Silver lining. You're moving my thread towards the 3000 post count much more quickly than I anticipated....although I think you originally said "give me a few days and you'll have a shot at 3000"
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!
- Thread starter sorka
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
- Status
Silver lining. You're moving my thread towards the 3000 post count much more quickly than I anticipated....although I think you originally said "give me a few days and you'll have a shot at 3000"
I included the effect of weight. That's my first calculation. You know ,where I used weights.
Last edited:
The 10.804 P90DL was under ideal conditions. The 10.79 of the P100D had lousy 60 foot times due to water on the track so, in a P85DEE like statement, I'm going to say the P100D still has another 1/0th or even a little more in the ET.
I'm not sure a decrease from 511 to 490 kw would be enough to effect 0-60 times in a statistically meaningful way over just a few passes since it's essentially traction limited at either power level up to about 50 MPH.
I'm not sure a decrease from 511 to 490 kw would be enough to effect 0-60 times in a statistically meaningful way over just a few passes since it's essentially traction limited at either power level up to about 50 MPH.
We've also got fiks' times for the p100d.
I looked at the can bus power after the 8.0 upgrade and didn't see any difference in power. In fact, I got one of the highest current spikes I've seen.
Last edited:
When his wheels broke loose he got an 11.06. So his 10.79 must have been without slip and controlled by the torque curve.
Maybe, but the wheels could have still slipped little enough to not engage traction control and his 60 foot time was awful even on the 10.79 run.
But I have it on good authority that there is little difference between static and dynamic friction with modern tires. Certainly not enough to make a 0.1 second difference.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Let me refine my comment that I don't think you are using weight PROPERLY, then.
Also, the way you present your calculations make it extremely hard to follow. It also looks like you add in a bunch of additional ET datapoints which seem unnecessary. Given that the ET is a variable it seems foolish to try to run calculations with it and expect a precise output.
Power/Weight Ratio is the single biggest factor in Drag. The next largest is traction, then there are a bunch of factors that are essentially not measureable. Given that the only major difference between all Model S XxxD cars is power and weight we can generally ignore the remaining variables. We can get a reasonable idea on traction based on 60' times which would allow us to estimate a margin of error.
Would it not be a LOT easier to simply plot Power/Weight ratio on the X axis, ET on the Y axis and add in all the datapoints we have and form a trend line?
Oh, but I think you're wrong when you say I'm not factoring in weight properly.
What's confusing about accounting for weight first at the same power, and then for power at the same weight?
Somebody else has already done as you suggest, and come up with a correlation for weight. Why re-invent the wheel?
Actually assuming that static and dynamic friction are *identical* if there is slip, then the tires are still turning faster than the road and less distance is traveled for the same revolutions. The difference in energy is eaten up on friction.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Because it is completely unnecessary to solve the problem and adds a bunch of math for no reason.
I've seen discussion on weight changes at a given power level but nothing that talks about power/weight ratio on this board. If you have something then please link me to it. Given that the Model S/X power curves are very different than ICE cars, it seems unreasonable to take examples from other places which is why I am wondering if it was done here.
Need more data but can't hit 500kW anymore on 8.0. 455kw at 88% soc. Was in the 490's before 8.0 at 88% soc.
1071941-C
1071941-C
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
That's alarming! When you have a chance, can you datalog from 0-100 at a high SoC?
Yep - note this was without Max Battery Power on, so take it with a grain of salt. Will be testing more tonight/tomorrow.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
OOOOOHHH. Yeah. Definitely try it with Max Battery on. As I recall, I had a 25kW power difference between Max battery and not max immediately after switching it on. Waiting for it to heat was not a big difference. this was, of course, with 7.1.
I'm on the last 7.1 update and i'll do some datalogging as a point of comparison for the 1071394-00-A battery.
Don't agree. If wheel RPM increases due to slippage and power doesn't increase faster than the precomputed torque curve, then torque will drop at the higher RPM. Same power but now some of that is being eaten up in friction.
But the rpm wouldn't increase without extra power if the coefficient of friction was the same.
Of course I could have done them simultaneously using math, but I wanted to see how the weight and power each affected the performance. What did math ever do to you?
I don't see how the shape of the power curve would have any affect on how weight affects elapsed time, but let me think about that. In any case because the increased weight is such a small fraction of the total weight, any reasonable method is going to give a similar answer for the change in et for this small change in weight.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
