Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[fiksegts]

sure ET will vary if the car spins even a tiny bit, look at the TRC slips, when he didn't spin, they were within ~.03 of each other and keep in mind he was switching lanes. The Tesla is incredibly consistent. He also isn't charging between tests to keep the SOC equal as I was. The traps are also a good indicator as they are not effected that much by the initial launch.

If your 'noise' tolerance is .05, then there you have it, 140 pounds of weight or the "guessed" weight of the pano roof is insignificant for a 1/4 mile pass. BTW, as I loaded up 140 pounds into the car, I have a hard time accepting the two panes of glass and some motor hardware add that much weight.

I have plenty of other runs, but I won't use them since they might have been on a different road, different SOC, different firmware, different tire read depth, mileage, etc. Back to back testing is the only way as this was done.

Yeah, I agree it looks doubtful, but I'd like to see how weight affects tesla's ets. You really can't do it with just two points. We need to now how much noise is on the data. In addition to the data from the other runs here, do you have any more runs of just you in the car? The more the better so we can get a handle on how much the times change from run to run. You may be more consistent, but trc's runs varied by a 0.1 secs with no change in weight.

Do you know the weight of your car?

And just out of curiosity, what pressure did have in your tires? Did you lower the pressure in hopes of better traction?

Thanks

 

[TIppy]

If your 'noise' tolerance is .05, then there you have it, 140 pounds of weight or the "guessed" weight of the pano roof is insignificant for a 1/4 mile pass.

I'd expect about 0.1 sec for a 140 lb increase. So if the noise is +/- 0.05, you might as well be rolling dice with just two measurements.
I know this is unrealistic, but the only way to do it is to do a lot of runs without the weight and a lot of runs with the weight and calculate averages. If you did 25 runs each, you could get it down to +/- 0.01 secs. Then you'd really be able to see the difference that the weight made.

The other way would be to add enough weight so that the time difference would be significantly larger than the difference you get run to run.

But even my guess of 0.1 sec probably isn't going to change your 11.4 to 10.999.

How about sharing the data for the other runs on this day.

It would be great if you answered these too:

Do you know the weight of your car?

And just out of curiosity, what pressure did have in your tires? Did you lower the pressure in hopes of better traction?

 

[lolachampcar]

I understand the socratic method and the need to examine every possible avenue but, at the same time, I can not ignore the very simple direct causation for what we have seen.

The first PDs were shipped. They had XYZ power available from the battery. They ran ABC 1/4 mile.
Tesla could not increase pack amperage from 1300ish to 1500ish without changing a fuse and a contactor in the battery. (Remember the free over the air update that never made it through engineering validation?).
Tesla creates and delivers the L upgrade which provided a + on battery power (system HP) and a - on 1/4 mile times. Cars were still not running Tesla's advertised 1/4 mile times even with the improvement.
Tesla further refines the battery (hidden 100 KW-Hr, reduced internal resistance, ???) and we have a + on battery power (more system HP) and a further reduction in 1/4 mile times. Tesla is now very near if not exactly on their original HP claims and are bettering their advertised 1/4 mile numbers (like they used to in the good ole days when men were men, boys were scared and sheep were terrified).

Sure, all the other elements we have discussed are important but the above is by far and away the over riding causation.

It is obvious to me that now is where Tesla anticipated being when they announced and spec'd the PDs. It just took them some time to get here.

Now that Tesla has delivered exactly what they originally said they would, is anyone else disappointed with JB's hand wringing explanation of battery and motor power back when Tesla was trying to explain to the discrepancies to their customers?
Tesla All Wheel Drive (Dual Motor) Power and Torque Specifications

 

[TIppy]

I understand the socratic method and the need to examine every possible avenue but, at the same time, I can not ignore the very simple direct causation for what we have seen.

The first PDs were shipped. They had XYZ power available from the battery. They ran ABC 1/4 mile.
Tesla could not increase pack amperage from 1300ish to 1500ish without changing a fuse and a contactor in the battery. (Remember the free over the air update that never made it through engineering validation?).
Tesla creates and delivers the L upgrade which provided a + on battery power (system HP) and a - on 1/4 mile times. Cars were still not running Tesla's advertised 1/4 mile times even with the improvement.
Tesla further refines the battery (hidden 100 KW-Hr, reduced internal resistance, ???) and we have a + on battery power (more system HP) and a further reduction in 1/4 mile times. Tesla is now very near if not exactly on their original HP claims and are bettering their advertised 1/4 mile numbers (like they used to in the good ole days when men were men, boys were scared and sheep were terrified).

Sure, all the other elements we have discussed are important but the above is by far and away the over riding causation.

It is obvious to me that now is where Tesla anticipated being when they announced and spec'd the PDs. It just took them some time to get here.

Now that Tesla has delivered exactly what they originally said they would, is anyone else disappointed with JB's hand wringing explanation of battery and motor power back when Tesla was trying to explain to the discrepancies to their customers?
Tesla All Wheel Drive (Dual Motor) Power and Torque Specifications

Yeah, I think in his squirming about difficulty comparing ice and electric vehicle performance, he meant that if you used the 1/4 mile performance calculators to determine how much ice horsepower would be require to match tesla's performance, you would get numbers close to what they were quoting.

 

[TIppy]

Tesla further refines the battery (hidden 100 KW-Hr, reduced internal resistance, ???) and we have a + on battery power (more system HP) and a further reduction in 1/4 mile times. T

I see you're not buying my charging argument that the packs are actually 90kwh.

 

[fiksegts]

you don't need 25 runs, just a few shows exactly what is going on, again the Tesla is amazingly consistent, it's very clear, nothing magic is going to happen, and there is more than just the ET, look at the MPH traps as well. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results". You can give it a try if you think the results will change.

your guess of .1 is good for a car around 3,200 pounds combined with consistent power throughout the 1/4 mile run, I have tested this as well in other cars, but as the weight increases to the 4,900 pound area, along with the Tesla's large drop in power the back half of the track, the gains are less.

I have not weighed my car, tire pressure is standard, 42 psi. I don't have the files with me right now...

I'd expect about 0.1 sec for a 140 lb increase. So if the noise is +/- 0.05, you might as well be rolling dice with just two measurements.
I know this is unrealistic, but the only way to do it is to do a lot of runs without the weight and a lot of runs with the weight and calculate averages. If you did 25 runs each, you could get it down to +/- 0.01 secs. Then you'd really be able to see the difference that the weight made.

The other way would be to add enough weight so that the time difference would be significantly larger than the difference you get run to run.

But even my guess of 0.1 sec probably isn't going to change your 11.4 to 10.999.

How about sharing the data for the other runs on this day.

It would be great if you answered these too:

Do you know the weight of your car?

And just out of curiosity, what pressure did have in your tires? Did you lower the pressure in hopes of better traction?

 

[lolachampcar]

Nope Tippy, I'm just putting out some guesses about where the second bump in battery power has come from. I have no definitive data to support any one guess but it feels to me like Tesla is trying out larger capacities prior to announcing them. That still does not explain the end of charge termination voltage for which I have no explanation.

Like the first bump in power (L), there seems to be a current element to the second bump in power but can the addition of something like 100 amps (it was 1500 to 1600 was it not? I'm loosing track of the exact details) bring about 75 hp more in battery power (again, I think it was something like 75 hp)?


Also, I get where JB was coming from but fast forward to today and they are making the 1/4 mile number (actually, exceeding it) and are right on top of their original hp claims. I do not think this is a coincidence. They know their systems better than anyone else and I believe they told us exactly where they knew their cars would end up. They just got over excited and put it in the present tense

 

[TIppy]

you don't need 25 runs, just a few shows exactly what is going on, again the Tesla is amazingly consistent,

A few random numbers just doesn't show exactly whats going on. I said it was impractical to do 25 runs, but that's just whats necessary to get meaningful answers out of ets that are bouncing all over the range of values you're trying to determine.

I'm agreeing with you, there's no amount of averaging of runs that is going to turn your 11.4 into a 10.999.

My guess for adding 140 lbs to 3200 lbs is that it should increase et by about 0.15 secs.

 

[msnow]

A few random numbers just doesn't show exactly whats going on. I said it was impractical to do 25 runs, but that's just whats necessary to get meaningful answers out of ets that are bouncing all over the range of values you're trying to determine.

I'm agreeing with you, there's no amount of averaging of runs that is going to turn your 11.4 into a 10.999.

My guess for adding 140 lbs to 3200 lbs is that it should increase et by about 0.15 secs.

Where is the 3200 lbs number coming from?

 

[lolachampcar]

The thing you need to consider when working with Fiks on 1/4 mile times is that DragTimes is his baby. Any BS from him on how the whole process works would result in a loss of credibility which, in the DragTimes world, would not be acceptable. Knowing this, I tend to give him at least the benefit of the doubt if not even a bit more. He usually knows exactly what he is talking about and speaks from countless hours at the track with his own equipment along with throngs of others from many different enthusiasts groups.

 

[St Charles]

They know their systems better than anyone else and I believe they told us exactly where they knew their cars would end up. They just got over excited and put it in the present tense

You could say that about many of Elon Musks ventures.

 

[lolachampcar]

Did not Elon say something like-
I may not do it when I say I will but I normally do what I say I will do.
?

 

[TIppy]

Where is the 3200 lbs number coming from?

I said 140 lbs on a 5000 lb car should add 0.1 sec to the elapsed time. fiksegts countered that he would expect that on a 3200 lb car.
I responded that I thought 140 lbs would increase the elapsed time of a 3200 lb car by 0.15 sec. Not a big difference from 3200 to 5000 lbs.

He's using his experience, which of course is valuable. I'm using the relationship between elapsed time and hp and weight that was developed by measuring the performance of many cars.

 

[St Charles]

Where is the 3200 lbs number coming from?

I think he is alluding to a power/weight ratio change. Enough weight would have to be removed to alter the power/weight ratio enough to justify a .1 improvement. when you are talking about a 5000lb car, the assumption is that you would have to remove more weight in order to see a change in performance.

 

[commasign]

The first PDs were shipped. They had XYZ power available from the battery. They ran ABC 1/4 mile.
Tesla could not increase pack amperage from 1300ish to 1500ish without changing a fuse and a contactor in the battery. (Remember the free over the air update that never made it through engineering validation?).
Tesla creates and delivers the L upgrade which provided a + on battery power (system HP) and a - on 1/4 mile times. Cars were still not running Tesla's advertised 1/4 mile times even with the improvement.
Tesla further refines the battery (hidden 100 KW-Hr, reduced internal resistance, ???) and we have a + on battery power (more system HP) and a further reduction in 1/4 mile times. Tesla is now very near if not exactly on their original HP claims and are bettering their advertised 1/4 mile numbers (like they used to in the good ole days when men were men, boys were scared and sheep were terrified).

Nice summary. The question legacy P85DL owners want to know is why Tesla won't allow the v2 and v3 90kWh batteries in pre-April and pre-June PDL cars? And does this mean that future batteries (e.g. 100kWh) won't be compatible with P85DL? If future batteries can be used in the older cars, will performance be the same as buying a new car with the new battery? Isn't the limiting factor now the battery pack which depends on the fuse and the battery cell chemistry (which are presumably improved in the v2 and v3 90kWh batteries)?

 

[msnow]

Nice summary. The question legacy P85DL owners want to know is why Tesla won't allow the v2 and v3 90kWh batteries in pre-April and pre-June PDL cars? And does this mean that future batteries (e.g. 100kWh) won't be compatible with P85DL? If future batteries can be used in the older cars, will performance be the same as buying a new car with the new battery? Isn't the limiting factor now the battery pack which depends on the fuse and the battery cell chemistry (which are presumably improved in the v2 and v3 90kWh batteries)?

@St Charles has a v2 battery and his pre-refresh car was built in February.

 

[commasign]

@St Charles has a v2 battery and his pre-refresh car was built in February.

True, but Tesla won't allow retrofit of v2 batteries into pre-April cars apparently.

 

[lolachampcar]

Trust me
I'm asking
I've put in to buy a 100L bat.

 

[St Charles]

Nice summary. The question legacy P85DL owners want to know is why Tesla won't allow the v2 and v3 90kWh batteries in pre-April and pre-June PDL cars? And does this mean that future batteries (e.g. 100kWh) won't be compatible with P85DL? If future batteries can be used in the older cars, will performance be the same as buying a new car with the new battery? Isn't the limiting factor now the battery pack which depends on the fuse and the battery cell chemistry (which are presumably improved in the v2 and v3 90kWh batteries)?

I'm with you on that. Given that the cars internal wiring has changed in ways that force a different battery back, are the 'classic' Model S owners locked out of the ability to buy future battery packs?

 

[msnow]

I think he is alluding to a power/weight ratio change. Enough weight would have to be removed to alter the power/weight ratio enough to justify a .1 improvement. when you are talking about a 5000lb car, the assumption is that you would have to remove more weight in order to see a change in performance.

Thanks. It sure looks from @fiksegts numbers that there's no path to 10.9 even with a Sawzall and a super light driver in his v1 car.