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

[rns-e]

#166 one of many plots used in generating the opinion below

I just have to revisit this thread.
Somewhere along the line, someone tried to convince me that putting bigger motors in the D had value because those bigger motors could deliver more torque in the low speed realm prior to the battery limit coming into play.

Well fast forward to today and we now have the car's own CAN bus data to play with (thanks to WK's work).
The D is torque limited in the first second. Period. Full stop. To boot, that torque limit does not appear to be anywhere near the specified torque capability that Tesla was promoting.

I thought the Big Torque Motor argument was without merit on the basis that the tires could not handle it. We now KNOW the Big Torque Motor argument has no merit because the people that are marketing them are not allowing them to generate anywhere near the torque they are marketing (before the other Elephant in the Room that is the battery limit comes into play).

I agree with you, although it seams that there may be some merit to the torque argument from the rear motor. Looking at the many graphs you guys have made, LINK, it seams that the rear motor is maxing out just under 450 lb-ft and from what I understand, the smaller motor in the rear for the 85D and 90D the max torque is around 330 lb-ft.

But there is approx 150 lb-ft unused torque from the rear

EDIT: Got nm and lb-ft numbers mixed up

The torque of the small rear motor would be approx 242 lb-ft and the big rear motors torque is about 470 lb-ft, so they are close to using all the torque available - if we trust the official numbers

 

[lolachampcar]

The spec says 718 and the PDs are putting out a combined 440 + 240 or 680. These maximums appear to be programmatically limited (i.e. not limited by the battery). 680 measured is reasonably close to 718.

 

[Johan]

#166 one of many plots used in generating the opinion below

I just have to revisit this thread.
Somewhere along the line, someone tried to convince me that putting bigger motors in the D had value because those bigger motors could deliver more torque in the low speed realm prior to the battery limit coming into play.

Well fast forward to today and we now have the car's own CAN bus data to play with (thanks to WK's work).
The D is torque limited in the first second. Period. Full stop. To boot, that torque limit does not appear to be anywhere near the specified torque capability that Tesla was promoting.

I thought the Big Torque Motor argument was without merit on the basis that the tires could not handle it. We now KNOW the Big Torque Motor argument has no merit because the people that are marketing them are not allowing them to generate anywhere near the torque they are marketing (before the other Elephant in the Room that is the battery limit comes into play).

Good point, but remember that any predictions in to the future possible increased performance for any motor(s) combination through battery upgrades in the future are our own speculations - not Tesla's promise. Again if they've rated the motor at 718 torque but limits it to 680 - so what? It's the exact same debate as people saying they're mad they bought an 85kWh car with only 81,1 kWh available (so what, it still has the same range), or people saying they wanted 691 hp on the dyno or the CAN bus (so what - the car still does the promised 0-60 and quarter mile ((except the 10.9 which they're yet to pull out of their ass)).

 

[Andyw2100]

Good point, but remember that any predictions in to the future possible increased performance for any motor(s) combination through battery upgrades in the future are our own speculations - not Tesla's promise. Again if they've rated the motor at 718 torque but limits it to 680 - so what? It's the exact same debate as people saying they're mad they bought an 85kWh car with only 81,1 kWh available (so what, it still has the same range), or people saying they wanted 691 hp on the dyno or the CAN bus (so what - the car still does the promised 0-60 and quarter mile ((except the 10.9 which they're yet to pull out of their ass)).

I can't let this statement stand without pointing out why it is incorrect.

First of all, I don't believe any of the 691 HP gang was expecting 691 HP on a dyno.

The difference between 680 torque and 718 torque is a relatively small discrepancy, while the difference between 691 HP and 550 HP is a heck of a lot more significant. Another issue is that Tesla was not making a big deal "selling" the torque the car could produce the way they were focusing on the HP. Every press release, interview, etc. must have talked about the 691 HP, as every article and news story published made a big deal out of it. Finally while the car meets the 0-60 time specs and the quarter mile specs (P90D with Ludicrous excepted), those specs do not completely cover what a specified amount of horsepower would mean. The big issue where the 691 crew had (and have) concerns are with passing power, where the car does not perform anything like a 691 HP car.

I am not trying to stir up the whole debate again, but when I see comments made like the ones above I simply can't let them stand without correcting them.

 

[Johan]

I can't let this statement stand without pointing out why it is incorrect.

First of all, I don't believe any of the 691 HP gang was expecting 691 HP on a dyno.

The difference between 680 torque and 718 torque is a relatively small discrepancy, while the difference between 691 HP and 550 HP is a heck of a lot more significant. Another issue is that Tesla was not making a big deal "selling" the torque the car could produce the way they were focusing on the HP. Every press release, interview, etc. must have talked about the 691 HP, as every article and news story published made a big deal out of it. Finally while the car meets the 0-60 time specs and the quarter mile specs (P90D with Ludicrous excepted), those specs do not completely cover what a specified amount of horsepower would mean. The big issue where the 691 crew had (and have) are with passing power, where the car does not perform anything like a 691 HP car.

I am not trying to stir up the whole debate again, but when I see comments made like the ones above I simply can't let them stand without correcting them.

OK, you're absolutely right. The point of what I was trying to say, hurting you as collateral damage, was that trying to get mad over a possible difference in hypothetically missing torque numbers, which would only make up part of the HP issue, is way more ridiculous than the HP issue in itself, which has much more legitimate claims.

 

[Andyw2100]

OK, you're absolutely right. The point of what I was trying to say, hurting you as collateral damage, was that trying to get mad over a possible difference in hypothetically missing torque numbers, which would only make up part of the HP issue, is way more ridiculous than the HP issue in itself, which has much more legitimate claims.

Thanks for that. It's very much appreciated!

 

[Andyw2100]

Just when I thought perhaps Tesla had learned something from the whole 691 HP fiasco...

As many following the P90D Ludicrous threads know, no customer car has yet come close to a 10.9 second quarter mile time, which is the advertised specification. Yet instead of quietly backing away from the specification, Tesla is apparently doubling down, touting it as they try to sell the Ludicrous upgrade for $10,000 as a stand-alone through the Tesla Store. (See below.)

 

[MikeBur]

I don't know, even given Max Battery @ 100% SoC, how TM can state these 1/4 mile numbers as achievable. I'm honestly surprised. There is no re-interpretation, re-education, or re-casting of standards opportunity here. These numbers appear to be knowingly unachievable even when significantly stressing the battery.
I would love, and long, to be proven wrong.

 

[ShotgunF15E]

Just when I thought perhaps Tesla had learned something from the whole 691 HP fiasco...

As many following the P90D Ludicrous threads know, no customer car has yet come close to a 10.9 second quarter mile time, which is the advertised specification. Yet instead of quietly backing away from the specification, Tesla is apparently doubling down, touting it as they try to sell the Ludicrous upgrade for $10,000 as a stand-alone through the Tesla Store. (See below.)

View attachment 168687

Starting to think both those times are just plain FALSE advertising...

 

[lolachampcar]

Data from the car clearly shows exactly how Tesla did L. It also shows that the 90 only has the slightest of advantages over the 85 due to slightly less voltage drop under load.

The only room for improvement is to allow for more torque in the first second but then the motors seem to already be operating at their rated torque in this area.

The short of it is, I really do not see another L amount of step change that can provide a .3 second improvement in 1/4 mile times and we already know the battery simply does not support 700 hp.

 

[NOLA_Mike]

10.9 only happens in the new "Auto Drag Race" mode coming soon. No driver - 200 lbs less weight!

 

[whitex]

10.9 only happens in the new "Auto Drag Race" mode coming soon. No driver - 200 lbs less weight!

Neh, you can do it today with 5 passengers, just need sufficiently long "rollout" footnote.

 

[Andyw2100]

From another thread:

First rulings done in Norways consumer disputes commision it seems. Tesla must pay 50000NOK(~6000USD) to the owners in these rulings as far as I can see. Tesla now has 4weeks to decide if they want to continue by draggin this into the courts or end it by paying the owners according to the ruling.

This includes my own case which I brought forward to the disputes commision. Link below to a similar case. I believe 13owners went this route.

http://innsyn.e-kommune.no/innsyn_f...=2016013278&dokid=233333&versjon=1&variant=P&

Still no word on the ones that actually sued Tesla. That is rumoured to be more than 200owners still waiting for Tesla to make their move. But the ruling from the consumer disputes commision will of course wheigh heavily in advantage of the owners...

 

[Alex(AUS)]

From another thread:

It seems the power numbers are dismissed by Tesla in favour of it being able to better acceleration times (even though power was misrpresented)

Does that mean that the fact nobody has been able to achieve the advertised 10.9 is now a valid argument around the very same thing?

Alex

 

[MuppetOwl]

The P85D have not been able to do the advertised 0-60 mph times to. Since it is measured using 1ft rollout. Tesla did only specify the P85D using rollout and not the other models like the 85D. So the 0-100kph time is also included in the large group that sued Tesla. Because of false advertisement using a 0-100 kph time no one in Europe use and only on the P85D without information about that. Tesla did specify it was with rollout almost 1 year later.

So owners have to pay almost 60 000nok (7100usd) for the Ludicrous upgrade to be even close to the 0-100kph time Tesla advertised.

 

[AWDtsla]

It seems the power numbers are dismissed by Tesla in favour of it being able to better acceleration times (even though power was misrpresented)

Does that mean that the fact nobody has been able to achieve the advertised 10.9 is now a valid argument around the very same thing?

Alex

Seems like exactly the same thing happened again. And Tesla can pull out the old "But motortrend did it", and still be wrong.

 

[Skotty]

Unfortunately, Tesla is learning on it's own that owners are very picky about reported figures on top end performance models. Most other automakers already know this. Back around the year 2000, Ford had to recall all Ford Mustang Cobras because the engine was often 10 to 20 HP lower than advertised when measured on a dyno. I had one of these cars and had the recall performed. Made no noticeable difference in my opinion, but it cost Ford a boatload of money. They had to port and polish every intake manifold and update the exhaust system on every Cobra for no noticeable real world difference.

 

[Andyw2100]

Unfortunately, Tesla is learning on it's own that owners are very picky about reported figures on top end performance models. Most other automakers already know this. Back around the year 2000, Ford had to recall all Ford Mustang Cobras because the engine was often 10 to 20 HP lower than advertised when measured on a dyno. I had one of these cars and had the recall performed. Made no noticeable difference in my opinion, but it cost Ford a boatload of money. They had to port and polish every intake manifold and update the exhaust system on every Cobra for no noticeable real world difference.

If this was about 10 or 20 HP I think most Tesla P85D customers would be pretty understanding. I know I would have a completely different attitude towards this than I do. But we're not talking about 10 or 20 HP. We're talking about well over 200 HP! That is a significant difference, any way you look at it.

 

[supratachophobia]

Unfortunately, Tesla is learning on it's own that owners are very picky about reported figures on top end performance models. Most other automakers already know this. Back around the year 2000, Ford had to recall all Ford Mustang Cobras because the engine was often 10 to 20 HP lower than advertised when measured on a dyno. I had one of these cars and had the recall performed. Made no noticeable difference in my opinion, but it cost Ford a boatload of money. They had to port and polish every intake manifold and update the exhaust system on every Cobra for no noticeable real world difference.

Tesla sets the expectations, I sounds like a broken record. There was no need to not be up front about any of this.

 

[sorka]

We're talking about well over 200 HP! That is a significant difference, any way you look at it.

228 hp according to Tesla