Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[commasign]

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

The extra range won't do me any good, but if ~$25,000 for a 100kWh pack also buys 0-60mph in 2.5 seconds and quarter mile in 10.6 seconds, that would be really really tempting just for the bragging rights.

 

[PaulC]

I'm a long time lurker on this thread and a v1 P90DL owner. Ordered in August 2015 before the original Motor Trend article so the 10.9 number had no impact on my decision. It was a little annoying to have to explain to people at the track that I would not be running 10.9s (although it was easy to explain the situation to track people back then, just say "ringer" and they say "oh, that sucks").

My best pass to date is 11.39 with a 60' time of 1.72, so my biggest problem is finding a better track and getting a decent launch off the line.

There are two things about this situation that I find frustrating:

Tesla has never publicly acknowledged that there are two different P90DL versions. A peak power difference near 10% is a huge amount! This is going to cause problems in the CPO market later on because there is no officially sanctioned way to know which car is which.

I would like to know how many dollars it would cost to upgrade my v1. Running 10.80 is absolutely bonkers and opens the door to a 10.79 under perfect conditions. Right now the price tag is "buy another P90DL" which is too high, but if they offered an upgrade I would give it serious consideration.

 

[commasign]

best pass to date is 11.39 with a 60' time of 1.72, so my biggest problem is finding a better track and getting a decent launch off the line.

So what we all want to know is if you have a panoroof.

 

[Pollux]

I said they were untrue when they were written. I chose my words as carefully and accurately as I could. What do you call them?

Edit (because I see you went back and added another paragraph after I posted): If it's true that the 10.9 can only be achieved with a certain configuration it should have been written that way to be true.

Newbie question: how do I see when a poster has gone back to edit his posts?

Thanks,
Alan

 

[fiksegts]

I've done a lot more runs with various Tesla's and if they don't spin the runs are within a few hundredths of each other, they are very consistent, especially now that we have the max battery power mode which gets the battery up to temp.

look at my Model X runs... 11.66, 11.67, 11.68, 10 minutes apart with my wife driving who had never drag raced before, a few months later I went back to the track with the X and it ran 11.66 with my friend driving and he's 90 pounds heavier than her.

My P90D ran 11.24, 11.27 same day at the track
My P85D ran 11.68 and 11.69 same day at the track.
TRC P90D, 10.80, 10.83, 10.84

this isn't random data or noise.... any other car I would agree, the exotic cars vary a lot from run to run as they have more variables during a given track session...

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.

 

[TIppy]

I've done a lot more runs with various Tesla's and if they don't spin the runs are within a few hundredths of each other, they are very consistent, especially now that we have the max battery power mode which gets the battery up to temp.

look at my Model X runs... 11.66, 11.67, 11.68, 10 minutes apart with my wife driving who had never drag raced before, a few months later I went back to the track with the X and it ran 11.66 with my friend driving and he's 90 pounds heavier than her.

My P90D ran 11.24, 11.27 same day at the track
My P85D ran 11.68 and 11.69 same day at the track.
TRC P90D, 10.80, 10.83, 10.84

this isn't random data or noise.... any other car I would agree, the exotic cars vary a lot from run to run as they have more variables during a given track session...

The do seem to be pretty consistent. I guess you are assuming that trc spun when he did the 10.9.
Using trc's runs of 10.8 to 10.84, you have +/- 0.02. So your 11.45 might have been an 11.47 and your 11.4 might have been an 11.38. Almost a 0.1 sec difference. That's for 60 % of the time. If you want to include the odds for 90% of the runs the times could be +/- 0.04. This isn't strickley true because we don't have enough samples to say that trc's noise is reallly +/- 0.02

It looks like the P90D here is doing 11.2s, is this a different car than the P90D that did 11.4s recently.

 

[msnow]

Newbie question: how do I see when a poster has gone back to edit his posts?

Thanks,
Alan

Up at the top it will have the username and a timestamp saying "edited" when it was edited.

 

[fiksegts]

TRC is also at the track and could have had a different staging position each time, I'm not sure how careful he is with staging, thereby changing the exact amount of roll out. The times on the VBOX would be more consistent since there is no staging combined with charging up to the same SOC between tests.

The do seem to be pretty consistent. I guess you are assuming that trc spun when he did the 10.9.

It looks like the P90D here is doing 11.2s, is this a different car than the P90D that did 11.4s recently.

The do seem to be pretty consistent. I guess you are assuming that trc spun when he did the 10.9.
Using trc's runs of 10.8 to 10.84, you have +/- 0.02. So your 11.45 might have been an 11.47 and your 11.4 might have been an 11.38. Almost a 0.1 sec difference. That's for 60 % of the time. If you want to include the odds for 90% of the runs the times could be +/- 0.04. This isn't strickley true because we don't have enough samples to say that trc's noise is reallly +/- 0.02

It looks like the P90D here is doing 11.2s, is this a different car than the P90D that did 11.4s recently.

 

[TIppy]

TRC is also at the track and could have had a different staging position each time, I'm not sure how careful he is with staging, thereby changing the exact amount of roll out. The times on the VBOX would be more consistent since there is no staging combined with charging up to the same SOC between tests.

One of yours was +/- 0.015, and I don't know if you are filtering your data by assuming you slipped on some runs. What's the cut off for including times. My point is that these measurements just aren't accurate enough to be teasing out how 140 pounds exactly affects the elapsed time. I'm not trying to say your car could do 10's.

What about the P90Ds? Are those two different cars?

 

[fiksegts]

then I guess the 140 pounds is insignificant as well if it "can't" be measured......

I only have one Model S P90DL. I know it can't run 10's... even without the pano roof and any other options removed.

One of yours was +/- 0.015, and I don't know if you are filtering your data by assuming you slipped on some runs. What's the cut off for including times. My point is that these measurements just aren't accurate enough to be teasing out how 140 pounds exactly affects the elapsed time. I'm not trying to say your car could do 10's.

What about the P90Ds? Are those two different cars?

 

[sorka]

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

I was disappointed with it the second I read it. He should have gotten a magician to write the post if he was going to play a shell game with it.

 

[sorka]

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

I don't think you can tell from charge voltage. If they put more cells in series with the existing runs, you'd have a higher non loaded charge voltage. What is it on the V2 battery? 402 to 404 volts?

But if they put more runs in parallel, you'd have the same 402 volts but far less voltage drop under load.

It's doubtful that a change in chemistry got them both less IR and more capacity. In fact, the typical way to add capacity to Lithium Ion batteries is to add Silicon to the anode, but this has always increased as the tradeoff to getting higher capacity. As a hobbyist, I'll pick the right battery for the job. The batteries with more silicon have lower C rates but higher capacity, so I use those in applications that require more capacity over a longer period vs batteries where I need the highest current possible but their all carbon anodes limit capacity.

I'm still wondering how Tesla managed to increase capacity in the V1 battery without increasing IR. However, given the actual range that folks have been getting on their V1 battery, I wonder if it was really as advertised?

 

[NSX1992]

One of yours was +/- 0.015, and I don't know if you are filtering your data by assuming you slipped on some runs. What's the cut off for including times. My point is that these measurements just aren't accurate enough to be teasing out how 140 pounds exactly affects the elapsed time. I'm not trying to say your car could do 10's.

What about the P90Ds? Are those two different cars?

I want to thank fiksegts for taking the time to test the effect of weight in our heavy Teslas. He did everything possible to assure a valid comparison but it is obvious to me that nothing will satisfy Tippy. It is interesting to note that adding 140 pounds is discounted as the results were only a small increase in ET but reducing an incorrect 300 pounds explains the unattainable 10.9 (except for the bogus MT 46xx).

 

[lolachampcar]

I've learned not to mess with the Fiks unless I'm looking for a whooping (on the track at least, he is a gentleman otherwise).

 

[J1mbo]

I don't think you can tell from charge voltage. If they put more cells in series with the existing runs, you'd have a higher non loaded charge voltage. What is it on the V2 battery? 402 to 404 volts?

But if they put more runs in parallel, you'd have the same 402 volts but far less voltage drop under load.

Isn't this exactly what we are seeing? Less voltage sag giving more power?

 

[St Charles]

I want to thank fiksegts for taking the time to test the effect of weight in our heavy Teslas. He did everything possible to assure a valid comparison but it is obvious to me that nothing will satisfy Tippy. It is interesting to note that adding 140 pounds is discounted as the results were only a small increase in ET but reducing an incorrect 300 pounds explains the unattainable 10.9 (except for the bogus MT 46xx).

This is a crap thing to say. Tlppy is simply trying to catch up on what was measured and how. He is also trying to cross reference between multiple testing methods. This thread just barely got back on track. Can we please not be openly hostile simply because an idea or method is being challenged?

 

[TIppy]

I don't think you can tell from charge voltage. If they put more cells in series with the existing runs, you'd have a higher non loaded charge voltage. What is it on the V2 battery? 402 to 404 volts?

It wasn't just the charge voltage. It was the fact that the current to the cells had dropped to 40ma at this voltage. This is how you detect when the cells are fully charged. Your keep the voltage fixed at 4.2 volts and monitor the current until it drops to a predetermined value. So this means the battery was charged to 100 % capacity. If it had been a 100 kwh battery, they would have only charged it to 90%.

You can tell the cell configuration is still the same. There's still 96 bricks in series that give a 403 volt pack. Each one of the 96 vertical lines on the plot I uploaded is a brick voltage.

 

[sorka]

Isn't this exactly what we are seeing? Less voltage sag giving more power?

I think so, but unless I missed it, I didn't see anyone post the unloaded voltage of a fully charged V2 battery.

 

[sorka]

It wasn't just the charge voltage. It was the fact that the current to the cells had dropped to 40ma at this voltage. This is how you detect when the cells are fully charged. Your keep the voltage fixed at 4.2 volts and monitor the current until it drops to a predetermined value. So this means the battery was charged to 100 % capacity. If it had been a 100 kwh battery, they would have only charged it to 90%.

You can tell the cell configuration is still the same. There's still 96 bricks in series that give a 403 volt pack. Each one of the 96 vertical lines on the plot I uploaded is a brick voltage.

Got it, so that rules out more cells either in series or parallel. The only thing left if it ISN'T a chemistry change are larger cells via thinner cell casings or larger cells via more room in the pack. Is the V2 pack perhaps physically larger in some way that would make it incompatible with V1 and earlier cars?

 

[TIppy]

I want to thank fiksegts for taking the time to test the effect of weight in our heavy Teslas. He did everything possible to assure a valid comparison but it is obvious to me that nothing will satisfy Tippy. It is interesting to note that adding 140 pounds is discounted as the results were only a small increase in ET but reducing an incorrect 300 pounds explains the unattainable 10.9 (except for the bogus MT 46xx).

You missed my point completely. I didn't say that 140 pounds could be discounted completely. I said it should add about 0.1sec to the elapsed time. And have now on many ocassions said that there's no way that 0.1s is going to convert fiksegts 11.4 sec car to a 10.999 car.

The point I was trying to make with fiksegts was that with as few measurements as he made it isn't possible to precisely determine how much time 140lbs would add to the elapsed time of a 5000 lb car. This is why I was going round and round with him. This is completely different than suggesting that I thought his was a 10.9 car. I really don't think that it is. You guys are all triggered now to think every comment I make is trying to prove his car can do 10.9.

Now for the 300 lbs. This had mostly to do with St Charlse's weight and his pano. Forgive me St Charles for bringing up your weight so often. This was centered around his herculean efforts to get into the 10s with his car. I believe that a 300 lb difference should improve his elapsed time like this: 11.05 secs times the cube root of (5000 lbs / 5300 lbs) = 10.84 secs. And this is right around what trc is getting with his non-pano car and his light weight.