[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

[stopcrazypp]

well maybe that is because (now) the P85D doesnt have a fixed power rating as the other models do.
P85D can be Insane or Ludicrous, same motors, different outputs.

(different situation prior to Ludicrous though)

That's one possible reason. The other possible reason is that judging from this thread, if Tesla posts a lower number (like 550hp for example as people measured in REST API), what is the likelihood that it will make matters better? I think the likelihood is low. In fact, I think it'll only make matters worse, as people will point to that number as evidence of Tesla's wrongdoing.

It should be noted that the P85D owners were the group that complained loudly about the motor power numbers saying that 691 hp was misleading (the S70/S60, 60D/70D were also affected but no complaints there). Tesla thus removed that 691hp number in response, so it's not surprising for me to see them not adding a number back:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...691HP/page68?p=1007850&viewfull=1#post1007850

 

[sorka]

That's one possible reason. The other possible reason is that judging from this thread, if Tesla posts a lower number (like 550hp for example as people measured in REST API), what is the likelihood that it will make matters better? I think the likelihood is low. In fact, I think it'll only make matters worse, as people will point to that number as evidence of Tesla's wrongdoing.

It should be noted that the P85D owners were the group that complained loudly about the motor power numbers saying that 691 hp was misleading (the S70/S60, 60D/70D were also affected but no complaints there). Tesla thus removed that 691hp number in response, so it's not surprising for me to see them not adding a number back:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...691HP/page68?p=1007850&viewfull=1#post1007850

That's because in the other cases they got more than they were promised.

The S85 claims 373 hp yet it dynos that at wheels. Since we expect the spec a the motor shaft and not the wheels, we are getting more power than promised:

This one peaks at 375 at the wheels. If you search, you'll find other S85 dynos that peak right around the same amount.

The 85D crowd got a massive horsepower boost to 376 KW or 497 hp yet the spec only says 417. And on top of that, the 39 KW (52 hp) difference between the 85D and P85D is only that if the P85D is charged to 100%. As the SOCs of both decrease, they eventually converge. Most of us are cutting the P85D a break in these discussions because we've been talking in terms that are only true at 100% SOC rather than the typical daily driving range.


The P85D - Maximum output 415 KW at 100% SOC = 557 hp at most before any conversion losses on it's way to the motor shafts. At best this is 134 hp less than 691 hp or even more if you're counting net at the shafts.

 

[AWDtsla]

That's because in the other cases they got more than they were promised.

The S85 claims 373 hp yet it dynos that at wheels. Since we expect the spec a the motor shaft and not the wheels, we are getting more power than promised:

This one peaks at 375 at the wheels. If you search, you'll find other S85 dynos that peak right around the same amount.

The 85D crowd got a massive horsepower boost to 376 KW or 497 hp yet the spec only says 417

So they should never have released software that improved the 85D? That seems to be what you're saying. 85D owners got more free stuff that P85D owners. Oh noes...

 

[Andyw2100]

So they should never have released software that improved the 85D? That seems to be what you're saying. 85D owners got more free stuff that P85D owners. Oh noes...

That's not what he's saying, and you know it.

Why do people keep trying to muddy the waters in this thread this way, by attempting to attribute incorrect arguments to what other posters have written?

sorka never came close to suggesting Tesla shouldn't have improved the 85D. And I'm pretty sure you know that. You just chose to make the assertion that he had, to try to make him look bad, and to divert attention from the actual argument.

 

[wk057]

I did find it interesting that the 85D was updated to be able to put out significantly more power. Almost definitely would have factored into my P85D purchase decision had I know there was only a ~40kW difference. I'm pretty sure the highest I've ever seen for my P85 or my wife's P85 is something like ~320kW... which means the non-performance 85D is more powerful than Tesla's previous performance model that cost $10's of thousands more. This irks me a little, but oh well.

At least with the P85 I got what I paid for as far as specs. Page said 417 HP (I think?) and 320kW is ~429HP.

Edit: Correction, went through some P85 REST API logs... found some pretty high peak kW numbers. Between 320 and 340 seems to be about the normal peaks with hundreds of data points, but there are a few data points (very few... out of hundreds of thousands, or about 0.01%) that show between 341 and 362 kW. So, 362 kW was the highest seen in my P85 (~485 HP) with one data point out of nearly 1,000,000 data points in my API logs.

 

[Andyw2100]

I did find it interesting that the 85D was updated to be able to put out significantly more power. Almost definitely would have factored into my P85D purchase decision had I know there was only a ~40kW difference. I'm pretty sure the highest I've ever seen for my P85 or my wife's P85 is something like ~320kW... which means the non-performance 85D is more powerful than Tesla's previous performance model that cost $10's of thousands more. This irks me a little, but oh well.

At least with the P85 I got what I paid for as far as specs. Page said 417 HP (I think?) and 320kW is ~429HP.

And while that may irk you, I'm willing to bet it would irk you a whole lot less if the P85D you traded your P85 for actually made the horsepower you thought it did at the time you ordered it. Part of why you are irked is that you are seeing customers who purchased another D model wind up getting more horsepower than they paid for, while you are getting less horsepower than you paid for, right? (I'm taking an educated guess here.)

 

[sorka]

At least with the P85 I got what I paid for as far as specs. Page said 417 HP (I think?) and 320kW is ~429HP.

Whoops. I forgot to throw that one in there too. Another example of under promise and over delivered.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Regardless of whether or not Tesla used the term "motor power", I took the specs to mean that the car can actually produce the HP that is advertised. It makes no sense to list a hypothetical specification if the car is not able to achieve that specification. I think most people wouldn't think twice that the HP presented was actual vehicle HP, not theoretical motor HP. That would be like Intel labeling its 3 GHz CPUs as 5 GHz, only to find out the 5 GHz figure is theoretical and requires supercooling.

 

[AWDtsla]

That would be like Intel labeling its 3 GHz CPUs as 5 GHz, only to find out the 5 GHz figure is theoretical and requires supercooling.

Actually they do something similar. Clocks are completely dynamic now, based on the current thermal envelope... You can't actually achieve their max frequency on all cores at once.

 

[wk057]

And while that may irk you, I'm willing to bet it would irk you a whole lot less if the P85D you traded your P85 for actually made the horsepower you thought it did at the time you ordered it. Part of why you are irked is that you are seeing customers who purchased another D model wind up getting more horsepower than they paid for, while you are getting less horsepower than you paid for, right? (I'm taking an educated guess here.)

Well, it irks me for a few reasons combined.

• a little because their cheaper non-performance model now is more powerful than the original performance model. No biggy. Improvements happen, and this is fine. Seems quick, but that's tech. This was kind of expected eventually anyway.
• a little because the P85 didn't receive a similar update, even though it's "motor power" has been restated a few times up until it was removed entirely from sales (I think 470 was the last number?)
• the 85D actually makes it's originally advertised power output (376 HP "motor power") plus a significant amount more (interestingly enough, 376 kW or around 500 HP)
• the fact that an 85D ordered the same day I ordered my P85D has always performed equal to or greater than the advertised combined "motor power" spec debunks the defender's arguments that this is a motor nameplate rating and not what the car is expected to do (which is a stupid defense no matter how you look spin it)
• The 85D today costs $20,000 less than the P85D (think it was about the same when I ordered) yet actual horsepower output is only about 50 HP. That's $400 per HP to bump to the P85D, a ~23% price hike for a 50 real HP difference with all other options being equal? That's ridiculous.
• The 85D costs much less than the P85 that was still being sold initially upon the release of the dual motor vehicles yet produces significantly more horsepower. I'm not sure how many P85/P85+ were actually ordered in this window, but the number is not zero and those people have been royally screwed by Tesla on this (+$15k for -70HP... sounds like an awesome deal to me!)
• The 85D performance holds through a larger SoC range than the P85D, which appears to linearly drop off from 100%.
• Overall the 85D is actually a better car than the P85 and P85D, IMO (range, cost to power ratio, weight, etc), and had I known that at the time of purchase of my P85D I more than likely would have saved $20k. Literally at this point the only thing the 85D has over the P85D is 50 more horsepower.

Basically my feelings on the matter are a sum of lots of little things. I don't hold anything against Tesla for coming out with something better and selling it as something better. I do have some issue with basically every marketing technique used since October, nearly all of which appear have been wrong or deceptive in one way or another.


I'll leave this here for reference since I dont think it's been posted in this thread for a while.
View attachment 90606

- - - Updated - - -

Actually they do something similar. Clocks are completely dynamic now, based on the current thermal envelope... You can't actually achieve their max frequency on all cores at once.

That information is fully spec'd and available, however.

Can we please stop with the whole "this was just the motor's rating" nonsense? Multiple examples have debunked this. (P85, 85D, changes in "motor power" since the car was released, the fact that this is a ridiculous notion for a car in the first place as per many examples and analogies, etc etc etc)

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's because in the other cases they got more than they were promised.

If you mean "promised" = "motor power" that is not true:
The S60/S70 certainly did not get 380hp system power (actual is 240kW / 322hp).
The S60D/S70D also did not get 376hp (188*2) system power (actual is 329hp).
The S85 also did not get more than 380hp (your numbers say 375).

And just to be all inclusive, the P85D did not get more than 691hp (REST says 550 hp).

The only version that got more than "promised" is the S85D because pre-update they "promised" 188 F + 188 R = 376 hp. They later changed to that to "514 hp motor power" (257 hp front and rear), so it got less than "motor power" if you happened to purchase during that time.

Edit: link to reference to S60 REST numbers:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/20823-Peak-KW-on-S60-S85-and-P85
Other "motor power" numbers referenced here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...eement/page4?p=1076026&viewfull=1#post1076026

 

[wk057]

*snip* (more defense of "motor power") *snip*

*facepalm*

 

[stopcrazypp]

*facepalm*

Saying "motor power" is misleading (or indefensible), and saying that only the P85D was affected by such numbers are two completely different arguments.

Putting aside whether "motor power" is misleading or not (or even what it really means), do you agree with my point that if you took "motor power" as what was "promised", that the P85D was not the only model that did not meet promises?

In fact looking at the numbers, it appears only the S85D was the one that had actual system power numbers beat a previously promised "motor power" number. And that was because of an update changing the numbers (meaning system power went to 422hp which was higher than the 376 hp "motor power" previously advertised).

Just to connect back to the original comment this came from, this is in examining which users complained about "motor power" and which didn't.

 

[wk057]

do you agree with my point that if you took "motor power" as what was "promised", that the P85D was not the only model that did not meet promises?

Sure. If someone bought a car that didn't have a horsepower value on the web page that closely matches or is below the actual output of the car then they were cheated as well.

I think the P85D crowd, however, is going to be much more vocal on such an issue, obviously, given the fanfare of the 691 HP marketing.

 

[sorka]

If you mean "promised" = "motor power" that is not true:
The S60/S70 certainly did not get 380hp system power (actual is 240kW / 322hp).
The S60D/S70D also did not get 376hp (188*2) system power (actual is 329hp).
The S85 also did not get more than 380hp (your numbers say 375).

And just to be all inclusive, the P85D did not get more than 691hp (REST says 550 hp).

The only version that got more than "promised" is the S85D because pre-update they "promised" 188 F + 188 R = 376 hp. They later changed to that to "514 hp motor power" (257 hp front and rear), so it got less than "motor power" if you happened to purchase during that time.

Edit: link to reference to S60 REST numbers:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/20823-Peak-KW-on-S60-S85-and-P85
Other "motor power" numbers referenced here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...eement/page4?p=1076026&viewfull=1#post1076026

You're clearly confused or trying unsuccessfully to be a the master of obfuscation. I'm not sure which. Let's go through it real slow like.

S60 - For some period of time Tesla quoted 380 hp. If this was overstated, then S60 owners may have a legitimate beef. I haven't seen any S60 dynos. I haven't seen any REST API numbers either. When you show me a link to those that include SOC I'll reconsider the S60. But for now, it's not even in the picture. Nobody has had a beef with it.

70D - It's quoted at 329 hp. I'm not sure why you're trying to obfuscate this by adding up the power from both motors. People only care about the total system power which is quoted at 329 hp. I haven't seen any dynos or REST numbers for this yet either. I'll bet it's a bit more than 329 hp. Nobody has had a beef with this either and nobody has present any data one way or another.

S85 - These dyno 375 at the *WHEELS*. Why did I capitalize wheels? Because you didn't read this the first 3 times that we went round and round on this before when you mad exactly the same non sequitur counter argument. The design studio has quoted from 373 to 380 hp. 375 at the wheels with the higher 380 value that was used would be 2.4% drivetrain loss from the motor shaft to the wheels. Obviously the drivetrain loss is much more than that. The most efficient ICE drivetrains lose 10% in front wheel drive cars. Let's say it's an amazing 6%. That would still place power at the motor shaft at over 400hp. Result? More power than claimed.

P85 - Design studio has it at 416 hp but they regularly dyno 430 at the wheels. This means least 475 at the motor shaft. Result? Way more power than advertised.

85D - Design studio has it at 417-422 hp(minor design studio changes over time). REST has them at 376 KW or 497 hp before conversion losses. Losing 2 or 3% through the inverter still places motor shaft hp at at least 480. Result? WAY more power than advertised.

P85D - Design studio had it at 691 hp. REST has them at 415 KW under best possible case at 100% SOC. 557 at the battery. Assuming a 2 or 3% inverter loss puts motor shaft power at 540 - 545 hp. Result? Spectacularly less than advertised.

Please don't start adding up individual motor power again in some sort kung fu jedi mind trick attempt to obfuscate the facts. The only number people care about is the total power, not individual motor power. The P85D no longer has the total horsepower rating, just the individual motor ratings. It's the only one that doesn't list a a total horsepower rating.

- - - Updated - - -

Putting aside whether "motor power" is misleading or not (or even what it really means), do you agree with my point that if you took "motor power" as what was "promised", that the P85D was not the only model that did not meet promises?

Possibly with the S60. There's very little actual data on it so I'm skeptical but open to the possibility that this variant produces less power than advertised.

 

[wk057]

Few corrections:

70D- Not the lowest spec'd anymore. The S70 is 315.

"The P85D no longer has the individual motor power listed at all." --- I assume that's a typo and you mean is the only one remaining with individual motor powers listed.

Also, re: S60 - The 60 pack has 2 fewer modules and 10 fewer cells per series, but the amperage needed at this voltage to put out the same power as the S85 at higher states of charge is definitely conceivable (only 4.5C or so), especially considering the motor/driveunit is the same part. I'll also note that the quoted 0-60 time for the S70 is 5.5 seconds and for the S85 it's 5.4 seconds... so they have to be pretty close.

 

[sorka]

Few corrections:

70D- Not the lowest spec'd anymore. The S70 is 315.

"The P85D no longer has the individual motor power listed at all." --- I assume that's a typo and you mean is the only one remaining with individual motor powers listed.

Correct. Meant combined motor power. Didn't see the S70.

I'll correct my post.

For the S70 and S70D, there's not data one way or another until someone starts posting dynos, vbox dynos, or REST numbers.

 

[thegruf]

...and on it goes ...

how about this as a sum up?


The P85D largely meets its stated acceleration performance figures, though Tesla should have made clear, and still fail to do so, that this now includes a one foot rollout (as is commonly used in the US), however this is not applied to other Tesla models resulting in comparison being extremely misleading to potential owners. Furthermore marketing errors have been made in international markets with acceleration figures, confusing owners in territories outside the US who do not commonly use a one foot rollout in performance data.

Tesla originally seemingly had every intention of increasing the power output and consequently performance of the P85D via a software upgrade, however during testing it appears that the fuses were not reliable at this higher power output and therefore Tesla have been forced to update the fuses to the new 1500A spec ones. The problem this has created is that the new parts are $100's per item plus fitting so it simply is not possible (sic financially credible to investors) for Tesla to fit them foc, therefore Tesla wishing to retain the goodwill of existing owners have offered a discounted upgrade. The whole of this has been exacerbated by some clumsy marketing (even accounting for disclaimers) and weak judgement in the use and publication of performance figures, most especially when considering the now esoteric acceleration will inevitably invite detailed scrutiny.

But it's still a damn good car!

feel free to take apart as you wish

 

[wk057]

Quoting from another thread:

Skip to the last 20 seconds to see the reaction...not a great quality video but it's a start

Based on this video I'm going to go ahead and start patting myself on the back with my prediction that the P90D/Ludicrous still doesn't actually put out 691 HP. Granted this video appears to have been done at about 75% state of charge, but even a proportional increase based on the P85D numbers doesn't quite give us 691 at 100%.

The video shows the power meter close to but not touching the 480kW mark on the meter. So, I'll just round up to 480kW to give Tesla an edge on the calculations. So that'd mean Ludicrous mode adds about 65kW or 87 real horsepower to the P85D. That puts the power from the pack at around 644 HP. Still 46 shy of the originally advertised 691 HP.

The number I posted was off the top of my head with rounded math, but it's probably close to the truth. There is definitely voltage sag. You can't just multiply things out to get a kW number. Doesn't work like that in the real world, especially when it comes to batteries.

The HV wiring is only 2/0 gauge. at 1500A or even 80% of that there is going to be significant sag there, plus more importantly the internal resistance of the cells under load. The internal resistance of the cells cause a significant voltage drop under load.

I've found the voltage drop under load, in testing, to be a hair better than the Panasonic NCR18650B, which has an internal resistance of about 55 miliohms in testing. I haven't made a definitive measure of the Model S cell internal resistance, but we'll be conservative and optimistic at the same time and say 40 miliohms.

So, at 1500A that is paralleled among 74 cells, so about 20.27A per cell. 85kWh pack is 96 sets in series of 74 cells in parallel. Remember amperage is constant across cells in series and split among cells in parallel.

Ohms law says that at 40 miliohms at 20.27A I would see a voltage drop of about 0.8108V. That would drop a fully charged pack's voltage from 403.2V down to 325.36V. 325.36 * 1500A = ~488kW.

For comparison, let's work the 1300A number from Elon. 1300A would be 17.57A per cell. Voltage drop of 0.7028V per cell @ 40 miliohms IR, so 335.73V. 335.73 * 1300A = ~436.5kW. Pretty close to reality considering this is optimistic and *only* accounts for internal resistance losses and not wiring, inverter, etc losses, which are bound to be appreciable.

So, being optimistic, I'm going to stick with saying about 500kW is the ceiling @ 1500A.

I'll go a little further and work the 420kW number (that we see currently from the P85D at full charge) backwards using the 1300A number from Elon and extrapolate.

420kW (~563HP) @ 1300A = 323.08V = 3.37V per cell after voltage drops (~0.8346V drop). That would give us 47.5 miliohms of resistance, which seems like a very reasonable full system number.

Using 47.5 miliohms at the 1500A level we get this:
0.96283V drop @ cell level, so 0.96283 * 96 = 92.43168V drop at the pack level = 310.76832V at the motor = ~466.1kW = about 625HP.

Basically there seems to be no way to spin this to look good.

 

[darthy001]

Hehehehe and the plot thickens

at least they are now in the realm of regular automakers hp-claims with it being only a bit off