Wiki Model S Delivery Update

[Atomadam]

I hate to say this, but all the cars delivered yesterday looked excellent--great paint, tight panels.

Agreed

 

[sflgator]

And here's some people's reactions after driving PLAID and comparing it to their Ludicrous S. Essentially biggest noticable difference is that it just keeps pulling harder on the top end. And that's compared to a Performance S, which is still a step above the new LR S. The test pilot driver stated in the video that it's pulling around 1.3 to 1.4 G's, effectively being pushed back harder than you are sitting down.

Has Tesla published AWD TQ numbers? Guessing along with the 1,020 HP, the MS Plaid may indeed have ~ 1,000 lb/ft TQ as well. I had a vehicle with 700 lb/ft AWD TQ and from the videos I just saw, I think it's safe to say that the TQ may very well be up there!

 

[Tigers]

@omarsultan I know you are doing a zoom, can't make it, you'll still throw in the answers to the gdoc right?

 

[Danlbrau]

I noticed the paint quality was incredibly mirror-like. Do you think these initial cars had paint correction done, or do these cars just look that good?

I think they got extra special attention and the likelihood of regular customer cars meeting that standard is remote.

 

[TorqueMonster]

And here's some people's reactions after driving PLAID and comparing it to their Ludicrous S. Essentially biggest noticable difference is that it just keeps pulling harder on the top end. And that's compared to a Performance S, which is still a step above the new LR S. The test pilot driver stated in the video that it's pulling around 1.3 to 1.4 G's, effectively being pushed back harder than you are sitting down.

Interestingly, if you watch that G meter from Brooks it really struggles to stabilize at 1.3-1.4 early on. It's all over the map indicating that the surface may not have been hot enough or optimal for traction. Once it gets above 65 mph it finally hooks up and the G's are more constant.

 

[EVonly]

If I find out 3.1 seconds is only obtainable by performing some prep ritual, that I will never do, I may have to reevaluate the purchase. Not that I would feel betrayed or bitter, I just want an honest assessment of what I can expect at a red light.

It should be similar to the ludicrous mode speed differential while engaging max battery power. I think they say it is a .2-.3 difference. So, if we assume the car is 0-60 in 2.8 with 1 ft of roll out and drag strip mode engaged, I would expect it to do 0-60 in 3.1 with 1 ft of roll out without drag strip mode. So it is essentially equal to the roll out adjustment. You will still get there in 3.1 without having to do anything.

 

[quarmy]

This assumption is not supported by the facts we have seen on the LR. The website states that the car comes with Insane acceleration and the test mules had Insane listed as an option in addition to the Chill, Sport, and Drag Strip modes.

The LR and Plaid can both be driven in the most aggressive driving mode at all times which is Insane and Plaid respectively. You just wouldn't activate drag strip mode because that is the Max Battery Power option that takes time to warmup. Also, anyone that has a performance model with Ludicrous will know that the max battery power mode can not be used at all times because it makes the car sound like a helicopter with fans spinning so loudly that people ask you what is wrong with your car.

View attachment 672353

While this beta UI interface that I'm sure the LR shares with the Plaid is some evidence (and might well be true once the car is released), the facts are that the history of non-performance models does not give any sort of go-faster options. Which 'fact' carries more weight? Who knows.

Honestly I just want to see this tested once someone gets ahold of both vehicles. I want times with no manual prep needed for both models.

 

[aerodyne]

I lied, I am back. That (290Wh/mi) is the constant that DOES NOT include the charging losses, though. Haha. The EPA rating for your 2015 85D car is 33.7kWh/100mi. (100MPGe)

Correct on both counts. That was the point I was trying to make.

33.7 KwH/100 miles = 0.337 KwH/mile = 337 wh/mi.

337 x 0.88 = 296ish. Wh/mi

 

[Hayseed_MS]

@omarsultan I know you are doing a zoom, can't make it, you'll still throw in the answers to the gdoc right?

@omarsultan. Same with me - Something came up and cannot be available during that time. Thanks for hosting it and look forward to see the summaries.

 

[omarsultan]

@omarsultan I know you are doing a zoom, can't make it, you'll still throw in the answers to the gdoc right?

Updating them as fast as I can

 

[aerodyne]

Thanks. I get it’s off topic, but then 95% has been too, and a lot of us are very curious as the the battery size...

One more data point from my 2015 P85D. It shows 36kwh/100mi, which is 2.777. Range 253, when divided by 2.777 is 91kwh. Battery size is a known 85kwh, so that gives a 6.6% estimate of charging losses. Using that figure, the earlier calc indicates a battery of 107kwh. I suppose the 85kwh size could have been a rounded number, the EPA standard could have changed in six years, but doubling seems unlikely. If anything you’d think charging tech would be increasing.

Known capacity? Rounded number? Surely you jest. 81.7 KwH at best per Jason Hughes.

Much better to let Adam/Omar find the CAN bus cable, and then we will know what the BMS says...with adapter, reader, and SMT...

 

[Tigers]

Why do we even need pedals? I don't understand why we can't drive with buttons on the wheel or something

 

[aerodyne]

Interestingly, if you watch that G meter from Brooks it really struggles to stabilize at 1.3-1.4 early on. It's all over the map indicating that the surface may not have been hot enough or optimal for traction. Once it gets above 65 mph it finally hooks up and the G's are more constant.

Could be explained by new tires. They have a mold release, takes a while to wear off.

 

[Danlbrau]

Correct on both counts. That was the point I was trying to make.

33.7 KwH/100 miles = 0.337 KwH/mile = 337 wh/mi.

337 x 0.88 = 296ish. Wh/mi

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but how does a 2021 Plaid with 10% greater efficiency over a 2015 P85D (36/100 vs 33/100) get 37.5% greater range (348 vs 253) with a batter that’s only marginally larger than 85kwh?

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

One more data point from my 2015 P85D. It shows 36kwh/100mi, which is 2.777. Range 253, when divided by 2.777 is 91kwh. Battery size is a known 85kwh, so that gives a 6.6% estimate of charging losses. Using that figure, the earlier calc indicates a battery of 107kwh. I suppose the 85kwh size could have been a rounded number, the EPA standard could have changed in six years, but doubling seems unlikely. If anything you’d think charging tech would be increasing.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34511&flag=1

Page 19 of this document shows that they pulled ~80.5kWh or so from the battery and it took ~91kWh to charge up (ignore the C/3 83kWh value - just multiply distance by DC Wh/mi for each of the city and highway tests).

So that would be 88.5% efficient, as I would expect.

I didn't poke around in detail to look at ALL the variants tested in 2015. So there may be some error here. But all in the ballpark.

Just because it's called an 85kWh battery doesn't mean that's what was pulled from it. It may well have shut down (deliberately) in the test with about 5kWh remaining. That would make it valid to have 80kWh available per the EPA test, while still calling it an 85kWh battery. Tesla has changed how they handle this behavior over time (and they no longer talk about battery capacities of course).

In the end, you can look up the constant for your car and multiply by 253 and it should come out at the DC energy pulled from the pack in the EPA test. So I'd expect about 318Wh/mi for the 2015 P85D. (But these are really rough numbers.)

 

[aerodyne]

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but how does a 2021 Plaid with 10% greater efficiency over a 2015 P85D (36/100 vs 33/100) get 37.5% greater range (348 vs 253) with a batter that’s only marginally larger than 85kwh?
View attachment 672366
View attachment 672367

Hundreds of posts beating similar dead horses on the early cars. "Sudden loss of range". Etc.

Only the CAN bus knows for sure. Measuring is possible, but test and rounding errors, you won't get within 5%.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

but how does a 2021 Plaid with 10% greater efficiency over a 2015 P85D (36/100 vs 33/100) get 37.5% greater range (348 vs 253) with a batter that’s only marginally larger than 85kwh?

They've changed the scalar they used in the intervening years. The heat pump allows them to REALLY increase this scalar.

(This is clickbait title - it's not a secret factor, and it's completely legitimate and allowed by EPA rules. Most manufacturers choose to use 0.7, Tesla probably uses something like 0.75 or so for Model S Plaid, which accounts for nearly 10% of the discrepancy you raise. )

In short, the scalar accounts for 5-cycle test results, which are much improved with the heat pump, since the cold and hot cycle tests give a lot better results than prior models.

The Secret Adjustment Factor Tesla Uses to Get Its Big EPA Range Numbers

How Tesla puts distance between itself and the competition while still playing by the EPA's rules.

www.caranddriver.com

In reality, what this means, is that in IDEAL conditions, it will be harder to hit your rated range in the Model S Plaid than it was in the 2015 P85D.

It all comes out in the wash, everything makes sense. You just have to wait for the data to be published by the EPA from Tesla's internal testing. Nothing will be hidden.

 

[ucmndd]

Yeah I was wondering why Brooks' car (yes okay with it loaded up with 3 or 4 people) only got 2.7 sec 0-60mph. Disappointing...

Dragy doesn’t do the whole rollout cheater thing, so its measured times will always be slower (albeit more real-world accurate). Plus passengers, plus cool pavement temps and likely a less than ideal surface… not surprising.

 

[EVonly]

While this beta UI interface that I'm sure the LR shares with the Plaid is some evidence (and might well be true once the car is released), the facts are that the history of non-performance models does not give any sort of go-faster options. Which 'fact' carries more weight? Who knows.

Honestly I just want to see this tested once someone gets ahold of both vehicles. I want times with no manual prep needed for both models.

I agree with you that historically Tesla has not offered go-faster options on non-performance cars, but they have been moving away from that recently. The Model 3/Y dual motor vehicles both have an acceleration boost package that gives you a sport mode for $2,000. I recently added it to my non-performance Model Y and it now feels almost as powerful as my Performance Model Y.

The beta UI is definitely subject to change, but why say it comes with insane acceleration on the website and have it in mules if it won't be on the vehicle? Obviously, Tesla can change their mind on this at anytime but I think it is unlikely.

 

[aerodyne]

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34511&flag=1

Page 19 of this document shows that they pulled ~80.5kWh or so from the battery and it took ~91kWh to charge up (ignore the C/3 83kWh value - just multiply distance by DC Wh/mi for each of the city and highway tests).

So that would be 88.5% efficient, as I would expect.

I didn't poke around in detail to look at ALL the variants tested in 2015. So there may be some error here. But all in the ballpark.

Just because it's called an 85kWh battery doesn't mean that's what was pulled from it. It may well have shut down (deliberately) in the test with about 5kWh remaining. That would make it valid to have 80kWh available per the EPA test, while still calling it an 85kWh battery. Tesla has changed how they handle this behavior over time (and they no longer talk about battery capacities of course).

In the end, you can look up the constant for your car and multiply by 253 and it should come out at the DC energy pulled from the back in the EPA test. So I'd expect about 318Wh/mi for the 2015 P85D. (But these are really rough numbers.)

Well validated that the only way you can get RM on the old cars at EPA consumption is to use a portion of the 4KwH buffer, and drive past zero.

Kinda off topic, the plaid guys don't care about our nose cone car problems, which I hope they will never have, BTW.