Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[P85DEE]

Agreed. Waiting on 515kw software for "older" p90dl batteries. Cant be achieved with current 450 ...

Out of all the results we've seen posted up from all of the experienced drag racers you allude to in one of your prior posts, there is no result from a P90D with Ludicrous as its only option.

Seeing as how the best so far in 450 KW range is 11.1, and that came from a car with more options than just Ludicrous, at this point in time it's outright impossible to say that 10.9 can't be achieved in a lesser optioned car with the same or similar power.

Until we see multiple attempts/results from Model S P90D cars with Ludicrous as their only option, and unless I've missed it, we've seen none, then we don't know what time is or is not possible at the 456 or thereabouts prior power level.

Finally, regarding Car and Driver's acceleration testing and stated standing quarter mile result in the link from my prior post, they state: "...When we test, we average two acceleration runs in opposite directions to eliminate wind and grade effects."

That's key.

That tells me that they either ran two consecutive 11.1 times, or they produced one time which was better than 11.1 and another time which was worse than 11.1 and then averaged the two.

So for all we know, they may have run 10.9 and 11.3. That averages out to 11.1.

Or they may have run an 11.2 and an 11.0.

One can play with the numbers as they like, but whatever pair of numbers they choose, the two have to avg 11.1 after two runs in opposite directions.

So pick your pair. For unless you are steadfast and 100% in your belief that they ran a pair of 11.1s, well then you have to concede them a "low" number of at least 11 flat, or 11.0.......which is close enough to the manufacturer's claim of 10.9.

And again, considering that someone has already posted up an 11.1 at the old power level, and in a car more generously optioned than the C&D car was, it is flat out impossible at this point to rule out the possibility of 10.9 at the prior power level.

And before anyone hollers, "but their car was a ringer", well then St Charles' car must be a "ringer" too.

Why????

Because he ran an 11.1 as well. Just like Car and Driver. And mathematically, 11.1 is "at least" as good as one of the two times that Car and Driver got in order for them to average 11.1 after two runs.

Now tell me I'm wrong.

The only thing at work here, is logic.

 

[JoshG]

The submission form ONLY seems to want data from a 90% SoC. Is that still the case? Others have asked for data at other levels. Could the form be modified to allow for a power level AND a submitted SoC?

 

[Old Man Mike]

The submission form ONLY seems to want data from a 90% SoC. Is that still the case? Others have asked for data at other levels. Could the form be modified to allow for a power level AND a submitted SoC?

In the meantime, people can just post the data in this thread and I will integrated into the graph. In fact, all the data used in my graphing has been from postings in the TMC forums.

 

[bhzmark]

The Motor Trend car is listed at a curb weight of 4,689 lbs

2015 Tesla Model S P90D w/Ludicrous Upgrade First Test

The Car and Driver car at 4,842 lbs. .

2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test

Until someone has a shot at making multiple quarter mile passes in a P90DL weighing in at 4,689 lbs at initial power levels, no one can say one way or the other whether 10.9 can happen at 456KW.

I agree. and also MT "corrected" their reported number while C&D didn't. Those two key facts are more than enough to explain the small difference between them without having to resort to allegations of ringer hardware or software.

 

[Alex(AUS)]

Out of all the results we've seen posted up from all of the experienced drag racers you allude to in one of your prior posts, there is no result from a P90D with Ludicrous as its only option.

Seeing as how the best so far in 450 KW range is 11.1, and that came from a car with more options than just Ludicrous, at this point in time it's outright impossible to say that 10.9 can't be achieved in a lesser optioned car with the same or similar power.

Until we see multiple attempts/results from Model S P90D cars with Ludicrous as their only option, and unless I've missed it, we've seen none, then we don't know what time is or is not possible at the 456 or thereabouts prior power level.

Finally, regarding Car and Driver's acceleration testing and stated standing quarter mile result in the link from my prior post, they state: "...When we test, we average two acceleration runs in opposite directions to eliminate wind and grade effects."

That's key.

That tells me that they either ran two consecutive 11.1 times, or they produced one time which was better than 11.1 and another time which was worse than 11.1 and then averaged the two.

So for all we know, they may have run 10.9 and 11.3. That averages out to 11.1.

Or they may have run an 11.2 and an 11.0.

One can play with the numbers as they like, but whatever pair of numbers they choose, the two have to avg 11.1 after two runs in opposite directions.

So pick your pair. For unless you are steadfast and 100% in your belief that they ran a pair of 11.1s, well then you have to concede them a "low" number of at least 11 flat, or 11.0.......which is close enough to the manufacturer's claim of 10.9.

And again, considering that someone has already posted up an 11.1 at the old power level, and in a car more generously optioned than the C&D car was, it is flat out impossible at this point to rule out the possibility of 10.9 at the prior power level.

And before anyone hollers, "but their car was a ringer", well then St Charles' car must be a "ringer" too.

Why????

Because he ran an 11.1 as well. Just like Car and Driver. And mathematically, 11.1 is "at least" as good as one of the two times that Car and Driver got in order for them to average 11.1 after two runs.

Now tell me I'm wrong.

The only thing at work here, is logic.

I dont know what either c&d and motortrend ran in reality because they (as you claim) ran using non standard methods at an unofficial track and may have averaged the numbers (both 11.1 or otherwise) or used another means to measure. Finally it is clear that at least mototrend used a non standard car with the comments on "launch mode". Considering that, it is not unreasonable (according to this unorthodox and unfavourable mode of testing) c&ds car was also not standard.

Furthermore, both ran well above any mph achieved before and since in older batteries. Ironically similar to the update battery results? ... a clear indication of the additional power as opposed to weight. Mph is a well supported method of measuring power delivery.

Then on the 1 older car that has ran the 11.1 certainly doesnt look well ootioned from the photos with 19" wheels.

Beyond that, in my experience, you would need to shave at least 120kgs to save 2 tenths and gain 2mph. This aint coming from a sunroof or any set of accessories!

So, i am sure the logic suggests you do need more power (likely the updated battery given to new cars and motortrend and c&d?) to run a reliable 10 ... it all aligns ultra well.

P85DEE, tesla would not let us down would they?

 

[MuppetOwl]

Beyond that, in my experience, you would need to shave at least 120kgs to save 2 tenths and gain 2mph. This aint coming from a sunroof or any set of accessories!

The panoroof alone is 60 kg more. Confirmed on a scale on two P85D's one with and the other without panoroof.

And some estimates. Air suspension 8-10 kg more, dual charger 5-8kg, premium sound 2-4 kg.
Add a light driver and 120kg less is not impossible.

 

[P85DEE]

I dont know what either c&d and motortrend ran in reality because they (as you claim) ran using non standard methods at an unofficial track and may have averaged the numbers (both 11.1 or otherwise) or used another means to measure. Finally it is clear that at least mototrend used a non standard car with the comments on "launch mode". Considering that, it is not unreasonable (according to this unorthodox and unfavourable mode of testing) c&ds car was also not standard.

Furthermore, both ran well above any mph achieved before and since in older batteries. Ironically similar to the update battery results? ... a clear indication of the additional power as opposed to weight. Mph is a well supported method of measuring power delivery.

Then on the 1 older car that has ran the 11.1 certainly doesnt look well ootioned from the photos with 19" wheels.

Beyond that, in my experience, you would need to shave at least 120kgs to save 2 tenths and gain 2mph. This aint coming from a sunroof or any set of accessories!

So, i am sure the logic suggests you do need more power (likely the updated battery given to new cars and motortrend and c&d?) to run a reliable 10 ... it all aligns ultra well.

P85DEE, tesla would not let us down would they?

Magazines typically test at an "unofficial track". Namely their test tracks.

So there is nothing unusual about the test methods aside from C&D allowing their car to cool down 3 minutes between runs.

And again, if the numbers for C&D are an average of two numbers, and they do state that they are, then they had to run either a pair of 11.1s, or a pair of results one being less than 11.1.

You cannot counter that unless you're calling them liars.

That's irrefutable unless ones position is that they lied.

Or unless you're saying that their car was a ringer, which doesn't wash either because St Charles has either duplicated or bettered at least one of the results they got.

That's logic. That's math.

Pick any two numbers which average 11.1 and they either have to both be 11.1, or one has to be lower than 11.1.

No way around that.

And because of that, and the fact that these cars were less optioned than than any car that we have results from, no one can say what a car optioned exactly like theirs is capable of running because no one has run one.

Also both have not run well above any MPH before or since the new battery.

First off you still either do not know, or are not acknowledging that you are not looking at a drag strip trap speed. You're looking at a Vmax at the end of 1320ft which will be higher than a drag strip trap speed.

Secondly an optioned P85DL has run a 119.64 trap speed and the P85DL is said to not be a match in performance to the P90DL.

You mention "in your experience", and I can respect that.

But I recognize that neither you nor I have experienced "everything".

But since we're talking about what "experience" has shown us, we'll it's shown me that it is illogical to automatically conclude that someone has to be lying when performance results reported from a lighter car on a test track cannot be duplicated by mostly amateurs on drag strips in heavier (optioned) cars.

 

[P85DEE]

The panoroof alone is 60 kg more. Confirmed on a scale on two P85D's one with and the other without panoroof.

And some estimates. Air suspension 8-10 kg more, dual charger 5-8kg, premium sound 2-4 kg.
Add a light driver and 120kg less is not impossible.

The pano roof adds weight on top of the car. Which is among the worst places one can put extra weight for best performance.

Every car we have results from had a pano roof among other options.

Neither test car did.

Can't compare apples and oranges and then conclude that a lie had to have been told.

 

[Alex(AUS)]

The panoroof alone is 60 kg more. Confirmed on a scale on two P85D's one with and the other without panoroof.

And some estimates. Air suspension 8-10 kg more, dual charger 5-8kg, premium sound 2-4 kg.
Add a light driver and 120kg less is not impossible.

Haha ... Lighter driver by 40+kg!!! What are we coming to ... . And yet not a single "light driver" or lack of options that have been able to achieve advertised times. Next someone will claim it's because to date the keyfob being in the car was the issue ...

Even if the above was all relevant (it isn't), is that the the way Tesla wants to state their performance potential? An impossible number that cannot be acheieved by any adult with a spec of car that nobody would order?

It needs more power (at least 30kw across the whole run).

 

[P85DEE]

Point us to the results of the owner driven Ludicrous and no other options car.

They're not there.

So nobody knows how much, if any, additional power above 456KW is "needed" to turn a 10.9 in such a car.

Especially when 11.1 has been run in one with more options than that.

Logic.

 

[St Charles]

Haha ... Lighter driver by 40+kg!!! What are we coming to ... . And yet not a single "light driver" or lack of options that have been able to achieve advertised times. Next someone will claim it's because to date the keyfob being in the car was the issue ...

Even if the above was all relevant (it isn't), is that the the way Tesla wants to state their performance potential? An impossible number that cannot be acheieved by any adult with a spec of car that nobody would order?

It needs more power (at least 30kw across the whole run).

I ran an 11.1 with a pano roof and air suspension. On top of that, and I'm not proud to admit this, i'm a pretty big guy. These three things combined definitely make up the 120kg difference.

Having spent years drag racing, and having raced my tesla, I am here to tell you that I would have hit 10.9 if I could have dropped 120kg of weight.

 

[GridSpace]

The submission form ONLY seems to want data from a 90% SoC. Is that still the case? Others have asked for data at other levels. Could the form be modified to allow for a power level AND a submitted SoC?

Happy to add other SoC fields. 70, 80? Also, worth dropping Max Batt OFF to keep it cleaner?

 

[Alex(AUS)]

I ran an 11.1 with a pano roof and air suspension. On top of that, and I'm not proud to admit this, i'm a pretty big guy. These three things combined definitely make up the 120kg difference.

Having spent years drag racing, and having raced my tesla, I am here to tell you that I would have hit 10.9 if I could have dropped 120kg of weight.

There is no doubt. You have the power shown by the mph to do it ...

 

[msnow]

There is no doubt. You have the power shown by the mph to do it ...

Didn't @NSX1992 run a 11.1 with a P85DL?

 

[P85DEE]

There is no doubt. You have the power shown by the mph to do it ...

Hold on a second.

You do know that he apparently did that at the old power level.

Ran 11.1 @116.7mph.

Unless your position is that he only trapped at 116.7 mph at the new 510 KW power level.

Didn't @NSX1992 run a 11.1 with a P85DL?

11.2.

He also ran a trap speed of 119.64 mph on one of his passes.

 

[JoshG]

In the meantime, people can just post the data in this thread and I will integrated into the graph. In fact, all the data used in my graphing has been from postings in the TMC forums.

Thanks Mike. Here's my data from last night:

P90DL
Vin: 1473xx
Production start: -6/23/16
Delivered: 6/25/16
SW v: 2.24.30
Battery 1088792-00-A

Best run:
@ 100% SoC, just off of supercharger, maxBattery on/ "Ready":
• 512 kw / 686.3hp @ 53mph

Couple others:
@ 98% SoC, maxBattery on/ "Ready":
• 511 kw / 685hp @ 78 mph

@ 85% SoC, maxBattery on / "Ready":
• 501 kw / 671.6 hp @ 52 mph

PowerTools log files (.CSV) available for any data wonks who want to play.

Screenshots:

 

[GridSpace]

Josh, I added your info to the spreadsheet.

2nd day cruising around. At 80% my car finally linked up with Tesla. Power Tools reported 494 kW @ 80% SoC Max Batt. Will supercharge and report updated #s later today or tomorrow.

 

[Tech_Guy]

GridSpace if you could please move my 511KW from the 90% Max Battery Power to 100% Max Battery Power column.

Thanks

 

[sorka]

The pano roof adds weight on top of the car. Which is among the worst places one can put extra weight for best performance.
.

From a suspension loading standpoint maybe. On rear wheel drive only car, more weight up top and less down low well actually help with loading and traction.

The real killer is adding weight to wheels which is basically a double penalty as you not only have to accelerate the mass linearly but angularly as well.

 

[sorka]

Someone supercharge up to 95 to 98% and see if you can get 515KW!!!