Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

[lolachampcar]

Rns,
You're never going to win the 691 hp is right argument using common sense like that

 

[Andyw2100]

Testing done by Consumer Reports indicate that P85D is traction limited during first 1/3 of a second of the full power launch.

but I think Elon was quoted as saying it was traction limited up to 30mph once. Perhaps I dreamed it.

You did not dream it, LetsGoFast.

And I may regret this, because I'm certain it's going to open up a huge can of kittens, but this is actually something vgrinshpun and I have discussed before. He prommised a response with an explanation as to why he was correct, and Musk was also correct, even though they were saying different things, but that never happened. The relevant excerpts are below, with some bold added:

What I see is that according to Consumer Reports, P85D exceeds 1G within 1/3 of the second after launch, which is roughly just one quarter of time it needs to reach 30mph (1.3sec). Beyond this 1/3 second point, the car is limited by torque, not traction.

I have no idea what the graph you included shows, or what the Consumer Reports test means, but I do know that Elon Musk, who I assume you would agree knows a thing or two about the P85D, has said on numerous occasions that the car is traction limited to about 30 MPH. I also assume you do not believe the car is doing 0-30 in 1/3 of a second. So I think there is some sort of a disconnect here.

I would like to see a complete quote. Why don't you link/provide the complete quote?

The car did 0 to 30 in 1.3sec during CR testing. Not sure where did you get 1/3 of a second.

I didn't get 1/3 of a second. I'm not sure how you would have thought that I did. I'll try to explain what I was saying another way, spelling it out more completely.

The only way your statement that the car is traction limited after 1/3 of a second would be consistent with Musk's statement that the car is traction limited to 30 MPH would be if the car reached 30 MPH in 1/3 of a second, which it clearly does not. In other words my point was that you are wrong. Unless, of course, you are saying that Musk is wrong about the car being traction limited to 30 MPH.

As for when he said this, he has said it many times. He said it during the Ludicrous announcement. Here's a link to the audio:

Elon Musk announces Ludicrous Mode for Model S (7.17.15) AUDIO - YouTube

Start at about 19:30

Also here:

Tesla July 17th announcement liveblog: Lusicrous mode, $70K single engine S70, 90kWh top battery | Electrek

"11:30 1300A-1500A Ludicrous mode is from 30mph to 60mph. (0-30 is tire traction limited)"


And here:

http://www.streetinsider.com/Management+Comments/UPDATE%3A+Tesla+%28TSLA%29+CEO+Musk+Announces+Upgraded+90-kWh+Battery+Pack,+New+Ludicrous+Mode/10732319.html


Ludicrous mode is an extension of Insane mode past 30 MPH. He commented, "What it enables is for the car to not be pack-power limited beyond 30 miles per hour. Up to 30 mph, the car is limited by traction. Beyond that the limitation on acceleration is the current that can be safely extracted from the battery pack."

I see you're still participating in this thread, but I don't see any comment following up on the whole "traction limit to 30 MPH issue."



You asked for proof that Musk said the car was traction limited to 30 MPH, and I provided it. So do you now admit that you were just flat out wrong in stating that the car was only traction limited for the first 1/3 second or are you maintaining that you are correct and that Elon Musk is wrong?

(As an aside, I have a lot more respect for people who, when proven wrong, admit it on their own, without having to be called out on it. )

Do not jump the gun (again). I was not proven wrong. Response is coming - I just did not have time to see *all* the references.

In summary, the P85D performance is limited by traction only in the first 1/3 of a second, then it is torque limited up to about 30+ mph. It is limited by hp after that.

Musk is not wrong.

I will be participating in this thread.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Lastly, we all know just how accurate information from Service Centers and Technicians can be. I know I've gotten my share of clearly incorrect information from these sources. And to be clear, my comments were directed at the S85D being as fast as the P85D if Tesla wanted it to be. I was comparing the small to the P drive unit and not the non-P large unit to the P unit.

Well, I needed to wait before the replacement of the driving unit can be done because SC had only non-performance DU in stock. It is pretty much a forgone conclusion that performance and non-performance DUs are physically different (at least for the rear DU)

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for the reminder, Andy. It is an important point to address, and I will.

- - - Updated - - -

Rns,
You're never going to win the 691 hp is right argument using common sense like that

This is actually quite sad - it is NOT about "winning", neither for me, nor, I think, for Rns-e. I am not so sure about others. This actually might explain some things I was wondering about lately...

 

[Andyw2100]

This thread is like groundhogs day. Same dozen people bumping it with the same arguments every day. Every 2 or 3 pages, some other stray like me wandering in. I wonder if there could be a 1 day moratorium for Christmas?

I say, "Bah, Humbug" to a moratorium for Christmas! It's obvious that there is only one appropriate day for a moratorium like the one proposed by tomas--Ground Hogs' Day!

 

[vgrinshpun]

I say, "Bah, Humbug" to a moratorium for Christmas! It's obvious that there is only one appropriate day for a moratorium like the one proposed by tomas--Ground Hogs' Day!

Technically, the Moratorium on Ground Hog Day means that this thread will be dead... ? :scared:

 

[Andyw2100]

Technically, the Moratorium on Ground Hog Day means that this thread will be dead... ? :scared:

Well, first of all we are joking about all of this.

And second of all, no. The moratorium, on either Christmas Day or Ground Hog Day or dare I say it...both...would mean that some of us regular posters in this thread take the day off and don't post in this thread on those days. That's all.

 

[JonG]

Andyw2100 I can help them out - the answer is because it's clearly not stated which 1/3 of a second is relevant and it is the 4th one that matters as with one foot roll out the first 1/3 of the second does not count as the car has not been moving far enough and if you extrapolate that to an ice car it would be nearer to 1s. I thought that was obvious? I worked this out doing my research before I bought the car. It's also documented in Norwegian against a specification used by a publication and ratified as EC7236 schedule B which as we all know is typically used for food blenders connected directly to a perfect power supply with zero internal resistance and the ability to provide infinite current.

Maybe I'm just getting tired of the stupid blinkered defence of Tesla even now and even after Tesla are making compromise agreements to some and have come clean on the figures. Tesla supporters would do Tesla a favour by stopping posting and perpetuating the issue. All in my humble opinion and not meant to cause offence

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yes, my post is referring to the period when battery limited power is provided for 85D but not P85D.

That would exclude a bulk of the people complaining then (maybe even all). Most of them got their cars in the January time frame.

I don't know how you conclude that EVs use peak rating and not continuous rating. Disregarding the EVs battery limitation for the sake of clarity, the motor rated horsepower listed on Tesla is continuous rating, NOT peak rating. Meaning, if the battery can sustain the power, the motors can continue to run at the motor rated hp for prolong period of time.

If you take a look at the EU CoC document, the continuous rating (1 hour) is 66kW for the P85D. What Tesla lists is clearly the peak rating as it is much higher.

- - - Updated - - -

The P85D is registered at the DMV in Denmark and Norway with the 66 kW 1 hour max continous rating. Following the Nissan case, that would mean that 66 kW is number Tesla is required to advertise. The 66 kW is the number that you have on your registration papers for the car.

Again in the UK, Tesla have put the continuous number previously, even though the form requires putting a peak number. What number they put is not necessarily the one that is legally required. You would have to dig through and find a copy of the registration form and explanation document to find where that number is expected to be sourced.

I was able to easily find one for the UK registration where it clearly says "max net power" so using continuous is not correct. I couldn't find Norway's form because Norwegian is not my language.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432680/V355X4_290515.pdf

But still, if the requirement should prove to be the max motor power rating, it will still be omission of relevant and influential information not to provide the information about the battery limit according to the marketing laws.

Again the court noted Nissan omitted the relevant and influential fact that the automatic transmission reduced power compared to manual (and thus made the car less competitive with others), but Nissan was not held responsible since the standard doesn't factor that in. I don't think it is clear-cut Tesla can be held responsible given the standard doesn't factor in battery (whether in continuous or peak power case).

- - - Updated - - -

You did not dream it, LetsGoFast.

And I may regret this, because I'm certain it's going to open up a huge can of kittens, but this is actually something vgrinshpun and I have discussed before. He prommised a response with an explanation as to why he was correct, and Musk was also correct, even though they were saying different things, but that never happened. The relevant excerpts are below, with some bold added:

Musk said Ludicrous was tire traction limited 0-30, he did not say P85D was tire traction limited to 30mph. He may also be referring to the region (he didn't name a specific mph, but 0-30, which is a common metric). I looked at sorka's graphs previously and it was traction limited up to 10-15mph (when it reaches peak torque/acceleration). By 30mph, the torque is already well past the peak point. It is not possible to hit peak torque/acceleration if the car is traction limited.

This is complicated by how the TC light may still be on past that point, but it is irrelevant as the peak torque was reached and indicates there is room for more peak torque.

Another graph of P85D where peak acceleration is also reached at 10-15 mph:

 

[Soolim]

If you take a look at the EU CoC document, the continuous rating (1 hour) is 66kW for the P85D. What Tesla lists is clearly the peak rating as it is much higher.

66kW for one hours continuous means 66kWh. Something related to the battery energy storage after allowance for bricking and temperature. As I said, eliminating the battery limitation, the motors nameplate provides the continuous operation hp, not peak hp. For example, if I have a motor with nameplate rating of 1 hp, I should be able to run the motor 24 hours a day from the service panel.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Well, first of all we are joking about all of this.

And second of all, no. The moratorium, on either Christmas Day or Ground Hog Day or dare I say it...both...would mean that some of us regular posters in this thread take the day off and don't post in this thread on those days. That's all.

I did get that you were joking. I was joking as well, if you did not get that.

The ground hog day, at least in a movie, was re-run in a stuck endless loop, repeating itself. If nobody posts on ground hog day, and the day repeats endlessly, there would be no posts and thread would die.

You've got to loosen up, man. I hope you consume alcohol. I suggest serving yourself a few of your favorite drinks tonight.

 

[stopcrazypp]

66kW for one hours continuous means 66kWh. Something related to the battery energy storage after allowance for bricking and temperature. As I said, eliminating the battery limitation, the motors nameplate provides the continuous operation hp, not peak hp. For example, if I have a motor with nameplate rating of 1 hp, I should be able to run the motor 24 hours a day from the service panel.

The ECE R85 test Tesla uses does not factor in the battery. Here's the other ratings:

27.2 Maximum hourly output: 66kW
27.3 Maximum net power: 193kW (front), 350kW (rear)
27.4 Maximum 30min power: 79kW (front), 90kW (rear)

Net power is very obviously the peak rating. They are only required to run that test for a maximum of 5 minutes (the entire test including the whole speed range from 0 to specified peak rpm must be finished in less than 5 minutes). Before that the motors must be run at 80% max power for 3 minutes.

You can look at the test if you want:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R085r1e.pdf

The rear motor definitely can not deliver 350kW indefinitely. The rotor cooling has continued to be a problem. Elon touches on this in interviews:
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/elo...io-is-the-challenge-with-ac-induction-motors/

 

[rns-e]

That would exclude a bulk of the people complaining then (maybe even all). Most of them got their cars in the January time frame.


If you take a look at the EU CoC document, the continuous rating (1 hour) is 66kW for the P85D. What Tesla lists is clearly the peak rating as it is much higher.

- - - Updated - - -


Again in the UK, Tesla have put the continuous number previously, even though the form requires putting a peak number. What number they put is not necessarily the one that is legally required. You would have to dig through and find a copy of the registration form and explanation document to find where that number is expected to be sourced.

I was able to easily find one for the UK registration where it clearly says "max net power" so using continuous is not correct. I couldn't find Norway's form because Norwegian is not my language.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432680/V355X4_290515.pdf


Again the court noted Nissan omitted the relevant and influential fact that the automatic transmission reduced power compared to manual (and thus made the car less competitive with others), but Nissan was not held responsible since the standard doesn't factor that in. I don't think it is clear-cut Tesla can be held responsible given the standard doesn't factor in battery (whether in continuous or peak power case).

It would include those who ordered their car at least before Dec 31. 2014. 66kW continuous power would be 66kWh, which a 85 kWh should be able to do even considering reserved Wh for systems etc.

If Tesla is using the wrong number on the registration I would not think that would be in Teslas favor.

Regarding the Nissan case I think the difference between loss before and after the motorshaft is key. Teslas loss is before the motorshaft whereas the Nissan loss is after the motorshaft. Tesla has a loss after the motorshaft as does the Nissan albeit Teslas loss is less, but still there. If someone was to complain about the loss of power after the motorshaft I would agree that the Nissan case would have merit.

 

[lolachampcar]

WK,
I've read a few posts speculating about the performance difference between a P85D and the P85(+). I believe you have looked into this with your cars. By chance could you provide a summary of your findings?

 

[stopcrazypp]

It would include those who ordered their car at least before Dec 31. 2014. 66kW continuous power would be 66kWh, which a 85 kWh should be able to do even considering reserved Wh for systems etc.

I don't think so. Tesla never listed the battery limited number for the 85D until after April 2015 when the update went out. Anyone who ordered before that can not say their order was influenced in any way by a battery limited number present on 85D and not present on P85D. Before then all numbers listed were motor power. To clarify, I am only talking about this specific point (not the horsepower issue in general).

If Tesla is using the wrong number on the registration I would not think that would be in Teslas favor.

That will only mean Tesla needs to correct their registration, but in this hp dispute case it would be in favor for them. At any rate, the registration is only tangential as the Nissan lawsuit shows the standard used to homologate the car is what matters. ECE R85 is clearly what Tesla used given the certificates they have posted (which are valid across the EU and also in Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein because of the EEA Agreement). Then it is up to the court to decide whether using the net power line and added together is proper for this standard.

Regarding the Nissan case I think the difference between loss before and after the motorshaft is key. Teslas loss is before the motorshaft whereas the Nissan loss is after the motorshaft. Tesla has a loss after the motorshaft as does the Nissan albeit Teslas loss is less, but still there. If someone was to complain about the loss of power after the motorshaft I would agree that the Nissan case would have merit.

In Nissan case, the issue was power at motor shaft, same as it is in Tesla case. Power difference is extra loads put on the engine (including the auto transmission) made it so the measurements obtained by the plaintiffs had lower numbers than the homologation standard Nissan used, even though they did calculate assuming power at motor shaft. Again, even though the plaintiffs used a wheel dyno, they back calculated to eliminate drivetrain losses to get the shaft numbers, so it was motor shaft vs motor shaft.

In Tesla's case, the power difference will be because the homologation standard does not factor in battery (as well as a couple other loads: Air compressor for brakes; Power steering compressor; Suspension system compressor; Air conditioner system, etc.). If you use a wheel dyno, it obviously does.

 

[Canuck]

As I see it, the issue in North America is what is the likely outcome even if Tesla losses? We know it will be a payment of some sort to each owner affected. The only question is how much. If past class action lawsuits are any indication, it won't be much. Under the court approved Hyundai hp settlement, Hyundai provided up to $225 in cash and up to $325 in dealer credits to owners of the affected vehicles. I know we can't compare the price of a Hyundai to a P85D so we need to increase that significantly, but even if we times the highest payment of $225 by ten, it's still only $2,250. It's peanuts really, compared to what people think they might get, or at least that's the case with most class actions.

 

[brianman]

Ludicrous mode is an extension of Insane mode past 30 MPH. He commented, "What it enables is for the car to not be pack-power limited beyond 30 miles per hour. Up to 30 mph, the car is limited by traction. Beyond that the limitation on acceleration is the current that can be safely extracted from the battery pack."

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but in case I'm not...

The underlined, if an accurate quote (and assuming "He" refers to Elon Musk), seems like a very big deal.

For the moment, let's assume:
1. The front motor rating was accurate when the P85D was launched.
2. The rear motor rating was accurate when the P85D was launched.
3. The addition is "allowed" when referring to the vehicle's power rating because the gearing of the two motors is "sufficiently close".
4. Ludicrous indeed "enables ... the car to not be pack-power limited beyond 30 miles per hour".
5. The P85D is traction limited only to 30mph.
6. Customer upgrades to Ludicrous.

Why then doesn't the Ludicrous-upgraded P85D exhibit 691hp performance at 31mph?


My key point being his language doesn't say "less power-pack limited" but rather "not... power-pack limited".

 

[stopcrazypp]

As I see it, the issue in North America is what is the likely outcome even if Tesla losses? We know it will be a payment of some sort to each owner affected. The only question is how much. If past class action lawsuits are any indication, it won't be much. Under the court approved Hyundai hp settlement, Hyundai provided up to $225 in cash and up to $325 in dealer credits to owners of the affected vehicles. I know we can't compare the price of a Hyundai to a P85D so we need to increase that significantly, but even if we times the highest payment of $225 by ten, it's still only $2,250. It's peanuts really, compared to what people think they might get, or at least that's the case with most class actions.

I don't think how the Norway case goes will necessarily say much about what happens here in North America. The laws are just completely different. Over here we do not have a legally required homologation standard for horsepower. As I pointed out, Ram uses SAE gross for their diesel trunks and SAE net for gasoline trucks (with no indication on their website), but that is perfectly fine.

 

[Johan]

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but in case I'm not...

The underlined, if an accurate quote (and assuming "He" refers to Elon Musk), seems like a very big deal.

For the moment, let's assume:
1. The front motor rating was accurate when the P85D was launched.
2. The rear motor rating was accurate when the P85D was launched.
3. The addition is "allowed" when referring to the vehicle's power rating because the gearing of the two motors is "sufficiently close".
4. Ludicrous indeed "enables ... the car to not be pack-power limited beyond 30 miles per hour".
5. The P85D is traction limited only to 30mph.
6. Customer upgrades to Ludicrous.

Why then doesn't the Ludicrous-upgraded P85D exhibit 691hp performance at 31mph?


My key point being his language doesn't say "less power-pack limited" but rather "not... power-pack limited".

I think the point is with L upgrade you move the point where the curve for traction limited intersects with that of battery limited. So that, for example, the car becomes traction limited from 0-40 mph and after that limited by maximum battery output.

This doesn't mean that there is ever a point where the car puts out 691 hp but it does mean that it can reap even more performance benefits from the huge torque resulting from the fact that the summed up motor power is 691 hp (and how important this metric is happens to be the core debate of this thread).

 

[stopcrazypp]

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding but in case I'm not...

The underlined, if an accurate quote (and assuming "He" refers to Elon Musk), seems like a very big deal.

For the moment, let's assume:
1. The front motor rating was accurate when the P85D was launched.
2. The rear motor rating was accurate when the P85D was launched.
3. The addition is "allowed" when referring to the vehicle's power rating because the gearing of the two motors is "sufficiently close".
4. Ludicrous indeed "enables ... the car to not be pack-power limited beyond 30 miles per hour".
5. The P85D is traction limited only to 30mph.
6. Customer upgrades to Ludicrous.

Why then doesn't the Ludicrous-upgraded P85D exhibit 691hp performance at 31mph?


My key point being his language doesn't say "less power-pack limited" but rather "not... power-pack limited".

That may just be his choice of wording. If the pack power can be increased beyond Ludicrous, I see no indication that more power won't be available (at least in the range before the back EMF makes it drop).

 

[Canuck]

I don't think how the Norway case goes will necessarily say much about what happens here in North America. The laws are just completely different. Over here we do not have a legally required homologation standard for horsepower. As I pointed out, Ram uses SAE gross for their diesel trunks and SAE net for gasoline trucks (with no indication on their website), but that is perfectly fine.

I didn't say anything about Norway. The Hyundai hp case was North America -- not Norway. Also, I wasn't assuming any lawsuit would be successful. I only said that even if it was successful, it probably won't amount to much regarding the payment likely to be made to each owner.