Dragtimes P90D Ludicrous 0-60mph and 0-100mph video

[lolachampcar]

and it is obvious from the P85DL hardware upgrade that the "full validation" did not go as planned.

 

[shokunin]

AutoPilot sensor hardware was "on the cars just not realizing their full potential" but it appears that the $2,500 option price was not recognized as revenue until those hardware sensors were "realizing their full potential".

In case anyone tuned-in here will be on today's earnings call - Here's a couple questions for the company:

1. The $10,000 Ludicrous Speed Upgrade is obviously a high margin option that will provide P90D buyers with significantly higher performance - How many of these options have been sold and how much revenue has been recognized from those sales?

2. When do you anticipate delivering the OTA update that will provide the 10.9 second performance that Tesla promoted to customers that purchased that option?

You're right, reading the option on the model S ordering page it states 0-60 and 1/4 mile time for $10,000, this would likely be considered a feature that was not delivered. The auto-pilot wasn't touted as hardware features but rather capabilities (auto-steering/lane keeping) of the car. If the ludicrous option had stated the inclusion of new inconel fuses and contactors that would be different since they did (supposedly) deliver those on the car.

 

[Bill D]

You're right, reading the option on the model S ordering page it states 0-60 and 1/4 mile time for $10,000, this would likely be considered a feature that was not delivered. The auto-pilot wasn't touted as hardware features but rather capabilities (auto-steering/lane keeping) of the car. If the ludicrous option had stated the inclusion of new inconel fuses and contactors that would be different since they did (supposedly) deliver those on the car.

Unlike the ongoing 691 HP issue, which has plenty of gray area and wiggle-room, the 10.9 sec 1/4 mile ET is perfectly clear. Furthermore, there's also plenty of gray area and wiggle-room in determining the actual damages experienced by P85D owners due to the 691 HP issue. However, if Tesla can't deliver 10.9, the damages are clearly the $10K that P90D owners paid for the Ludicrous Speed Upgrade.

As a P90D owner that paid $10k for 10.9. I'm willing to give Tesla some time to deliver, but if they can't deliver, a $10K refund would be the only logical remedy. Likewise, if Tesla's auditors understand this issue, it seems like they shouldn't sign-off on recognizing any of those $10K payments as revenue under GAAP until 10.9 is delivered. I should add that we love both our Teslas, we're big fans of Tesla and we may even buy a 3rd Tesla.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Unlike the ongoing 691 HP issue, which has plenty of gray area and wiggle-room, the 10.9 sec 1/4 mile ET is perfectly clear. Furthermore, there's also plenty of gray area and wiggle-room in determining the actual damages experienced by P85D owners due to the 691 HP issue. However, if Tesla can't deliver 10.9, the damages are clearly the $10K that P90D owners paid for the Ludicrous Speed Upgrade.

As a P90D owner that paid $10k for 10.9. I'm willing to give Tesla some time to deliver, but if they can't deliver, a $10K refund would be the only logical remedy. Likewise, if Tesla's auditors understand this issue, it seems like they shouldn't sign-off on recognizing any of those $10K payments as revenue under GAAP until 10.9 is delivered. I should add that we love both our Teslas, we're big fans of Tesla and we may even buy a 3rd Tesla.

While I agree the 10.9 is pretty clear-cut, I think Tesla might be able to claim partial revenue given they delivered the 0-60 half. That might be what they have done with autopilot.

 

[Andyw2100]

Unlike the ongoing 691 HP issue, which has plenty of gray area and wiggle-room, the 10.9 sec 1/4 mile ET is perfectly clear. Furthermore, there's also plenty of gray area and wiggle-room in determining the actual damages experienced by P85D owners due to the 691 HP issue. However, if Tesla can't deliver 10.9, the damages are clearly the $10K that P90D owners paid for the Ludicrous Speed Upgrade.

While I agree the 10.9 is pretty clear-cut, I think Tesla might be able to claim partial revenue given they delivered the 0-60 half. That might be what they have done with autopilot.

Just playing devil's advocate, because this is not at all my position on this, I think you could go even further than that.

Tesla could argue that not only did they deliver on the 0-60 promise, but that your $10,000 was paying for the improved fuse and improved inconel contactors, which are of higher quality, and will be more durable, and thus add value in and of themselves, without regard for how they impact actual performance times.

Again--this is not my position. I'm only suggesting that the P90D with Ludicrous issue concerning the car not making its advertised 10.9 second quarter mile time is not necessarily that much more clear cut than the horsepower issue. Both issues are complicated.

 

[Bill D]

While I agree the 10.9 is pretty clear-cut, I think Tesla might be able to claim partial revenue given they delivered the 0-60 half. That might be what they have done with autopilot.

OK maybe I should retract my inference that there's absolutely no gray area and wiggle-room. Depending on what % "partial" you mean, that argument may fail because 0-60 is a very small part of what it takes to run 10.9. I believe Elon stated the car was traction-limited from 0-60, so that part of the 1/4 mile run won't improve. Far more HP will need to be produced above 60 mph to drop from 11.4 to 10.9.

 

[sillydriver]

Yikes! Because I am a P85D owner, and thinking about all of this from the perspective of a P85D owner, I haven't focused on the fact that all you P90D owners out there actually paid a $10k upcharge for a 10.9 second quarter mile time that hasn't even remotely been delivered. They better release the software upgrade that unchains ludicrous mode soon.

 

[stopcrazypp]

OK maybe I should retract my inference that there's absolutely no gray area and wiggle-room. Depending on what % "partial" you mean, that argument may fail because 0-60 is a very small part of what it takes to run 10.9. I believe Elon stated the car was traction-limited from 0-60, so that part of the 1/4 mile run won't improve. Far more HP will need to be produced above 60 mph to drop from 11.4 to 10.9.

I'm talking more about their 0-60 in 2.8 second claim. That allows them to claim partial value for the upgrade. Not talking about partial improvement of the 1/4 mile from this factor.

- - - Updated - - -

Just playing devil's advocate, because this is not at all my position on this, I think you could go even further than that.

Tesla could argue that not only did they deliver on the 0-60 promise, but that your $10,000 was paying for the improved fuse and improved inconel contactors, which are of higher quality, and will be more durable, and thus add value in and of themselves, without regard for how they impact actual performance times.

Again--this is not my position. I'm only suggesting that the P90D with Ludicrous issue concerning the car not making its advertised 10.9 second quarter mile time is not necessarily that much more clear cut than the horsepower issue. Both issues are complicated.

Tesla will have wiggle room in this case to assign different values to various aspects of the Ludicrous upgrade, just as the P85D option was not all about the horsepower number only.

However, I think for the particular "691 hp motor power" vs the "10.9 second 1/4 mile", there were people even during launch that understood Tesla as meeting the promise under "motor power", while in this case there is no one that claims Tesla has met the 10.9 second 1/4 mile claim in customer cars. In this case, it is a very clear cut performance measure Tesla does not appear to have met with customer cars.

 

[Andyw2100]

In case anyone tuned-in here will be on today's earnings call - Here's a couple questions for the company:

2. When do you anticipate delivering the OTA update that will provide the 10.9 second performance that Tesla promoted to customers that purchased that option?

I doubt anyone who could ask a question on the call is reading this, but that's besides the point. I think your proposed question above assumes too much. If I were to ask the question, or write one for someone who could ask it, the question would be:

"The Motor Trend P90D with Ludicrous achieved a 2.6 second 0-60 and a 10.9 second quarter mile time. Customer cars are achieving the Tesla specified 2.8 second 0-60, but can't come within half a second of the quarter mile time Motor Trend recorded. Can you explain that, please?"

 

[P85DEE]

Unlike the ongoing 691 HP issue, which has plenty of gray area and wiggle-room, the 10.9 sec 1/4 mile ET is perfectly clear. Furthermore, there's also plenty of gray area and wiggle-room in determining the actual damages experienced by P85D owners due to the 691 HP issue. However, if Tesla can't deliver 10.9, the damages are clearly the $10K that P90D owners paid for the Ludicrous Speed Upgrade.

As a P90D owner that paid $10k for 10.9. I'm willing to give Tesla some time to deliver, but if they can't deliver, a $10K refund would be the only logical remedy. Likewise, if Tesla's auditors understand this issue, it seems like they shouldn't sign-off on recognizing any of those $10K payments as revenue under GAAP until 10.9 is delivered. I should add that we love both our Teslas, we're big fans of Tesla and we may even buy a 3rd Tesla.

You're a more patient man than I am.

If I had effectively paid an additional $13,000.00, which is what one would have to pay if they wanted Ludicrous in a new Model S, well then I would want my 10.9 right now, this instant, since the car was sold as having that capability now, and not some time in the future.

I'd be asking for my 10 grand back, and would pay them when they delivered the 10.9 capability.

But paying a $13K uncharge for a car which is said to meet a recognized performance metric, namely the quarter mile, in 10.9 seconds, (I don't care about the bs hp discussion that has been going on in here ad nauseum), and not getting it, would not stand with me.

If they have the capability to make this car run 10.9, and if that Motor Trend article is to be trusted, well then they have no right to withold that capability from people who paid for it.

 

[Bill D]

Yikes! Because I am a P85D owner, and thinking about all of this from the perspective of a P85D owner, I haven't focused on the fact that all you P90D owners out there actually paid a $10k upcharge for a 10.9 second quarter mile time that hasn't even remotely been delivered. They better release the software upgrade that unchains ludicrous mode soon.

Yep.

- - - Updated - - -

...In this case, it is a very clear cut performance measure Tesla does not appear to have met with customer cars.

Yep.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt anyone who could ask a question on the call is reading this, but that's besides the point. I think your proposed question above assumes too much. If I were to ask the question, or write one for someone who could ask it, the question would be:

"The Motor Trend P90D with Ludicrous achieved a 2.6 second 0-60 and a 10.9 second quarter mile time. Customer cars are achieving the Tesla specified 2.8 second 0-60, but can't come within half a second of the quarter mile time Motor Trend recorded. Can you explain that, please?"

I think any question about this yet-undelivered option would raise its awareness with management and be good for P90D owners that paid their $10K.

 

[P85DEE]

One of the reasons why I'm optimistic about our knowing whether or not whatever performance upgrade there may be for the P90D will carry over to the P85Ds upgraded with Ludicrous, is because I don't think P90D Ludicrous owners are going to sit still for much longer without getting the performance that they paid for.

That, and it would be a PR nightmare for Tesla to continue to sit on a P90D performance upgrade if they indeed have one.

 

[Bill D]

You're a more patient man than I am.

If I had effectively paid an additional $13,000.00, which is what one would have to pay if they wanted Ludicrous in a new Model S, well then I would want my 10.9 right now, this instant, since the car was sold as having that capability now, and not some time in the future.

I'd be asking for my 10 grand back, and would pay them when they delivered the 10.9 capability.

But paying a $13K uncharge for a car which is said to meet a recognized performance metric, namely the quarter mile, in 10.9 seconds, (I don't care about the bs hp discussion that has been going on in here ad nauseum), and not getting it, would not stand with me.

If they have the capability to make this car run 10.9, and if that Motor Trend article is to be trusted, well then they have no right to withold that capability from people who paid for it.

I believe they delivered the $3K range upgrade to me with the 90kWh battery, so its only the $10K that represents the damages for not delivering 10.9. I'm also willing to give them some reasonable amount of time to deliver 10.9 because I really like the company and believe they'll do the right thing.

The motor trend article is a mystery, especially after the Elon tweet and Linked-in post from Tesla. It's like they are rubbing our noses in it. An explanation of the MT article is overdue.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the reasons why I'm optimistic about our knowing whether or not whatever performance upgrade there may be for the P90D will carry over to the P85Ds upgraded with Ludicrous, is because I don't think P90D Ludicrous owners are going to sit still for much longer without getting the performance that they paid for.

That, and it would be a PR nightmare for Tesla to continue to sit on a P90D performance upgrade if they indeed have one.

Yep & Yep.

 

[P85DEE]

I believe they delivered the $3K range upgrade to me with the 90kWh battery, so its only the $10K that represents the damages for not delivering 10.9. I'm also willing to give them some reasonable amount of time to deliver 10.9 because I really like the company and believe they'll do the right thing.

The motor trend article is a mystery, especially after the Elon tweet and Linked-in post from Tesla. It's like they are rubbing our noses in it. An explanation of the MT article is overdue.

- - - Updated - - -




Yep & Yep.

You're right Bill.

You got the additional range that you paid the 3 grand for.

I was just thinking along the lines of, one had to take the extra range, whether they wanted it or not.

That said, 3 grand for 6% more range is a bargain no matter how you look at it, and I would have jumped on that in a heartbeat too. Wild horses would not have kept me from deciding upon that option.................$#%@ .... wow..., that didn't come out quite right, did it???? &*#$ it P85DEE,........ did you have go and say "horses"?:cursing:

But on a serious note, I don't know what you mean when you say that they are rubbing your nose in it.

But you are dead right, in that they owe you, and indeed us all, an explanation as to what's going on here. It makes me mad and I don't even own a P90D.

I guess it upsets me to this point, because I'm thinking "if they'll do this to people who outright paid the 10K which was asked for Ludicrous, well the what are they liable to do to P85D owners like myself, who would have paid less than that for it?"

If they're withholding what you paid for, well then who is next in their crosshairs?????

 

[sorka]

Made 20 passes at the drag strip yesterday in my P90D Ludicrous. The car consistently ran 11.4-11.5 at around 115 mph. Of course, I had the "Max Battery Power" setting selected. With a full-sized passenger the car slowed to 11.6. I showed up at the track with 96% charge. Ater 20 runs it was down to 48%, but still running 11.6 with passengers. Reaction times were almost always under 0.2 sec, and many were under 0.1 sec, so the car steps out fast. Zero red lights. This was my first time to a drag strip, and the Tesla makes it so easy! No way is the car going to run 10.9 unless Elon sends out an Absurdly Dangerous mode.

Many of the vids from the day are in the Video section of this forum.

The fact that you your times weren't going up as the battery was depleted is almost proof that as voltage dropped, current increased so that the power put down during the run remained the same. i.e. on a full charge, your P90DL is not pulling anywhere near max current.

If the MT car has a setting that allows max current all the time (after say 30 MPH) then the ETs would drop as the battery dropped.

- - - Updated - - -

IF
I am correct with the above, the P85DL SHOULD be an 11.1 second car with a 2.8 second 0-60. This is what I think they are getting to when they mention the .2 second difference between the 90 and 85 DL. This level of difference would be consistent with Elon's comments that the move to 90 would not make much sense as it would not provide that much more performance for the cost of having to swap out the battery component.

Would like to believe that but were it not for the claim by Tesla that the only improvement will be from 30-60 MPH and that it will only be a 0.2 second decrease. I suppose they could be hedging but it's hard to believe.

 

[Bill D]

...But on a serious note, I don't know what you mean when you say that they are rubbing your nose in it...

It was surprising how they enthusiastically pointed out the MT article to us, but didn't address the obvious issue of why cars in the wild were not even close to seeing the performance that MT saw.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that you your times weren't going up as the battery was depleted is almost proof that as voltage dropped, current increased so that the power put down during the run remained the same. i.e. on a full charge, your P90DL is not pulling anywhere near max current.

If the MT car has a setting that allows max current all the time (after say 30 MPH) then the ETs would drop as the battery dropped.

An astute observation. It may also explain why P90DLs in the wild are achieving 0-60 in 2.8 sec if the SW-limited current doesn't impact the performance below 60 mph.

 

[lolachampcar]

I've asked Tesla, in a round about way, if they are aware that customer cars are not reproducing MT's numbers. The response will be interesting.

 

[sillydriver]

The fact that you your times weren't going up as the battery was depleted is almost proof that as voltage dropped, current increased so that the power put down during the run remained the same. i.e. on a full charge, your P90DL is not pulling anywhere near max current.

If the MT car has a setting that allows max current all the time (after say 30 MPH) then the ETs would drop as the battery dropped.

... a very clever inference that confirms the P90D is being purposefully downregulated by software.

The motor trend article is a mystery, especially after the Elon tweet and Linked-in post from Tesla. It's like they are rubbing our noses in it. An explanation of the MT article is overdue.

Very clearly true. I would be shocked if they don't take off the software regulation soon (a couple weeks or less?) because of the way the MT article is a slap in the face of P90D customers if they don't.

 

[Bill D]

The fact that you your times weren't going up as the battery was depleted is almost proof that as voltage dropped, current increased so that the power put down during the run remained the same. i.e. on a full charge, your P90DL is not pulling anywhere near max current.

If the MT car has a setting that allows max current all the time (after say 30 MPH) then the ETs would drop as the battery dropped.

Another fact supporting your astute observation is that owners have reported that the battery heater (Max Power) being Ready or Preparing didn't change performance. This added fact leads me to further believe that the new smart fuse has a SW-controlled current limit that can go up to 1500 amps, but is currently set to a lower limit (except for Motor Trend).

 

[sorka]

Another fact supporting your astute observation is that owners have reported that the battery heater (Max Power) being Ready or Preparing didn't change performance. This added fact leads me to further believe that the new smart fuse has a SW-controlled current limit that can go up to 1500 amps, but is currently set to a lower limit (except for Motor Trend).

Which also may mean that once they unleash the full power update that the max battery mode might have a much more measurable difference.