Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[Old Man Mike]

Would love to help, but I can't use PowerTools since I don't have the credentials to this loaner's remote access.

Ah, I missed that. My bad.

By the way, testing again immediately after turning Max Battery Power off will likely not yield substantially different results, since the battery would still be warm.

This was certainly true in previous models with older batteries. However, I have several data points from new battery operators which show a pronounce drop in the max power achievable with Max Batt Power OFF. One Max Batt Power OFF data point was taken immediately after a run with Max Batt Power ON and showed a 20 Kw drop. Certainly the battery would have been at the same operating temp.

Another possibility is that unlike previous models with older batteries, the Max Batt Power ON might maintain the new batteries at temperature levels not normally achieved with Max Batt Power OFF. Again, we never saw this with earlier models. It was very easy to achieve the same performance as Max Batt Power ON just by driving a bit aggressively for a few minutes.

Again, having CAN bus data would be very helpful as it probably includes battery temperatures.

I'm surprised to hear that it might include battery temperature. I've always thought Tesla kept that proprietary.

 

[Alex(AUS)]

Different weight, different track, different timing system? It's really hard to say what's going on here as a timeslip does not tell the full story.

Keep in mind that mph at a track is a calculated value, not a direct observation. With that in mind I ask you this. How come it took him 4.22 seconds to get to the 1/4 when I did it in 4.1-ish? What I am saying is that i dont think his top end is really any better but the car may be lighter.

You are right about the time but the answer is simple ... Your trap was roughly the same ... That car just started lower. Obviously it would take longer starting at 94. Surprised you missed it but expected from p85dee hehehe.

P85dee have you added back the weight of the motortrend 21s vs st Charles 19s? You were good at subtracting weight but not at adding it back in. Hehehe I am just kidding mate don't take it too seriously.

Anyway. Have a look at this one (on right) as a reference starting at 98 mid track. You can see a clear 10 at 121 if you just accelerated at the same rate mid track onward.

 

[P85DEE]

You are right about the time but the answer is simple ... Your trap was roughly the same ... That car just started lower. Obviously it would take longer starting at 94. Surprised you missed it but expected from p85dee hehehe.

P85dee have you added back the weight of the motortrend 21s vs st Charles 19s? You were good at subtracting weight but not at adding it back in. Hehehe I am just kidding mate don't take it too seriously.

Anyway. Have a look at this one (on right) as a reference starting at 98 mid track. You can see a clear 10 at 121 if you just accelerated at the same rate mid track onward.

I think you're putting way too much emphasis on trap speed.

Perhaps no other metric on a time slip can have more variability in it than a trap speed.

I've seen it vary from one lane to another, and on the same day.


The idea is to try and produce a 10.9 second pass.

St Charles has demonstrated with an 11.05 @ 117 mph pass, that this can very likely be done at nowhere near the trap speeds you have suggested.

Tesla has never stated a trap speed.

Finally, what weight do you want me to "add back in" or "subtract" here?

Your argument has been that 10.9 could not be done without an additional 30kw of power over what we had.

Well, St Charles has that. In fact he has about 40 more kW of power than the earlier P90DLs had. And 19in wheels and tires. And still didn't break into to 10s.

He picked up about a tenth and less than 1 mph over his previous best. So what is your position and theory now?

What, he needs another 60kw of power so that he can pick up that 24 mph on the top end of the quarter, that you keep alluding to, and run the 124 mph trap speed "necessary" to hit 10.9???

Just kidding mate, don't take that too seriously.

I lean heavily towards a belief that the 10.9 that Tesla was referring to, was with power levels available at the time.

That no consumers out of the very few who attempted could match that, is not in and of itself proof that it couldn't be done.

 

[St Charles]

You are right about the time but the answer is simple ... Your trap was roughly the same ... That car just started lower. Obviously it would take longer starting at 94. Surprised you missed it but expected from p85dee hehehe.

P85dee have you added back the weight of the motortrend 21s vs st Charles 19s? You were good at subtracting weight but not at adding it back in. Hehehe I am just kidding mate don't take it too seriously.

Anyway. Have a look at this one (on right) as a reference starting at 98 mid track. You can see a clear 10 at 121 if you just accelerated at the same rate mid track onward.

Again. You keep pointing to timeslips as if it was the be all and end all informative source. I will, again, point out that he ran the exact same time as I did through the entire run . You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim. In fact you are illustrating MY point that the Model S falls on it's face after 100mph.

Here is what I see going on with this timeslip. What you posted shows that the car took almost exactly the same amount of time to cover the last 1/8th mile as I did. Yet somehow he was going 4mph faster? How does that math work? The answer is that it doesn't. It is clear to me that Brainerd does not measure MPH in the same way. It's also irrelevant as the only actual measurement on a timeslip, is the time. Speed is calculated and provided as a point of reference only.

 

[P85DEE]

Again. You keep pointing to timeslips as if it was the be all and end all informative source. I will, again, point out that he ran the exact same time as I did through the entire run . You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim. In fact you are illustrating MY point that the Model S falls on it's face after 100mph.

Here is what I see going on with this timeslip. What you posted shows that the car took almost exactly the same amount of time to cover the last 1/8th mile as I did. Yet somehow he was going 4mph faster? How does that math work? The answer is that it doesn't. It is clear to me that Brainerd does not measure MPH in the same way. It's also irrelevant as the only actual measurement on a timeslip, is the time. Speed is calculated and provided as a point of reference only.

You have a gift with words.

It is the actual "time" that it took to cover the distance which matters here.

It would not matter how "fast" in mph one car was "calculated" to have been traveling when it covered the last 66ft of the drag strip.

What really matters here, is how much "time" it took to cover the r maiming 1/8 mile of distance.

And in the comparison case above, you covered the last 1/8 mile of distance in about the same amount of "time" as the gentleman who was "supposedly" traveling through the last 66ft of a quarter mile, on a different track, faster than you were.

 

[NSX1992]

This tells me that there is something up with the Bakersfield timing system. Your other runs are more in line with everyone else.

Fontana has a slight uphill near the end which might account for the slower times (as others have told me). Bakersfield does a better job of track preparation and it was 93 degrees outside. What is interesting on my 11.224 @ 119.00 the 1/8 was 7.099 @ 98.16 at Bakersfield but I have done 7.082 @ 96.52 in the 1/8 at Irwindale. So is Irwindale even quicker than Bakersfield or each run can differ in the traction obtained?

 

[MP3Mike]

I'm surprised to hear that it might include battery temperature. I've always thought Tesla kept that proprietary.

All of this data can be gotten from one, or more, of the CAN buses. And yes battery voltage and temperature, well in and out temperature of the coolant for each module, is included.

 

[St Charles]

Fontana has a slight uphill near the end which might account for the slower times (as others have told me). Bakersfield does a better job of track preparation and it was 93 degrees outside. What is interesting on my 11.224 @ 119.00 the 1/8 was 7.099 @ 98.16 at Bakersfield but I have done 7.082 @ 96.52 in the 1/8 at Irwindale. So is Irwindale even quicker than Bakersfield or each run can differ in the traction obtained?

Just about everything can be different each time you run, even at the same track only minutes apart. I do find it odd that you have an extremely high MPH given the times obtained on the slip. It's just a curiosity on my part as MPH is generally just a bragging rights thing. Except in this site where it keeps coming up

 

[P85DEE]

Just about everything can be different each time you run, even at the same track only minutes apart. I do find it odd that you have an extremely high MPH given the times obtained on the slip. It's just a curiosity on my part as MPH is generally just a bragging rights thing. Except in this site where it keeps coming up

Trap speed is really only beaten to death by one member in here.

But those familiar with drag racing, especially racing cars which have had lower gears (higher number) put into them, know that significant improvements in ET can be seen just by doing that, often times irrespective of trap speed or actual increases in under hood power.

This car performs like a lit rocket or other firework. The farther it goes, the longer it goes, it begins to lose power.

In this car, with one forward gear, an enormous hole shot, and a power delivery such as it does, trap speed....well I don't want to say that it doesn't mean squat, but it seems to have very nearly the same significance, since most of the overall ET result is on the 1st half of the run.

Anyone looking at what they've learned from ICE vehicle trap speeds and trying to apply that to, or is looking for, a top end kick in this car, like what you'd see in an ICE vehicle with a high stall converter, or a transmission either automatically or manually shifted to keep the car in the meat of the engine's power band, is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[P85DEE]

Well done buddy. Its a top outcome (fastest to date)

Looking at your slip, you have a stellar first half of track then a quite slow second half. The car is ramping down significantly during the second half of the track (too hot?) .. i have seen slips qith 94mph mid track and 118 at end (gaining 24mph across the bottom half) where you went 98mph mid track to 117 ... gaining 19mph). If it did not pull the power you would have passed at ... wait ... 122 and a 10.

I can post the slip i am speaking of if you need.

Is there any doubt the additional (hardware and software) power and optimal conditions absolutely required to run advertised 10.9???

As I read the second sentence of this post, I think there in lies some of the confusion here.

No, his is not the "fastest" recorded outcome posted by a private owner to date.

His is the "quickest" outcome posted by a private owner to date.

 

[Andyw2100]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to post these numbers to a spreadsheet myself, Old Man Mike, or if you're just collecting them.

I did some launches today with my daughter and her boyfriend in my P85DL. I did not use battery heating, but did charge the car to 95% before heading out. I logged the runs using Tesla Log. For some reason some did not appear to start at 0 MPH. I'm including a log of one that is close to the best. In this run the car made 446 kW, did 0-60 in 3.4 seconds (without rollout, obviously, and with three passengers.) I had forgotten to turn off the AC, so it was on during all the runs. The SOC for this run was 90%. Some of the earlier runs at the higher SOCs either the logging did not start at 0 MPH, or perhaps the battery was not yet warmed enough to output the max kW. I believe this run showed 598 HP, and the best showed 599 HP, so this was close to the best.

Please let me know if you need anything else from me.

If this does not help your logging project, because I did something wrong, I understand.

Thanks!

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to post these numbers to a spreadsheet myself, Old Man Mike, or if you're just collecting them.

I did some launches today with my daughter and her boyfriend in my P85DL. ... I did not use battery heating, ...In this run the car made 446 kW, ... SOC for this run was 90%.

Please let me know if you need anything else from me.

Andy,

Thanks for taking the time to post your results. Also, many will find your HP chart useful. Your 446 Kw result is just 4 Kw short of the maximum achieved for a P85DL with or without Max Batt Pwr On. You can see that on my previously posted chart.

If I can ever get data on the new battery P90D with Max Batt Pwr OFF, I'll post an updated chart. Spreadsheet entry not needed (actually it doesn't have a Max Batt Pwr OFF entry); just a post will do.

 

[gsxdsm]

Andy,

Thanks for taking the time to post your results. Also, many will find your HP chart useful. Your 446 Kw result is just 4 Kw short of the maximum achieved for a P85DL with or without Max Batt Pwr On. You can see that on my previously posted chart.

If I can ever get data on the new battery P90D with Max Batt Pwr OFF, I'll post an updated chart. Spreadsheet entry not needed (actually it doesn't have a Max Batt Pwr OFF entry); just a post will do.

466kW max battery off. 97% soc . Refresh P90DL

 

[Andyw2100]

Andy,

Thanks for taking the time to post your results. Also, many will find your HP chart useful. Your 446 Kw result is just 4 Kw short of the maximum achieved for a P85DL with or without Max Batt Pwr On. You can see that on my previously posted chart.

Thanks Old Man Mike.

Below is a graph of a launch that made 447 kW, and 599 HP. I hadn't posted that one because it is one of the ones I don't understand that show a slow ramp up in speed over the first 1.5 seconds or so. I can assure anyone reading that I did not roll into the launch, so I have no idea what that represents. SOC was probably 91 or 92, as it was two launches before the 90 SOC launch.

I'm also posting the chart that shows all eight launches, as well as other accelerations made while I was out and about driving during that time, in case anyone finds the overall picture interesting in any way.

 

[P85DEE]

Andy,

Thanks for taking the time to post your results. Also, many will find your HP chart useful. Your 446 Kw result is just 4 Kw short of the maximum achieved for a P85DL with or without Max Batt Pwr On. You can see that on my previously posted chart.

If I can ever get data on the new battery P90D with Max Batt Pwr OFF, I'll post an updated chart. Spreadsheet entry not needed (actually it doesn't have a Max Batt Pwr OFF entry); just a post will do.

I hit 452 kW on max battery and someone else has hit 456 kW.

My car is a P85DL

 

[Old Man Mike]

466kW max battery off. 97% soc . Refresh P90DL

Thanks. Your Max Battery Power OFF shows a much larger drop compared to Max Battery Power ON than P90Ds with older battery.

If you have the chance, please do a Max Battery Power ON and ready above 90% SOC full throttle reading. Then turn Max Battery Power OFF and immediately do it again. Since the battery will be at the same temperature, you would think the result will be the same. It may not be. That would mean there is an extra software enabled power beyond just temperature.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Thanks Old Man Mike.

Below is a graph of a launch that made 447 kW, and 599 HP. I hadn't post2ed that one because it is one of the ones I don't understand that show a slow ramp up in speed over the first 1.5 seconds or so.

This might be because the anti-slip activated. I've seen it a few times during 0-60 runs. Most of the time you can feel it and see the anti-slip display in the dash light up. It can happen with a little gravel or if the tires are not very warm.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I hit 452 kW on max battery and someone else has hit 456 kW.

My car is a P85DL

Yep, I misread my own chart. I do have a 456 KW at 95% shown as one of the max points for a P85DL. Still talking small differences between Max Battery ON vs Max Battery OFF for P85DL and earlier P90D. And so far, big differences for P90Ds with newer battery.

 

[ScottUK]

466kW max battery off. 97% soc . Refresh P90DL

About the same as my refresh P90DL which doesn't have the latest battery, very little difference in power between max battery on and max battery off. Eclipxe, could you please post your battery part number if you get a chance. Thanks

 

[gsxdsm]

About the same as my refresh P90DL which doesn't have the latest battery, very little difference in power between max battery on and max battery off. Eclipxe, could you please post your battery part number if you get a chance. Thanks

1071941-00-C

I hit about 497kW with Max Battery On, at around 96% SOC