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

[sillydriver]

Are these actually different motors in the car Motor Trend tested?

I don't think so. I have assumed the P85D motors are rated assuming the maximum current allowed through a 1300 amp fuse. The higher HP figures assume 1500 amps or whatever combination of higher current*voltage=power is allowed through the same physical motor under ideal conditions. On the other hand, if the physical motors in the P90D are different than the P85D, then the concept of a P85D ludicrous upgrade would really be a scam.

 

[perkiset]

I hope you are correct.
Assuming you are, the question remains, though: Why does Tesla continue to have to first confuse and disappoint its customers before eventually delivering?

In fairness, Tesla doesn't disappoint customers before delivering. You, and several extremely vocal people have created much more disappointment and kerfuffle than perhaps would be out there. That statement is a broad brush and reflects your position as if it's a truism for all customers. Outside of just this forum, where the loudest of complainer's seem to hang, it would be informative to see a poll of average-joe Tesla purchasers to see if they are confused and disappointed before finally getting what they expected to be delivered.

In my experience (and completely un-scientific personal polls) I have *never* met an unsatisfied Tesla owner, no matter where I've asked. In fairness, I don't hang out at the track, but I think I'm more indicative of your "typical Tesla owner" than someone who does.

 

[Matias]

As I have said before. Take your P90 Ludicrouses to warranty repair, because they are failing to deliver the specced performance.

 

[sorka]

From the Motor Trend piece,

"As fabulous as Tesla's new semi-autonomous autopilot feature is, the 762-hp Model S P90D is a car that begs to be driven. The P90D starts life as an already-insane Model S P85D but with the P85D's 221-hp front and 470-hp rear (691 hp combined) motors swapped for a front motor that makes 259 hp and 244 lb-ft of torque and a rear motor that produces 503 hp and 469 lb-ft of torque. Total output is 762 hp and 713 lb-ft of torque."

Not looking to rehash the discussion of how Tesla describes combined horsepower, but I thought the 90D's ludicrous changes did not include different motors from the 85D. Looking on the website, I don't see information on this. Are these actually different motors in the car Motor Trend tested?

You mean form the P85D. Nobody really knows for sure but that is the current belief. Especially since the previous motors were rated at a combined 691 hp which not even the P90DL actually delivers, so in theory, the existing P85D motors are more than capable of handling the 456KW maximum logged from the P90DLs REST.

 

[SteveG3]

I don't think so. I have assumed the P85D motors are rated assuming the maximum current allowed through a 1300 amp fuse. The higher HP figures assume 1500 amps or whatever combination of higher current*voltage=power is allowed through the same physical motor under ideal conditions. On the other hand, if the physical motors in the P90D are different than the P85D, then the concept of a P85D ludicrous upgrade would really be a scam.

That's a reasonable explanation, but Motor Trend specifically said "swapped" motors. They may have been imprecise in their language, so your explanation may be correct. Perhaps it's time to send Elon some tweets about MT's reference to swapped motors.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean form the P85D. Nobody really knows for sure but that is the current belief. Especially since the previous motors were rated at a combined 691 hp which not even the P90DL actually delivers, so in theory, the existing P85D motors are more than capable of handling the 456KW maximum logged from the P90DLs REST.

yes, I meant P85D and P90D. the rest of your comment went over my head... do you have any opinion on whether the Motor Trend testing may have been done with motors that have not been known to be in any vehicles before this suggestion of "swapping" to higher hp motors than what's in the P85D?

 

[sillydriver]

In my experience (and completely un-scientific personal polls) I have *never* met an unsatisfied Tesla owner, no matter where I've asked. In fairness, I don't hang out at the track, but I think I'm more indicative of your "typical Tesla owner" than someone who does.

I am a P85D owner and quite satisfied, ludicrous confusion or not, particularly since I now have the autopilot to play with.:smile:

 

[sorka]

That's a reasonable explanation, but Motor Trend specifically said "swapped" motors. They may have been imprecise in their language, so your explanation may be correct. Perhaps it's time to send Elon some tweets about MT's reference to swapped motors.

- - - Updated - - -



yes, I meant P85D and P90D. the rest of your comment went over my head... do you have any opinion on whether the Motor Trend testing may have been done with motors that have not been known to be in any vehicles before this suggestion of "swapping" to higher hp motors than what's in the P85D?

The motors of the P85D are capable of 691 hp but the battery delivers 555 hp at 90% charge or greater down to about 480 hp at 30% charge. So the motors are capable of more power than is actually being provided them. So my point is that they shouldn't have needed to upgrade to higher capacity motors since the P90DL is only outputting a maximum of 611 hp (456KW).

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's a reasonable explanation, but Motor Trend specifically said "swapped" motors. They may have been imprecise in their language, so your explanation may be correct. Perhaps it's time to send Elon some tweets about MT's reference to swapped motors.

- - - Updated - - -



yes, I meant P85D and P90D. the rest of your comment went over my head... do you have any opinion on whether the Motor Trend testing may have been done with motors that have not been known to be in any vehicles before this suggestion of "swapping" to higher hp motors than what's in the P85D?

This is most likely a case of Motor Trend being sloppy and making assumptions, but with that in mind, there are some subtleties.

There's actually 4 cases:
1) P85D before Ludicrous announcement 7/17
2) P85D after Ludicrous announcement 7/17
3) P90D without Ludicrous option installed
4) P90D with Ludicrous option installed

We know from the announcement that there was no mention from being any changes to the motor when opting for Ludicrous or the larger battery.
So moving among #2, #3, and #4 should mean no differences in the motor (officially).

However, when discussing #1 (a P85D that was made before the Ludicrous announcement) Tesla never specifically addressed whether any changes were made to the motor in the latest cars rolling out of the factory. So there still remains a possibility that there was a change. However, judging from how with the S85D the "motor power" ratings changed with a software update, most likely the new ratings are a result of software, not hardware changes.

 

[Stoneymonster]

The motors of the P85D are capable of 691 hp but the battery delivers 555 hp at 90% charge or greater down to about 480 hp at 30% charge. So the motors are capable of more power than is actually being provided them. So my point is that they shouldn't have needed to upgrade to higher capacity motors since the P90DL is only outputting a maximum of 611 hp (456KW).

The motor controller firmware in the 90DL may have increased the individual motor power max outputs.

 

[SteveG3]

The motors of the P85D are capable of 691 hp but the battery delivers 555 hp at 90% charge or greater down to about 480 hp at 30% charge. So the motors are capable of more power than is actually being provided them. So my point is that they shouldn't have needed to upgrade to higher capacity motors since the P90DL is only outputting a maximum of 611 hp (456KW).

I understand what you are suggesting now. Isn't it possible though that they've just gone from one pair of motors whose capability the battery can never fully handle at the same time to another set where this is true... with the second set having even higher hp in each motor, which allows a more optimal splitting of power between front and rear motor for these kinds of launches. For example, if maximizing power to the rear wheels will improve acceleration from a stop, "swapping" from a 470 hp rear motor to a 503 hp rear motor as MT says happened, would mean a more optimal distribution of the power available (you've suggested 555 hp) to the rear motor.

 

[Andyw2100]

In fairness, Tesla doesn't disappoint customers before delivering. You, and several extremely vocal people have created much more disappointment and kerfuffle than perhaps would be out there. That statement is a broad brush and reflects your position as if it's a truism for all customers. Outside of just this forum, where the loudest of complainer's seem to hang, it would be informative to see a poll of average-joe Tesla purchasers to see if they are confused and disappointed before finally getting what they expected to be delivered.

In my experience (and completely un-scientific personal polls) I have *never* met an unsatisfied Tesla owner, no matter where I've asked. In fairness, I don't hang out at the track, but I think I'm more indicative of your "typical Tesla owner" than someone who does.

I didn't mention the horsepower issue.

It is an indisputable fact that Tesla delivered the P85Ds without Torque Sleep. For about a month, no one understood why our cars weren't getting close to the expected efficiency. Go read the threads from that time period. There were many people who were concerned about why the cars were not seeing the expected efficiency. A month after deliveries started Tesla announced that the cars didn't yet have Torque Sleep, and that an update to enable it would be coming soon. My point is that there was no need for that.

It is an indisputable fact that P90Ds with Ludicrous do not yet achieve a 10.9 second quarter mile time. Assuming that they soon will, my point is that there was no reason for Tesla to not just inform people about what was going on, as opposed to delivering cars that weren't meeting specs and letting the customers wonder why, and worry about it.

The fact that some customers may not be informed enough to know they have a right to be disappointed isn't a good reason for Tesla to continue their policy of deception. They should be straight with all their customers, and honest about what they are delivering at the moment, and, when needed, explain how that compares to what was promised and when in the future the promise will be fulfilled. Anything less is not good business.

 

[SteveG3]

This is most likely a case of Motor Trend being sloppy and making assumptions, but with that in mind, there are some subtleties.

There's actually 4 cases:
1) P85D before Ludicrous announcement 7/17
2) P85D after Ludicrous announcement 7/17
3) P90D without Ludicrous option installed
4) P90D with Ludicrous option installed

We know from the announcement that there was no mention from being any changes to the motor when opting for Ludicrous or the larger battery.
So moving among #2, #3, and #4 should mean no differences in the motor (officially).

However, when discussing #1 (a P85D that was made before the Ludicrous announcement) Tesla never specifically addressed whether any changes were made to the motor in the latest cars rolling out of the factory. So there still remains a possibility that there was a change. However, judging from how with the S85D the "motor power" ratings changed with a software update, most likely the new ratings are a result of software, not hardware changes.

thanks for the explanation. so, while MT may have been sloppy in language (that is, the motors may not be new hardware "swapped" in place of a prior version of the motors) it's possible MT has really gotten better numbers than previously seen, and that the explanation could well be a "motor power" rating change, as you put it, due to firmware or software.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I understand what you are suggesting now. Isn't it possible though that they've just gone from one pair of motors whose capability the battery can never fully handle at the same time to another set where this is true... with the second set having even higher hp in each motor, which allows a more optimal splitting of power between front and rear motor for these kinds of launches. For example, if maximizing power to the rear wheels will improve acceleration from a stop, "swapping" from a 470 hp rear motor to a 503 hp rear motor as MT says happened, would mean a more optimal distribution of the power available (you've suggested 555 hp) to the rear motor.

For low speed acceleration, the torque numbers probably matter too. The previous rating was 687 lb-ft, new one is 713 lb-ft.

 

[lolachampcar]

I am a P85D owner and quite satisfied, ludicrous confusion or not, particularly since I now have the autopilot to play with.:smile:

I'm with silly on this one.... Love my P85D and Tesla delivered MORE than they promised.

 

[perkiset]

I didn't mention the horsepower issue.

You don't need to, you're in the thread.

It is an indisputable fact that Tesla delivered the P85Ds without Torque Sleep. For about a month, no one understood why our cars weren't getting close to the expected efficiency. Go read the threads from that time period. There were many people who were concerned about why the cars were not seeing the expected efficiency. A month after deliveries started Tesla announced that the cars didn't yet have Torque Sleep, and that an update to enable it would be coming soon. My point is that there was no need for that.

Fair, although I've not looked at the threads to see if there is any more to the story. If it's akin to this debate, then there are more angles than what is being presented here.

It is an indisputable fact that P90Ds with Ludicrous do not yet achieve a 10.9 second quarter mile time. Assuming that they soon will, my point is that there was no reason for Tesla to not just inform people about what was going on, as opposed to delivering cars that weren't meeting specs and letting the customers wonder why, and worry about it.

MT disagrees. And the number of customers worrying would probably be less if this hadn't been so whipped up or continually pressed. This may be a mountain for a few, but it is less than a molehill to most, I'd wager.

The fact that some customers may not be informed enough to know they have a right to be disappointed isn't a good reason for Tesla to continue their policy of deception. They should be straight with all their customers, and honest about what they are delivering at the moment, and, when needed, explain how that compares to what was promised and when in the future the promise will be fulfilled. Anything less is not good business.

I have a "high efficiency" washer that's supposed to have an easy way to soak items. It really doesn't.
I have phone service that, although I am told should be superb and not drop, fails on me all the time.
I have a computer that should be able to execute a HUGE number of calculations, based on tests are done on a specialized bench and with specialized software to beat the numbers. I don't get anywhere NEAR what is claimed. Ever. It is locally irreproducible.
I fly with companies that claim a nearly perfect departure record. To do this, they push away from the gate and sit. They were, "on time" after all.

The notion of honesty vis-a-vis marketing is an interesting concept. And a "policy of deception" would require you to be in the board room and see that this is their actual approach, rather than this all just being a conflagration of boneheads in a big company that are trying to do the best they can and they screw up. That's my point: I get your disappointment. But to extend that into either a "policy of deception" or a regular occurrence for all customers is just projecting your disappointment upon everyone else, which is incendiary and contributing to the problem, IMO.

 

[Andyw2100]

Fair, although I've not looked at the threads to see if there is any more to the story. If it's akin to this debate, then there are more angles than what is being presented here.

Well, the only additional information you'd find, that I hadn't mentioned, is that we were already worried about efficiency issues because the EPA numbers had come out and were lower than the numbers Tesla had advertised. So people were "worked up" and anxious to discover what the "real world" numbers were going to yield. Until the blog post in very late December, no one had any idea the cars were not yet as efficient as they would be, so we were worrying for no reason. There was no way we could have known, before that blog post, that Torque Sleep had not been enabled yet.

MT disagrees. And the number of customers worrying would probably be less if this hadn't been so whipped up or continually pressed. This may be a mountain for a few, but it is less than a molehill to most, I'd wager.

Obviously I wasn't including the MT test car that people are questioning the details of in the group of cars I was referring to. You're probably right that many people don't care whether or not their car meets the advertised specs. But the fact that they don't care doesn't make Tesla's failure to meet the specs any less wrong.

The notion of honesty vis-a-vis marketing is an interesting concept. And a "policy of deception" would require you to be in the board room and see that this is their actual approach, rather than this all just being a conflagration of boneheads in a big company that are trying to do the best they can and they screw up. That's my point: I get your disappointment. But to extend that into either a "policy of deception" or a regular occurrence for all customers is just projecting your disappointment upon everyone else, which is incendiary and contributing to the problem, IMO.

"Policy of deception" may have been too strong a term. In this case it's not really the marketing, though, that I have an issue with. It's what customers were told when taking delivery. For whatever reason, engineering couldn't quite meet the expected timeline. Fine, stuff happens. My point is JUST TELL US! Don't let us stew about it, and force us to figure it out on our own. People respect honesty. Say, "We came up a little short, but this will be fixed soon." That's not that difficult.

 

[P85DEE]

Musk prematurely announces free OTA update that will provide performance not seen outside the factory. There is no confirmation of this, but I heard 2.9 sec 0-60 numbers from the AWD test mule over six months before the P85D announcement. I suspect the OTA update was intended to provide 2.8/10.9 performance.

Engineers found hardware issues during the verification phase.

Tesla has to make Ludicrous a $5K plus labor option and faces backlash.

P90DL ships but with limited performance to see how it goes in the field.

Tesla now has enough data to let loose the rest of Ludicrous thus the MT review.

OTA update to follow.

This is my guess.

And you could be dead on. But the problem I see is why advertise the car as being capable of 10.9 seconds in the quarter for the last 2 months, if it can't do that.?

The people who bought it, bought it with the understanding that it could do 10.9 now, not two months from now.

- - - Updated - - -

So to clarify: do you think the P85D upgrade will be close to the 2.6/10.9 P90DL that has the new software/setting, or do you think the software/setting won't apply to the P85D upgrade, so that car will be left in the dust.

i know you didn't ask me, but that's what I think.

Thats part of what makes that upgrade such a crapshoot at this point.

Anyone getting it, might be getting the final or finished version of it.

On the one hand, it's inconceivable to me that they'd expect anyone to pay $7500.00 or even $5000.00 for 0.2 seconds in the quarter.

But then otoh, that just might be all that they have in mind for upgraders.

see my response to lolacamper below.

If a P90D ludicrous upgrade is currently in existence, then they won't be able to keep it under wraps for another 5 months.

5 months represents the time left to select the P85D Luducrous update

The minute they release any bump for P90D ludicrous cars, and they're going to have to do that soon now because that MT article is out, we will know if the same bump will be available for those with the ludicrous upgrade.

 

[lolachampcar]

My guess is they got caught with their pants down on the P90DL the same way they did on the OTA upgrade. Remember, the P90DL announce and ship dates were likely set long before they realized they could not do the whole upgrade without new hardware.

IF I am correct, the options were to re-spec. the car at which point customers would want something or ship something better than the P85D and buy some time to finish the task. Torque Sleep and AutoPilot are but two examples of how Tesla chooses to handle these things. What did Musk say? Something like I may not meet my dates but I always deliver.

 

[P85DEE]

My guess is they got caught with their pants down on the P90DL the same way they did on the OTA upgrade. Remember, the P90DL announce and ship dates were likely set long before they realized they could not do the whole upgrade without new hardware.

IF I am correct, the options were to re-spec. the car at which point customers would want something or ship something better than the P85D and buy some time to finish the task. Torque Sleep and AutoPilot are but two examples of how Tesla chooses to handle these things. What did Musk say? Something like I may not meet my dates but I always deliver.

Well, timing is everything, and as you've probably guessed, I'm looking at this from every angle that I can think of.

Bear with me.

IFF there is to be an upgrade to P90D Ludicrous, well then it needs to happen as soon after that MT article as possible.

There are 5 more months left to opt for the P85D ludicrous upgrade.

If if an update is to come for current P90D owners, well then it almost has to come within that 5 month window.

And if if it does, well then we will know if said upgrade covers upgraded P85Ds too.

So when I look at sorka's scenario, I don't see Tesla waiting until all of the P85Ds are upgraded, a time frame if at least 5 months from now, before Ludicrous in the P90D ludicrous cars get their needed bump, because this article is now going to have people looking for and expecting 10.9 at 122.xx.

What at this means is, anyone wanting to know if P85D ludicrous is going to get a bump over what's already being promised, i.e. 2 tenths, they should know long before the remaining 5 months of the 6 month window closes.

They can't have P90D Ludicrous owners waiting around for the next 5 months to do what the car in the magazine did.

So so thismight be good news for anyone contemplating the upgrade.

Youll probably know before you pull the trigger, if more than the two tenths improvement thus far promised will be available.

 

[Andyw2100]

There are 5 more months left to opt for the P85D ludicrous upgrade.

Just wondering if you've seen something on this that I may have missed. (I'm not being sarcastic. I easily could have missed something.)

I ask because Musk announced that six month window in July, when he first announced the availability of the upgrade. We've been assuming that the clock only starts ticking once the upgrade was really available, but do we know that for a fact? Has it been confirmed? In theory, that window could close six months from when Musk made the Ludicrous announcement.