A pity that you did. I think your original post summed up many long term Tesla supporters view.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L
- Thread starter Matias
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
A pity that you did. I think your original post summed up many long term Tesla supporters view.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Well said.
I skim read this thread and am disappointed at the posts generated by a small number people which are inflammatory, yet implicitly condoned. Another good statistic wk may be %age of posts moved to snippiness on this thread vs others? ;-)
Rather than disengaging from the forum, I find life much simpler just ignoring the people whose posts I find non-valuable. Not those that have counter opinions, rather those that do not add value by increasing the noise level by asking inane questions repeatedly, saying me too, public ego-stroking, etc. This is as easy as selecting the user name and selecting ignore this user from their profile page. Still harsh, though less extreme than leaving.
I am knowingly biased towards TM having the onus of responsibility for ensuring new terminology is explained to customers to the best of their ability, and in a prompt manner. I also am unwilling to budge on facts from my perspective, in terms of dates and venues in which information was given, and left uncorrected when wrong to the benefit of TM. I also listen to counter arguments and receive education... Likely never enough ;-), though I have learnt a lot here from the efforts of others. As many have said there's no way to rationalize with an extreme point of view and I fear we are all potentially losing valuable contributors.
I am still skim reading this thread in anticipation of new data.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
My thread isn't that long. Your thread could be a LOT shorter, and likely your BP lower, if you start adding folk to your ignore list... <hint> no idea why you all keep feeding this, um, poster ;-)
Last edited:
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Honestly asking the question here as this confuses me:
If, as you state, every one uses "HP at the output shaft of the engine/motor" then are you also saying that at some point the combined, simultaneous,output of a p85D is at some/any point outputting 691HP? Or are you saying that there is loss of 200HP+ somewhere else? Or are you saying that some other manufacturers lie and therefore this is ok for TM to do?
Don't want to revisit this very dead horse, though I really am confused why we are not aligned with TM's new definition. Are you saying that is also wrong?
Also, not asked by yourself, though earlier. I've been reading a lot more perf mags recently, to help my education, and it seems pretty standard to quote not just 0-60 (with rolling foot in the US) and 1/4 mile times, but also 50-70 and 70-90 times. Is it a reasonable thing to get away from HP and start talking about numbers in these terms? I.e. What should the ludicrous upgrade give over insane mode on p*d, i.e. Both p85d and p90D? The former we don't have, though has anyone asked TM yet?
The P85D meets the "hp at the output shaft of the motor" definition when you disconnect the motors from the car battery and connect them to an bigger power source.
"The motors of the P85D" might, but that's not the same thing as "The P85D".
That's like saying my feet can go 100mph but only if they're not connected to my body and are fueled by some other cyborg testing device.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
mkspeedr
Member
Last year our Thanksgiving discussion centered around the hope of a pre Christmas delivery and why a 700hp AWD electric car could not pull off a sub 3 second 0-60 time. Gearing, HP rating, EV specs but our discussion was shorter than 30 minutes.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The problem is that you are still using the implicit assumption that the power of the engine/motor is measured while installed in the car, when in fact it starts out as a bare engine/motor and then with accessories attached to it as appropriate for the standard.
"HP at the output shaft of the engine/motor" does not say what accessories are attached to that engine/motor under test. That is essentially the core disagreement here. In Tesla's case, the standard they used (ECE R85) does not require them to use a factory standard battery pack to test the motors. Thus while it is the "HP at the output shaft of the engine/motor" during testing, it is not the same as while the engine/motor is installed in the car with the factory standard accessories.
Automakers commonly quote 0-60 and sometimes rarely 1/4 mile. I have never seen them quote 50-70 or 70-90 (some supercars might quote 0-100 or to some higher speed though). Magazines quote 50-70 and 70-90 when they have the means to do fully instrumented testing, however, that is not always the case.
- - - Updated - - -
That has been essentially how automakers have been rating "car horsepower" since the car was invented. As I noted, you can freely look at articles on new cars coming out and it is easy to find reference to the horsepower of engine (with phrasing like "the engine makes xxx hp"). "Engine horsepower" is used interchangeably with the "car horsepower". I pointed one example out in my comment previously (it was trivial to find).
In contrast, try to find some phrasing about runners that says that their "legs" can go xx mph in some recent articles. I think that will be difficult to find. The comparison just doesn't work.
I should note, I personally do agree that a horsepower rating standard that takes more of the system into account is better (what Tesla is using now is better than previously), but I don't agree that is a fundamental of "horsepower" when describing a car. To me that is mainly opinion (and thus, as I have said before, when it reaches the courts it will be down to a consumer survey on horsepower in general, not something you can derive from fundamental definitions).
Last edited:
Regardless of the Tesla situation, traditional HP ratings are incredibly stupid. Not only is the number relatively meaningless unless you get the car in a very specific situation, but it's measured at the crank, WTH?
SW2Fiddler
We Are Cognitive Dissidents
Yep, this is the core. Read it again. If you want to say "But but the battery" or "But but the salesman in the showroom" then read it again.
Check that there is a P85D in your driveway/garage/Sonic Stall. Yes? Not a lowly 85D? Congrats. You got what you paid for.
"But but-"
No. Good day sir.
Stop the presses already.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
Thanks, I believe it's not just my problem here. If an ICE manufacturer said one of cars had an engine capable of 600+ HP under *some* situations if I added nitrous, racing fuel, larger fuel pump, etc (i.e. Increasing the fuel input 200HP beyond what ships with the car), would we consider this differently?
Would it be justifiable if the retort was that there's an (un-ratified?) spec that has so many holes that it has major opportunity for misinterpretation?
One could argue the letter of the law legal standpoint, though would it not be a better manufacturer who stood up and worked to educate the masses and tighten the spec, thereby helping define the industry standard as meaningful? Call me a dreamer ;-)
Apologies, I meant industry ratings of vehicles, not always the manufacturer. You're right. I would much prefer seeing these numbers before the ludicrous upgrade is installed. I went on faith on original car, and all appear to agree it would be foolish to trust TM... Which, incidentally, makes me real sad.
I agree up until the comments of "when it reaches the courts". In general, comments about legal interpretation, precedence, expectations of fact, etc. are not required.
This is still easily addressable by TM... What is it (and apologies if I'm bastardizing the interpretation here):the first step in addressing a problem is acknowledging its existence? TM appear to be making steps here for future owners. The second step is reparations for damage done - to reputation, trust, etc...
Again thanks for the explanation.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The original comment was not about the standards, but about whether it was "wrong" for journalists to say the P85D has "691 hp" without the "motor power" modifier Tesla used. Basically, there is nothing wrong about that based how horsepower has been measured and defined up to now for cars (which was why I brought up the standards).
As for "holes" in standards you mention, SAE gross (which Ram Trucks still uses today in their diesel trucks) only requires the engine to be stock when testing. I don't know if it allows racing fuel, but it allows a custom intake, exhaust, fuel injection, ignition timing settings, and you didn't have to attach any accessories that might reduce power. For the 1972 Cadillac Eldorado V8 this meant 375 hp vs 235hp under the SAE net rating widely in use today, a 37% difference. I use such an old car because it is one of the few rated under both systems at the same time; the 2016 Ram diesel engine is rated only under SAE gross.
Even the SAE net commonly in use by ICE cars today has "holes" (how much oil is in crankcase, how engine control is calibrated, whether premium fuel was used). The 2005 Toyota 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 engine had a 10% difference (210 hp vs 190 hp) when rated under the SAE certified standard introduced in the same year. SAE is still working on the EV horsepower standards (J2907 and J2908), but the ECE R85 standard Tesla used is not a preliminary standard: the original version went into force in 1995, the latest supplement was added in 2013.
I think ultimately it will involve courts if owners expect some sort of compensation beyond what has been offered so far (so far only the discounted Ludicrous upgrade can be interpreted as some sort of compensation). And even if it didn't involve courts, I still think a well designed consumer survey is required. If there was absolutely no one that interpreted Tesla's numbers correctly, I would agree that owners are owed compensation, however it is clear to me that is not the case, so this all becomes an issue of opinion.
In the previous cases, when horsepower numbers are different because of differences in rating standards (as opposed to an actual physical loss of power because of differences in equipment), no compensation was offered to owners. For example, for the Toyota V6 engine I mentioned above, even though there was a 10% difference in power, Toyota did not offer any compensation for owners. All they did was switch to the new standard behind the scenes. Tesla might just do the same thing here.
I'm personally amazed that some owners are doing it all again with the ludicrous update. We don't know yet for sure but the suggestions made so far would suggest the batteries need to be preconditioned to be in the right state, and if your SOC drops below even figures like 70% will you lose the performance anyway. There are some on in here banging on about failure to do homework on the 691 figure who are having it done with few assurances. Shows a degree of blind faith.
If i was buying an upgrade I'd want it there, all the time, irrespective and the only thing needed to call it up is the last few mm of throttle position. The reality I fear is that the performance will be available when the weather is correct, the car us freshly charged and when there is a W in the day of the week. I suspect this is why it's $5k as much as any appeasement of P85D metrics.
If i was buying an upgrade I'd want it there, all the time, irrespective and the only thing needed to call it up is the last few mm of throttle position. The reality I fear is that the performance will be available when the weather is correct, the car us freshly charged and when there is a W in the day of the week. I suspect this is why it's $5k as much as any appeasement of P85D metrics.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
JonG,
I'm grateful for those doing the P85D to L upgrade on blind faith. They are blazing the path for the rest of us understanding exactly what the L upgrade will bring to the party.
If I've learned anything with my reaction to pre-auto pilot release comments, I've learned to with hold judgement until I see the release. In the case of the L upgrade, I suspect we will see performance far in excess of a simple reduction of .2 seconds in the 1/4 and 0-60 times. If I am correct, the P85DL will likely be faster/quicker than the P90DLs currently in the wild (not counting the Motor Trend version). An owner has his car in for the upgrade as I write and will be seeking VBox data when he gets it back.
I'm grateful for those doing the P85D to L upgrade on blind faith. They are blazing the path for the rest of us understanding exactly what the L upgrade will bring to the party.
If I've learned anything with my reaction to pre-auto pilot release comments, I've learned to with hold judgement until I see the release. In the case of the L upgrade, I suspect we will see performance far in excess of a simple reduction of .2 seconds in the 1/4 and 0-60 times. If I am correct, the P85DL will likely be faster/quicker than the P90DLs currently in the wild (not counting the Motor Trend version). An owner has his car in for the upgrade as I write and will be seeking VBox data when he gets it back.
Shouldn't we have clear and unambiguous statements from Tesla?
Time will tell if you are right but a faster P85DL than a P90DL would just create more mayhem.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
agreed on both accounts but we know (1) Tesla is likely gun shy right now when it comes to performance specifications - better under commit and over deliver and (2) it makes little sense for an 85 KW battery to have 2.9/11.6 for numbers while a 90 has 2.6/10.9 unless there is a HUGE difference in chemistry. The difference in capacity alone will not make that much difference.
The nice thing about all of this is that there are those that will blaze the trail for us and get answers prior to the rest of us laying out (more) hard earned cash. Pity Tesla can not/will not share some of that in depth engineering data you know they have. This is one of the down sides to the company getting bigger and customers getting more awnrey.
The nice thing about all of this is that there are those that will blaze the trail for us and get answers prior to the rest of us laying out (more) hard earned cash. Pity Tesla can not/will not share some of that in depth engineering data you know they have. This is one of the down sides to the company getting bigger and customers getting more awnrey.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but maybe not.
The thing I'm worried about, (and I expect you are too, lola, but just didn't mention it in the post above) is that the P85Ds being upgraded could initially be upgraded to the same state that the non-Motorsport P90Ds with Ludicrous are in now. We expect that those P90Ds with Ludicrous will be getting a software update to enable them to perform like the Motorsports car. If the upgraded P85Ds wind up in the same state--waiting for that software update that hasn't been released yet--the performance bump from their current performance will not look very impressive. And we will be left wondering whether that's all there is, or whether more is coming via a software update.
As I see it, the first tests on the first upgraded P85Ds could show conclusively that Tesla over-delivered on their promises, but they won't be able to show conclusively that they won't, since we won't know if an OTA update is still on the way or not.
Does that make sense?
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
regretfully, yes 
Perhaps it is time for me to take a break and let all the what Tesla will and what they will not do dust settle.
It is sad that they allowed the MotorTrend number to be published without a lick of explanation.........
Perhaps it is time for me to take a break and let all the what Tesla will and what they will not do dust settle.
It is sad that they allowed the MotorTrend number to be published without a lick of explanation.........
Similar threads
- Locked
- Marketplace listing