-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
@AnxietyRanger, as long as they leave my frunk alone I'd be happy
Are you talking about your car or...?
Well strictly speaking here it should be called a "Froot"... That should say enough
BTW, P100D weighs 100lbs more than P90D. Assuming cell weight of 48 grams, 855 extra cells add 90lbs.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
Do you seriously think that the current cooling system is even remotely reasonable? I can overheat this car in a matter of seconds. I cannot think of another car currently in production that is even close to that bad.
MarcG
Active Member
After getting confirmation in late-2015 that upgrading my P85D to Ludicrous then would be retained if I chose to upgrade to a 90kWh battery later:
I now have confirmation that Tesla won't do upgrades to 90kWh (or 100kWh) at all:
"The car" involves many pieces which are not the battery.
You can overheat the motor.. Not the battery..
Try to pack it up with dry ice.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
And perhaps most significantly for this conversation, there is already a Tesla Part Number for that part.
So to spell it out, why create a part number (and presumably a part) to make a battery pack backwards compatible if it isn't backwards compatible for some other reason?
I understand the arguments that there may be other differences, like cooling requirements and suspension issues. I'm not disagreeing with them. (I don't have the technical expertise to even consider disagreeing with them.) I'm merely asking why Tesla would create the part to make the pack backwards compatible if it isn't really backwards compatible.
I don't believe anyone has done a continuous rating on the battery, but thanks to Europe we have a continuous rating of 66kW for both motors. The discharge rate from the pack is well under 1C at this level. So yes, obviously the motor is the problem.
If someone could dig up the V5C or certificate of conformity on the P100D, that would be nice.
I believe that 69kW is continuous rating for the performance rear motor only.
The maximum rating of the motors shown in the Manual is for 30 minutes. So while motors can be limiting for the racetrack use, limitation for going max power for shorter periods of time is in the battery.
Simple enough, likely engineering was ahead of marketing ... this is most probably a business decision, not a technical limitation.
Even if the first part is true, in no way does that mean the second part follows. Even at an acceptably low discharge rate, 2C, which can be done with no cooling at all, gives us 180-200kW output rate from 100% to 0%. This is more than the motors can put out. Plus, the cells are liquid cooled.
hostman
Member
Nailed it. Also, 100lb is not enough to need to tweak the suspension, not even close.
Just a quick update on the continuing fallout from "Countergate."
While this was hot and heavy I ended up purchasing the Powertools app to measure the actual performance and power output of our '15 MS P90DL. Even under perfect conditions (very high SOC, MAX Battery Ready, clean and dry launch area, warm tires, etc.) we have yet to see anything above 449 kW for power output, and nothing near the performance listed in these two magazine articles, articles which were quite compelling and lead to the purchase:
2015 Tesla Model S P90D w/Ludicrous Upgrade First Test
2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test
This was especially the case as the test drive availability on P90DL's was limited by both their rarity, and the fact that Tesla Galleries are few and far between. (Not to mention the problems trying to test drive a high-performance car in a public environment during business hours.) Furthermore, these articles were never amended nor revised by the publishers or Tesla, so we, as most would, assumed the stellar performance recorded would be typical of the cars sold to the public at large.
Ah, no.
In an email some weeks ago I advised of my concerns regarding the performance of our P90DL compared to the magazines' test cars, and requested specific details from Tesla Service NA re: the cars loaned out for test.
Reply:
As for your inquiry about the specifications of the vehicles in the promotional videos, we unfortunately have no knowledge. Though I cannot guarantee the information would be accessible, the next outlet I would recommend contacting would be [email protected].
I just wrote "Press" again as it's been about two weeks without a reply.
Sadly, while Countergate may be done--and good on Tesla for fixing that mistake--for those of us that have some of the "bad" P90DL's, well, it's just opened up Pandora's Box. I hope Tesla will go the rest of the way and get us to a "win win" solution.
Lastly, if anyone has any recommendations on how to record the actual amps and volts being provided during an acceleration run, do please advise. (Yes, I know i X v = Watts, but I just want to see if it's an amperage problem or voltage sag issue, or both.)
Thanks!
p.s. Granted, our P90DL has the Pano Roof, UHFS, and pretty much every option except the dual chargers and 3rd Row seating, BUT how much extra mass would that actually add? The extra options would only account for a slightly slower acceleration rate. It would not account for the lack of actual power, and that's my concern--there may have been "ringers" loaned to the magazines--cars with special batteries, software, hardware, etc., while the public at large was actually only able to buy "Grade B" cars. I'm not making payments well in excess of $2k/month for a "Grade B" P90DL when I based my purchase decision on what I read about "Grade A" cars . . . .
While this was hot and heavy I ended up purchasing the Powertools app to measure the actual performance and power output of our '15 MS P90DL. Even under perfect conditions (very high SOC, MAX Battery Ready, clean and dry launch area, warm tires, etc.) we have yet to see anything above 449 kW for power output, and nothing near the performance listed in these two magazine articles, articles which were quite compelling and lead to the purchase:
2015 Tesla Model S P90D w/Ludicrous Upgrade First Test
2015 Tesla Model S P90D - Instrumented Test
This was especially the case as the test drive availability on P90DL's was limited by both their rarity, and the fact that Tesla Galleries are few and far between. (Not to mention the problems trying to test drive a high-performance car in a public environment during business hours.) Furthermore, these articles were never amended nor revised by the publishers or Tesla, so we, as most would, assumed the stellar performance recorded would be typical of the cars sold to the public at large.
Ah, no.
In an email some weeks ago I advised of my concerns regarding the performance of our P90DL compared to the magazines' test cars, and requested specific details from Tesla Service NA re: the cars loaned out for test.
Reply:
As for your inquiry about the specifications of the vehicles in the promotional videos, we unfortunately have no knowledge. Though I cannot guarantee the information would be accessible, the next outlet I would recommend contacting would be [email protected].
I just wrote "Press" again as it's been about two weeks without a reply.
Sadly, while Countergate may be done--and good on Tesla for fixing that mistake--for those of us that have some of the "bad" P90DL's, well, it's just opened up Pandora's Box. I hope Tesla will go the rest of the way and get us to a "win win" solution.
Lastly, if anyone has any recommendations on how to record the actual amps and volts being provided during an acceleration run, do please advise. (Yes, I know i X v = Watts, but I just want to see if it's an amperage problem or voltage sag issue, or both.)
Thanks!
p.s. Granted, our P90DL has the Pano Roof, UHFS, and pretty much every option except the dual chargers and 3rd Row seating, BUT how much extra mass would that actually add? The extra options would only account for a slightly slower acceleration rate. It would not account for the lack of actual power, and that's my concern--there may have been "ringers" loaned to the magazines--cars with special batteries, software, hardware, etc., while the public at large was actually only able to buy "Grade B" cars. I'm not making payments well in excess of $2k/month for a "Grade B" P90DL when I based my purchase decision on what I read about "Grade A" cars . . . .
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
You can "hope" the way those of us missing our 691 HP "hoped", but based on how well that worked out for us, I certainly wouldn't expect anything. That is, of course, unless you take the route the Norwegians took.
@TSLA Pilot thanks for the update and sorry to hear. You may want to team up with the team 691 hp @Andyw2100 P85D guys.
Edit: Who just chimed in simultaneously.
Edit: Who just chimed in simultaneously.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Tesla has already proven it will ride out the Trumpian what we said versus what we delivered storm (691 hp anyone) so I would not anticipate any movement on that front. They even went so far as providing "no consideration" for the issue for me in the US AFTER having settled the issue in Europe. Tesla simply lies, moves on and could care less about credibility with the few customers that actually know what the car does/is in comparison to the claims. It takes a mammoth crow bar to get them to move.
The answer to your current and voltage question is to use a CAN bus logger on Chassis CAN Bus 3 then decode the 100 hz broadcast message from the battery depicting battery current and voltage. There is a whole thread (likely many) devoted to the effort (CAN to ASCII or something like that).
found it #1
The answer to your current and voltage question is to use a CAN bus logger on Chassis CAN Bus 3 then decode the 100 hz broadcast message from the battery depicting battery current and voltage. There is a whole thread (likely many) devoted to the effort (CAN to ASCII or something like that).
found it #1
Similar threads
