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

[vgrinshpun]

To my eye, the chart does no such thing. It demonstrates the value of increased torque. "Motor horsepower" doesn't even appear on either axis.

I am not sure what is the chart that you mention. I was not referring to any chart, I was referring to a numbered listing of motor hp ratings and the corresponding acceleration in g's.

 

[kennybobby]

...
However, what we do know is:
1) Tesla advertised 691 hp motor power and 1G of acceleration at P85D launch
2) Manual was changed to reflect a number of 728 hp motor power around time of the 6.2 update and ~1.05 G has been measured (see sorka's graphs)
3) Tesla advertised a number that reflected 762 hp motor power and 1.1G of acceleration at P90D Ludicrous launch.

Or maybe what you thought you knew--how does the revelation that the vbox uses 6046 ft nautical miles in the calculation of horsepower affect your absolute knowledge of this?

If they blundered on something that basic, then where else might there be errors, eg. timing, acceleration, speed, etc?

 

[rns-e]

We do not know if it includes the P85D (whether cars from factory before or after they announced the change in motor power) or even the P90D (without Ludicrous). We don't know if is from physical changes or software changes.

If we are to believe Tesla, then the P85D has 762 hk now. That is what Tesla has written in their response to the Norwegian complaint. I know this is hard to believe given all the other things they have written in that answer, but Tesla is saying that the complaint about the 700 hk is not valid as the car has 762 hk.

The funny thing is, that the complaint is about not having 700 hk and not being able to go 0-100 km/h in 3.3s and all the documentation in Teslas answer is imperial standards and not metric standards which is the standard the complaint is written in.

So Tesla is answering the complaint about the P85D not being able to do 0-100 km/h with rollout time for 0-60 mph. And the complaint about the P85D not having 700 metric hk, with the answer that is has 762 imperial hp.

And nowhere in the answer do they explain that they are answering in another standard than the one the complaint is written and which the car is advertised in. Either they do not know, do not care or are doing it on purpose to muddy the waters

- - - Updated - - -

The scaling part clearly demonstrates that motor horsepower is not a meaningless rating, not a "fake" hp, by a long shot. It is not a very good spec, though, for comparing EV performance to what would be expected from an ICE car of the same hp rating and weight, even when EV output is not battery limited.

It is 'fake' as all dual motor p models have the exact same motor horsepower, well documented by Tesla in their answer to the Norwegian complaint page 5 - Calling P85D owners world-wide

However this show that the battery limited hp is the correct hp to display as the P85D w/o ludicrous has 463 hp and the one with ludicrous has 532 hp

 

[Johan]

It is 'fake' as all dual motor p models have the exact same motor horsepower, well documented by Tesla in their answer to the Norwegian complaint page 5 - Calling P85D owners world-wide

Maybe "fake" but that doesn't mean it's meaningless - as vgrinshpun has pointed out time and time again it is still what constitutes the major difference between the cars and creates the difference in performance in the lowish speed band.

 

[stopcrazypp]

To my eye, the chart does no such thing. It demonstrates the value of increased torque. "Motor horsepower" doesn't even appear on either axis.

Technically the graphs do not show torque either, but that is derived (and I don't use those numbers in my example for that reason). What it shows is acceleration in Gs (which does scale directly with wheel torque, which in this single gear case also scales directly with motor torque).

As for the point about torque vs motor power (which I believe is what you are getting at), it had been discussed ad infinitum. For the same type of motor, the peak torque and peak motor power scales directly. The main difference is motor power is easy to remember and notice in the public's eye, while torque numbers take a back seat. I am able to recall the hp numbers from memory, but I don't remember the torque numbers (this includes other cars like the Hellcat where 707 hp is very clear in my memory, but without googling I would not know the torque numbers). I suspect this is true of most people.

- - - Updated - - -

Or maybe what you thought you knew--how does the revelation that the vbox uses 6046 ft nautical miles in the calculation of horsepower affect your absolute knowledge of this?

If they blundered on something that basic, then where else might there be errors, eg. timing, acceleration, speed, etc?

That would have nothing to do with it, since I'm using Tesla advertised motor power numbers vs v-box "G" numbers, which are not derived, but rather directly measured. I have not used any torque or power figures from the vbox results because I know those are derived and may not be accurate.

 

[rns-e]

Maybe "fake" but that doesn't mean it's meaningless - as vgrinshpun has pointed out time and time again it is still what constitutes the major difference between the cars and creates the difference in performance in the lowish speed band.

The point about 'fake' (which was VGs word) is that an increase of 72 hk in motor power does not improve the performance of the P85D at all, so at some point the major difference is not there anymore and that is properly some time before 700 hk or at least at 700 hk as we have seen now.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If we are to believe Tesla, then the P85D has 762 hk now. That is what Tesla has written in their response to the Norwegian complaint. I know this is hard to believe given all the other things they have written in that answer, but Tesla is saying that the complaint about the 700 hk is not valid as the car has 762 hk.

The funny thing is, that the complaint is about not having 700 hk and not being able to go 0-100 km/h in 3.3s and all the documentation in Teslas answer is imperial standards and not metric standards which is the standard the complaint is written in.

So Tesla is answering the complaint about the P85D not being able to do 0-100 km/h with rollout time for 0-60 mph. And the complaint about the P85D not having 700 metric hk, with the answer that is has 762 imperial hp.

And nowhere in the answer do they explain that they are answering in another standard than the one the complaint is written and which the car is advertised in. Either they do not know, do not care or are doing it on purpose to muddy the waters

I would have to look at the text again to see exactly what they wrote. If the existing P85D had been updated to 762 hp recently, then the measurements would have to be retaken. The graph I used may be outdated (it was from a while back).

 

[FlasherZ]

So with all the above in mind, I agree with all three items (asterisks) in your summary, however, I do not believe that anything EM said during the call contradicts this summary. I do not believe that he implied that P85D is not able to put full available maximum torque to the pavement anywhere between 0 and 30mph ("Dodge Hellcat syndrome"). This would not make much sense from the design point of view (designing components for a torque that car can't utilize), nor it is consistent with the Consumer Report chart.

Thank you for addressing that.

I understand your point of view of what Elon probably meant for the purposes that he was intending to address.

I also understand what Andy is saying, which is when you compare what Elon said to my three points, they differ.

Under the "plain and clear language" doctrine, I would tend to support the view that Elon did say something that was contradictory to what was offered and should have been clearer in the use of his language, but I understand your point of view - you're effectively asking "what does it matter?" in context. I might suggest that we move past this point and let emotions subside a bit.

 

[qwk]

Agree. There have been multiple posts saying Tesla intentionally mislead or lied which we have no way of knowing at this point.

If the car does not get a FW update to run the 10.9 number, then that pretty much answers the above question. The HP issue can be argued(doesn't mean the arguments hold much water), but track times are what they are. Selling a product using metrics one "might be able to achieve" isn't going to fly. That's like Tesla announcing a 350 mile EPA range, using some super duper future battery chemistry, and the car only being able to achieve a fraction of that, AFTER being sold for quite some time(For top dollar of course).

 

[dsm363]

If the car does not get a FW update to run the 10.9 number, then that pretty much answers the above question. The HP issue can be argued(doesn't mean the arguments hold much water), but track times are what they are. Selling a product using metrics one "might be able to achieve" isn't going to fly. That's like Tesla announcing a 350 mile EPA range, using some super duper future battery chemistry, and the car only being able to achieve a fraction of that, AFTER being sold for quite some time(For top dollar of course).

Agree. The 10.9 number is clear and should easily be achieved under defined circumstances that aren't too difficult to achieve. It might mean brand new tires on a track with summer tires but that's achievable.

 

[vip gts]

I'm sure many folks, like me, bought a P90DL because they rightly believed "This one goes under eleven".

So, your new comments above on 10.9 are troubling. Previously your position on 10.9 was "sit tight", which made sense because Tesla still unequivocally specs 10.9 sec in the Design studio and they haven't added an asterisk.

Not delivering 10.9 based on obscure technicalities would cause a major loss of trust in Tesla, far beyond the 691 HP controversy where they have some "wiggle room" as evidenced by this thread.

I recommend that you take the car in for service since it clearly does not meet the 10.9 spec. There must be something wrong with the drive train. If you don't then you may miss your time window and you will be criticized for complaining later. Do not expect an OTA for free. I recommend that all p90DL owners that care about the 10.9 do this.

 

[tomas]

I recommend that you take the car in for service since it clearly does not meet the 10.9 spec. There must be something wrong with the drive train. If you don't then you may miss your time window and you will be criticized for complaining later. Do not expect an OTA for free. I recommend that all p90DL owners that care about the 10.9 do this.

Are you a p90d owner? If not, what are you trying to stir up and why?

 

[kennybobby]

...
That would have nothing to do with it, since I'm using Tesla advertised motor power numbers vs v-box "G" numbers, which are not derived, but rather directly measured. I have not used any torque or power figures from the vbox results because I know those are derived and may not be accurate.

The acceleration is also derived from calculations. The GPS sends timing information that can be used to calculate position. There is no measurement of acceleration.

 

[rns-e]

If the car does not get a FW update to run the 10.9 number, then that pretty much answers the above question. The HP issue can be argued(doesn't mean the arguments hold much water), but track times are what they are. Selling a product using metrics one "might be able to achieve" isn't going to fly. That's like Tesla announcing a 350 mile EPA range, using some super duper future battery chemistry, and the car only being able to achieve a fraction of that, AFTER being sold for quite some time(For top dollar of course).

I agree, but then again I thought the same thing was true for the 0-100 km/h time. 0-100 km/h times are what they are, well apparently not. And Tesla and others are diffently trying to sell the claimed times with a 'might be able to achieve' argument. SoC, temperature, tires, road surface etc. although they all know it will not do the claimed 0-100 km/h without the 1-foot rollout, which they did not tell about.

It is going to be interesting to follow the 10.9 number

 

[qwk]

I agree, but then again I thought the same thing was true for the 0-100 km/h time. 0-100 km/h times are what they are, well apparently not. And Tesla and others are diffently trying to sell the claimed times with a 'might be able to achieve' argument. SoC, temperature, tires, road surface etc. although they all know it will not do the claimed 0-100 km/h without the 1-foot rollout, which they did not tell about.

It is going to be interesting to follow the 10.9 number

0-60 times are harder to officialy measure. Tracks don't have a 0-60 measurement. The 1/4 mile is a different story, with most tracks belonging to NHRA, which makes sure the equipment is up to snuff, and calibrated properly.

 

[P85DEE]

0-60 times are harder to officialy measure. Tracks don't have a 0-60 measurement. The 1/4 mile is a different story, with most tracks belonging to NHRA, which makes sure the equipment is up to snuff, and calibrated properly.

The 10.9 situation could get loud, but probably not as loud as the issue being discussed in this thread, the hp issue.

The reason is that there are considerably fewer P90D ludicrous owners out there.

Quickest we've seen so far in owner's hands is 11.3xx.

We have another approximately .38x seconds to go to see a 10.99x

 

[vgrinshpun]

It is 'fake' as all dual motor p models have the exact same motor horsepower, well documented by Tesla in their answer to the Norwegian complaint page 5 - Calling P85D owners world-wide

However this show that the battery limited hp is the correct hp to display as the P85D w/o ludicrous has 463 hp and the one with ludicrous has 532 hp

The improvement in 0-60 acceleration of P85D over 85D is mostly defined by the increased motor hp rating, with increase in battery hp playing minor role (approx 10%), as was shown graphically based on torque curves. Further increase in acceleration was achieved by the increase in battery power limit, both effects explained by Musk in the corresponding presentations.

What these two facts demonstrate is what I and others were indicating for quite some time: Model S performance across all speeds is represented by the torque curves, not a single hp rating, especially when attempt is made to compare this rating with the hp rating of an ICE. Expectations based on comparing a single hp rating of an EV (with or without battery limitation) to and ICE powered car do not lead to accurate conclusions.

 

[AWDtsla]

The 10.9 situation could get loud, but probably not as loud as the issue being discussed in this thread, the hp issue.

If so this would be wrong-headed for multiple reasons that no one needs to re-hash.

The reason is that there are considerably fewer P90D ludicrous owners out there.

I've seen a bunch during delivery. But all the drag strips around here closed last month.

Quickest we've seen so far in owner's hands is 11.3xx.

We we have another approximately .38x seconds to go to see a 10.99x

That's a virtual canyon.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The acceleration is also derived from calculations. The GPS sends timing information that can be used to calculate position. There is no measurement of acceleration.

Right, but they do that calculation internally and spits out the data on the screen (which is the whole point). Technically even in an accelerometer the number is derived from calculations (the actual mechanism is voltage or capacitance readings), but again the acceleration data is spit out.

The torque and power however in this case is derived using formulas after getting the data from the Vbox. Thus it is susceptible to the assumptions of that formula (the definition of mile as you point out).

 

[lolachampcar]

Intent aside, it seems like we are all making it to the same place in varying degrees. That's a strong plus for a thread that looked never ending. Congrats to all.