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

[Andyw2100]

Quoting from another thread:


View attachment 90858

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%.

So...one question, and then one possible explanation. (A grasping at straws explanation.)

The question is where did you get the shot of the power meter? I didn't see any shots of the dash during the launch in that video that you included in the post.

Correction: After watching it again, I realize there are shots of the power meter, presumably during full-out launches.

The grasping at straws possible explanation is that perhaps the hardware is in place, but Tesla hasn't enabled the full power output yet, and will do so later via software. Obviously I wouldn't be defending this position, but it's not as if Tesla hasn't done stuff like this before. Our early P85Ds, as most reading this thread will recall, were released completely lacking the torque sleep software that would eventually get them close to the efficiency expected, meaning they were very far from it when they were released, yet there wasn't so much as a whisper about this from Tesla for many weeks. So it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the full capabilities of the P90D were not yet software enabled.

 

[darthy001]

So...one question, and then one possible explanation. (A grasping at straws explanation.)

The question is where did you get the shot of the power meter? I didn't see any shots of the dash during the launch in that video that you included in the post.

The grasping at straws possible explanation is that perhaps the hardware is in place, but Tesla hasn't enabled the full power output yet, and will do so later via software. Obviously I wouldn't be defending this position, but it's not as if Tesla hasn't done stuff like this before. Our early P85Ds, as most reading this thread will recall, were released completely lacking the torque sleep software that would eventually get them close to the efficiency expected, meaning they were very far from it when they were released, yet there wasn't so much as a whisper about this from Tesla for many weeks. So it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the full capabilities of the P90D were not yet software enabled.

So another OTA to enable the true performance at high speed? Oh no you didnt

Maybe P90DL-owners will need to purchase a "discounted" upgrade to a Roadster 4.0 to get the promised performance in a few years?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Quoting from another thread:

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.

Just a quick response to this (still have to work on a response to sorka's post, pulling some numbers and links for that). This is exactly what I suspected if it turns out to be true. Tesla never had a goal of making 691hp system power. That combined number, as it was used in other models also, is simply a sum of the two "motor powers" as simple math shows.

"My perspective is somewhere between #3 and #4. I don't think Tesla planned to accomplish 691 system power (I feel it really was just "motor power"), but they did plan for something higher than the ~550hp right now and stumbled upon Ludicrous in coming up with a solution."
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...91HP/page113?p=1112945&viewfull=1#post1112945

 

[Torben_E]

...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

The Guf..... this is a brilliant summary. I could not had said it any better.

IMO we dont really have to discuss it anylonger...

I just want an official response from Tesla Motors on our two letters with an answer what they are going to do about it and then enjoy my car (conditionally) untill the day where the problem has been solved and implemented giving me the 700 hk and 0-100 km/h in 3,3 s.

Thereafter I will enjoy my car (unconditionally) and say Tesla Motors is a great company.

Torben_E

 

[stopcrazypp]

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.

For the record, any motor power addition was done by Tesla (which they did for every model, including the P85D), not by me. I only show the addition for clarity. In my response, I will not show the individual number, and use whatever combined number Tesla put.

Anyways, I'm going to format my response by having links to "motor power" and link to REST power afterwards. I'm going abbreviate "hp motor power" with hpmp.

S60: 380 hpmp (243kW /326hp REST)
Model S | Tesla Motors
Peak KW on S60, S85, and P85

S70: 382 hpmp (my guess ~240-250kW / 322-335hp REST)
Model S | Tesla Motors
Supercharging the 70D - Page 5

S60D: 376 hpmp (my guess ~240-250kW / 322-335hp REST)
S70D: 514 hpmp (my guess ~240-250kW / 322-335hp REST)
Green Car Congress: Tesla adds 2-motor all-wheel drive and advanced driver assistance “Autopilotâ€￾ to Model S
P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 39

I don't have REST numbers for 70kWh battery, but looking at the supercharger thread, it's clear the battery voltage is the same as 60kWh as well as charge power (meaning lower than 85kWh). So I have no reason to believe 70kWh will match or exceed the given motor power ratings.
Supercharging the 70D - Page 5

S85: 380/382 hpmp (320kW /429hp REST)
Model S | Tesla Motors
Model S | Tesla Motors
Peak KW on S60, S85, and P85

S85D (pre 6.2 update): 376 hpmp (323kW / 433 hp REST)
S85D (post 6.2 update): 514 hpmp (371kW / 498 hp REST)
Model S | Tesla Motors
P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 39
Upgraded 85D? - Page 2
Upgraded 85D? - Page 6

P85: 470 hpmp (360kW /483hp REST)
Puzzling New Power Numbers For Tesla Model S: What's the Deal?
Peak KW on S60, S85, and P85

P85D: 691 hpmp (415kW / 557hp REST)
Model S | Tesla Motors
P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 81

When looking purely at REST numbers, the ones that don't exceed combined motor power number are: S60, S70, S60D/S70D, S85D (post 6.2 update), and P85D.
The ones where REST does exceed combined motor power number are: S85, S85D (pre 6.2 update) and P85.

I did not analyze the P85 in my previous post, and I concede I was wrong about S85 (I used whp to compare). However, there are still plenty of models that share the symptom as P85D, where the REST number is lower than the advertised "motor power number".

Of course, my point was those people didn't complain, while the P85D owners were the loudest to complain. That's likely why Tesla is hesitant to post a system power number for P85D (and if it turns out true Ludicrous also doesn't make 691 hp system power, they may never do so).

 

[joer00]

The Guf..... this is a brilliant summary. I could not had said it any better.

IMO we dont really have to discuss it anylonger...

I just want an official response from Tesla Motors on our two letters with an answer what they are going to do about it and then enjoy my car (conditionally) untill the day where the problem has been solved and implemented giving me the 700 hk and 0-100 km/h in 3,3 s.

Thereafter I will enjoy my car (unconditionally) and say Tesla Motors is a great company.

Torben_E

AMEN !

However giving the reaction you and other got from Tesla on that issue (meaning NO reaction), I again highly doubt anything will happen and I think only 2 things will get it moving:

1.) At least one owner filing a lawsuit
2.) The frustrated P85D owners JOIN and post an open letter in a major newspaper similar to Tesla Owners' Full-Page Newspaper Ad Gets Elon Musk's Attention

I am still consider myself a "fanboy" and love my car as most of us do, but Tesla was able to just destroy all hardly build trust in no time with that P85D BS. I thought Tesla is DIFFERENT than all the other companies, and now they are playing the same BS just to make some extra $ ! And even more amazing, many people find this ok, with arguments like "other manufacturers lie about specs of their cars and playing games with their customers so it is ok if Tesla does the same". Fine if you think like that, I try to live by higher moral standards and thought Tesla does the same.

The RIGHT solution for Tesla is simple going back to the truth. The P85D has 5xx HP and 6xx with ludicrous upgrade. The ZERO to 60 time is 3.4 seconds in standard mode and 3.1 seconds with Ludicrous upgrade.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

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.

Great! Now something else to worry about! lol

 

[joer00]

....Of course, my point was those people didn't complain, while the P85D owners were the loudest to complain.....

The difference between actual HP and expected HP (691) is about the same as the difference between a S60 and a P85 !!

I am sure if in the past P85 owners got the S60 HP, they would have complained 10 times louder.

To make it more clear, P85D owners got promised the HP of a Lamborghini Aventator and got an Audi RS7 (if at all....)

 

[stopcrazypp]

The difference between actual HP and expected HP (691) is about the same as the difference between a S60 and a P85 !!

I am sure if in the past P85 owners got the S60 HP, they would have complained 10 times louder.

To make it more clear, P85D owners got promised the HP of a Lamborghini Aventator and got an Audi RS7 (if at all....)

I am not trying to make any comments on justification of the complaint. Just making an observation that given the P85D owners brought up the issue of the number, with Tesla removing the number in response to that, they will have to be very careful about making the decision to post another number for the P85D. They don't have the same worry for the other Model S given there were no complaints there, even though there is evidence they were also affected by the "motor power" numbers.

Basically to post a lower number for the P85D is not a decision Tesla can lightly make.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Basically to post a lower number for the P85D is not a decision Tesla can lightly make.

Certainly not without the rest of the world thinking Tesla lied to its customers.

 

[dsm363]

Certainly not without the rest of the world thinking Tesla lied to its customers.

Lied implies intent. I don't know if we know Tesla set out to deceive people intentionally.

 

[ProSkeptic]

Lied implies intent. I don't know if we know Tesla set out to deceive people intentionally.

Yet if Ford overstated the power output of the Mustang by 10%+, Mark Fields would have a noose around his neck.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yet if Ford overstated the power output of the Mustang by 10%+, Mark Fields would have a noose around his neck.

Did Tesla really do that though? And it has been brought up multiple times that there is an SAE power rating for ICE that most automakers adhere to and they explicitly say so. For example all of Ford's power ratings say "SAE net":
http://www.ford.com/cars/mustang/specifications/engine/

We have no such thing in the EV world yet (SAE is still working on it).

And in looking this up, I did find an article about gross vs net horsepower. It seems "hp motor power" is akin to gross horsepower, while the hp number Tesla posts with no modifiers is closer to net horsepower. The difference between these two range from 20-30% (similar to discrepancy with P85D "motor power").
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

We do not know yet the standard Tesla used to arrive at their motor power numbers. From another thread though, it seems the EU conformance certificate does give some hints (appears to be peak number of individual motors).

 

[ProSkeptic]

We have no such thing in the EV world yet (SAE is still working on it).

Very true - but anybody who knows what SAE net power numbers mean would assume that an EV manufacturer would come up with some measure that was at least remotely comparable.

What Tesla did is roughly equivalent to an ICE manufacturer saying that the engine itself could produce X horsepower if it had higher-capacity fuel injectors, so we'll just rate the engine as though it could actually pack in enough fuel and air to get the power number we want.

 

[WarpedOne]

Yet if Ford overstated the power output of the Mustang by 10%+, Mark Fields would have a noose around his neck.

Where did tesla stated P85D power output?

If one complains, it is hygienic if he complains about something that is true.

 

[ProSkeptic]

And in looking this up, I did find an article about gross vs net horsepower. It seems "hp motor power" is akin to gross horsepower, while the hp number Tesla posts with no modifiers is closer to net horsepower.

Eh... yes and no. Gross horsepower was from the bad old days where a manufacturer was free to supply ignition power, cooling, lubrication, and whatever else an engine needs from unmetered, external supplies. I haven't read the SAE specs in a few years, so don't think I'm holding this up as Gospel... The point is that publishing gross power numbers may have been shady, but it was the industry standard for a long time. I maintain that what Tesla did was to ignore the weak link in the system.

- - - Updated - - -

Where did tesla stated P85D power output?

If one complains, it is hygienic if he complains about something that is true.

Okay then...

My engine produces 460 hp at a bmep of 1,345 kPa, but the block, heads, pistons, connecting rods, and crankshaft are all good in bench testing to a bmep of 2,560 kPa, so I'm going to rate the engine at 875 hp. So what if I can't pack enough fuel and air into it to get that much power?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I looked up the ECE R85 that the EU certificate uses.
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R085r1e.pdf

On page 41 it shows Annex 6 which describes how the peak and 30 minute net power numbers are arrived at. Basically, like ICE net power, the accessories necessary for the operation of the car are connected (for an EV though it won't change the numbers drastically). However, the power to the drivetrain is provided by a DC source with a "Voltage drop during test less than 5%". Also, on the DC test voltage: "The supply voltage of the test shall be given by the vehicle manufacturer". That means the test does not require having a stock battery connected to the drivetrain under test and Tesla is free to specify the test voltage.

From the other calculations done based on 1300A and 415kW vs 515kW, people estimate a voltage sag of ~20% (320V vs 400V) to the battery responsible for the lower numbers (even when measured at 100% SOC). This test will not account for voltage sag given it's done with a power supply and not an actual battery (in fact it even says you aren't allowed to use a supply that will sag more than 5%). So it seems Tesla is fully compliant with the law in the EU at least, just that consumers expected something different in the way the motors are tested.

 

[ProSkeptic]

I looked up the ECE R85 that the EU certificate uses.

Thank you for that... though I can't see where the result of that test is at all applicable to a customer. Ideally, sure - we could have a standard where an EV manufacturer publishes a number that an informed consumer understands to be a motor rating, but that must be taken alongside the battery's power delivery capabilities and characteristics to produce a meaningful performance criterion.

What we have, though, is a public that is used to seeing published power ratings without the necessity for caveats and corrections. Carmakers, very rightly so, aren't allowed to publish the capacity of the most robust component of the drivetrain while ignoring the limiting factors.

 

[3mp_kwh]

Okay then...


My engine produces 460 hp at a bmep of 1,345 kPa, but the block, heads, pistons, connecting rods, and crankshaft are all good in bench testing to a bmep of 2,560 kPa, so I'm going to rate the engine at 875 hp. So what if I can't pack enough fuel and air into it to get that much power?

+1 Find the strongest link in the chain, have your customers think this is the chain's capacity. Brilliant.

The P85D is still a fat second faster than the 85D, to 60, and a single-geared car that, IMO, no one should have expected would crush 50-100mph. Test drives?

 

[brianman]

The grasping at straws possible explanation is that perhaps the hardware is in place, but Tesla hasn't enabled the full power output yet, and will do so later via software. Obviously I wouldn't be defending this position, but it's not as if Tesla hasn't done stuff like this before. Our early P85Ds, as most reading this thread will recall, were released completely lacking the torque sleep software that would eventually get them close to the efficiency expected, meaning they were very far from it when they were released, yet there wasn't so much as a whisper about this from Tesla for many weeks. So it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the full capabilities of the P90D were not yet software enabled.

rotflol (not at you, but at the absurdity of the situation Tesla has put itself into)

- - - Updated - - -

Lied implies intent. I don't know if we know Tesla set out to deceive people intentionally.

"misrepresented"?