75 and 75D variants increased performance from July 1st - software and hardware improvements?

[Silverstone]

Hello from Germany/Munic,

my Tesla 60 is from MARCH 2017

i have also an "5B" Battery package,


regards

 

[wdolson]

Hard for me to believe. 75Ds had the same drive unit as 90Ds, which was able to handle the power. I truly think the "old" 75D is simply nerfed via software.

The 100D should have seen a massive gain if the drive unit was that much more efficient?

Which is why I think the new 75 is really a larger capacity battery. The 100Ds made before the announced change July 1 may have the same performance improvement advertised for the "new" 100D. It would make sense with a higher capacity battery to get a bit better performance, but the 90 and 100s are more limited by the drive train than the pack, so the improvements are small.

One thought I had is Tesla is putting fake battery labels on the 75s sold before announcing the new capacity to keep people from figuring out the secret and they plan to replace those labels later when the car comes in for service.

 

[rsan]

When did you order the car? I guess I'm wondering by just looking at the pack how we can determine if it has the new hardware/software for the performance boost.

I ordered my 75D beginning of May, Build date around last week of May, finished production around the beginning of June. Serial is 199xxx. I got confirmation that this has the new Inverter motor and I did feel the very fast acceleration from 0-100kph. So I think the conclusion is that the new inverter and the software affected the performance.

 

[schonelucht]

It is common practise.

Unfortunately

 

[emir-t]

Came here to talk about this and possibly start a thread. Found out this thread. It became confusing real quick.

My original line of thought was in order to make the performance boost, Tesla uses the old 85kWh config. with the 3100mAh original cells. Just like it was 2014 and they were building an 85. This way they can make the pack 400V instead of 350V AND capacity of it really is 77kWh usable. They can very well limit it to 75 and worry less about degredation, offer true badge capacity and make it reasonably seperate from the also loyal to badge pack 100. (having 98kWh usable) Even though this would make things cheaper as possibly these old cells are now cheaper and the pack manufacturing in this config has been going on since 2012, it would presumably make the car heavier. So I was going to first ask TMCs opinion on this.

Then I saw the speculation that the new 86 parallel 100kWh pack modules could have been used in 14 module layout to get a 85-90kWh pack in 350V. This makes sense to streamline module manufacturing but why would you want a pack with 350V? Wouldn't this require more amperage for the same power, meaning more cabling and more heat to handle?

Just like every other thing in life this too is a tradeoff. Indeed the possibility that they will introduce a 80kWh or 85kWh pack with this same layout in a few months cancelling out the 75s is out there. Yet this would further diminish the value difference between 100D and 75D as if upping the performance from 5.4 to 4.4 didn't. To compensate they could increase the performance of 100D to mid 3s but then P100D value would diminish. Tough decision to make.

As the final nail in the coffin of confusion I saw @wk057's photos showing a dummy cell group for the front left module. That reduces pack capacity around 1kWh which they tell nobody.

Too cool off the confusion a little bit;

Regardless I think what remains solid is the BMS data Jason (@wk057) unraveled a few months ago. Showing ~72kWh usable capacity for the 75. Regardless of the hardware we get be it the old 85, new module 85, true 75, battery delivery whatever the BMS firmware commands. What real capacity pack has above that has a tiny factor in degradation and performance but that is it.

I hope we can find out what gave the performance boost for sure and uncover this mystery as well. One thing is for sure is Tesla shouldn't have labeled those 85-90 the way they did. OR they sould have continued with that labeling logic calling the 100, 105. These changes do **** up the second hand value. Right now a brand new 75D has the same capacity, more features and refreshed styling than a 2 year old 85D, really close to the 85D's used price.

I'm really confused.

 

[apacheguy]

Some facts about the battery packs: The 75 packs use 14 modules of the type of cells found in the 90 packs, which had 16 modules. The 85 packs, which are no longer produced by Tesla by the way, had 16 modules with lower capacity cells. So, to say Tesla is putting 85 packs into 75s and software limiting them is kind of silly... admittedly, I've been catching up on my Tesla news and rumors lately, but I've seen no evidence for this whatsoever, especially considering Tesla doesn't even produce the 85 packs anymore nor use the cells that were used in it for anything at all at this point. Anyone have a photo of a car with a 75 rear badge and an 85 pack label on a car from the factory? Preferably an uncut video that shows both in the same clip.

As for the increased power... I don't know what Tesla has done to up the power, honestly. Things I do know, however: The 75 packs are capable of ~1400A output. The small drive unit's I've tested are capable of some pretty high peak currents, beyond 750A. So, I know without any doubt, that Tesla could, with software alone, up the power of the 75D cars significantly... like, probably to the point of being as fast as the original P85D. Should easily be able to get ~500+ HP out of a 75D with no hardware mods whatsoever (with a full, warm pack).

Obviously, Tesla has little incentive to do this, and will likely continue to nerf the lower end models' performance so that people opt for the higher profit margin models.

Actually, Tesla is still producing 85 kWh batteries.

Is Tesla reintroducting 85 kWh variants?

 

[dennis_d]

As for the increased power... I don't know what Tesla has done to up the power, honestly. Things I do know, however: The 75 packs are capable of ~1400A output. The small drive unit's I've tested are capable of some pretty high peak currents, beyond 750A. So, I know without any doubt, that Tesla could, with software alone, up the power of the 75D cars significantly... like, probably to the point of being as fast as the original P85D. Should easily be able to get ~500+ HP out of a 75D with no hardware mods whatsoever (with a full, warm pack).

I think this comment from wk057 pretty much summarizes the whole thread.

 

[Zero CO2]

Came here to talk about this and possibly start a thread. Found out this thread. It became confusing real quick.

My original line of thought was in order to make the performance boost, Tesla uses the old 85kWh config. with the 3100mAh original cells. Just like it was 2014 and they were building an 85. This way they can make the pack 400V instead of 350V AND capacity of it really is 77kWh usable. They can very well limit it to 75 and worry less about degredation, offer true badge capacity and make it reasonably seperate from the also loyal to badge pack 100. (having 98kWh usable) Even though this would make things cheaper as possibly these old cells are now cheaper and the pack manufacturing in this config has been going on since 2012, it would presumably make the car heavier. So I was going to first ask TMCs opinion on this.

Then I saw the speculation that the new 86 parallel 100kWh pack modules could have been used in 14 module layout to get a 85-90kWh pack in 350V. This makes sense to streamline module manufacturing but why would you want a pack with 350V? Wouldn't this require more amperage for the same power, meaning more cabling and more heat to handle?

Just like every other thing in life this too is a tradeoff. Indeed the possibility that they will introduce a 80kWh or 85kWh pack with this same layout in a few months cancelling out the 75s is out there. Yet this would further diminish the value difference between 100D and 75D as if upping the performance from 5.4 to 4.4 didn't. To compensate they could increase the performance of 100D to mid 3s but then P100D value would diminish. Tough decision to make.

As the final nail in the coffin of confusion I saw @wk057's photos showing a dummy cell group for the front left module. That reduces pack capacity around 1kWh which they tell nobody.

Too cool off the confusion a little bit;

Regardless I think what remains solid is the BMS data Jason (@wk057) unraveled a few months ago. Showing ~72kWh usable capacity for the 75. Regardless of the hardware we get be it the old 85, new module 85, true 75, battery delivery whatever the BMS firmware commands. What real capacity pack has above that has a tiny factor in degradation and performance but that is it.

I hope we can find out what gave the performance boost for sure and uncover this mystery as well. One thing is for sure is Tesla shouldn't have labeled those 85-90 the way they did. OR they sould have continued with that labeling logic calling the 100, 105. These changes do **** up the second hand value. Right now a brand new 75D has the same capacity, more features and refreshed styling than a 2 year old 85D, really close to the 85D's used price.

I'm really confused.

I am confused did you buy a model S yet? your signature seems to indicate a late 2018 model S ... what makes you think that will still be still be battery option at that time? Don't be confused .....the only wrong decision is to keep analyzing the options as analysis paralysis will set-in and one thing will be certain you wont be driving a Tesla

 

[Zero CO2]

I am confused did you buy a model S yet? your signature seems to indicate a late 2018 model S ... what makes you think that will still be still be battery option at that time? Don't be confused .....the only wrong decision is to keep analyzing the options as analysis paralysis will set-in and one thing will be certain you wont be driving a Tesla

sorry read it wrong you are looking at model 3 my apologies

 

[stopcrazypp]

And what about an overlap crash on the right side? Guess it doesn't matter since that's not tested... lol

*shrugs*

Tuning the car to beat the test, regardless of the outcome in the real world... Tesla hired Volkswagen engineers?

To be fair, if you think about it, I'm fairly certain that it is statistically drastically higher chance to have an overlap crash on the left side than the right side (which is why they test on that side in the first place). Of course that doesn't help countries who drive on the left side of the road.

 

[emir-t]

sorry read it wrong you are looking at model 3 my apologies

No worries. Sadly I can't afford a Model S so 3 seems to be the only choice. Happy camper with an i3 now.

However I'm the founder of Turkish Tesla community with about 50 active Tesla drivers in the country as members. With the latest updates 2013-14 owners who were drooling on AWD are really interested in buying a 75D. Only question they have is the capacity drop. 2014 85s still have around 72kWh usable in them from 77 back when they were brand new. I argue that the difference, if any, will be compensated how much more efficient the car is and all the added features they will get. It sounds like a no brainer.

Besides inquiring about it to make an educated purchase decision, it is really fun to learn about it too.

 

[John G]

So how do we find out? Is it a software upgrade or a different contactor material in the inverter or a new inverter. If you upgrade from a 60 to a 75 shouldn't the inrush current be higher? Software limited, hardware limited, both? We got to know. Makes me crazy.

 

[-Xee-]

Why are people saying "the car feels fast", "it feels like the acceleration is as quick as the new enhanced" etc. Why don't you just use a timer and time the 0-60 mph timing? Have someone sit with you with a stopwatch.

 

[anonim1979]

Why are people saying "the car feels fast", "it feels like the acceleration is as quick as the new enhanced" etc. Why don't you just use a timer and time the 0-60 mph timing? Have someone sit with you with a stopwatch.

Probably easier to check the links/posts ;P from that norwegian forum...

I tested today 0-100 with my 75D with 85 kWh battery with 95% battery and dry asphalt. I used the Dashboard for Tesla to measure and got 3,844s.

Not sure if this is blurring error measurements from the app, that I have a larger battery, or if indeed all new 75Ds can achieve this. Hope someone with proper measuring equipment can test the new 75D (both with 75 and 85 kWh battery).

 

[Buster1]

Why are people saying "the car feels fast", "it feels like the acceleration is as quick as the new enhanced" etc. Why don't you just use a timer and time the 0-60 mph timing? Have someone sit with you with a stopwatch.

Because the 1 foot rollout, which is industry standard (unfortunately), gives a slightly false representation of 'true' or actual standing-start 0-60 mph times.

If you clock it yourself or with a fiend along, it's gonna be different, and possibly slower. And it the "3, 2, 1...go" exchange, you're gonna lose or gain a few tenths right there due to human nature.

 

[Dan60D]

Probably easier to check the links/posts ;P from that norwegian forum...

Wow.. that's insane acceleration. I have refreshed 60D and hopefully, I will be able to get under 5sec after the software update in the future.

 

[D.E.]

Because the 1 foot rollout, which is industry standard (unfortunately), gives a slightly false representation of 'true' or actual standing-start 0-60 mph times.

If you clock it yourself or with a fiend along, it's gonna be different, and possibly slower. And it the "3, 2, 1...go" exchange, you're gonna lose or gain a few tenths right there due to human nature.

OK, if there is a rollout it isn't a 0-60 time. By definition "0-60" starts with "0". I don't know what time you get with the rollout, no one does. For some fast cars it's a 6-60 time, others it's a 4-60 time. Each car will be going at a different and unknown speed when timing starts. The only thing known for sure is that absolutely no car can go from standstill to 60 MPH in the 0-60 time that includes that rollout start.

So lets start listing two numbers, the "true 0-60", and then the rollout number.
Companies could still compare their meaningless rollout to 60 times.

Then the rest of us would know how fast a car can go from a standstill to 60 MPH which is the whole idea.

Some poor schmuck is going buy an expensive car actually expecting it to go from zero to 60 in the advertised time. Then he'll call his lawyer.

 

[Buster1]

OK, if there is a rollout it isn't a 0-60 time. By definition "0-60" starts with "0". I don't know what time you get with the rollout, no one does. For some fast cars it's a 6-60 time, others it's a 4-60 time. Each car will be going at a different and unknown speed when timing starts. The only thing known for sure is that absolutely no car can go from standstill to 60 MPH in the 0-60 time that includes that rollout start.

So lets start listing two numbers, the "true 0-60", and then the rollout number.
Companies could still compare their meaningless rollout to 60 times.

Then the rest of us would know how fast a car can go from a standstill to 60 MPH which is the whole idea.

Some poor schmuck is going buy an expensive car actually expecting it to go from zero to 60 in the advertised time. Then he'll call his lawyer.

D.E. I think you and I are saying the same thing. And that is exactly to my point.

If you want to know exactly what hardware you have in your car, doing a 0 to 60 test by any method (other than on a test track with laser measuring, etc) will not be precise enough.

 

[D.E.]

D.E. I think you and I are saying the same thing. And that is exactly to my point.

If you want to know exactly what hardware you have in your car, doing a 0 to 60 test by any method (other than on a test track with laser measuring, etc) will not be precise enough.

I don't foresee going to the track with my Tesla. It won't change anything I do so there is no need to do the test.

It feels faster. Either I'm slowing down or the car got quicker. If it is the former, I fear the car might get quicker yet.

 

[Mike75d]

I find the defenses for Tesla like this, which have no basis in reality, pretty amusing. A dyno certainly can accurately measure the power output of an EV. I've personally done it successfully with my own cars. I can't believe the 691 HP issue still hasn't been resolved, personally. By definition 691 HP = 515486 watts. Even the P100D barely produces this much power at the battery at a full charge and heated pack... let alone a non-ludicrous P85D (~400kW or so at best)... and that's before it even gets to the motor, not counting any losses elsewhere.

Non-sequitur for this thread, though.

Some facts about the battery packs: The 75 packs use 14 modules of the type of cells found in the 90 packs, which had 16 modules. The 85 packs, which are no longer produced by Tesla by the way, had 16 modules with lower capacity cells. So, to say Tesla is putting 85 packs into 75s and software limiting them is kind of silly... admittedly, I've been catching up on my Tesla news and rumors lately, but I've seen no evidence for this whatsoever, especially considering Tesla doesn't even produce the 85 packs anymore nor use the cells that were used in it for anything at all at this point. Anyone have a photo of a car with a 75 rear badge and an 85 pack label on a car from the factory? Preferably an uncut video that shows both in the same clip.

As for the increased power... I don't know what Tesla has done to up the power, honestly. Things I do know, however: The 75 packs are capable of ~1400A output. The small drive unit's I've tested are capable of some pretty high peak currents, beyond 750A. So, I know without any doubt, that Tesla could, with software alone, up the power of the 75D cars significantly... like, probably to the point of being as fast as the original P85D. Should easily be able to get ~500+ HP out of a 75D with no hardware mods whatsoever (with a full, warm pack).

Obviously, Tesla has little incentive to do this, and will likely continue to nerf the lower end models' performance so that people opt for the higher profit margin models.

I understand that 400kw is not 691hp. That was my whole point. The 691hp is an equivalent. The car is equivalent to 700+hp cars quoted by the rest of the auto industry