-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter
- Thread starter kseitzberg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Pffft... we all know who you are. Tesla sent their spies out to hunt you down ages ago.
..
So what are you trying to get. Telsa to admit they used a 1 foot rollout? Hopefully they'll do that. Outside that the 0-100kmh time is about the weakens part of this exercise. The case for being upset about misleading hp numbers is much stronger.
@dsm363: Tesla promised us a car faster than a McLaren F1 - as you can read on 1-foot rollout Missing Performance - McLaren confirms that the F1 did 0-60 mph in 3,2 seconds without roll-out. All we ask for is to get what we paid for, simple and easy - nothing else. How Tesla intends to fix our cars to deliver the promised times, it fully up to them.
Telsa said "matches" not faster than. It's possible Tesla didn't know McLaren did theirs without a rollout. That seems to be under debate anyway as others can't find independent verification of that 0-60 time. Why would you trust McLaren on their claim any more than Tesla?
In terms of the F1, which version could Tesla say they 'matched'? Seems to me Tesla could say the P85D actually beats the F1 for one of the versions unless that 3.8 is a typo.
From McLaren Archives - Zero To 60 Times
1994 McLaren F1 Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.1 | Quarter mile 11.5
1996 McLaren F1 LM Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.8 Manual Trans. | 12 Cyl Eng. | RWD | Coupe
1997 McLaren F1 Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.3 | Quarter mile 11.5
From McLaren Archives - Zero To 60 Times
1994 McLaren F1 Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.1 | Quarter mile 11.5
1996 McLaren F1 LM Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.8 Manual Trans. | 12 Cyl Eng. | RWD | Coupe
1997 McLaren F1 Compare Car
0-60 mph 3.3 | Quarter mile 11.5
This can still be read on the teslamotors.com
Consistent with our mission, we also wanted to demonstrate that an electric car can soundly beat gasoline cars on efficiency and pure performance. The Model S P85 already outperforms gasoline-powered cars in the same class with its ability to deliver 100 percent of peak torque from a standing start. We combined our new front drive unit and our P85 rear motor with the objective of outperforming one of the greatest supercars of all time, the McLaren F1. With P85D’s 0 to 60 mph performance of 3.2 seconds, we have succeeded.
The P85D combines the performance of the P85 rear motor with an additional 50 percent of torque available from our new front drive unit. The result is the fastest accelerating four-door production car of all time – while remaining one of the most efficient cars on the road. That’s a combination that can only be achieved by an electric car. Not only is the P85D a match for the McLaren F1, but it also doesn’t need a professional driver to achieve optimum performance. Just plant your foot and go.
Consistent with our mission, we also wanted to demonstrate that an electric car can soundly beat gasoline cars on efficiency and pure performance. The Model S P85 already outperforms gasoline-powered cars in the same class with its ability to deliver 100 percent of peak torque from a standing start. We combined our new front drive unit and our P85 rear motor with the objective of outperforming one of the greatest supercars of all time, the McLaren F1. With P85D’s 0 to 60 mph performance of 3.2 seconds, we have succeeded.
The P85D combines the performance of the P85 rear motor with an additional 50 percent of torque available from our new front drive unit. The result is the fastest accelerating four-door production car of all time – while remaining one of the most efficient cars on the road. That’s a combination that can only be achieved by an electric car. Not only is the P85D a match for the McLaren F1, but it also doesn’t need a professional driver to achieve optimum performance. Just plant your foot and go.
Agreed.
- - - Updated - - -
Two letters sent. No response. Over a dozen emails sent on other items. Responses to all of them. Clearly they were already deep into and instructed everyone not to say anything which is very unfortunate. My attitude early one was skeptical. Then after I picked up my car and realized it was all true my attitude changed to one of "they'll fix this for sure with the pending software update". Then that came and went and didn't fix the issue. The L announcement was the final confirmation to me that the fix they had been talking about had to involve some minimal hardware changes.
They could have made this so much better by acknowledging this early on rather than quietly slipping into the night by removing the 691 hp rating and doing nothing else.
- - - Updated - - -
I called my SC within the hour after it was announced and got on the list
- - - Updated - - -
How can it be free if we already paid for it?
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not sure what your confusion is about? It doesn't take any common sense to realize that a horsepower rating would be the maximum that all motors put out together at the same time. Are you saying there isn't a way to measure that? You don't need a new standard to use the existing standard to get real close. Would you correct for atmosphere? No. Of course not. Is there an intake and exhaust? No. So you don't have to take those into account when you're measuring horsepower from an EV. Should they have a new standard that clarifies this? Of course. Will a new standard lower how much horsepower a manufacturer can claim? Probably as there will be some requirement to produce maximum horsepower for x number of minutes and if it's anything like the 30 minutes for an ICE, then EVs will have to specify far less power than Tesla is right now unless they solve fundamental cooling problems.
But let's just go upstream. Let's cut right to the chase. No standard developed will allow for specifying more horsepower than can be made based on energy input. 415KW is still 557 hp before any losses at all. Any new standard can only lower that possibly by a lot. No standard could ever turn 415KW into more than 557 hp. Would we have been satisfied if the battery put out 515KW (691hp) even though there would be some losses by the time it got to the motor shafts. I know I would have been fine with that. It might still be a slight overstatement but at least it would have been close.
Now let's just say that you're right and that there's no way to accurately convey the power that the P85D actually makes? Then why would they put a single number specifying horsepower at all? Why wouldn't there at least been some clarification for the consumer warning them that the number doesn't mean anything so don't pay attention to it? Why does the 85D which also has dual motors actually make the power they claim while the P85D only makes 39KW (52hp) more?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't really agree with this.
1) If Tesla used ECE R85 as a basis to rate all their motor power numbers in the EU, that standard does not take into account voltage sag (power supply with less than 5% sag must be used). Thus the 415kW vs 515kW can easily be a result of that (320V @ 1300A because of sag, vs 400V @1300A). And that standard apparently is what is used for the power numbers listed the EU conformance certificate, Tesla EU website, and also the user manual.
2) The 70D and 85D were both advertised at "514 hp motor power" at one point. We don't know the REST for 70D yet (system power however is advertised at a much lower 329hp), but for 85D REST was 433 hp (323kW) pre 6.2, and 498hp (371kW) post 6.2.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...o-691HP/page39?p=970726&viewfull=1#post970726
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...aded-85D/page2?p=967284&viewfull=1#post967284
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...aded-85D/page6?p=970701&viewfull=1#post970701
Last edited:
Well of course you don't because that's your goal in life
Tesla would *never* want to use ECE R85 because if they did, they'd have to start with the maximum power the P85D can make now, 557hp (minus some percentage for conversion losses before hitting the motor shaft) and then lose a ton more power.
You're either really bad at interpreting the test criteria or you've intentionally misconstrued this document:
"The electric drive train shall be equipped as specified in Annex 6 to thisRegulation. The electric drive train shall be supplied from a DC voltagesource with a maximum voltage drop of 5 per cent depending on time andcurrent (periods of less than 10 seconds excluded). "
I asked an EE upstairs what this meant just to confirm my own interpretation. What this means is that the DC power source may NOT drop in voltage more than 5% during the test. It means you can only draw as much current from the drivetrain battery as to not cause a voltage drop of more than 5%. The 10 second exclusion is there to keep the entire test from being thrown out if the voltage drops by say 5.1% for a few seconds.
If it does, the test is thrown out and two more vehicle drivetrains are brought in to redo the test.
There are all kinds of things in that document that restrict how the powertrain may make power. For instance, just prior to the maximum power test, the drivetrain must be run at 80% maximum power for 3 minutes. On a P85D that's what...147 MPH? The entire test must be completed within 5 minutes. How much power do you think the P85D will make after running that hard for 3 minutes? Remember, we're starting with 557 hp at 100% SOC when heat is not yet a factor. WE CAN ONLY GO DOWN FROM THERE.
This is a European standard. Tesla is probably REALLY glad they don't have to test to this in the US and advertise the resulting power. Remember, we're starting at 557 hp under perfect conditions and can only go down from there.
Does there need to be standard. Heck yea. Because without one that is appropriate to EV characteristics, EV manufacturers can probably just get away with measuring gross horsepower at the motor shafts..... but wait....in this particular case, if the P85D actually made that power at the shafts....grosss....before any other restrictions.....NONE OF THESE THREADS WOULD EXIST because even if that was still not quite proper, it would be much much closer to what we paid for.
When a much more comprehensive standard comes out, it will probably contain all kinds of new and interesting things that haven't been used before to certify power. For instance, I fully expect that a new standard will specify what SOC the battery can be at before measuring maximum horsepower. It's a pretty good bet that the SAE council will call for a reasonable average SOC to be used for testing. For example, lets say the average daily driving range of an EV of x kWH is 30 to 80%. You'd take the average of that, 55% and specify that the maximum power is the power that can be produced at 55% SOC. Why? Because half the miles driven by an EV will be below that average and the other half above that average and it's probably not fair to allow an EV to be rated at the maximum possible 100% SOC power when it doesn't spend most of it's time driving at that SOC.
Until a new standard comes out, I'd be perfectly fine with EV manufacturers measuring GROSS power before testing criteria knocks that way down. Remember, we're starting with 557 hp under perfect conditions and can only go down from there.
If what you meant by your statement was that Tesla couldn't have used that standard, that would be fine and I would agree with it but then it means you didn't actually disagree with me.
Last edited:
Well, not sure when that was added but the website also says "Not only is the P85D a match for the McLaren F1, but it also doesn’t need a professional driver to achieve optimum performance. Just plant your foot and go” as noted above. So it says outperform one sentence and then says ‘match’ in the next. That ambiguity should have given some pause to try and confirm what Tesla meant by this if this single metric was critical to your happiness with ownership.
I thought you had based your decision on what was said at the D event. Elon said below starting at 4:53
Tesla Unveils Dual Motor and Autopilot - YouTube
"The target that we had for performance was to try to meet one of the greatest…the acceleration of one of the greatest cars of all time which is the McLaren F1. So we’re able to achieve a 3.2 second 0-60. Yeah, it’s mad. Ok."
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/mclaren/f1-1992-1998/performance
I've written this before in another thread, but this is indeed independent testing. They tested all sorts of metrics if you read that link. Not only 0-60.
actually the spec page there lists the 0-60mph time as 3.2....
Nigel Tufnel
Member
For those who call some posters in here whiners, and suggest that they sell the car if they don't like certain aspects of it:
Is it appropriate for them to tell you to get out of this forum if you don't like certain posts?
Is it appropriate for them to tell you to get out of this forum if you don't like certain posts?
Pure numbers with roll-out yes. If reading the F1-statements no.
I have to admit I havent really paid attention to the F1-statements from Tesla other then "oh that rocks" until now so it had absolutely no bearing on my purchase. But once again the statement from Tesla does indeed seem not to be correct. An the "other carmakers also advertise times you cannot reach"-excuse is invalid here as Tesla still says you only have to put your foot down implying that anyone can do it
