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

[Andyw2100]

Except, if someone bought based upon that representation, doesn't this potentially become a problem for Tesla? I'm not suggesting anything should happen, per se, but it seems clear from Tesla's above footnote that it has not delivered on a promise it made to some owners who bought on good faith that Tesla will deliver on that promise. Nobody received any high speed improvement via software. Tesla did improve acceleration from 3.2 to 3.1 seconds, but that is an improvement to acceleration not "performance at high speed." It's plainly obvious that Tesla was referring to what later became the Ludicrous upgrade.

After connecting all of these dots, my position on this issue has evolved and I do think Tesla should make this right somehow.

I think I said it somewhere else too, but I, for one, appreciate your being open-minded enough to change your position. Thank you.

As I see it there are really two different groups here with respect to the promise you highlighted in red. The first P85D buyers--those of us who purchased in October--did so without seeing that on the website, so we're not "due" anything based on that promise. The group that most definitely would be due something based on that promise would be anyone who ordered after that note appeared on the website, and before it was removed.

Now as for the group that ordered before that note was on the website, there are still some very active discussions taking place with respect to the original promise of 691 HP. Depending on how one feels about that, and on whether or not one believes the Ludicrous Mode update is, in fact, what was highlighted in red, (but now requires hardware, so couldn't be offered for free) one may or may not believe that those who placed the earliest orders for the P85Ds should also be entitled to something. Many would argue it is less clear cut for that group.

I don't see, though, how any reasonable person could argue against some sort of compensation for the group that ordered while the note in red was on the website. It's only right.

 

[legislator]

I do not buy the claim that the P85D makes no extra power over the P85 given what we see on the REST numbers.

The P85D has 2x drivetrain loss through AWD. Hence it has to use more batterypower to generate the same power at the wheels.

 

[sorka]

The P85D has 2x drivetrain loss through AWD. Hence it has to use more batterypower to generate the same power at the wheels.

The same power as what? An ICE??? Actually it's just the opposite. The P85D is far more efficient than any regular AWD ICE drivetrain. Let's follow it:

Tesla D = (Motor Shaft -> Reduction Gear -> Open Diff -> 2 half shafts -> Wheels) x 2
ICE AWD = Motor shaft -> Flywheel -> Torque Converter -> Transmission( huge loss here) -> Transfer Case (huge loss here) -> (Drive shaft -> Diff -> 2 half shafts) x 2

Typical ICE AWD loss = 20 to 25% by the time it gets to the wheels.
Tesla P85D loss = 9 to 10% by the time it gets to the wheels *including* the loss between the battery and the motor inputs.

Now if you meant compared to the rear wheel drive only Tesla, then I agree with that statement

 

[stopcrazypp]

The P85D has 2x drivetrain loss through AWD. Hence it has to use more batterypower to generate the same power at the wheels.

I did the math up thread in response to someone else, not sure why you get that idea.
Let's say the front motor makes X hp, rear motor makes Y hp. Let's say front and rear motor loses 10% each. It may be tempting to say front 10% + rear 10% = 20% overall loss, but that is not true.

The correct math is (10% * X + 10% * Y) / (X + Y) = 10% (X+Y) / (X+Y) = 10% loss overall. So as a percentage, the overall loss of a AWD should be the same as with RWD. Unlike an ICE car's AWD system, there is no additional gearing to contribute to extra loss.

 

[legislator]

I did the math up thread in response to someone else, not sure why you get that idea.
Let's say the front motor makes X hp, rear motor makes Y hp. Let's say front and rear motor loses 10% each. It may be tempting to say front 10% + rear 10% = 20% overall loss, but that is not true.

The correct math is (10% * X + 10% * Y) / (X + Y) = 10% (X+Y) / (X+Y) = 10% loss overall. So as a percentage, the overall loss of a AWD should be the same as with RWD. Unlike an ICE car's AWD system, there is no additional gearing to contribute to extra loss.

Heh, you can't math your way out of it. If you have two sets of mechanical drivetrains it would need twice the power to make it spin. Think about how this works if you split the car in half. On top of that you have the added weight of the D through the frontmotor compared to only RWD.

 

[rns-e]

Heh, you can't math your way out of it. If you have two sets of mechanical drivetrains it would need twice the power to make it spin. Think about how this works if you split the car in half. On top of that you have the added weight of the D through the frontmotor compared to only RWD.

You may do the math this way: So if you have 100 units of energy that you pass through two channels that each charges you 10% to pass through 50 units of energy, they will charge you 5 units each which would be 10 units in total equal to 10% of the 100 units

You are correct about the added weight

 

[legislator]

But you are both assuming there is no base cost of making the car move from standstill, which I believe is wrong. You can probably calculate a percentwise cost of drivetrain loss as energylevel through it rises, but there is still some initial momentum needed (drivetrain resistance) to make it move at all, which has to be accounted for.

 

[rns-e]

But you are both assuming there is no base cost of making the car move from standstill, which I believe is wrong. You can probably calculate a percentwise cost of drivetrain loss as energylevel through it rises, but there is still some initial momentum needed (drivetrain resistance) to make it move at all, which has to be accounted for.

Sure - but what you are talking about here is weather the loss procentage should be 8% or 10% or another number. That initial momentum will still be the same for each motor/drivetrain so the math still apply, we just need to identify the loss procentage

 

[peteyswift]

I think I said it somewhere else too, but I, for one, appreciate your being open-minded enough to change your position. Thank you.

As I see it there are really two different groups here with respect to the promise you highlighted in red. The first P85D buyers--those of us who purchased in October--did so without seeing that on the website, so we're not "due" anything based on that promise. The group that most definitely would be due something based on that promise would be anyone who ordered after that note appeared on the website, and before it was removed.

Now as for the group that ordered before that note was on the website, there are still some very active discussions taking place with respect to the original promise of 691 HP. Depending on how one feels about that, and on whether or not one believes the Ludicrous Mode update is, in fact, what was highlighted in red, (but now requires hardware, so couldn't be offered for free) one may or may not believe that those who placed the earliest orders for the P85Ds should also be entitled to something. Many would argue it is less clear cut for that group.

I don't see, though, how any reasonable person could argue against some sort of compensation for the group that ordered while the note in red was on the website. It's only right.

I agree with all of this. It also makes me think that for any of these groups, at a minimum, the $5000 L upgrade plus labor is way too much. I would ask that Tesla do this pretty much at cost. Has anyone actually written them a formal letter? Would have been nice if Jerome was still around...

Anyway I'm in neither group. Got a P85D in June and (with this thread) probably should have known to at least wait or acquire an 85D with respect to performance/$.

 

[stopcrazypp]

But you are both assuming there is no base cost of making the car move from standstill, which I believe is wrong. You can probably calculate a percentwise cost of drivetrain loss as energylevel through it rises, but there is still some initial momentum needed (drivetrain resistance) to make it move at all, which has to be accounted for.

rns-e already addressed your other comment. My comment is similar. What you are talking about is a constant. As a constant, it may very well be true that it is twice as much for the AWD.

We are concerned about percentages however in this case. As a percentage, that constant gets cancelled out, because you have twice the available power (note that it will only be twice for two motors of same power, like the S85D; not true of the P85D). That was my main point.

Also about the added weight, that does not really reduce the amount of power to the wheels. It just reduces the amount of acceleration you get for the same power and increases rolling resistance between the wheels and the road.

 

[AWDtsla]

If I did the math right, the 1500A Elon referred to will get to the motor/inverter at the ~500-525kW level when the pack is full (ridiculous voltage drop at this amperage........) which is close to the original 691 HP number, but not quite the new 762 HP number. I'm starting to think they just make these numbers up.

Clearly they are, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. They've done some calculation to get a normalized number that's roughly equivalent to an ICE vehicle, and that will continue to be the case until there are standards for measuring electric car HP. SAE standards for ICE cars have been revised several times, where old cars measured under the new standard got a new and different number, without anything having actually changed. Of course, that's why it's called SAE *correction*.

I can't wait until people have Ludicrous mode and the whining ensues about how those numbers aren't "accurate" anyway, despite having mind-blowing 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers. I mean maybe it's time to set the car and fire and ask daddy for a new ferrari at that point *chortle*.

 

[sorka]

But you are both assuming there is no base cost of making the car move from standstill, which I believe is wrong. You can probably calculate a percentwise cost of drivetrain loss as energylevel through it rises, but there is still some initial momentum needed (drivetrain resistance) to make it move at all, which has to be accounted for.

The co-efficient of friction between static and kenetic are almost certainly too small to even calculate.

Percentage loss is likely to increase slightly (aside from air resistance to the none linear friction of viscosity in both the reduction gear and open diff.

 

[sandpiper]

Really? Name *ONE* ICE car that produces 700 hp that is the same or slower than a P85D from a 50 MPH roll.

Did you read my post? I said 0-60, starting torque and holy $hit factor. I don't recall saying anything about 50MPH+. It fits on all of those factors. In any case, this is not a worthwhile debate. Some folks here just want to complain and there's nothing I'm going to do about that.

I'm happy, feel that I got what I paid for. And I am not the slightest bit concerned if others are not excepting perhaps to reiterate my point that this is the type of nonsense that discourages engineers and companies from trying to reach beyond when there's technical risk involved.

 

[sorka]

Did you read my post? I said 0-60, starting torque and holy $hit factor. I don't recall saying anything about 50MPH+. It fits on all of those factors. In any case, this is not a worthwhile debate. Some folks here just want to complain and there's nothing I'm going to do about that.

I'm happy, feel that I got what I paid for. And I am not the slightest bit concerned if others are not excepting perhaps to reiterate my point that this is the type of nonsense that discourages engineers and companies from trying to reach beyond when there's technical risk involved.

Nope. Just missed it. Agree on 0-60 performance.

 

[rns-e]

I'm happy, feel that I got what I paid for. And I am not the slightest bit concerned if others are not excepting perhaps to reiterate my point that this is the type of nonsense that discourages engineers and companies from trying to reach beyond when there's technical risk involved.

That is not fair, if any is to blame for discouraging the engineers trying to reach beyond then it must be the marketing people overselling what the engineers come up with. That you feel you got what you paid does not change the fact that the car does not deliver on claimed power and acceleration, I just feel sorry for you as you could have had the same feeling for $20.000 less in a 85D ...

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I'm happy, feel that I got what I paid for. And I am not the slightest bit concerned if others are not excepting perhaps to reiterate my point that this is the type of nonsense that discourages engineers and companies from trying to reach beyond when there's technical risk involved.

Maybe Tesla Sales & Marketing shouldn't write checks that Engineering can't cash.

 

[Torben_E]

1-foot rollout...

Do you all remember the debate a couple of pages earlier and people talking about the new industry norms and the original McLaren F1 (very very likely) also did 3.2s 0-60 mph with 1-foot roolout...

Well I had never heard about 1 foot roll out before 3 weeks ago and I would like to suggest that many many Europeans havent got a clue about what it is either. Also Tesla did not educate me that the 3.2 s and later 3.1 was with 1-foot rollout.

Anyway it all does not matter because guess what ... I simply wanted to know and asked McLaren directly...:

They answered me today....

I am not saying I could ever do it in a McLaren F1 (i am not skilled enough)... I am simply saying EM was the one that set the F1 as the benchmark and that is without the rollout nonsense....

Interestingly Tesla later even improved it with 0,1 s to 3.1s.


So i dont anylonger feel that I have been sleeping under a stone or should had researched better before placing the order for my P85D.

I did the research now and found out that 3.2 and 3.1 is simply from Zero to 60 mph.

I hope that help clarify and put facts into the debate about performance.

Cheers

Torben_E

 

[mkspeedr]

Awesome response and the greatest car of all time. Thanks for posting it! Argument or not - I am so happy my commuter is almost as fast as the greatest car of all time - IMO.

 

[rns-e]

1 foot roll out...

I do the research now and found out that 3.2 and 3.1 is simply from Zero to 60 mph.

I hope that help clarify and put facts into the debate about performance.

Cheers

Torben_E

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! 1 foot roll out standard my bare ...

 

[Andyw2100]

1 foot roll out...

Do you all remember the debate a couple of pages earlier and people talking about the new industry norms and the original McLaren F1 (very very likely) also did 3.2s 0-60 mph with 1 fot rool out...

Well I had never heard about 1 foot roll out before 3 weeks ago and I would like to suggest that many many Europeans havent got a clue about what it is either. Also Tesla did not educate me that the 3.2 s and later 3.1 was with 1 foot roll out.

Anyway it all does not matter because guess what ... I simply wanted to know and asked McLaren diectly...:

They answered me today....

I am not saying I could ever do it in a McLaren F1 (i am not skilled enough)... I am simply saying EM was the one that set the F1 as the benchmark and that is without the roll out nonsense....

Interestingly Tesla later even improved it with 0,1 s to 3.1s.


So i dont anylonger feel that I have been sleeping under a stone or should had researched better before placing the order for my P85D.

I do the research now and found out that 3.2 and 3.1 is simply from Zero to 60 mph.

I hope that help clarify and put facts into the debate about performance.

First of all, thanks for getting that clarification from McLaren. I had tried to research this some time ago, but had not thought to simply write to McLaren.

While I am on your side in this, I have gone back and watched the portion of the D launch video where Musk talks about the McLaren F1 being the target. (It starts at about 4:52.) He says that the McLaren F1 was the target, but he never actually says that the P85D matches the McLaren F1, or that they achieved their target. He just goes on to give the 3.2 second 0-60 time. He never states a McLaren F1 0-60 time for comparison.

So while I think that whole bit is somewhat misleading, and any average person watching would definitely get the impression that the P85D had matched the McLaren F1's 0-60 time, Musk didn't actually say that. He didn't say it at the D launch, anyway.

Tesla Unveils Dual Motor and Autopilot - YouTube