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

[stopcrazypp]

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.

Again, Tesla did say in their answer they use the same method as NHRA, which includes rollout. They had a whole paragraph on it.

 

[vgrinshpun]

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.

Well this have been beaten to death, but I do not agree with the bolded part, as it is just not consistent with what I was saying. I am not asking this question, what I am saying is that traction limited does not mean that P85D traction system (under good road/tire condition) struggles all the way to 30mph to gain traction any more than power limited means that 463hp battery limited power is NOT achieved by the car. Both mean that Model S propulsion system CAN put rated torque to the surface and output rated power, just CANNOT EXCEED them. In my view this is plain and clear language.

I am perfectly OK if we disagree on this, just am not comfortable with what you wrote as it does not really represent my point, but rather interjects your judgement about it.

I agree with the suggestion to move past this point and let emotions subside, but find it somewhat misplaced if it was intended for me. The whole issue was not raised by me, I *did* move past it, and was not the one who (in quite emotional post) raised it this time around again. This remark does not seem to be fair minded from my point of view.

 

[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.

Thinking this through, even in the absence of data on differences between P85Ds between the versions (essentially we don't know if there has been a further update to older P85Ds to match P90D L in motor power), this seems irrelevant to my point. The claimed and measured Gs have increased for the P85D/P90D and this would not be possible if the P85D was traction limited in the start. I can't make a claim that the latest P90D Ludicrous version at 1.1G is not traction limited, but I can say the 1G version at the start and the intermediate 1.05 G was not.

 

[lolachampcar]

Could it be that Tesla is using two battery related limits? An initial current limit which was increased with the battery hardware changes and a total battery power limit also increased with the new hardware? Perhaps if there was more current available prior to the battery power limit the P85D and P90D may be even quicker. Perhaps all the speculation about traction limit is incorrect. Perhaps it is all just motor throttling. This would sure explain why my P+ left bar code tire marks on launch while my P85D (and the P90DL I drove) leave nothing.

 

[P85DEE]

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

I agree. But right or wrong, that's possibly how it will play out.

Unlike the matter being discussed in this thread, and all of the back and forth which has gone along with it, the 10.9 matter and any failure to meet that spec, is indeed a "legitimate" issue and bone of contention in most anyone's estimation.

Even the biggest Tesla supporters won't be able to demonstrate that the promise of a 10.9 quarter mile was misinterpreted.

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

I'm thinking that only a small percentage of Model S cars out there are P90D's with Ludicrous. And furthermore, like you say, most of the drag strips in the north and northeast are already closed until spring. If a stink is to be raised about this matter, well then it's liable to be a delayed stink, at least until the spring for the most part, and with fewer people raising it, because there are proportionately fewer 2015 P90D Ludicrous cars, than there are 2014-2015 P85Ds with Insane.

OTOH, if a lot of late 2015 and early 2016 P90Ds with Ludicrous are sold between now and when the north and northeastern drag strips open up in the spring, and those owners head out to their respective tracks and aren't running those 10.9s, well then the stink raised could theoretically rise to even higher heights than we've already seen with the current matter. The stink could rise even higher and closer to heaven than even the current matter at hand has. Especially if during the winter, none of the west coast and southern P90D Ludicrous owners have also not had any luck at their still open tracks in reaching that 10.9 over the winter.

That's a virtual canyon.

Not only that, it's a considerable distance away from 10.9x too. :wink:

 

[vip gts]

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

If you do not agree with my statement then please explain why.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Could it be that Tesla is using two battery related limits? An initial current limit which was increased with the battery hardware changes and a total battery power limit also increased with the new hardware? Perhaps if there was more current available prior to the battery power limit the P85D and P90D may be even quicker. Perhaps all the speculation about traction limit is incorrect. Perhaps it is all just motor throttling. This would sure explain why my P+ left bar code tire marks on launch while my P85D (and the P90DL I drove) leave nothing.

I've been meaning to address a similar point raised elsewhere, but I didn't have time and I'm glad you raised it. The P85 traction control is defeatable. The P85D/P90D however is not. That can distort any comparisons between the two in terms of apparent traction. And in general, I don't think TC tells the whole story. This is because of the differences on road surfaces, Model S having a open differential can make the TC light stay on or turn on in certain circumstances even in the speed range discussed, but not necessarily indicative of an absolute traction limit in that speed range (where given good conditions would reach the acceleration mentioned).

Essentially, my point was for the P85D/P90D given they are AWD and have essentially the same tire/wheel/differential setup, should not be able to show an improvement in peak acceleration if it was wheel traction limited already.

 

[tomas]

If you do not agree with my statement then please explain why.

because it's a passive/aggressive way to address the issue. Th SC can't do anything and you are misappropriating their time. Write tesla. Just as good in terms of formally registering and dating your complaint. Happy?

ps if you are not an owner, which I suspect is possible, I'm concerned you are just trying to make trouble.

 

[lolachampcar]

It did seem like an attempt to wind things/someone up.

 

[vip gts]

because it's a passive/aggressive way to address the issue. Th SC can't do anything and you are misappropriating their time. Write tesla. Just as good in terms of formally registering and dating your complaint. Happy?

ps if you are not an owner, which I suspect is possible, I'm concerned you are just trying to make trouble.

Yes, I agree that this approach is somewhat passive aggressive.
Unfortunately I do think that this type of approach may be the only way to obtain a response regarding the 10.9 second issue. I believe that prior inquiries into performance issues have not been responded to in a timely fashion.
I am interested in the P90 DL and would like to have an answer to the 10.9 second issue and believe that current owners are in the best position to obtain one.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yes, I agree that this approach is somewhat passive aggressive.
Unfortunately I do think that this type of approach may be the only way to obtain a response regarding the 10.9 second issue. I believe that prior inquiries into performance issues have not been responded to in a timely fashion.
I am interested in the P90 DL and would like to have an answer to the 10.9 second issue and believe that current owners are in the best position to obtain one.

Kind of off topic for this thread, but has anyone even written to Tesla about the 10.9 second thing in the first place? That may be something to try before bothering the SC.

 

[tomas]

Yes, I agree that this approach is somewhat passive aggressive.
Unfortunately I do think that this type of approach may be the only way to obtain a response regarding the 10.9 second issue. I believe that prior inquiries into performance issues have not been responded to in a timely fashion.
I am interested in the P90 DL and would like to have an answer to the 10.9 second issue and believe that current owners are in the best position to obtain one.

good enough. Hope you test drive one because you won't care about 10.9 if you do. Numbers don't represent the driving impressions

 

[rns-e]

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.

Thinking this through, even in the absence of data on differences between P85Ds between the versions (essentially we don't know if there has been a further update to older P85Ds to match P90D L in motor power), this seems irrelevant to my point. The claimed and measured Gs have increased for the P85D/P90D and this would not be possible if the P85D was traction limited in the start. I can't make a claim that the latest P90D Ludicrous version at 1.1G is not traction limited, but I can say the 1G version at the start and the intermediate 1.05 G was not.

Power = torque x rpm - There has been not improvement in acceleration nor topspeed of the P85D since the last revision of the motor power numbers, which speaks to my point that the motor power numbers are not all that they are made out to be. So the question is, is the increase in torque or rpm? And it that increase beyond the area of usages for the P85D because of the battery limit?

I know you are going to try to explain why the motor power number is still the most important number in the world, but I have never seen a car get an increase in power (as the only alternation) without any performance improvement - at all. And we know that Tesla would have used all their social media skills to tell us if there was even a 0.1s acceleration improvement anywhere in the span between 0 - 155 mph.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Power = torque x rpm - There has been not improvement in acceleration nor topspeed of the P85D since the last revision of the motor power numbers, which speaks to my point that the motor power numbers are not all that they are made out to be. So the question is, is the increase in torque or rpm? And it that increase beyond the area of usages for the P85D because of the battery limit?

I know you are going to try to explain why the motor power number is still the most important number in the world, but I have never seen a car get an increase in power (as the only alternation) without any performance improvement - at all. And we know that Tesla would have used all their social media skills to tell us if there was even a 0.1s acceleration improvement anywhere in the span between 0 - 155 mph.

The point you quoted I was talking about P85D not having reached its traction limit yet, which is a different subject from motor power (I only mentioned it previously because I looked at the data and it happened to scale perfectly).

If you insist on discussing that:

From the 691 hp to 728 hp from 6.2 update, 0-60 did improve 0.1 seconds. Instead of the advertised 1G, people have measured 1.05G.

As for the revision from 728 hp to 762 hp, we don't know where it actually applies (it might only apply to P90D from factory and maybe even only with the Ludicrous software). You have referred to the Norway answer as evidence that it has applied to all P85D, but there is no evidence elsewhere that there was ever an update in regards to this. The only recent update was one that allowed similar battery conditioning as Ludicrous, but nothing about motor firmware update (as with 6.2 previously).

However, Tesla/Elon does claim that P90D Ludicrous improved peak acceleration to 1.1G. This is only possible with a "motor power" / peak torque increase. Raising battery power alone will only shift the torque decrease point to the right, but won't raise the peak torque (which is a characteristic of the motor), so the peak acceleration change can't be from only a battery power improvement.

So far we don't have very accurate vbox graphs to see the improvements yet. Pete 90D got readings of 1.2G, but his graphs are so noisy with oscillation (as sorka notes in thread), that I don't feel comfortable saying that is a confirmation.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/52587-P90D-Performance-Power-Data

Of course, as you know, the Ludicrous improves 0-60 acceleration from 3.1 to 2.8 seconds or 0.3 seconds. Of course that includes the power limited region, so we would need to know how much of the improvement from the 0-30 vs the 30-60 region (this is presuming power limited point is at 30 mph, which may not necessarily be accurate, so 0-x vs x-60 whatever x is).

 

[rns-e]

The point you quoted I was talking about P85D not having reached its traction limit yet, which is a different subject from motor power (I only mentioned it previously because I looked at the data and it happened to scale perfectly).

If you insist on discussing that:

From the 691 hp to 728 hp from 6.2 update, 0-60 did improve 0.1 seconds. Instead of the advertised 1G, people have measured 1.05G.

As for the revision from 728 hp to 762 hp, we don't know where it actually applies (it might only apply to P90D from factory and maybe even only with the Ludicrous software). You have referred to the Norway answer as evidence that it has applied to all P85D, but there is no evidence elsewhere that there was ever an update in regards to this. The only recent update was one that allowed similar battery conditioning as Ludicrous, but nothing about motor firmware update (as with 6.2 previously).

However, Tesla/Elon does claim that P90D Ludicrous improved peak acceleration to 1.1G. This is only possible with a "motor power" / peak torque increase. Raising battery power alone will only shift the torque decrease point to the left, but won't raise the peak torque (which is a characteristic of the motor), so the peak acceleration change can't be from only a battery power improvement.

So far we don't have very accurate vbox graphs to see the improvements yet. Pete 90D got readings of 1.2G, but his graphs are so noisy with oscillation (as sorka notes in thread), that I don't feel comfortable saying that is a confirmation.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/52587-P90D-Performance-Power-Data

Of course, as you know, the Ludicrous improves 0-60 acceleration from 3.1 to 2.8 seconds or 0.3 seconds. Of course that includes the power limited region, so we would need to know how much of the improvement from the 0-30 vs the 30-60 region (this is presuming power limited point is at 30 mph, which may not necessarily be accurate, so 0-x vs x-60 whatever x is).

I agree with what you are saying from a technical point of view - I'm just bringing this in play along with Teslas answer in the Norwegian case to show how loose Tesla is with throwing numbers around. So from you are describing technically there would be no foundation for Tesla to claim that the P85D has 762hp motor power instead of 691 hp motor power, but there would be technical foundation to say that it has 728 hp motor power.

However - Ludicrous is the battery, so that should not have any effect on the motor power rating, as you and others have pointed out, the motor rating is done without the battery.

So when Tesla claims that their customers are confused it is in fact Tesla that is playing a very active role in creating this confusion by mixing claims posted in imperial and metric standards along with upgrades that may or may not apply to the P85D

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree with what you are saying from a technical point of view - I'm just bringing this in play along with Teslas answer in the Norwegian case to show how loose Tesla is with throwing numbers around. So from you are describing technically there would be no foundation for Tesla to claim that the P85D has 762hp motor power instead of 691 hp motor power, but there would be technical foundation to say that it has 728 hp motor power.

However - Ludicrous is the battery, so that should not have any effect on the motor power rating, as you and others have pointed out, the motor rating is done without the battery.

So when Tesla claims that their customers are confused it is in fact Tesla that is playing a very active role in creating this confusion by mixing claims posted in imperial and metric standards along with upgrades that may or may not apply to the P85D

I agree the 762 hp claim may be incorrect, while the rep would have basis to say 728 hp. However, if you press Tesla on this point, all they have to do is change the number in their letter from 762 to 728 and the point still stands.

Then if you take them up on the imperial vs metric, they can change from 700hk vs 728hp to 691 hp vs 728hp or to 700hk vs 738hk. It doesn't really change their point (their mix-up of imperial vs metric actually made their point worse in this case).

On the whole, as I mentioned, the Norway answer seemed to be have written mainly based on internet research with only a tiny bit of engineering input (the two certification certificates). However, that was enough to satisfy their evidential burden.

 

[brianman]

I agree the 762 hp claim may be incorrect, while the rep would have basis to say 728 hp. However, if you press Tesla on this point, all they have to do is change the number in their letter from 762 to 728 and the point still stands.

Suppose someone did this: press Tesla on this point and they update the letter. Wouldn't that alone support the other side's argument that Tesla can't get this s*** straight, and is confusing customers in the process?

 

[rns-e]

I agree the 762 hp claim may be incorrect, while the rep would have basis to say 728 hp. However, if you press Tesla on this point, all they have to do is change the number in their letter from 762 to 728 and the point still stands.

Then if you take them up on the imperial vs metric, they can change from 700hk vs 728hp to 691 hp vs 728hp or to 700hk vs 738hk. It doesn't really change their point (their mix-up of imperial vs metric actually made their point worse in this case).

On the whole, as I mentioned, the Norway answer seemed to be have written mainly based on internet research with only a tiny bit of engineering input (the two certification certificates). However, that was enough to satisfy their evidential burden.

Year no reason to get it right the first time And the mixup imperial vs metric when it comes to the 0-100 km/h made it look like the P85D has no problem reaching its claimed times when it actually has no chance of doing it without subtracting some of the time used.

I should have paid Tesla with after tax money while referring to the value pre personal tax.

However, that was enough to satisfy their evidential burden.

Nope, wrong.

The Forbrukerrådet is a mediation organ and they do not have any authority to side with any of the sides. What they did, was saying that there were no grounds for mediation as Tesla was not interested in meeting or participating in a mediation, which is the core job of the Forbrukerrådet to facilitate. This means that the complainers will now have to go to the next step, but no ruling or anything was issued by the Forbrukerrådet. I know a lot have gotten that wrong.

You can read about the Forbrukerrådet here: ForbrukerrÃ¥dets frivillige meklingstilbud : ForbrukerrÃ¥det

Please read the paragraph 'Hvordan foregår meklingsprosessen i Forbrukerrådet?'

Furthermore this is a key sentence under paragraph 'Hvilke krav stilles til personer som mekler i Forbrukerrådet?': 'Personen har ikke adgang til å gi konkrete råd eller å gi svar på hvem som eventuelt har rett i den aktuelle saken.'

Tesla has been in the hands of the Forbrukerrådet before regarding their after gas savings and financing options: http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/asset/5293/1/5293_1.pdf

Tesla has chosen to ignore this completely and continues this practise.

Suppose someone did this: press Tesla on this point and they update the letter. Wouldn't that alone support the other side's argument that Tesla can't get this s*** straight, and is confusing customers in the process?

My point exactly

 

[stopcrazypp]

Suppose someone did this: press Tesla on this point and they update the letter. Wouldn't that alone support the other side's argument that Tesla can't get this s*** straight, and is confusing customers in the process?

That specific point was only a minor one in the letter. The specific number did not really matter in context, only that it is larger than the 700 hk advertised. The main point of that line was that Tesla updated previous P85Ds beyond what was advertised. That is true no matter if the number was 728hp or 762hp.

 

[brianman]

That specific point was only a minor one in the letter. The specific number did not really matter in context, only that it is larger than the 700 hk advertised. The main point of that line was that Tesla updated previous P85Ds beyond what was advertised. That is true no matter if the number was 728hp or 762hp.

First it doesn't matter if they get the text right; they can update it later.
Then it's just a minor point.

At what point does it clearly became "We can't trust them to get any of this right and we're just making excuses?"

It would be totally reasonable for an outside observer to say "for smart engineers trying to push for a change to EV technology, they are kind of sabotaging themselves."