Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[bhzmark]

Yes, 0-60 times from CANBUS with updates at 100 Hz. There is a difference.

And .... care to share any more details?

And to be clear, this isn't vbox data or dragstrip time slip data? But just canbus data on its own calculated 0-60 ET? What was before and after and under what conditions for each? And how often repeatable? And duplicated by others?

anyone else? Any reliable data on ETs?

 

[n2mb_racing]

And .... care to share any more details?

And to be clear, this isn't vbox data or dragstrip time slip data? But just canbus data on its own calculated 0-60 ET? What was before and after and under what conditions for each? And how often repeatable? And duplicated by others?

anyone else? Any reliable data on ETs?

We already had this discussion. Why are you so skeptical of the power changes causing reduced 0-60 times?

Their engineers even acknowledged that these changes were made. Their excuse is that they only ever promised 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, and the car still meets that spec. It's just that it used to do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds... And now, if you do use launch mode, you can still get close, maybe 2.65 seconds. But, without launch mode it is slower. Whereas, before the update, you could achieve 2.6s 0-60 without even using launch mode.
Example of 3.1 second spec:
Model S P90D 5YJSA1E40GF120206 | Tesla

 

[bhzmark]

And to be clear, this isn't vbox data or dragstrip time slip data? But just canbus data on its own calculated 0-60 ET?

What was before and after and under what conditions for each?

And how often repeatable?

And duplicated by others?

Please just answer the simple data evidence questions.

We already had this discussion. Why are you so skeptical of the power changes causing reduced 0-60 times?

Their engineers even acknowledged that these changes were made. Their excuse is that they only ever promised 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, and the car still meets that spec. It's just that it used to do 0-60 in 2.6 seconds... And now, if you do use launch mode, you can still get close, maybe 2.65 seconds. But, without launch mode it is slower. Whereas, before the update, you could achieve 2.6s 0-60 without even using launch mode.
Example of 3.1 second spec:
Model S P90D 5YJSA1E40GF120206 | Tesla

 

[n2mb_racing]

And to be clear, this isn't vbox data or dragstrip time slip data? But just canbus data on its own calculated 0-60 ET?

What was before and after and under what conditions for each?

And how often repeatable?

And duplicated by others?

Please just answer the simple data evidence questions.

Clearly, we not going to have perfect before and after data for this, because no one ever expected this would happen. No one anticipated that a software update would reduce the power available from the car, so there aren't perfect logs from before the update. We can't go back to the old software and collect new data either. We have to rely on whatever data people had from before the software update.

Do you have a better idea on what we can do now?

 

[TIppy]

And .... care to share any more details?

And to be clear, this isn't vbox data or dragstrip time slip data? But just canbus data on its own calculated 0-60 ET? What was before and after and under what conditions for each? And how often repeatable? And duplicated by others?

anyone else? Any reliable data on ETs?

It wouldn't matter. You would then just claim that as mere customers we are unable to properly test the car thus invalidating any data we provide.

Of course the reduced current (power) will have more of an effect on passing and 1/4 mile times. During much of the 0 to 60, 0 to 45, the car is traction limited. The extra power, therefor, has only a small amount of time to make a difference. During the 1/4 mile, the extra power is available for 9 seconds or so, a large percentage of the run. In passing it's available 100 percent of the time.

If your contention is true, that the reduction in power is indiscernible, then Tesla fraudulently charged $10,000 for a useless option.

 

[St Charles]

It wouldn't matter. You would then just claim that as mere customers we are unable to properly test the car thus invalidating any data we provide.

Well, there is a modicum of truth to that. Regardless, trap MPH will tell a better story than ET. Maybe in a few weeks i'll head out to Mason-Dixon and see if I can lay some times down.

Of course the reduced current (power) will have more of an effect on passing and 1/4 mile times. During much of the 0 to 60, 0 to 45, the car is traction limited. The extra power, therefor, has only a small amount of time to make a difference. During the 1/4 mile, the extra power is available for 9 seconds or so, a large percentage of the run. In passing it's available 100 percent of the time.

On paper this is true, but wouldn't you only ever notice when you are at almost full battery? I can certainly discern a drop in performance at the drag strip once I am below about 85%. I'll do some testing here as well next time I go.

If your contention is true, that the reduction in power is indiscernible, then Tesla fraudulently charged $10,000 for a useless option.

Tiny bit of hyperbole here. It's not totally useless

 

[TIppy]

Well, there is a modicum of truth to that. Regardless, trap MPH will tell a better story than ET. Maybe in a few weeks i'll head out to Mason-Dixon and see if I can lay some times down.



On paper this is true, but wouldn't you only ever notice when you are at almost full battery? I can certainly discern a drop in performance at the drag strip once I am below about 85%. I'll do some testing here as well next time I go.



Tiny bit of hyperbole here. It's not totally useless

1600 amps will be better than 1500 amps at any state of charge up to max power draw from the battery.

I'm not saying it's useless. bhzmark is. That's why I said, "if."

Do you have a v3 battery now?

 

[n2mb_racing]

Well, there is a modicum of truth to that. Regardless, trap MPH will tell a better story than ET. Maybe in a few weeks i'll head out to Mason-Dixon and see if I can lay some times down.

Actually, it won't be much of a noticeable difference at the drag strip. With launch mode engaged, the power reduction is only 1%. Without launch mode, the power reduction is 5%. The problem is that launch mode is really hard to engage on the street, and impossible to use during normal driving once you are moving.

I've tried using launch mode at stop lights and it is f'in hard to time it right. Before the update, I could just engage MB mode and whenever I wanted, floor the car and get max power.

Someone mentioned earlier, here's a graph showing the slow speed limits. I think it may not actually be traction limited at low speeds, but actually speed limited. I.e. You may be able to apply 1600A from 0 MPH, which would generate peak torque, but until the motor starts spinning fast enough, the voltage across the motor won't reach full battery voltage.

Or to say it differently, since HP = torque * speed, you can likely apply the nearly constant torque from a standstill, but won't get peak HP until the motor reaches a certain RPM. It seems like we don't reach the battery limits until about 40 mph.

That is why passing performance from 40 - 60 MPH is most impacted by the software update.

Anyway, here's hoping there is a resolution soon. It seems some owners are making some progress in negotiations.

 

[bhzmark]

I can certainly discern a drop in performance at the drag strip once I am below about 85%.

Excellent point. I forgot about that. The peak power discharge was only ever available at the top range of SOC anyway. My 11.3n times were always when I was above ~93% and below that I was consistently at 11.5-6 .

So, that seems to mean that for those who only charge to 90% for day to day driving , the limit in non launch mode usage may not even be noticable because the natural SOC decrease in discharge power is the more relevant limit that applies. Possible anyway.

This is why I think real ETs (with info about SOC and other conditions) are the more relevant metric than power tools peak power numbers.

And going to a drag strip is more fun than playing with a phone app.

 

[bhzmark]

Before the update, I could just engage MB mode and whenever I wanted, floor the car and get max power.

Not if your SOC was below 90% or so.

 

[TIppy]

Actually, it won't be much of a noticeable difference at the drag strip. With launch mode engaged, the power reduction is only 1%. Without launch mode, the power reduction is 5%. The problem is that launch mode is really hard to engage on the street, and impossible to use during normal driving once you are moving.

I've tried using launch mode at stop lights and it is f'in hard to time it right. Before the update, I could just engage MB mode and whenever I wanted, floor the car and get max power.

Someone mentioned earlier, here's a graph showing the slow speed limits. I think it may not actually be traction limited at low speeds, but actually speed limited. I.e. You may be able to apply 1600A from 0 MPH, which would generate peak torque, but until the motor starts spinning fast enough, the voltage across the motor won't reach full battery voltage.

Or to say it differently, since HP = torque * speed, you can likely apply the nearly constant torque from a standstill, but won't get peak HP until the motor reaches a certain RPM. It seems like we don't reach the battery limits until about 40 mph.

That is why passing performance from 40 - 60 MPH is most impacted by the software update.

Anyway, here's hoping there is a resolution soon. It seems some owners are making some progress in negotiations.
View attachment 236285

Oh, It's definitely traction limited a low speed. The current to the motors will be high at zero mph, but the current from the battery will be low.
Since hp is torque * rpm and the rpms are low a zero mph, the hp is low. Hp is what the battery has to supply, at about 81 percent efficiency, so low horsepower is 400 volts time a small amount of current from the battery. The inverter converts the electrical hp from the battery to the high current, low voltage of the motor at zero rpms.

 

[St Charles]

I was planning to test with and without Launch Mode.

That said, 1500A current vs 1600A should be noticeable throughout the timeslip . The time differential between the 60' and 330' should yield particularly interesting results as that is where our cars should be passing through 40-60MPH.

I have plenty of reference timeslips from back when I was still on 7.1.

 

[TIppy]

Excellent point. I forgot about that. The peak power discharge was only ever available at the top range of SOC anyway. My 11.3n times were always when I was above ~93% and below that I was consistently at 11.5-6 .

So, that seems to mean that for those who only charge to 90% for day to day driving , the limit in non launch mode usage may not even be noticable because the natural SOC decrease in discharge power is the more relevant limit that applies. Possible anyway.

This is why I think real ETs (with info about SOC and other conditions) are the more relevant metric than power tools peak power numbers.

And going to a drag strip is more fun than playing with a phone app.

Not if your SOC was below 90% or so.

As I said to StCharles, 1600 amps is better than 1500 amps at any state of charge. In fact his example of noting decreased power at 85% with his 1500 amp car could be offset with extra current from a 1600 amp car. With 1600 amps available, 85 % would be like his 91 %, approximately. So the performance is limited outside of launch mode regardless the state of charge.

 

[TIppy]

I was planning to test with and without Launch Mode.

That said, 1500A current vs 1600A should be noticeable throughout the timeslip . The time differential between the 60' and 330' should yield particularly interesting results as that is where our cars should be passing through 40-60MPH.

I have plenty of reference timeslips from back when I was still on 7.1.

But unless you have a v3 battery, you shouldn't see any difference.

 

[St Charles]

But unless you have a v3 battery, you shouldn't see any difference.

I don't know that I believe it but I sincerely hope you are right. It was a big leap of faith for me to leave 7.1.

 

[TIppy]

I don't know that I believe it but I sincerely hope you are right. It was a big leap of faith for me to leave 7.1.

Believe it. Someone already tested their v2 battery. The only thing Tesla has done is limit max current to 1500 amps. Since that's all you ever had, you will be fine.

 

[n2mb_racing]

Believe it. Someone already tested their v2 battery. The only thing Tesla has done is limit max current to 1500 amps. Since that's all you ever had, you will be fine.

The limit reduces power on the v2 battery. That is what I have..... I'm down from 490 kW to 465 kW.

 

[TIppy]

The limit reduces power on the v2 battery. That is what I have..... I'm down from 490 kW to 465 kW.

Let me see if I can find the other thread about a v2 battery. That guy was all concerned too, but after using power tools he discovered that he still had original v2 power.

 

[n2mb_racing]

Let me see if I can find the other thread about a v2 battery. That guy was all concerned too, but after using power tools he discovered that he still had original v2 power.

That'd be interesting to see. I had 490 kW before, now 484 kW with LM and 465 kW without LM.

 

[TIppy]

@St Charles,

Are you seeing differences in power between launch mode and standard mode?