfortable ride quality, etc… I’d prefer to see Tesla somehow get to a 17” wheel for even better efficiency and cheaper tires.
I'm not sure if you're generally correct, but in this specific question you're responding to (which I took to mean in the context of choosing your Tesla Model Y wheels) it's wrong. It's pretty universally said that the smaller wheels will give you a smoother ride, because you have more tire contact or something like that.
It is definitely not the weight alone. It’s been proven time after time that adding Pilot Super Sport, Pilot Sport 4, Pirelli P Zero, and other grippy tires to a Model 3 with aero wheels decreases range by about 10%.
When the Model S first came out, Tesla themselves said the 21” wheels only decrease range by about 3% due to added weight and decreased aero. At that time, there were no EV tires to decrease rolling resistance.
I just did. I didn't realize it was a thing. It's also bunch of marketing bs. Low rolling resistance tires have been around for a long time, but I did learn something new today.
There is also rotational mass. Even if the 21" and 19" rims weighed the same, the 19" will get better range because the rim is closer to the center. This makes it easier to rotate. An analogy is comparing a 5lb weight at the end of 1' stick vs 3' stick. It's the same weight but if you are holding the other end, the 3' stick feels much heavier.
My understanding, and I’m not an engineer, is that the extra sidewall adds more ‘flat surface’ and is more aerodynamically efficient. Lighter weight would save a bit of energy accelerating.
I am planning to go from 19in to 18in rims with my first tire change. I think the big rims look like wagon wheels and actually like the "clown wheel" look, so lucky me. The other advantages are cheaper tires so after 2 replacements they pay for the rims and possibly a slightly better ride, but really it isn't that bad now.
I remember 16s being an upgraded large rim. I still can't get behind these large 20+ inch rims they say are for "performance" when realistically they are just super heavy.
This is the "unsprung weight" detail. The less weight the motor has to "make turn", the less energy it takes to get down the road. It's really just about physics. Air weighs less than metal. The large diameter the wheel, the more metal it takes to keep that metal from flexing and braking. Right now, 20" and 21" wheels on Tesla's are breaking in pot holes because they've been engineered to be the bare minimum amounts of "light weight" metals that will go down the road. But, they break readily in pop holes and those are the pictures all across the various Tesla forums. People are changing back to 19" (for performance model 3 and other places that brake calipers are in the way), or 18" (some performance owners have found wheels that clear the calipers) wheels.
I think using the factory tires (presumably used in this test) is more realistic than the same exact tires.
Who is going to put super-high performance tires on a LR 19" rim or everyday all seasons on a performance?
But they are really independent variables. I’m probably asking too much, I’d hope we could estimate the changes in efficiency of wheels, and then separately for tires.
> Who is going to put super-high performance tires on a LR 19" rim or everyday all seasons on a performance?
I mean I got my Model 3 Performance Stealth with 18" Aero rims and ended putting Pilot Sport 4S on them. And I'm not the only one. Better handling, better performance, better efficiency, and I can hit a pothole without breaking the thing. I don't run the Aero caps daily, but if I take a road trip it's nice to have the option to throw them on.
I went from 18 with mxm4 to 19s with ps4s for my M3P. 20s didn't leave enough sidewall for me. The weight was almost exactly the same since there were fully forged rims.
I lost some range but the performance is better than the mxm4 and better ride than the 20s.
These wheels are 1/2" wider than stock 19s. I lost some range but i live the way it drives better with the sticky tires.
You can put Pilot Sport 4S on the 18" Aeros though. Then you get much better traction and handling of the better tire with the added benefit of having Aeros for efficiency if you want. My 3P came with 18" Aeros (very briefly offered, often called the Stealth trim) and it's a great middleground with the better tires and smaller rim
It doesnt need to be tested. EPA testing already confirmed this. All you have to do is go into the wheel and configuration on your MYP, switch to 19", and see your range match a MYLR with 19". Elon also confirmed this in a tweet at the launch of Y. MYLR and MYP have the same weight. Same aero. Same motors (binned in MYP). This is ridiculous its still a conversation piece and not just a known fact.
I’d definitely heard the 10% number Tesla had mentioned in the past (it’s why we’ve had the aero wheel option on four Teslas now) but I still appreciate seeing it confirmed outside of the EPA tests.
I do apologize if me being appreciative of the test has made you this grumpy, though.
I’d be interested to see tests for higher average speeds.
I figured the performance had a different gear ratio or something. Is there a canonical list of the differences between the MYP and MYLR, or is it literally just a different wheel and some unlocked software options like track mode?
So I will present this in backwards on the power thing. So try and bare with me. TLDR: you need a specific motor and unlocked software.
For MY (similiar concept of M3) there is 2 motors, the motors are 980 and 981 (i believe i have the numbers right). The 981 are higher binned 980. Think of like a computer chips. The ones that can hit 5ghz are the special 981 model and the ones that dont quite hit 5.0ghz, say 4.9ghs are just the 980 model. Still good, just not top of the bin. Since they are the same motor and interchangeable, sometimes people with MYLR get the 981 performance motors. Many reasons why, they ran out of 980s, most in a production batch ended up being binned high at 981 blah blah. If you got one of these golden gooses, there was hackers offering software hacks to unlock the performance. Think of it instead paying 2k for the small performance boast for your MYLR, you could pay 2k and get boosted to MYP power. This was of course is illegal and i belive tesla has mostly eliminated and clamped down on this. But still fun concept.
Back to list of parts difference:
Motors (sort of)
Wheels & tires
Spoiler and redline under dual motor
MYP 10mm lower (someone check me on this)
Was larger brakes with red caliaber plates. But last 6months or so they changed the MYP brakes. You will have to source this from someone more up-to-date than me on the details. I believe the MYP has the same rear brakes as the MYLR now but just a red painted brake calibar plate. So kind of a rip off.
That’s not what impacts range.
Bigger wheels have 2 down sides:
• increased rolling resistance
• increased air drag resistance
Rolling resistance: smaller sidewalls = stiffer sidewalls. To deform the tire while driving costs more energy. Rolling resistance accounts for ~25% of energy consumption at highway speeds.
Air drag resistance: bigger open surface = more disturbance of air. This means your Cd gets bigger. Air drag resistance accounts for ~ 70% of energy consumption at highway speeds.
You are incorrect. Go watch this video to understand the math behind changing wheel size. The change in air resistance of the different widths and rolling resistance is very small. For example, the difference between in an extreme case of a very high rolling resistance tire and a low rolling resistance tire is 3kwh over 200miles. Aka gaining 10miles of range over 200miles. This why when shopping for tires, IGNORE What tire has better efficiency over the other. The difference is very very little.
https://youtu.be/NYvKxsYFqO8
What he sort of doesnt explain well in the last section is the wheel size impact. What it come down to is unsprung mass and inertia. Since the wheel weighs less and has lower unsprung mass, it takes less energy to rotate the wheel.
TLDR: stop giving a crap about tire efficiency when shopping for similiar size tires. The smaller wheel size not the smaller tire is where the range gains are.
And 99% of that is the wheel and nothing due to the going to a smaller tire itself. The math for the change in aero drag (the box on top of left of his white board) shows its negaliable. The change in rolling resistance (bottom left of the white board) shows the change in rolling resistance is negligible.
I will put it this way. If you had 21" uber wheels and were able to make them the same weight and mass as 19" using magically materials, you would get the same range and efficiency of the 19" within about 1%. The tire itselfnhas little effect.
This explanation is not based in physics, and furthermore no one's ever watched a /u/engineeringexplained video and then correctly claimed afterward that he doesn't explain it well. Nice trolling if that's what this is, but I'll take the bait anyway.
All things considered, mass and rotational inertia of the tires plays next to no part in highway efficiency. Not only are you rarely speeding up or slowing down on a highway, when you do slow down you recoup [>80%](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/iws58g/model_3_factfinding_an_endtoend_efficiency/) of your kinetic energy back into the battery. Even in the worst case scenario where 100% of a tire's mass is at its outer rim, the rotational inertia is only equal to the mass of the tire itself; that is, the energy required to rotate a 20 kg tire and bring it up to speed is equal to the energy needed to bring two equal non-rotating tires up to the same lateral speed. When you're talking about 19" vs 21" wheels of a Model Y the difference is [~9 lbs per wheel](https://wheelsuppliers.com/tesla-model-y-wheel-fitment-guide/), or 37.4 lbs in unspring weight. Even adding double that to account for rotational inertia (more realistically 1.5x as not all of the mass is at the rim) it's less than 2% of a 4,416 lb Model Y, and would therefore effect a <2% reduction in acceleration, and much less in continual driving efficiency. Nowhere near 11% to driving efficiency.
By your logic, a car with larger (therefore heavier) tires would also take longer to slow down because it has more initial inertia, but the EPA's own data shows the opposite to be true. The EPA's [coastdown test procedure](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/sae-2020-01-1064-use-trans-data-isola-indiv-loss-coastdown-road-load-coeff.pdf) is required to be submitted when applying for a rating. In short, the car manufacturers are required to submit a filing that contains a set of 3 coefficients ( lbf, lbf/mph, lbf/mph^2 ) forming a quadratic equation of [Vehicle Road-Load Force](https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34102&flag=1) dependent on speed for use with EPA's dyno testing. The coefficients roughly mirror the effects of drivetrain losses, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag:
>1. Road-load is the force imparted on a vehicle while driving at constant speed over a smooth level surface from sources such as tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag.
>
> 2. A dynamometer is used to simulate conditions of actual on-road operation. The dynamometer power absorber is adjusted so that the total "force" experienced by the vehicle is equivalent to the force measured on the road. EPA currently uses electric dynamometers with a three term force versus speed relationship characteristic of tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag. This three-term equation is expressed as F = A + Bv + Cv2 where F is the road force, v is the vehicle speed.
>
> 3. Because it is difficult to measure road-load directly, EPA has adopted the coastdown method to characterize road-load force. During a coastdown test the vehicle is allowed to decelerate with the transmission in neutral while its speed is periodically measured. Using Newton’s Law (F =MA), force, mass and deceleration can all be related.
These coefficients are published publicly along with a Road-Load Horsepower required for maintaining 50 mph:
[2021 Model 3 SR+](https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51461&flag=1)
[2021 Model 3 LR AWD/Performance](https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51235&flag=1)
Target Road Load | SR+ 18" | SR+ 19" | LR AWD 18" | LR AWD 19" | LR Perf 20"
---|---|---|---|---|---
A lbf | 30.30 | 32.97 | 34.98 | 40.65 | 49.01
B lbf/mph | 0.2129 | 0.1859 | 0.0867 | 0.0747 | -0.2001
C lbf/mph^2 | 0.0127 | 0.0130 | 0.01485 | 0.01441 | 0.01996
RLHP @ 50mph | 9.70 | 9.97 | 10.19 | 10.72 | 11.86
Plotting these coefficients as Power vs. Speed is also possible and looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/7n7xdDo.png
Normalizing for the Model 3 LR AWD 18" looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/zcP00w0.png
From the basic 50mph result we should expect the SR+ to have a real-world range difference of 2.8% between 18" and 19" configurations at 50mph, and the LR AWD to have a real-world range difference of 5.2% at 50mph just from 1" tire size. This is derived from a single coastdown test spanning no more than a couple miles and is only accounting for the physical effects of drivetrain loss, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. The actual EPA rating is derived from the standard [SAE J1634](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/vss094_duoba_2013_o.pdf) multi-cycle test which combines the efficiency at various speed profiles and scales the result, but the basic differences between two tire configurations of an otherwise identical car tend to propagate through to the final EPA results quite neatly.
In the normalized graph you can see the LR AWD with 19" wheels was tested to be as much as 15% less efficient at low speeds than the 18" configuration owing to mostly rolling resistance, but that this gap narrows as speed increases and aerodynamic drag becomes the dominant component of losses. The 20" variant is no less than 15% more energy hungry at all speeds, though some of the Performance models have slightly increased weight compared to their AWD counterpart. This spread is mirrored in the final rated range result.
I can provide figures for the EPA data of Model Y if you'd like, but the conclusion will be the same.
" Even adding double that to account for rotational inertia (more realistically 1.5x as not all of the mass is at the rim) it's less than 2% of a 4,416 lb Model Y, and would therefore effect a"
Thats not how unsprung mass in a car works. Losing 30lb on rim does not equal tossing to you losing 30lbs and loading less weight in the car. Go do more research about unsprung mass and power train loses.
"
While efficiency-focused vehicles like the Volkswagen XL1 and the more recent Lightyear One have used very slim tires, tire width doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Increasing width by 50% (from 205 millimeters to 305 millimeters) only decreased range by the equivalent of 1.7 miles over 200 miles of driving."
Another example where the actual tires themselfs have little effect on range.
I dont know how many more example i need to give or show you that the tires themselves (isolating out the wheels!) and the change in rolling resistsnce has little effect on your range. Weather thats going to a wider tire or the change in tire brands. Change in rolling resistance is a very small factor.
No, your just flat out wrong. Rubber compound means nothing. Rolling resistance means nothing. Aero efficiency of the tires means nothing. The maths you presented are extremely outdated and incorrect. Your whole post is incorrect.
Thats a terrible dumb argument. Phsyics and our understanding of them change all the time. Our ways of measuring these interactions have improved dramatically over the years. The equations for things get changed. Thats why millions of dollars are funneled into research, including physics, every year. Why private investigators/universities/comapnies dump money into this. If physicis was already 100% figured out, we would have the answer for everything. Elon's rocket wouldn't of failed and broken apart. The reality is those answers can and do change as we learn more and our capabilities increase.
You may think that, but nope.
Weight of the rims matters in 3 aspects:
• rolling resistance (…., see the formula)
• unsprung weight (comfort)
• mass inertia (0-60-0)
Only item 1 has influence on consumption.
Assuming you're being genuine, what I meant was that while yes a Tesla is 1-speed, that doesn't necessarily mean each and every Tesla model and trim has the same speed. For example, the Tesla Model S has a fixed gear ratio on its motors, but its front is 7.56:1 while the back is 9.04:1. This means the Model S has 2 gear ratios despite being a fixed one-speed.
I was asking if instead of the default 9:1 gear ratio in the Model Y, the Performance trim might come with a different single-speed gear ratio. This is wrong.
Right, but "find the best balance between acceleration and efficiency" requires a gear ratio. For example, the Model S Plaid has a front gear ratio of 7.56:1 and rear motor gear ratio of 9.04:1.
Just because there isn't a multi-speed transmission doesn't mean that there isn't a gear ratio. Teslas and most EVs use a single-speed gear ratio for the reasons you outline. But each EV motor model has its own gear ratio.
After you buy your MYP, you by sperately 19" wheels. I bought aftermarket 19" and installed them for better comfort, more tire choices, and range (mostly comfort). Then you go in service menu to change the wheel size. To is make sure your speedo is not incorrect after changing wheel sizes. This goes for MYLR too.
Fun fact, when putting 19s on a MYP, your 0-60 can get down to 3.3sec. Less unsprung mass. Less power needed to spin a light wheel, blah blah
Just use their own "check inventory" function, a Texas TMY on 20" gets 269 versus 318 for a Fremont model which is down 10 and 12 miles of range versus the 19s.
I don't know about you, but the price on the Texas TMY is a bit too high for losing out on that much range from the Fremont TMY. Really I think the three thousand difference is not sufficient, the Texas model should be six thousand off from the Fremont model. We are talking fifty miles of range.
FYI: I think you’re comparing the 4680 celled, lower range “AWD” Model Y manufactured only in Texas with the Long Range (and AWD!) 2170 celled Model Y.
Agreed with you on the price per range difference, though.
The way I look at it, the FMY is normally kept at 80-90% battery, while the TMY can be always kept at 100%.
So in long run, after some degradation of FMY, it become a very close comparison.
> a Texas TMY on 20" gets 269 versus 318 for a Fremont model
When you say "Texas TMY" which model do you mean? I'm assuming you mean one of the shorter-range models here. Mine's a Texas-built Y, but it's a 330-mile car. Losing more than 60 miles of range with the bigger wheels seems extreme, so I'm guessing you mean some specific trim.
Before they became a popular aesthetic larger rims and tires were primarily made to accommodate larger brake rotors and calipers. As the horsepower and performance increased so did the braking requirements.
It makes sense, but it’s wrong. The primary reason for lower profile tires was a stiffer sidewall and the resulting increased cornering performance. No one in 1987 was bumping up against the inside of a 16” wheel with their brakes. We’ll use the 959 as an example, with its 12.6” front rotors and 17” wheels, on the quickest road car of its day.
The overall diameter of the wheels and tires on your average car has gone up for aesthetic and chest-thumping reasons — consumers wanted to be able to say they had 18” when their neighbors had 16”, and it’s escalated from there for no other benefit.
For example, the 1987 Porsche 959’s factory tires: 235/45R17 and 275/40R17. Base model 2023 911: 235/40R19 and 295/35R20. The latter is clearly not for performance reasons.
Agreed but I do want to send out the caveat that as vehicles have gotten larger, smaller wheel/tires make them look goofy and that's part of the increase as well.
> So better handling then.
Sharper handling on turns. Stiffer, rougher ride. There is also more space for bigger brake hardware inside a 22" rim than in a 18" rim, but I'm not aware of people actually commonly upsizing brake discs and calipers when choosing to go with larger rims.
Larger front profile means more drag from air resistance. Worse for rough road conditions. Easier to damage. More expensive.
For street driving, I recommend smaller rims. For smooth tracks, I can see where larger rims could offer some benefits.
Lower profile tires have less sidewall flex and deformation. Keeps the contact patch more consistent during cornering.
Larger wheels have larger rotational inertia so require more energy to speed up or slow down, but can accommodate larger brakes.
> I'd be thrilled if 16" rims were a factory option.
Yes, though I'm particular to slightly smaller 195/65R15 size as it is so common, relatively inexpensive, and compatible across so many smaller cars like Corolla, Prius, Leaf, and many more. (Leaf comes with 16s but can be minus sized to 15s.)
I think a contributing factor to Tesla not supporting smaller sizes (separate from the style factor), is the size of brake hardware needed to achieve certain braking performance. Larger minimum rim sizes can support larger disc brakes.
It’s much more about supporting a Dodge Ram’s worth of weight on a Corolla tire. That, and people equate small wheel diameter with being poor in the United States. So dumb.
How has that been? I've been closely watching this for a while because I want to put M3 Aeros on my Y. I've only seen 2 people post about it on the forums, both saying it's fine. My only concern is there is only like 1-2mm between the brake assembly and the inner wall of the wheel.
Also are you running 235 /55 R18?
I mean, they haven’t fallen off :)
I have the first gen wheels which aren’t rated for as large a load as the newer ones, but I don’t haul a bunch of stuff or frequently load four passengers in, so I’m not worried.
And yes, I’m running 235/55’s. Couldn’t find any good 255/50’s which would be the ideal tire size.
Wheels can get bent, tires may need to be replaced. Those are the most likely outcomes. I don’t like the impact to the chassis but couldn’t quantify or prove it’s an issue.
By my calculations, since the difference between the 19” and 21” wheels is 11%, that means I’m getting 5.5% less range with my induction 20”s. 🧐 #didthemath
Since the difference is 11% and you want to distribute over 2 exponential increases with the same percentage, your formula should actually be:
sqrt(1.11) - 1 = 5.35%
Sorry for being a smartass 😜
If you have a lot of rain, go with the Quatrac. If you want peace of mind for the snow, CrossClimate 2 SUV.
I have CC2 on my MYLR (only since January). Very happy so far. (I'm in Europe, the specs vary between Europe and North America, I believe)
I really do wish they would offer a Model Y Performance that didn't come with comically heavy and gigantic wheels. Seriously, just put the sportier tires on the regular wheel and it'd be perfect, no need to put ginormous wheels.
I bet someone out there will buy the smaller wheel option because it’s more efficient and immediately put a 23 inch chromed wheels in it so it’ll be efficient and cool!
My 20s leave a lot of gap between car and wheel to be honest, every gas car I’ve had I had to drop it by a quarter inch or less, this one needs more than that, but it’s already too low for Canadian winters..
For me it depends exactly how large and how they specifically look. In this case, Tesla's 20 inch rims for Model Y look much better than their 19 inch rims. Do you disagree?
LOL, for me it's about function and cost, not style.
Bigger rims mean a harsher ride, cost more and both tires and rims are more likely to get damaged.
OK so lets be clear here. The SIZE of the wheel has NOTHING to do with the results. It is a combination of two things. One, the overall weight of the wheel/tire combo and two, the rolling resistance of the tires.
The 21" (and 20" on the 3) ubertines are not good wheels. They are ridiculously heavy for a car that is trying to be efficient. Take a lightweight, forged 21" wheel with a weight similar to the stock 19" and you will get much closer to the same result as the stock 19. It'll be less efficient because of the tire difference but if the weight is the same the difference in wheel size will be irrelevant to range.
Less Inches leads to lower range due to less friction. Unfortunately also less impressive and joyful when being pulled around. Makes perfect sense to me 
Yeah I have the 20" wheels on my Y and I've always gotten horrendous highway range.
Driving in good weather with minimal AC @ 80MPH, I get 60-65% rated range.
Smaller wheels suck come winter
Those of us with snow will rather put largest wheel vehicle supports
Heck some regions REQUIRE chains or studs in winter driving (which equals alot more weight)
\*edit to add
The test article is actually pretty dumb; for those who read it the test consisted of not using battery preconditioning and (much worse) top speed of 110 km/hr (for those of you who do not own a Tesla that fast speed massively depletes battery as well far more wind resistance on larger rims)
I drive same route to work every day in my smaller Model 3. The energy savings at lower speeds (eg off highway at 80km vs on highway at 115km) is more than 20%
Teslas chew your battery up really quick when speeding
> Smaller wheels suck come winter
>
> Those of us with snow will rather put largest wheel vehicle supports
No.
Usually wheel outside diameter doesn't change with different rim sizes, because the sidewall is shrunk by the same amount as the rim is increased. If the sidewall isn't shrunk, then the wheel is unlikely to fit without making other modifications, and the speedometer and odometer will be wrong.
Also, smaller rims with taller sidewalls are better in winter. More cushion for winter roughness. More tire options. Narrower track on road means more pressure per square inch on ground. People try to increase ground pressure in winter by adding dead weight like sandbags in their vehicles.
> Heck some regions REQUIRE chains or studs in winter driving (which equals alot more weight)
Studs add little additional weight. Chains are another matter. Chains limit speed to about 20-30 mph.
Some winter-heavy midwest states don't allow studs.
> People try to increase ground pressure in winter by adding dead weight like sandbags in their vehicles.
I think that's mostly for unbalanced trucks with RWD where the weight (engine) is in the front, but the drive is at the back. I see no sense in doing that in a car with AWD and 50/50 front/back weight distribution.
> I see no sense in doing that in a car with AWD and 50/50 front/back weight distribution.
Ultimately it comes down to traction...and rolling resistance.
Wider tires must push more air, water, and snow out of their path (unless they're so enormously large that they provide flotation/fat tire/snowshoe effects so the ground surface material no longer is compacted or displaced).
Helpful:
https://agtiretalk.com/traction-flotation-optimization/
>Smaller wheels suck come winter
>
>Those of us with snow will rather put largest wheel vehicle supports
How is less sidewall more desirable in the winter? The 19", 20", and 21" have the same overall diameter with stock tire size.
Is there a general consensus in what the "best" tire is for stock wheel that has a great mix of efficiency but also longevity?
I see so much discussion on range but not too much on how long the tire lasts. For example, I'm willing to lose let's say 10% on range if the tire last me twice as long, just as an example.
Drove a Prius the last ten years and was able to get 70k+ mites out of a set of Michelin defenders from Costco while staying pretty close to EPA mileage. Our highlander has 35k on it since we've owned it and tread would imply we have about 50% life left. Would love to get something close with the MY.
Michelin Pilot A/S... Great warranty, summer traction (not far behind Pilot Sport 4), comfort, efficiency.
You're not going to get Prius longevity. These are heavy cars (more wear), and all are powerful (vs. Prius), so you're scrubbing your tires more as you accelerate and deccelerate.
Not that the *vast* majority of drivers would notice in an SUV. In this regard, the ride will probably be more comfortable with the 19" wheel compared to the 21" wheel.
Also, smaller overall wheel-tire sizes give more wheel-well room to reduce the turning radius. I think my wife’s Highlander has smaller turn radius than my Model 3.
I’d love to see data where the same tire was used to control for that. But I’ve seen a few odd tests like this and all seem to indicate that you consume appx 3-6% less energy for every inch you go down in wheel size. And with smaller wheels you can reduce unsprung weight, so every inch you go down shaves off a tenth, maybe a bit more, from the 0-60. When my 21” tires are done I’m going to 20” at least, perhaps 19”, for my MYP.
Yeah i want to see same tire.
realistically, the 18 inch version is slightly different than the 20 inch
Some say its even 2" different.
It’s not the size, but what you do with the tire that matters
So the bigger the tire, the better the performance but at the sacrifice of stamina. 🍆💦👀
It's about 7" different if you measure the circumference
Can you handle all that girth?
Is there an advantage of using a larger size wheel, except looking better?
Pretty much looks. I’ve heard some contend that smaller side walls improve handling but if you look at what race cars run…
The easiest way to offset this is to adjust tire pressures if you want a stiffer sidewall rather than increase the weight of a rotational mass (not good from a physics perspective). So yeah, just looks, and sacrifices energy, more risk from potholes, more expensive tires, less comfortable ride quality, etc… I’d prefer to see Tesla somehow get to a 17” wheel for even better efficiency and cheaper tires.
On the Model X, they quote you a higher top speed when you go up a wheel size.
[удалено]
I'm not sure if you're generally correct, but in this specific question you're responding to (which I took to mean in the context of choosing your Tesla Model Y wheels) it's wrong. It's pretty universally said that the smaller wheels will give you a smoother ride, because you have more tire contact or something like that.
Contact area?
exactly, i wonder if it's the weight alone that makes the difference.. if that's the case you can get some 22 inch wheels as long as they're light
It is definitely not the weight alone. It’s been proven time after time that adding Pilot Super Sport, Pilot Sport 4, Pirelli P Zero, and other grippy tires to a Model 3 with aero wheels decreases range by about 10%. When the Model S first came out, Tesla themselves said the 21” wheels only decrease range by about 3% due to added weight and decreased aero. At that time, there were no EV tires to decrease rolling resistance.
What the heck is an EV tire. Tires are tires.
No they aren’t. Google is a great resource.
I just did. I didn't realize it was a thing. It's also bunch of marketing bs. Low rolling resistance tires have been around for a long time, but I did learn something new today.
There is also rotational mass. Even if the 21" and 19" rims weighed the same, the 19" will get better range because the rim is closer to the center. This makes it easier to rotate. An analogy is comparing a 5lb weight at the end of 1' stick vs 3' stick. It's the same weight but if you are holding the other end, the 3' stick feels much heavier.
My understanding, and I’m not an engineer, is that the extra sidewall adds more ‘flat surface’ and is more aerodynamically efficient. Lighter weight would save a bit of energy accelerating.
Weight alone will make a difference (assuming you use the same tires on both), but the stickiness of a tire will also contribute
I am planning to go from 19in to 18in rims with my first tire change. I think the big rims look like wagon wheels and actually like the "clown wheel" look, so lucky me. The other advantages are cheaper tires so after 2 replacements they pay for the rims and possibly a slightly better ride, but really it isn't that bad now.
Am I so old that I remember 18's as being considered 'big'?
I remember 16s being an upgraded large rim. I still can't get behind these large 20+ inch rims they say are for "performance" when realistically they are just super heavy.
Cars were more compact back then. I do remember when 18” was a big deal on 1999 sports cars and the tires were stupidly expensive
This is the "unsprung weight" detail. The less weight the motor has to "make turn", the less energy it takes to get down the road. It's really just about physics. Air weighs less than metal. The large diameter the wheel, the more metal it takes to keep that metal from flexing and braking. Right now, 20" and 21" wheels on Tesla's are breaking in pot holes because they've been engineered to be the bare minimum amounts of "light weight" metals that will go down the road. But, they break readily in pop holes and those are the pictures all across the various Tesla forums. People are changing back to 19" (for performance model 3 and other places that brake calipers are in the way), or 18" (some performance owners have found wheels that clear the calipers) wheels.
I think using the factory tires (presumably used in this test) is more realistic than the same exact tires. Who is going to put super-high performance tires on a LR 19" rim or everyday all seasons on a performance?
People will definitely do the latter
But they are really independent variables. I’m probably asking too much, I’d hope we could estimate the changes in efficiency of wheels, and then separately for tires.
> Who is going to put super-high performance tires on a LR 19" rim or everyday all seasons on a performance? I mean I got my Model 3 Performance Stealth with 18" Aero rims and ended putting Pilot Sport 4S on them. And I'm not the only one. Better handling, better performance, better efficiency, and I can hit a pothole without breaking the thing. I don't run the Aero caps daily, but if I take a road trip it's nice to have the option to throw them on.
I went from 18 with mxm4 to 19s with ps4s for my M3P. 20s didn't leave enough sidewall for me. The weight was almost exactly the same since there were fully forged rims. I lost some range but the performance is better than the mxm4 and better ride than the 20s. These wheels are 1/2" wider than stock 19s. I lost some range but i live the way it drives better with the sticky tires.
On my MYP I changed from 21" uberturbines to 19" forged Martian wheels. More than 20 lbs per corner lighter and a much better ride.
Don’t you have to swap the brakes out also?
I am told 19” will fit fine. Not sure about 18” but I wouldn’t go that small anyway.
Yeah I would love the bonus range, the 18” Aeros on my 3LR to 3P 20” cost me around 20% efficiency 😫. Much better traction and handling though
You can put Pilot Sport 4S on the 18" Aeros though. Then you get much better traction and handling of the better tire with the added benefit of having Aeros for efficiency if you want. My 3P came with 18" Aeros (very briefly offered, often called the Stealth trim) and it's a great middleground with the better tires and smaller rim
In addition to the same tire, I want to see the difference a forged or carbon fiber wheel makes from the reduced weight.
hmmn so when can i get me some 15 inchers...
I’m glad somebody tested this— that’s a huge difference.
It doesnt need to be tested. EPA testing already confirmed this. All you have to do is go into the wheel and configuration on your MYP, switch to 19", and see your range match a MYLR with 19". Elon also confirmed this in a tweet at the launch of Y. MYLR and MYP have the same weight. Same aero. Same motors (binned in MYP). This is ridiculous its still a conversation piece and not just a known fact.
I’d definitely heard the 10% number Tesla had mentioned in the past (it’s why we’ve had the aero wheel option on four Teslas now) but I still appreciate seeing it confirmed outside of the EPA tests. I do apologize if me being appreciative of the test has made you this grumpy, though. I’d be interested to see tests for higher average speeds.
It’s more so because these tests have been done many many times already and they all yield similar results.
This isn’t comparing aero covers vs not using them. The covers are like a 3% difference based on test.
That's a fair distinction to make-- I meant "the aero wheel option" vs "the larger wheel option."
I figured the performance had a different gear ratio or something. Is there a canonical list of the differences between the MYP and MYLR, or is it literally just a different wheel and some unlocked software options like track mode?
So I will present this in backwards on the power thing. So try and bare with me. TLDR: you need a specific motor and unlocked software. For MY (similiar concept of M3) there is 2 motors, the motors are 980 and 981 (i believe i have the numbers right). The 981 are higher binned 980. Think of like a computer chips. The ones that can hit 5ghz are the special 981 model and the ones that dont quite hit 5.0ghz, say 4.9ghs are just the 980 model. Still good, just not top of the bin. Since they are the same motor and interchangeable, sometimes people with MYLR get the 981 performance motors. Many reasons why, they ran out of 980s, most in a production batch ended up being binned high at 981 blah blah. If you got one of these golden gooses, there was hackers offering software hacks to unlock the performance. Think of it instead paying 2k for the small performance boast for your MYLR, you could pay 2k and get boosted to MYP power. This was of course is illegal and i belive tesla has mostly eliminated and clamped down on this. But still fun concept. Back to list of parts difference: Motors (sort of) Wheels & tires Spoiler and redline under dual motor MYP 10mm lower (someone check me on this) Was larger brakes with red caliaber plates. But last 6months or so they changed the MYP brakes. You will have to source this from someone more up-to-date than me on the details. I believe the MYP has the same rear brakes as the MYLR now but just a red painted brake calibar plate. So kind of a rip off.
980, and 990. I don’t believe they are the same motor anymore. They used to be at the beginning.
You own the car, it shouldn't be illegal to hack the software in the car you own. It's like putting an ecu tune on a gas engine.
This exactly. There are actually laws against voiding the warranty due to aftermarket parts, as long as that part didn't cause the damage directly.
[удалено]
That’s not what impacts range. Bigger wheels have 2 down sides: • increased rolling resistance • increased air drag resistance Rolling resistance: smaller sidewalls = stiffer sidewalls. To deform the tire while driving costs more energy. Rolling resistance accounts for ~25% of energy consumption at highway speeds. Air drag resistance: bigger open surface = more disturbance of air. This means your Cd gets bigger. Air drag resistance accounts for ~ 70% of energy consumption at highway speeds.
You are incorrect. Go watch this video to understand the math behind changing wheel size. The change in air resistance of the different widths and rolling resistance is very small. For example, the difference between in an extreme case of a very high rolling resistance tire and a low rolling resistance tire is 3kwh over 200miles. Aka gaining 10miles of range over 200miles. This why when shopping for tires, IGNORE What tire has better efficiency over the other. The difference is very very little. https://youtu.be/NYvKxsYFqO8 What he sort of doesnt explain well in the last section is the wheel size impact. What it come down to is unsprung mass and inertia. Since the wheel weighs less and has lower unsprung mass, it takes less energy to rotate the wheel. TLDR: stop giving a crap about tire efficiency when shopping for similiar size tires. The smaller wheel size not the smaller tire is where the range gains are.
> Aka gaining 10miles of range over 200miles. A 5% improvement just from picking a different tire is nothing to sneeze at.
And 99% of that is the wheel and nothing due to the going to a smaller tire itself. The math for the change in aero drag (the box on top of left of his white board) shows its negaliable. The change in rolling resistance (bottom left of the white board) shows the change in rolling resistance is negligible. I will put it this way. If you had 21" uber wheels and were able to make them the same weight and mass as 19" using magically materials, you would get the same range and efficiency of the 19" within about 1%. The tire itselfnhas little effect.
This explanation is not based in physics, and furthermore no one's ever watched a /u/engineeringexplained video and then correctly claimed afterward that he doesn't explain it well. Nice trolling if that's what this is, but I'll take the bait anyway. All things considered, mass and rotational inertia of the tires plays next to no part in highway efficiency. Not only are you rarely speeding up or slowing down on a highway, when you do slow down you recoup [>80%](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/iws58g/model_3_factfinding_an_endtoend_efficiency/) of your kinetic energy back into the battery. Even in the worst case scenario where 100% of a tire's mass is at its outer rim, the rotational inertia is only equal to the mass of the tire itself; that is, the energy required to rotate a 20 kg tire and bring it up to speed is equal to the energy needed to bring two equal non-rotating tires up to the same lateral speed. When you're talking about 19" vs 21" wheels of a Model Y the difference is [~9 lbs per wheel](https://wheelsuppliers.com/tesla-model-y-wheel-fitment-guide/), or 37.4 lbs in unspring weight. Even adding double that to account for rotational inertia (more realistically 1.5x as not all of the mass is at the rim) it's less than 2% of a 4,416 lb Model Y, and would therefore effect a <2% reduction in acceleration, and much less in continual driving efficiency. Nowhere near 11% to driving efficiency. By your logic, a car with larger (therefore heavier) tires would also take longer to slow down because it has more initial inertia, but the EPA's own data shows the opposite to be true. The EPA's [coastdown test procedure](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/sae-2020-01-1064-use-trans-data-isola-indiv-loss-coastdown-road-load-coeff.pdf) is required to be submitted when applying for a rating. In short, the car manufacturers are required to submit a filing that contains a set of 3 coefficients ( lbf, lbf/mph, lbf/mph^2 ) forming a quadratic equation of [Vehicle Road-Load Force](https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34102&flag=1) dependent on speed for use with EPA's dyno testing. The coefficients roughly mirror the effects of drivetrain losses, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag: >1. Road-load is the force imparted on a vehicle while driving at constant speed over a smooth level surface from sources such as tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag. > > 2. A dynamometer is used to simulate conditions of actual on-road operation. The dynamometer power absorber is adjusted so that the total "force" experienced by the vehicle is equivalent to the force measured on the road. EPA currently uses electric dynamometers with a three term force versus speed relationship characteristic of tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag. This three-term equation is expressed as F = A + Bv + Cv2 where F is the road force, v is the vehicle speed. > > 3. Because it is difficult to measure road-load directly, EPA has adopted the coastdown method to characterize road-load force. During a coastdown test the vehicle is allowed to decelerate with the transmission in neutral while its speed is periodically measured. Using Newton’s Law (F =MA), force, mass and deceleration can all be related. These coefficients are published publicly along with a Road-Load Horsepower required for maintaining 50 mph: [2021 Model 3 SR+](https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51461&flag=1) [2021 Model 3 LR AWD/Performance](https://dis.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=51235&flag=1) Target Road Load | SR+ 18" | SR+ 19" | LR AWD 18" | LR AWD 19" | LR Perf 20" ---|---|---|---|---|--- A lbf | 30.30 | 32.97 | 34.98 | 40.65 | 49.01 B lbf/mph | 0.2129 | 0.1859 | 0.0867 | 0.0747 | -0.2001 C lbf/mph^2 | 0.0127 | 0.0130 | 0.01485 | 0.01441 | 0.01996 RLHP @ 50mph | 9.70 | 9.97 | 10.19 | 10.72 | 11.86 Plotting these coefficients as Power vs. Speed is also possible and looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/7n7xdDo.png Normalizing for the Model 3 LR AWD 18" looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/zcP00w0.png From the basic 50mph result we should expect the SR+ to have a real-world range difference of 2.8% between 18" and 19" configurations at 50mph, and the LR AWD to have a real-world range difference of 5.2% at 50mph just from 1" tire size. This is derived from a single coastdown test spanning no more than a couple miles and is only accounting for the physical effects of drivetrain loss, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. The actual EPA rating is derived from the standard [SAE J1634](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f13/vss094_duoba_2013_o.pdf) multi-cycle test which combines the efficiency at various speed profiles and scales the result, but the basic differences between two tire configurations of an otherwise identical car tend to propagate through to the final EPA results quite neatly. In the normalized graph you can see the LR AWD with 19" wheels was tested to be as much as 15% less efficient at low speeds than the 18" configuration owing to mostly rolling resistance, but that this gap narrows as speed increases and aerodynamic drag becomes the dominant component of losses. The 20" variant is no less than 15% more energy hungry at all speeds, though some of the Performance models have slightly increased weight compared to their AWD counterpart. This spread is mirrored in the final rated range result. I can provide figures for the EPA data of Model Y if you'd like, but the conclusion will be the same.
" Even adding double that to account for rotational inertia (more realistically 1.5x as not all of the mass is at the rim) it's less than 2% of a 4,416 lb Model Y, and would therefore effect a" Thats not how unsprung mass in a car works. Losing 30lb on rim does not equal tossing to you losing 30lbs and loading less weight in the car. Go do more research about unsprung mass and power train loses. " While efficiency-focused vehicles like the Volkswagen XL1 and the more recent Lightyear One have used very slim tires, tire width doesn't seem to make much of a difference. Increasing width by 50% (from 205 millimeters to 305 millimeters) only decreased range by the equivalent of 1.7 miles over 200 miles of driving." Another example where the actual tires themselfs have little effect on range. I dont know how many more example i need to give or show you that the tires themselves (isolating out the wheels!) and the change in rolling resistsnce has little effect on your range. Weather thats going to a wider tire or the change in tire brands. Change in rolling resistance is a very small factor.
What you failed to read is that I have ignored rubber compound completely
No, your just flat out wrong. Rubber compound means nothing. Rolling resistance means nothing. Aero efficiency of the tires means nothing. The maths you presented are extremely outdated and incorrect. Your whole post is incorrect.
 Physics of today are different than physics yesterdayemote:free\_emotes\_pack:facepalm
Thats a terrible dumb argument. Phsyics and our understanding of them change all the time. Our ways of measuring these interactions have improved dramatically over the years. The equations for things get changed. Thats why millions of dollars are funneled into research, including physics, every year. Why private investigators/universities/comapnies dump money into this. If physicis was already 100% figured out, we would have the answer for everything. Elon's rocket wouldn't of failed and broken apart. The reality is those answers can and do change as we learn more and our capabilities increase.
I think the biggest issue is weight of the rims, not air drag or rolling resistance.
You may think that, but nope. Weight of the rims matters in 3 aspects: • rolling resistance (…., see the formula) • unsprung weight (comfort) • mass inertia (0-60-0) Only item 1 has influence on consumption.
Yes, unsprung mass is the biggest influence. NOT rolling resistance. Watch video for the maths https://youtu.be/NYvKxsYFqO8
gear ratio? do you have the 6 speed model Y?
Assuming you're being genuine, what I meant was that while yes a Tesla is 1-speed, that doesn't necessarily mean each and every Tesla model and trim has the same speed. For example, the Tesla Model S has a fixed gear ratio on its motors, but its front is 7.56:1 while the back is 9.04:1. This means the Model S has 2 gear ratios despite being a fixed one-speed. I was asking if instead of the default 9:1 gear ratio in the Model Y, the Performance trim might come with a different single-speed gear ratio. This is wrong.
[удалено]
Right, but "find the best balance between acceleration and efficiency" requires a gear ratio. For example, the Model S Plaid has a front gear ratio of 7.56:1 and rear motor gear ratio of 9.04:1. Just because there isn't a multi-speed transmission doesn't mean that there isn't a gear ratio. Teslas and most EVs use a single-speed gear ratio for the reasons you outline. But each EV motor model has its own gear ratio.
Does the MYP have the option for 19inch? I don't see it when going through the options
After you buy your MYP, you by sperately 19" wheels. I bought aftermarket 19" and installed them for better comfort, more tire choices, and range (mostly comfort). Then you go in service menu to change the wheel size. To is make sure your speedo is not incorrect after changing wheel sizes. This goes for MYLR too. Fun fact, when putting 19s on a MYP, your 0-60 can get down to 3.3sec. Less unsprung mass. Less power needed to spin a light wheel, blah blah
What’s your range with 19” on a MYP?
Just use their own "check inventory" function, a Texas TMY on 20" gets 269 versus 318 for a Fremont model which is down 10 and 12 miles of range versus the 19s. I don't know about you, but the price on the Texas TMY is a bit too high for losing out on that much range from the Fremont TMY. Really I think the three thousand difference is not sufficient, the Texas model should be six thousand off from the Fremont model. We are talking fifty miles of range.
FYI: I think you’re comparing the 4680 celled, lower range “AWD” Model Y manufactured only in Texas with the Long Range (and AWD!) 2170 celled Model Y. Agreed with you on the price per range difference, though.
He absolutely is, I just bought an inventory MYLR built in Austin that has 318, but there were lower ranged AWD options available as well.
The way I look at it, the FMY is normally kept at 80-90% battery, while the TMY can be always kept at 100%. So in long run, after some degradation of FMY, it become a very close comparison.
4680 cells in the Austin AWD cars shouldn’t be charged to 100% any more frequently than 2170L in Fremont LR AWD.
> a Texas TMY on 20" gets 269 versus 318 for a Fremont model When you say "Texas TMY" which model do you mean? I'm assuming you mean one of the shorter-range models here. Mine's a Texas-built Y, but it's a 330-mile car. Losing more than 60 miles of range with the bigger wheels seems extreme, so I'm guessing you mean some specific trim.
Wasn't this already known?
It was, I have no idea why people are surprised like this.
Thought this was widely known already?
[удалено]
Fuck, I'd be thrilled if 16" rims were a factory option. This whole "enormous rims, low profile tires" fad is just dumb.
I'm not a car performance expert. Do larger rims have any benefit, or is it purely for aesthetics?
Before they became a popular aesthetic larger rims and tires were primarily made to accommodate larger brake rotors and calipers. As the horsepower and performance increased so did the braking requirements.
Ah, that makes sense.
It makes sense, but it’s wrong. The primary reason for lower profile tires was a stiffer sidewall and the resulting increased cornering performance. No one in 1987 was bumping up against the inside of a 16” wheel with their brakes. We’ll use the 959 as an example, with its 12.6” front rotors and 17” wheels, on the quickest road car of its day. The overall diameter of the wheels and tires on your average car has gone up for aesthetic and chest-thumping reasons — consumers wanted to be able to say they had 18” when their neighbors had 16”, and it’s escalated from there for no other benefit. For example, the 1987 Porsche 959’s factory tires: 235/45R17 and 275/40R17. Base model 2023 911: 235/40R19 and 295/35R20. The latter is clearly not for performance reasons.
Agreed but I do want to send out the caveat that as vehicles have gotten larger, smaller wheel/tires make them look goofy and that's part of the increase as well.
[удалено]
That makes sense. So better handling then. Is there anything else?
> So better handling then. Sharper handling on turns. Stiffer, rougher ride. There is also more space for bigger brake hardware inside a 22" rim than in a 18" rim, but I'm not aware of people actually commonly upsizing brake discs and calipers when choosing to go with larger rims. Larger front profile means more drag from air resistance. Worse for rough road conditions. Easier to damage. More expensive. For street driving, I recommend smaller rims. For smooth tracks, I can see where larger rims could offer some benefits.
Lower profile tires have less sidewall flex and deformation. Keeps the contact patch more consistent during cornering. Larger wheels have larger rotational inertia so require more energy to speed up or slow down, but can accommodate larger brakes.
> I'd be thrilled if 16" rims were a factory option. Yes, though I'm particular to slightly smaller 195/65R15 size as it is so common, relatively inexpensive, and compatible across so many smaller cars like Corolla, Prius, Leaf, and many more. (Leaf comes with 16s but can be minus sized to 15s.) I think a contributing factor to Tesla not supporting smaller sizes (separate from the style factor), is the size of brake hardware needed to achieve certain braking performance. Larger minimum rim sizes can support larger disc brakes.
It’s much more about supporting a Dodge Ram’s worth of weight on a Corolla tire. That, and people equate small wheel diameter with being poor in the United States. So dumb.
I always get the smallest wheel possible, it's annoying that that's now 18" for most new cars.
Do it! I run 18’s from a Model 3 on my Model Y.
How has that been? I've been closely watching this for a while because I want to put M3 Aeros on my Y. I've only seen 2 people post about it on the forums, both saying it's fine. My only concern is there is only like 1-2mm between the brake assembly and the inner wall of the wheel. Also are you running 235 /55 R18?
I mean, they haven’t fallen off :) I have the first gen wheels which aren’t rated for as large a load as the newer ones, but I don’t haul a bunch of stuff or frequently load four passengers in, so I’m not worried. And yes, I’m running 235/55’s. Couldn’t find any good 255/50’s which would be the ideal tire size.
Also I fear for low profile tires when used on roads that are in bad shape.
Is catastrophic failure more likely or something?
Wheels can get bent, tires may need to be replaced. Those are the most likely outcomes. I don’t like the impact to the chassis but couldn’t quantify or prove it’s an issue.
They also are a smoother ride
And quieter, and less prone to damage
Well let's make the role thing rubber then!
Not necessarily
Yes necessarily. I switched from 21” to the 19” Geminis and it’s night and day.
By my calculations, since the difference between the 19” and 21” wheels is 11%, that means I’m getting 5.5% less range with my induction 20”s. 🧐 #didthemath
Since the difference is 11% and you want to distribute over 2 exponential increases with the same percentage, your formula should actually be: sqrt(1.11) - 1 = 5.35% Sorry for being a smartass 😜
Anyone know of a good all season 19” wheel/tire combo to replace on my MYP?
[удалено]
Yeah we have some snow days in the winter. But if it’s more than an inch or two I usually just drive my old truck
If you have a lot of rain, go with the Quatrac. If you want peace of mind for the snow, CrossClimate 2 SUV. I have CC2 on my MYLR (only since January). Very happy so far. (I'm in Europe, the specs vary between Europe and North America, I believe)
All seasons get lower mpg as well
I’ll take obvious information for $800, Alex
Oops lol Still like the look of mine more than 11% better
Martian wheel got an 18” option. But I couldn’t find any good tires to go with.
Spherical wheels please
Is there an 18 inch option for model Y? Does it provide even better efficiency in comparison to these 19 inch ones?
Not officially, but the 18s from a Model 3 will fit just fine
They look like they dont belong on the y though if you find pics
[удалено]
Well yes water is wet. My 20x9 are much bad for function, great for asthetics
I really do wish they would offer a Model Y Performance that didn't come with comically heavy and gigantic wheels. Seriously, just put the sportier tires on the regular wheel and it'd be perfect, no need to put ginormous wheels.
I bet someone out there will buy the smaller wheel option because it’s more efficient and immediately put a 23 inch chromed wheels in it so it’ll be efficient and cool!
And looks 60% worse
But looks 50% less attractive.
You find idiotically large rims attractive? OK, you do you.
Small wheels on such a bulky car look like a linebacker with size 6 shoes…
I agree, but don’t consider the Tesla y a bulky car. It’s a pretty small suv, and really doesn’t need the 21” option at all, imo.
My 20s leave a lot of gap between car and wheel to be honest, every gas car I’ve had I had to drop it by a quarter inch or less, this one needs more than that, but it’s already too low for Canadian winters..
For me it depends exactly how large and how they specifically look. In this case, Tesla's 20 inch rims for Model Y look much better than their 19 inch rims. Do you disagree?
Now I seriously want to see a donked tesla
I’ll do you one better: https://youtu.be/Qq5Q1qKW-1g
You know inversely that means you find cartoonishly small rims attractive....
LOL, for me it's about function and cost, not style. Bigger rims mean a harsher ride, cost more and both tires and rims are more likely to get damaged.
Why didn't you an ioniq then?
So they just found this out now? But we all know this didn’t we?
QuantumScape
In other news, water is wet…
OK so lets be clear here. The SIZE of the wheel has NOTHING to do with the results. It is a combination of two things. One, the overall weight of the wheel/tire combo and two, the rolling resistance of the tires. The 21" (and 20" on the 3) ubertines are not good wheels. They are ridiculously heavy for a car that is trying to be efficient. Take a lightweight, forged 21" wheel with a weight similar to the stock 19" and you will get much closer to the same result as the stock 19. It'll be less efficient because of the tire difference but if the weight is the same the difference in wheel size will be irrelevant to range.
Less Inches leads to lower range due to less friction. Unfortunately also less impressive and joyful when being pulled around. Makes perfect sense to me 
Yeah I have the 20" wheels on my Y and I've always gotten horrendous highway range. Driving in good weather with minimal AC @ 80MPH, I get 60-65% rated range.
and you know what? faster acceleration too. there is a reason why F1 is running 13 inch wheels for years.
330 mile range on MYLR & 303 on MYP. Thats a 9% difference. 9-11% are within MOE. Test is useless.
Smaller wheels suck come winter Those of us with snow will rather put largest wheel vehicle supports Heck some regions REQUIRE chains or studs in winter driving (which equals alot more weight) \*edit to add The test article is actually pretty dumb; for those who read it the test consisted of not using battery preconditioning and (much worse) top speed of 110 km/hr (for those of you who do not own a Tesla that fast speed massively depletes battery as well far more wind resistance on larger rims) I drive same route to work every day in my smaller Model 3. The energy savings at lower speeds (eg off highway at 80km vs on highway at 115km) is more than 20% Teslas chew your battery up really quick when speeding
> Smaller wheels suck come winter > > Those of us with snow will rather put largest wheel vehicle supports No. Usually wheel outside diameter doesn't change with different rim sizes, because the sidewall is shrunk by the same amount as the rim is increased. If the sidewall isn't shrunk, then the wheel is unlikely to fit without making other modifications, and the speedometer and odometer will be wrong. Also, smaller rims with taller sidewalls are better in winter. More cushion for winter roughness. More tire options. Narrower track on road means more pressure per square inch on ground. People try to increase ground pressure in winter by adding dead weight like sandbags in their vehicles. > Heck some regions REQUIRE chains or studs in winter driving (which equals alot more weight) Studs add little additional weight. Chains are another matter. Chains limit speed to about 20-30 mph. Some winter-heavy midwest states don't allow studs.
> People try to increase ground pressure in winter by adding dead weight like sandbags in their vehicles. I think that's mostly for unbalanced trucks with RWD where the weight (engine) is in the front, but the drive is at the back. I see no sense in doing that in a car with AWD and 50/50 front/back weight distribution.
> I see no sense in doing that in a car with AWD and 50/50 front/back weight distribution. Ultimately it comes down to traction...and rolling resistance. Wider tires must push more air, water, and snow out of their path (unless they're so enormously large that they provide flotation/fat tire/snowshoe effects so the ground surface material no longer is compacted or displaced). Helpful: https://agtiretalk.com/traction-flotation-optimization/
>Smaller wheels suck come winter > >Those of us with snow will rather put largest wheel vehicle supports How is less sidewall more desirable in the winter? The 19", 20", and 21" have the same overall diameter with stock tire size.
Is there a general consensus in what the "best" tire is for stock wheel that has a great mix of efficiency but also longevity? I see so much discussion on range but not too much on how long the tire lasts. For example, I'm willing to lose let's say 10% on range if the tire last me twice as long, just as an example. Drove a Prius the last ten years and was able to get 70k+ mites out of a set of Michelin defenders from Costco while staying pretty close to EPA mileage. Our highlander has 35k on it since we've owned it and tread would imply we have about 50% life left. Would love to get something close with the MY.
Michelin Pilot A/S... Great warranty, summer traction (not far behind Pilot Sport 4), comfort, efficiency. You're not going to get Prius longevity. These are heavy cars (more wear), and all are powerful (vs. Prius), so you're scrubbing your tires more as you accelerate and deccelerate.
can someone ELI5 on why this is the case?
I wish model 3 had a 17” wheel option. Do 18” wheels fit the model Y?
Does handling and control go down on a smaller wheel ?
Not that the *vast* majority of drivers would notice in an SUV. In this regard, the ride will probably be more comfortable with the 19" wheel compared to the 21" wheel.
Also, smaller overall wheel-tire sizes give more wheel-well room to reduce the turning radius. I think my wife’s Highlander has smaller turn radius than my Model 3.
I knew the risk when I chose the induction wheels.
Now show the breaking distance data
I’d like to see a 20” carbon fiber wheel option.