Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[ggnykk]

Last week I did two 0-160 km/h runs with my P85DL. First one with 100 % SOC and second with approximately 95 %. During both runs the Power Tools app showed 463 kW for maximum power. I recorded these runs with Vbox Sport (external antenna) and a CAN-bus recorder. Now I have had these recorded CAN data files parsed. During the first run maximum power from the battery was 468,72 kW (310 V and 1512 A) and during the second 468,44 kW (309 V and 1516 A). Both runs were with max battery power ready. I am happy to provide the data if anyone is interested.

Thanks! So that is suggesting the Powertool iPhone app is pretty accurate against the professional recording equipment. 463 kw vs 468 kw is not bad considering the cost difference of the measuring equipment.

 

[GridSpace]

GridSpace, can you add your spread sheet link (Tesla Model S P85/90D(L) Comparisons (Responses)) to the bottom of your signature as well? It is easier for everyone instead of jumping back to various page to find the link, thanks!

Signatures can only have one link in them. I tried to have both :/

 

[P85DEE]

On MT, I kind of recall they mentioned a "high desert" test site -- and also, some of the pictures with the article looked like high desert. While I assume they didn't apply the altitude correction to improve the time for ICE cars tested at high altitude, I bet they didn't apply a correction the opposite way to add time, since Teslas produce faster times at high altitude where drag is lower. I always thought that explained a lot of the 10.9.

Interesting, in that just a few days ago, someone else mentioned high DA and it's effect on drag.

 

[NSX1992]

I did a little research regarding the weight of a Tesla. In the January 2015 issue of Motor Trend they report a weight of 4,830 for the P85D with a quarter mile time of 11.6 @ 115.2 mph. In the June 2015 the P85D weighed 4,944 and did 11.7 @ 113.7 against the Hellcats 11.8 @ 124.3. I recall on Teslas specification page the weight listed was around 4950 or more but the weights are now gone comparing the different configurations. As I did 11.5 before my Ludicrous upgrade which was better than Motor Trends times I had faith in Motor Trend. But now with the 4,689 pounds, 10.9 @ 122.7 in the February 2016 issue indicates that something is not right. I know P85DEEs logic is different than mine and he will write another novel contradicting my thoughts.

 

[GridSpace]

GridSpace, can you add your spread sheet link (Tesla Model S P85/90D(L) Comparisons (Responses)) to the bottom of your signature as well? It is easier for everyone instead of jumping back to various page to find the link, thanks!

ok, found a better way to do it. the link goes to the spreadsheet. the spreadsheet has a link to the form.

 

[P85DEE]

I did a little research regarding the weight of a Tesla. In the January 2015 issue of Motor Trend they report a weight of 4,830 for the P85D with a quarter mile time of 11.6 @ 115.2 mph. In the June 2015 the P85D weighed 4,944 and did 11.7 @ 113.7 against the Hellcats 11.8 @ 124.3. I recall on Teslas specification page the weight listed was around 4950 or more but the weights are now gone comparing the different configurations. As I did 11.5 before my Ludicrous upgrade which was better than Motor Trends times I had faith in Motor Trend. But now with the 4,689 pounds, 10.9 @ 122.7 in the February 2016 issue indicates that something is not right. I know P85DEEs logic is different than mine and he will write another novel contradicting my thoughts.

You don't like what I write, the solution is real simple. Don't read it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you read it.

But the bottom line is that someone in here has matched the average ET of two runs made by one of the magazines.

And they did it in a car with apparently more options, pano roof, air ride, than the C&D car had.

And they did it at the "old" power level.

Now I know you probably won't like it, but that kills the "ringer" argument.

And stripped of the ringer argument, there's not much left.

It also severely damages the "10.9 was a lie" argument.

So those of you who still have a beef with Tesla over the horsepower motorpower matter, and want to take the position that "Tesla is telling another lie", can't point to anything other than, "no one else in a heavier car has duplicated their result" in an effort to prove that they're lying.

And that won't work.

 

[Alex(AUS)]

Doesn't matter how "unlikely" a configuration either of us believes it to be.

Tesla is not obligated to make a chart of every possible configuration of P90D with Ludicrous and list it's performance specs.

Furthermore we aren't talking about a configuration that "nobody" orders.

We're talking about a configuration that "some" people won't order.

I know how far it is from 11.1 to 10.9.

And I also know that if C&D averaged 11.1 over two runs, then they either had to have run a pair of 11.1s, or they made one run which was better than 11.1 and another worse than 11.1.

If either of their runs was worse than 11.1, well then an 11.0 or better would have been needed to create an avg of 11.1.

Again, though some may dislike it, that point cannot be disputed. No way, no how. Which is probably why they dislike it.

So what do we have left?

Well, as I see it in our exchange here, your argument seems to center around seeing no submitted example, of the examples submitted, of a heavier optioned P90DL, having matched the results of a minimally optioned P90DL.

The Motor Trend test car had a curb weight of 4,689 lbs. The C&D test vehicle a curb wt of 4,842lbs.

Neither you nor I know the curb weights of all of the cars which have submitted results.

Indeed, I doubt that either of us knows, or could recite the curb weights of any of the cars with submitted results, all of which had pano roofs.

More importantly, we know not the curb weight of St Charles' car which produced the 11.1. A time which we know to have been produced at the "old" power level, and with a pano roof and air ride, and by his own account a large sized driver.

His result literally and outright kills the "ringer" argument. Unless Tesla sold him a "ringer" too.

And yet in the face of all of this, no knowledge of the weights of the cars which have not run the spec vs the curb weights of the cars tested, plus a car belonging to a private owner amongst us, who either duplicated both runs of one magazine or bested one run of that same magazine, you conclude that the 10.9 figure can't be accurate???

Is that it in a nutshell?

If it is, well then I don't see the logic in that.

St george cannot shave 120kg with /without roof.

I am glad you endorse a tesla that quotes performance numbers that have not been achieved in any configuration (without custom software/hardware?) That requires an unlikely configuration with a child driver and tail wind on a hail mary pass

Still you didnt say anything about the 10.9 being prefixed by a statement that your config could not achieve it ... but please pay 10k.

 

[P85DEE]

St george cannot shave 120kg with /without roof.

I am glad you endorse a tesla that quotes performance numbers that have not been achieved in any configuration (without custom software/hardware?) That requires an unlikely configuration with a child driver and tail wind on a hail mary pass

Still you didnt say anything about the 10.9 being prefixed by a statement that your config could not achieve it ... but please pay 10k.

Unless you know the weight of his car when he ran 11.1, how do you know that he would have to shave 120kg?

On top of that, he says:

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.

I'm thinking that he knows his body weight better than either of us.

And when he says "These three things combined definitely make up the 120kg difference"

And one of those three things he's talking about is his body weight, something that he would know more about than either of us would, well then I believe him.

...
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!

Well hold on. Who says he would have needed 2 tenths??? He ran 11.1516. He only needed .1517 to break 11 seconds and get int the 10.9s (I know a lot are going to dislike that comment. But it's true)

So if you're saying that he needed to lose 120kg for two tenths, then it's looking like he would only have needed to lose about 90kg for the .1517 he needed.

The pano roof was said to be 60kg by weighing a car with one vs one without one.

So that leaves 30kg to lose between the air ride, and his body weight according to what you say would be needed in your experience.

To your final point, well I think it goes without saying that if you load out a car with every available option, that you can't expect it to perform like one with little to no options.

 

[Alex(AUS)]

C

You don't like what I write, the solution is real simple. Don't read it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you read it.

But the bottom line is that someone in here has matched the average ET of two runs made by one of the magazines.

And they did it in a car with apparently more options, pano roof, air ride, than the C&D car had.

And they did it at the "old" power level.

Now I know you probably won't like it, but that kills the "ringer" argument.

And stripped of the ringer argument, there's not much left.

It also severely damages the "10.9 was a lie" argument.

So those of you who still have a beef with Tesla over the horsepower motorpower matter, and want to take the position that "Tesla is telling another lie", can't point to anything other than, "no one else in a heavier car has duplicated their result" in an effort to prove that they're lying.

And that won't work.

There is no reason to believe c&d didnt also have unavailable software /hardware update like motortrend.

They ran 11.29 and 11.10 for a wind unassisted/averaged 11.195

Finally 121mph has not been run on anything else (without the software/ hardware updates).

 

[Alex(AUS)]

You need 120kg saving (

Unless you know the weight of his car when he ran 11.1, how do you know that he would have to shave 120kg?

On top of that, he says:



I'm thinking that he knows his body weight better than either of us.

And when he says "These three things combined definitely make up the 120kg difference"

And one of those three things he's talking about is his body weight, something that he would know more about than either of us would, well then I believe him.

To your final point, well I think it goes without saying that if you load out a car with every available option, that you can't expect it to perform like one with little to no options.

You need 120kg (optmistic in that bracket) to shave 2 tenths (unachievable without child drivers)

 

[msnow]

You don't like what I write, the solution is real simple. Don't read it. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you read it.

But the bottom line is that someone in here has matched the average ET of two runs made by one of the magazines.

And they did it in a car with apparently more options, pano roof, air ride, than the C&D car had.

And they did it at the "old" power level.

Now I know you probably won't like it, but that kills the "ringer" argument.

And stripped of the ringer argument, there's not much left.

It also severely damages the "10.9 was a lie" argument.

So those of you who still have a beef with Tesla over the horsepower motorpower matter, and want to take the position that "Tesla is telling another lie", can't point to anything other than, "no one else in a heavier car has duplicated their result" in an effort to prove that they're lying.

And that won't work.

Not following your logic. You just made an argument using the C&D example and a car here to refute the "ringer" scenario. Even if that's correct it doesn't prove that MT didn't have a ringer or used some unknown compensating adjustment to get their result. As I read the @NSX1992 post he's just saying something isn't right and that's correct IMHO.

 

[P85DEE]

C

There is no reason to believe c&d didnt also have unavailable software /hardware update like motortrend.

They ran 11.29 and 11.10 for a wind unassisted/averaged 11.195

Finally 121mph has not been run on anything else (without the software/ hardware updates).

One more time, 121 mph is not a trap speed. It's a Vmax.

And again someone else who is going to dislike my saying it because it kills the ringer theory has run 119.64 as measured over the last 66ft of a drag strip.

That's just 1.34mph short of the 121 you refer to.

Secondly, by your even stating that they ran an 11.29, you kill the "ringer theory".

Why would a "ringer" only run 11.29???

There are examples of that submitted by private owners.

Thirdly, assuming that they did run an 11.29 whuch you point to above, well then again, it kills the "ringer theory" because the guy I mentioned earlier, St Charles did exactly what I said. He beat one of the two times the magazine posted.

So unless he has a ringer too, then how does that happen?

You need 120kg saving (


You need 120kg (optmistic in that bracket) to shave 2 tenths (unachievable without child drivers)

...
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!

Read my edited post before this one.

He ran 11.1516. Meaning that an improvement if .1517 seconds was needed as opposed to 2 tenths.

Which by your reasoning above would require less weight loss than 120kg.

And again, Tesla has stated no trap speed nor 1320 Vmax. And cannot and should not be held responsible for any publication listing one.

 

[Alex(AUS)]

T

Unless you know the weight of his car when he ran 11.1, how do you know that he would have to shave 120kg?

On top of that, he says:



I'm thinking that he knows his body weight better than either of us.

And when he says "These three things combined definitely make up the 120kg difference"

And one of those three things he's talking about is his body weight, something that he would know more about than either of us would, well then I believe him.



Well hold on. Who says he would have needed 2 tenths??? He ran 11.1516. He only needed .1517 to break 11 seconds and get int the 10.9s (I know a lot are going to dislike that comment. But it's true)

So if you're saying that he needed to lose 120kg for two tenths, then it's looking like he would only have needed to lose about 90kg for the .1517 he needed.

The pano roof was said to be 60kg by weighing a car with one vs one without one.

So that leaves 30kg to lose between the air ride, and his body weight according to what you say would be needed in your experience.

To your final point, well I think it goes without saying that if you load out a car with every available option, that you can't expect it to perform like one with little to no options.

The other thing you are missing is that st george has update hardware which boosts performance in even older models (without a software update) he likely had the power increase or some of it all along (since the car was made)

 

[P85DEE]

Not following your logic. You just made an argument using the C&D example and a car here to refute the "ringer" scenario. Even if that's correct it doesn't prove that MT didn't have a ringer or used some unknown compensating adjustment to get their result. As I read the @NSX1992 post he's just saying something isn't right and that's correct IMHO.

Why give MT a ringer and not give C&D one?

That's why it blows up the "ringer" argument.

If you're handing out ringers for testing, and trying to exaggerate your car's capabilities, then why give one tester a ringer and not the other(s)?

Why wouldn't everybody testing get one?

You have to get into all kinds of "conspiracy theories" if you're going to go the ringer route.

And again, that's why the ringer argument won't hold water.

 

[P85DEE]

T

The other thing you are missing is that st george has update hardware which boosts performance in even older models (without a software update) he likely had the power increase or some of it all along (since the car was made)

Prove it.

With a 116.7mph trap speed, which is what he put down with that 11.1, do you believe that he was making more than the same 456kw that everyone else was making?

 

[msnow]

Why give MT a ringer and not give C&D one?

That's why it blows up the "ringer" argument.

Like I said, it could be a ringer or it could be the way numbers were adjusted to achieve the result. There are at least those two possibilities, probably more. If there's no ringers then someone just hasn't figured out how MT got a 10.9. If there is a ringer for MT why does it follow they would also have to give one to C&D? Neither theory is blown up...yet.

 

[NSX1992]

@P85DEE
You made such a big deal that we don't know how Motor Trend tested to get 10.9. My examples of previous MT tests indicates that they were accurate as what we could duplicate and probably did not use some unknown method. Assuming they used professional drivers also in their previous testing that rules out us being only amatuers as being a reason of why we (P90DL) cannot duplicate the 10.9. Bringing up C & D 11.1 is irrelevant as Tesla claims 10.9 not 11.1. If MT 1/4 speed is Vmax then is the ET of 10.9 also Vmax? Only real dragstrip times should count.

 

[P85DEE]

Like I said, it could be a ringer or it could be the way numbers were adjusted to achieve the result. There are at least those two possibilities, probably more. If there's no ringers then someone just hasn't figured out how MT got a 10.9. If there is a ringer for MT why does it follow they would also have to give one to C&D? Neither theory is blown up...yet.

If your goal is to tell lies by using ringers, then why turn right back around and refute and undermine your own lie by putting a car into the hands of other testers which would do just that?

As for the corrections, well, we've been through this too.

In a nutshell, there is no proof that any correction factors were used by Motor Trend.

 

[FlatSix911]

I did a little research regarding the weight of a Tesla. In the January 2015 issue of Motor Trend they report a weight of 4,830 for the P85D with a quarter mile time of 11.6 @ 115.2 mph. In the June 2015 the P85D weighed 4,944 and did 11.7 @ 113.7 against the Hellcats 11.8 @ 124.3. I recall on Teslas specification page the weight listed was around 4950 or more but the weights are now gone comparing the different configurations. As I did 11.5 before my Ludicrous upgrade which was better than Motor Trends times I had faith in Motor Trend. But now with the 4,689 pounds, 10.9 @ 122.7 in the February 2016 issue indicates that something is not right. I know P85DEEs logic is different than mine and he will write another novel contradicting my thoughts.

Here are the corrected weights for the Tesla Model S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P85DEE]

@P85DEE
You made such a big deal that we don't know how Motor Trend tested to get 10.9. My examples of previous MT tests indicates that they were accurate as what we could duplicate and probably did not use some unknown method. Assuming they used professional drivers also in their previous testing that rules out us being only amatuers as being a reason of why we (P90DL) cannot duplicate the 10.9. Bringing up C & D 11.1 is irrelevant as Tesla claims 10.9 not 11.1. If MT 1/4 speed is Vmax then is the ET of 10.9 also Vmax? Only real dragstrip times should count.

C&D results are indeed relevant because anyone hollering "ringer" is forced to operate under the theory that one magazine got a ringer and the other did not.

And it makes no sense whatsoever, if you're using ringers to deceive the public, and that is your goal, to give one of two testers a ringer, and not the other.

It's absurd.

Why undermine your own "false" results you've gone to so much trouble to put out there.