Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[gsxdsm]

Actually we know 1071941-00-C is the X battery and capable of more than 454kW. This has to be software.

 

[P85DEE]

For P90DL, I thought the difference between 11.2 (from drag strip) and 10.9 (from spec) is simply the 1 foot roll out.

A 0-60 number using rollout, will be lower than a number not using rollout.

A drag strip uses "rollout". That amount of time from when the staging beam is initially broken by the front of the front tire, to when it reconnects as the back of the front tire passes through the beam allowing the beam to reconnect.

In other words, the time it takes for the beam to connect as the back of the front tire passes through.

The timer does not start until the back of the front tire allows the beam to reconnect. By then the car has moved about a foot. And about .3 seconds has lapsed.

Those .3 seconds are not counted in a 0-60 time using rollout. But they are counted in a 0-60 time not using rollout.

Thus a 0-60 time using rollout, will be lower than a time not using rollout.

However the 10.9 seconds in the quarter mile that Tesla and Motor Trend state, is what the car should obtain on a drag strip. That is what should show on the time slip.

A flat surface testing ground such as the type used by the magazines, the times are measured by GPS.

This typical add 0.3 second to make it a real world number, which is exactly what we have (11.2 - 10.9 = 0.3). I am not 100% sure if drag strip numbers include or exclude the 1 foot roll out number.

A number "with rollout" will be approximately .3 seconds quicker than a number without rollout.

There has been a lot of talk about the 1 ft rollout in here.

The one ft rollout is used to give a realistic 0-60 time which one would obtain at a drag strip.

 

[P85DEE]

Actually we know 1071941-00-C is the X battery and capable of more than 454kW. This has to be software.

Im leaning more and more toward that explanation.

 

[Mandevu]

But the P85D never made anywhere near close to 691 hp by any standard. The motors were capable of handling 691 hp if they had a power source that could deliver 515KW which the P85D didn't. The debate was not whether or not the P85D actually made the power but whether Tesla was correct in advertising 691 hp when they meant motor capability rather than hp actually produced by the machine sold.

Advertised 1/4 mile times can almost never be achieved by non professional drivers. And since a few P90DLs have hit 11.2, it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that with a professional driver, you could hit 10.9. However, this thinking which normally applies to ICE cars where you need high skills and training in how to launch just right, doesn't apply to the "even grandma can get 2.9 second 0-60 times" Tesla.

So the short of it is, it's just the opposite. Horsepower is horsepower and Ford and Mazda have been sued in class actions for making as little as 10 hp less than claimed, but no manufacturer has ever been sued for not being able to meet performance specs.

If memory serves, a German guy sued Ferrari back in the mid 00's due to not being able to achieve his car's advertised top speed.

And I would debate the "professional driver" requirement... especially with launch (max power) mode. Many of the reviews I've read written by seasoned drivers just say "mash the throttle" for best performance. No managing revs or wheel spin required.

 

[gsxdsm]

New battery hw on 90 build from 11 april 2016. Do not use battery on cars build before. So yes think it is some more hw changes than just the battery.

Can you repost the part number?

 

[sorka]

For P90DL, I thought the difference between 11.2 (from drag strip) and 10.9 (from spec) is simply the 1 foot roll out. This typical add 0.3 second to make it a real world number, which is exactly what we have (11.2 - 10.9 = 0.3). I am not 100% sure if drag strip numbers include or exclude the 1 foot roll out number.

No they don't. The 1 ft rollout doesn't apply to 1/4 mile times under any criteria.

 

[P85DEE]

No they don't. The 1 ft rollout doesn't apply to 1/4 mile times under any criteria.

Agree.

The 10.9 that Tesla states and which MT states, is the time which should appear on the timeslip if the car has run the spec.

 

[sorka]

I hit 458 KW @ 91% tonight on my P85DL after supercharging. Previous best was 456KW @91% I got shortly after getting the L upgrade 7K miles ago.

While supercharging, I turned on max battery at 80% just long enough to see the ETA until ready. It said 5 minutes so I turned it back off. At 85% I turned it back on again and it said "Ready!" without any time. I turned it back off. At 92%, I turned it back on and it again said "Ready!". The 458 was recorded at 91%.

So it appears I don't have any increased IR at all in the last 7K miles. I'm still charging at 224 rates miles at 90% which is 1 mile less than when it was new. The batteries seem to hold up really well. 22.5K miles.

I'm too chicken to try it at 100% but I guess it's possible that if 458 is hit at 91% that more is possible at 100%.

 

[P85DEE]

I hit 458 KW @ 91% tonight on my P85DL after supercharging. Previous best was 456KW @91% I got shortly after getting the L upgrade 7K miles ago.

While supercharging, I turned on max battery at 80% just long enough to see the ETA until ready. It said 5 minutes so I turned it back off. At 85% I turned it back on again and it said "Ready!" without any time. I turned it back off. At 92%, I turned it back on and it again said "Ready!". The 458 was recorded at 91%.

So it appears I don't have any increased IR at all in the last 7K miles. I'm still charging at 224 rates miles at 90% which is 1 mile less than when it was new. The batteries seem to hold up really well. 22.5K miles.

I'm too chicken to try it at 100% but I guess it's possible that if 458 is hit at 91% that more is possible at 100%.

458 KW at 91% is pretty good, and I think the highest I've seen for a P85D at 91%.

It might have topped 460KW at 100% and max battery on the supercharger, but thats probably not something that you'd want to do on a frequent basis, so any number you got doing that, would pretty much be of "educational value" only.

 

[sorka]

458 KW at 91% is pretty good, and I think the highest I've seen for a P85D at 91%.

I think the supercharger is heating the battery up further than max battery does given that max battery was nearly ready at just 80% and past ready at 85% without actually using max battery.

I suspect other P85DLs will see similar if they supercharge to 92%.

 

[ggnykk]

A 0-60 number using rollout, will be lower than a number not using rollout.

A drag strip uses "rollout". That amount of time from when the staging beam is initially broken by the front of the front tire, to when it reconnects as the back of the front tire passes through the beam allowing the beam to reconnect.

In other words, the time it takes for the beam to connect as the back of the front tire passes through.

The timer does not start until the back of the front tire allows the beam to reconnect. By then the car has moved about a foot. And about .3 seconds has lapsed.

Those .3 seconds are not counted in a 0-60 time using rollout. But they are counted in a 0-60 time not using rollout.

Thus a 0-60 time using rollout, will be lower than a time not using rollout.

However the 10.9 seconds in the quarter mile that Tesla and Motor Trend state, is what the car should obtain on a drag strip. That is what should show on the time slip.

A flat surface testing ground such as the type used by the magazines, the times are measured by GPS.



A number "with rollout" will be approximately .3 seconds quicker than a number without rollout.

There has been a lot of talk about the 1 ft rollout in here.

The one ft rollout is used to give a realistic 0-60 time which one would obtain at a drag strip.

Thanks for the info. Just making sure I understand this, drag strip time (from time slip) are all real (don't have to worry about the 1 ft roll out at all because it is being accounted for in drag strip time). While for 0-60 mph time, I need to add 0.3 seconds to all the numbers we see in car magazine, GPS etc. For example, Tesla regular 90D claim of 4.2 second 0-60 mph is actually 4.5 second. By 4.5 second, I mean from dead 0 mph to 60 mph, no roll out BS etc.

 

[P85DEE]

Thanks for the info. Just making sure I understand this, drag strip time (from time slip) are all real (don't have to worry about the 1 ft roll out at all because it is not used in drag strip). While for 0-60 mph time, I need to add 0.3 seconds to all the numbers we see in car magazine, GPS etc. For example, Tesla regular 90D claim of 4.2 second 0-60 mph is actually 4.5 second. By 4.5 second, I mean from dead 0 mph to 60 mph, no roll out BS etc.

The 1ft rollout doesn't apply to the quarter mile time in your time slip.

The one foot rollout is used to give an approximation of a 0-60 time you would get on a drag strip.

GPS devices can be set to allow for the 1ft rollout. Or to not allow for it.

Edmunds is the only U.S. based car magazine, (as well as CU which is not a car mag) that I can think of which does not use rollout when evaluating vehicles.

Thus if you see a 0-60 time in MT or C&D, or in an American automakers specs, then it is usually with rollout.

And will be about .3 seconds quicker than a real 0-60 from a dead standstill.

Some automakers use a 0-60 number using rollout across their product line.

Some use a 0-60 number using rollout for their performance models.

Chevy has done this with one version of their Camaro.

This is done to make a manufacturer's 0-60 times look comparable and competitive to those of his competitors offerings who might be using rollout in their own 0-60 spec. .

However a quarter mile spec you see is what you should hit on your timeslip if you've run the spec.

 

[ggnykk]

The 1ft rollout doesn't apply to the quarter mile time in your time slip.

The one foot rollout is used to give an approximation of a 0-60 time you would get on a drag strip.

GPS devices can be set to allow for the 1ft rollout. Or to not allow for it.

Edmunds is the only U.S. based car magazine, (as well as CU which is not a car mag) that I can think of which does not use rollout when evaluating vehicles.

Thus if you see a 0-60 time in MT or C&D, or in an American automakers specs, then it is usually with rollout.

And will be about .3 seconds quicker than a real 0-60 from a dead standstill.

Some automakers use a 0-60 number using rollout across their product line.

Some use a 0-60 number using rollout for their performance models.

Chevy has done this with one version of their Camaro.

This is done to make a manufacturer's 0-60 times look comparable and competitive to those of his competitors offerings who might be using rollout in their own 0-60 spec. .

However a quarter mile spec you see is what you should hit on your timeslip if you've run the spec.

Thanks! The last sentence you have above. Is that mean the 1/4 mile time that I read from Motor Trend/ Car and Driver/ Road & Track should exactly match the 1/4 mile time that I see on drag strip's time slip?

I thought that the magazines also use atmosphere adjustments on all their numbers, so wouldn't that mean magazine 1/4 mile time isn't apple to apple with drag strip 1/4 mile time?

 

[trils0n]

For example, Tesla regular 90D claim of 4.2 second 0-60 mph is actually 4.5 second. By 4.5 second, I mean from dead 0 mph to 60 mph, no roll out BS etc.

Little more confusing with Tesla, because the performance models seem to be advertised with roll out, and the non-performance are actual 0-60 (no roll out).

 

[bhzmark]

Thanks! The last sentence you have above. Is that mean the 1/4 mile time that I read from Motor Trend/ Car and Driver/ Road & Track should exactly match the 1/4 mile time that I see on drag strip's time slip?

I thought that the magazines also use atmosphere adjustments on all their numbers, so wouldn't that mean magazine 1/4 mile time isn't apple to apple with drag strip 1/4 mile time?

I agree. And I think Motor Trend may have used an improper and overly aggressive altitude adjustment that "corrected" a 11.1 run to a reported 10.9

 

[sorka]

I agree. And I think Motor Trend may have used an improper and overly aggressive altitude adjustment that "corrected" a 11.1 run to a reported 10.9

Or they had a 500KW P90DL.

 

[bhzmark]

Or they had a 500KW P90DL.

Maybe, but C&D had the same blue sans-pano car and reported an uncorrected 11.1

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2015-tesla-model-s-p90d2015-tesla-model-s-p90d-february-2016.pdf

2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test

 

[benjiejr]

Your performance is on par with other P85D in this DragTimes rank (Fast Tesla Model-Ss 1/4 Mile 0-60 Drag Racing - DragTimes.com)

It does look like my P85DL is on par with other P85D in that rank. :/

 

[P85DEE]

Thanks! The last sentence you have above. Is that mean the 1/4 mile time that I read from Motor Trend/ Car and Driver/ Road & Track should exactly match the 1/4 mile time that I see on drag strip's time slip?

I thought that the magazines also use atmosphere adjustments on all their numbers, so wouldn't that mean magazine 1/4 mile time isn't apple to apple with drag strip 1/4 mile time?

Well yes and no.

The reason why they use correction factors when they test ICE vehicles is because were they not to do so, an owner running at a considerably lower DA than they did would get a better result, but an owner running at a considerably higher DA would never get the result they reported.

Or cars tested in the same location and at one time of the day, could yield different results if tested at a different time of day as the weather changed.

It is not uncommon for ICE vehicles run at low DAs to beat the manufacturer's spec and/or a magazine time, sometimes significantly.

Conversely it's possible for people running at high DAs to not reach the spec.

Using correction factors is an attempt to level the playing field for comparison's sake when it comes to ICE vehicles run in different weather conditions.

So for an ICE vehicle if you wanted to know if you had run the spec, you could correct your ET.

However with an EV, atmospheric conditions don't have the impact on results that they do on ICE vehicles so no need to use them.

There is no evidence that MT used correction factors in their results for the 10.9 P90DL.

It's important to take a look at their testing procedures. In fact they mention that they limit their use of correction factors for hybrids and turbos when taking into account their power plants.

Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend

No one other than they can say for certain, but in light of what they have to say about hybrids and turbos with regard to their awareness and recognition that atmospheric conditions have less impact on results, and thus they act accordingly when using them for those cars, I think it reasonable to assume that no correction factors were used in their test results for this BEV.

If they limit use of correction factors in hybrids, for the reasons they state, then why would they turn around and use standard ICE vehicle correction factors for this EV?

There is also no evidence that Tesla used correction factors when they stated 10.9

That's why I made the comment that one's results should match.

And no correction factors were used for the C&D results.

Though they ran 11.1, it is not uncommon for one group to report a different result then the other as there are many cars to test, testing procedures differ and test facilities differ.

 

[P85DEE]

Maybe, but C&D had the same blue sans-pano car and reported an uncorrected 11.1

View attachment 182433


http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2015-tesla-model-s-p90d2015-tesla-model-s-p90d-february-2016.pdf

2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test

Considering that fiksgts has run 11.2 in a fully optioned car known to make 454KW, and that a fully optioned P85DL owned by NSX 1992 has also run 11.2, there doesn't appear to be anything unusual about the results obtained in that minimally optioned C&D car.

While I think that a red car was used for the MT test, I can't see Tesla giving one magazine a weaker performing car than it would give to another magazine.

I see no upside to that.

So I have my doubts that one magazine, MT, got a 500 KW car and the other, C&D, apparears to have not.