Okay, I thought there was mention upthread of MT using correction factors. I did not know that was disproven. Regarding why they would provide a different car to MT than C&D who knows maybe they did exactly that. You're speculating that the fact that they didn't is proof that it didn't happen. I'm sorry Dr. Spock, that's just not logical :wink:
-
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
Not disproven, just never proven. No one has shown any proof that MT's results are corrected for the P90DL.
With regard to your part in bold above, there is no reasonable motive for them having done that. Typically if one is attempting to skew results and deceive, it's illogical to undermine one's own efforts if deceit was the goal in the first place.
If what you're saying did happen, well then I'd ask why? What, a sudden sense of guilt? They decided to turn over a new leaf and give the second testers a legitimate car? They made a mistake and gave the other testers a legitimate car?
I stand by it. It makes no sense to give one of your testers a ringer and the other a legitimate car if your goal was to lie. Which some of us in here are coming just short of accusing Tesla of doing here.
And so I say again, to anyone whose position it is that MT got a ringer while C&D didn't, ............answer me this.....why???
Last edited:
Bill D
Member
Using a CAN bus logger I borrowed from lolachampcar several months ago, I logged a peak of 464 kW (306 volts and 1515 amps) at 94% SOC & Max Battery on my P90DL.
I would love to see logged CAN bus data from one of the new 500+ kW P90DLs to see how much of the additional power coming out of the battery is due to current vs voltage.
When the P90DL was announced, they said it had a "smart fuse" which allowed current draw to be increased to 1500 amps, which explains why the inverter seems to be programed to limit what it draws to a flat ceiling around 1500 amps (mine hit a high of 1526 amps at one point).
The new P90DLs either have increased the current well beyond 1500 amps or they have significantly less voltage drop in the battery or maybe both.
BTW - the CAN bus analyzer also reported battery temperature, which would help OldManMike's graphs by eliminating how the temperature was achieved. It also might show the new P90DLs are running the batteries hotter. In the run above, my battery temp was reported as 47.24 (centigrade).
Again, I'm not going to speculate on the why, there's too many possibilities. I'm only saying it's not blown up and getting back to what started this the comment by @NSX1992 has merit. We can move on.
Bill D
Member
We can start a lottery to guess what quarter-mile ET the P100DL provided to Motor Trend will run.
While there may be many possibilities, as to "why" Tesla would either elect to give one of two testers a ringer and not the other, or by accident do such, well, looking at it, and perhaps for different reasons than your own, I don't know, but I probably would not offer up any reason for such an occurrence either.
But if one is to embrace, or even buy into the "ringer theory", well then it calls for an acceptance, a belief that "one magazine got a ringer and the other didn't and I'm unwilling or unable to make an attempt at explaining why, or even why I think so."
Please tell me that you neither embrace nor subscribe to the preposterous "ringer theory" msnow. A theory which has no merit nor basis in fact, and looks like it came straight from out off the National Enquirer.
But yes, I'm definitely in agreement with you. We can move on.
Last edited:
Both motortrend and c&d were given preview? Software (and hardware?). C&d ran 121.7... , motortrend 122+ ...2mph+ needs at least surprise surpise 30kw-50kw to acheive. Nobody without battery upgrade has gotten close ... 2mph is a lot in 10 second bracket ...
You need the software (and hardware?) update to run the advertised 10.9.
Here is hoping it is coming.
It could turn into yet another .., Tesla asked to pay ~$6,000 to Model S P85D owners in Norway for misleading power output
Notice the numbers run by motortrend and owners are heavily used to argue there ... Which owners hold a 10.9 or 122mph pass? Or did motortrend inaccurately correct numbers? Or maybe they didn't or ...
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Or maybe motortrend measures Vmax vs trap speed? That can account for a lot of the difference.
This is a prime example of what I was alluding to earlier.
Some of us are still stuck on the horsepower motorpower matter and figure that b cause of it, well then Tesla must be misleading people.
One matter is independent of the.other.
This has nothing to do with the horsepower motorpower matter, and anyone can "ask" Tesla to pay any figure they want.
Tell me when they're forced to.
Secondly where does the 121.7 figure come from?
Are you just not understanding that those numbers are not drag strip trap speeds?
Acknowledging that eats away at the conspiracy theory.
Especially when coupled with the fact that a member in here has run a 119.64 trap speed in not a P90D with Ludicrous, but in a P85D with Ludicrous. A speed which was measured over the last 66ft of a drag strip.
A figure which is just 1.36 mph behind C&D's 121 mph figure which is not a drag strip trap speed. M
But like I say, acknowledging that forces one to admit that the C&D car was on the up and up, same as your 11.1 does, and leaves no other alternative other than to try and argue that one magazine got a ringer but the other didn't.
One magazine was either deliberately of by accident given a ringer and the other wasn't.
That's the argument you're forced into and have to advance once you acknowledge that the C&D numbers are legit.
That's a very tough sell. You're heading into Area 51 territory and faked Apollo moon landing territory going that route.
Trying to have that theory accepted, is more arduous of a task than sticking to your guns and arguing that "both" cars were ringers, if that's how you started out.
Despite your 11.1, despite the 119.64 measured through the traps
Doing that then opens a seque to try and tie in this matte with the old horsepower motorpower matter, the implication and message attempting to be sent is "Tesla is lying again".
Last edited:
Which owners have tried in a vehicle optioned like the test vehicle?
If 10.9 is the mark, then anything in the 10.9s should satisfy that, including 10.999.
I'd like to see an owner argue otherwise in a U.S. Court of law.
And an owner in here has gotten to .1517 seconds of that in a car which was not optioned like the test car.
Finally Tesla has never stated a trap speed.
But correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't it your position that because Elon tweeted a link to the MT article, that Tesla should be held to MT's 122+ mph figure?
If so then again that rings of a conspiracy theory to me.
Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!
Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!
1. Tesla gives MT and ringer knowing that it will put up bogus numbers.
2. Elon then tweets a link to MTs article with the bogus numbers in it.
Hmmmm
Last edited:
sillydriver
Member
I did some digging to check what I said. The motor trend article never used the words 'high desert', but there have been couple MT articles on their testing procedures that do. The more recent is Nov 9, 2015 where they say the testing for MT car of the year for the last ten years is done at the Hyundai proving ground near California city, CA. They show an aerial photo, which is attached, and it was easy to find the location on google earth, picture attached.
I am also attaching a picture from the MT P90D article of the car undergoing testing. See the vbox antenna taped out the window. Now compare the background mountains in that picture and the MT aerial photo. I think it's the same testing location.
The upshot is that Google Earth says the dragstrip in the middle of the oval has an altitude of 2,525 feet. This is lower than I figured for "high desert" but still may be enough to improve the quarter mile time by a little bit: I haven't written a simulator that would show by how much.
Finally, I see the test car has no pano roof, but it does have the heavier 21" wheels.
Hp or kW tells more about the power of a car than the motor torque number alone. The torque number tells not much about the performance without knowing the rest like the gear ratio. So the engine torque number alone is most interesting for the guy designing the transmission.
kW or HP tells how much work the engine can actually do. And its not like HP and Torque is two different things.
Horsepower = (Torque x RPMs) / 5252
So the HP/kW number is important when buying a car and Tesla have done false advertisement on the P85D.
The Relationship Between Horsepower, Torque, and Acceleration
Last edited:
You're exaggerating here (see bold section) and also a bit naive. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that things like this happen. I worked for MT in the 80's for several years (not in the editorial department that tests cars though) and you wouldn't believe what some of the car manufacturers did or tried to do to get favorable results. I'm not saying that's what happened here, in fact as stated upthread, there are many other possible explanations if you're speculating.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
This was something I was trying to get across in an earlier argument. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to prove because of the many, many factors involved in performance driving.
I understand your points.
But when I take a close look at what do we have available to us in terms of results, there is nothing thus far which I find compelling or damning and which indicates any wrongdoing on Tesla's part here.
Last edited:
NASA faked the moon landing,
Bush orchestrated 9/11,
Obama was born in Kenya,
and Tesla provided a ringer car to MT with secret sauce power
These topics are all equally worthy of discussion and debate, and I'll waste no time in reading and contributing to threads on such topics.
But could we just focus on the data and evidence of the cars' performance, and what is or is not causing and contributing to the performance, and not conspiracy allegations.
Bush orchestrated 9/11,
Obama was born in Kenya,
and Tesla provided a ringer car to MT with secret sauce power
These topics are all equally worthy of discussion and debate, and I'll waste no time in reading and contributing to threads on such topics.
But could we just focus on the data and evidence of the cars' performance, and what is or is not causing and contributing to the performance, and not conspiracy allegations.
My vote goes to the MT testing process. Noting the @sillydriver post above it makes the most sense. I'm not a drag guy but do tracks use vbox or something else to get the times?
- Status
Similar threads
