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

[Andyw2100]

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?

It's hard to take a test drive when the car isn't produced yet.

Even if the car had been produced, it would be hard to test 50-100 MPH on a test drive, and in a car limited to 80 MPH.

And for some of us we may not have the "butt-dyno", or whatever the popular term here is, to be able to tell the difference between 550 and 650 and 691 HP. (I mention 650 because of drive-train loss.)

Some of us just trusted Tesla to deliver what we thought we were paying for. Are you really suggesting we shouldn't have done that, and that Tesla was not worthy of our trust?

 

[sorka]

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%.

We really need a REST log. The visual meter is so compressed at that level that I wouldn't trust it for a second.

- - - Updated - - -

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....)

....with 11% more weight than the the RS7.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Agree with this. I don't think they ever intended to pull a fast one on us....(so to speak). What's more concerning is the way they're handling it now.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

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

I'm not saying they did that, I'm just saying that changing to a lower number might give that impression. Which is why I'm not in favor of them changing any numbers.

 

[Andyw2100]

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

"misrepresented"?

I'm perfectly willing to believe it was an unintentional misrepresentation.

But that doesn't get Tesla off the hook. There is now a very simple way for them to correct (or mostly correct) that misrepresentation. It's just that they're planning on charging us $5000 plus installation costs, (which apparently are going to bring the cost to close to $7000) for the privilege of having their misrepresentation corrected. My argument is that Tesla should be footing the bill for this.

 

[PatD]

I love my P85D. Fastest car I've ever driven. Off the line is incredible. Passing is, meh.

Here's how I see it. We all believe Tesla has read these threads, as we all believe Tesla removed the 691 HP number from their website. If they wanted to goodwill this for us, great - I don't think anyone would complain. The fact is - Tesla most likely knows about the issue. If all of the information people have written on here was wrong, I believe someone from Tesla would have simply come out by now and said, "This is how we calculated the 691 number, etc etc." and this would all be a moot point.

I haven't seen that happen yet. That leads me to believe someone screwed up somewhere and I have to agree with all the folks wanting it corrected in some way.

 

[sorka]

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.

Completely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

+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?

We can expect that the P85D should have accelerated from 70-90 like a car that has 1 hp for every 7 lbs rather than the 1 hp for every 9 lbs that it actually has. This is why even an RS7 will kill a P85D from 70-90 even though it's power to weight ratio as speced is not as good as the P85D's at 1 hp for every 8 lbs.

I test drove a P85D twice. Two different P85Ds both speed limited to 80 MPH. When punching it from 60, I noticed immediately that it was not as fast as it should have been for a car that has 1 hp for every 7 lbs. I ask the sales person, Jonathan about this. He said that since the Model S is speed limited to 80 MPH that power is limited starting before 80 MPH is reached and that is what I was feeling during the drive. I asked if I could test drive one that was not speed limited and was told there were no sales P85Ds that weren't limited to 80 MPH. Since I was frequently hitting this limiter and it was a soft touch rather than a sudden pulling back of power, I was perfectly willing to accept this explanation. Given that Tesla was advertising 691 hp, I didn't even question the explanation.

Right before my car was ready, I became aware of this thread but was still very skeptical. The real confirmation came on the drive home from picking up the PD where I experienced exactly the same limit on acceleration after 60 MPH I'd experienced on the test drives but did not have the soft power pullback as I approached 80 MPH. Had I know for sure what I know now I would have passed and let them keep the $2500 deposit.

 

[dsm363]

P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

How many gas cars have two engines in them where the hp is combined for a final number? Should Tesla have added them together like they did? No but he while 1 hp for 7lbs issue only comes into play if we know both motors output max hp over the 0-155mph range of speed. Most people who owned a Model S prior to this car should have realized the motors die down after a certain speed. What Tesla posted was misleading no doubt. I'm just not sure if Tesla will offer you the compensation you are looking for and restore your faith in humanity.

 

[sorka]

How many gas cars have two engines in them where the hp is combined for a final number? Should Tesla have added them together like they did? No but he while 1 hp for 7lbs issue only comes into play if we know both motors output max hp over the 0-155mph range of speed. Most people who owned a Model S prior to this car should have realized the motors die down after a certain speed. What Tesla posted was misleading no doubt. I'm just not sure if Tesla will offer you the compensation you are looking for and restore your faith in humanity.

Maybe, but the speeds we're talking about are still well within the P85Ds motors efficiency range. At least up to 90 MPH, the REST numbers are mostly flat with minor tapering and power delivery to the wheels is mostly flat with only slightly more tapering easily attributed to air resistance at that point.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Completely irrelevant.

I would think it would be fairly relevant to examine how they might have gotten their "motor power" numbers, since this is essentially the main issue.

In the hypothetical lawsuit case, even if Tesla doesn't voluntarily provide it, I'm sure the judge will subpoena Tesla to show how they got those numbers. And assuming we are operating under the assumption that Tesla was not completely pulling those numbers out of nowhere (back to my point about #1-4 assumptions about what actually happened with the P85D), that means there must some logical way to arrive at those numbers. And ECE R85 seems extremely relevant to the letter being written by the Denmark group in complaint about the numbers.

 

[thegruf]

If the fuses are fixed in Ludicrous, and we are led to believe the motors are capable of more, then where is the limitation now?

 

[sorka]

Quoting from another thread:


View attachment 90858

I watched it very closely and have come to several conclusions. First, notice how the meter starts to decline at 64 MPH when the throttle is let up.

The P85D hits maximum power at 36 MPH. Elon already stated that 0-30 time isn't improved so at 36 MPH in a P90DL the power won't be any more at 36 MPH than it is in the P85D. The power will build and peak at some higher MPH. Given that they let off the throttle shortly after 60 MPH, it's unlikely that they would have hit the peak by then. So until someone posts a better video with WOT up to 80 MPH or faster or a REST log of WOT up to 80+ MPH, I don't think we have any evidence in this video that it won't make the power needed to reach a 10.9 1/4 mile.

That said, it seems likely that the power should have reached maximum by 60 MPH, but we don't know this for sure and we don't know that this was really a WOT run. We don't even know that it wasn't on sport mode vs L mode. Yes the video shows them messing with the setting but that doesn't mean anything.

I guess what I really mean is the video is interesting but not meaningful.

 

[AWDtsla]

First Tesla Model S P90DL!!! (Ludicrous Mode) - YouTube

Ludicrous mode still reads a hair under 480kW ~= 643HP. I'm waiting to see how this goes bad. A 5000lb car that runs quarters in the 10's.

 

[sorka]

I would think it would be fairly relevant to examine how they might have gotten their "motor power" numbers, since this is essentially the main issue.

In the hypothetical lawsuit case, even if Tesla doesn't voluntarily provide it, I'm sure the judge will subpoena Tesla to show how they got those numbers. And assuming we are operating under the assumption that Tesla was not completely pulling those numbers out of nowhere (back to my point about #1-4 assumptions about what actually happened with the P85D), that means there must some logical way to arrive at those numbers. And ECE R85 seems extremely relevant to the letter being written by the Denmark group in complaint about the numbers.

You have no idea how they got their motor power numbers and they haven't publicly defined motor power to mean anything other than horsepower from a motor.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If the fuses are fixed in Ludicrous, and we are led to believe the motors are capable of more, then where is the limitation now?

I'm assuming you mean Ludicrous = 691 hp from battery. And the motors are now rated 259 hp front and 503 hp rear.
There are two ways I see to interpret this.
1) 691 hp is the limit at battery. The motor controllers can output a peak of 259 hp at the front and 503 hp at the rear, but not at the same time because of battery limitations.
2) 691 hp is the limit of system with voltage sag taken into account at the new 1500A limit. 762 hp would be the new limit without sag taken into account (as ECE R85 would suggest).

I should note given we don't know the any of the numbers for Ludicrous yet, this is completely blind speculation. It'll be much easier to see when we have the REST numbers (ideally at 100% SOC) to compare.

 

[sorka]

First Tesla Model S P90DL!!! (Ludicrous Mode) - YouTube

Ludicrous mode still reads a hair under 480kW ~= 643HP. I'm waiting to see how this goes bad. A 5000lb car that runs quarters in the 10's.

Yea, if t really caps out at 480, there's no way it's doing a 1/4 mile in 10.9

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Yea, if t really caps out at 480, there's no way it's doing a 1/4 mile in 10.9

And if it does, will you eat your words?

 

[AWDtsla]

Yea, if t really caps out at 480, there's no way it's doing a 1/4 mile in 10.9

If I guess it traps around 120, my napkin calculations show 480kW is probably plenty. Got about 0.89 kWh in kinetic energy alone, plus some drag number, but 480kW for 10.9 seconds is 1.45 kWh, and I'd guesstimate most of a drag race is kinetic energy, not drag.

 

[legislator]

Completely irrelevant.
We can expect that the P85D should have accelerated from 70-90 like a car that has 1 hp for every 7 lbs rather than the 1 hp for every 9 lbs that it actually has. This is why even an RS7 will kill a P85D from 70-90 even though it's power to weight ratio as speced is not as good as the P85D's at 1 hp for every 8 lbs.

Wrong. Apples and oranges.

You are ignoring the fact that the TMS has no gears. Even if it had 691hp the torque fades of well before even 50mph. The RS7 has gears which enables it to deliver optimum power at 70-90mph, something the TMS never will.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You have no idea how they got their motor power numbers and they haven't publicly defined motor power to mean anything other than horsepower from a motor.

I don't "know" for sure, but I can try to find a logical way to given the data to find a method sufficiently close. It's just like how we don't know for sure the specification of the cells the Tesla uses, but by examining the known data, we got pretty close (7104 cells, 16 modules with 6 series groups each, 3200-3400mAh were all derived well before the first Model S pack was actually opened up by someone to examine it, and to this day we don't have anything official from Tesla, but we use those numbers everywhere in this forum).

 

[JER]

Yea, if t really caps out at 480, there's no way it's doing a 1/4 mile in 10.9

I get about 11.1s 1/4mi (no roll-out) assuming stock 4936lb mass plus 150lb driver, or about 11.2s with mass of pano roof added. That's with g at a flat 1.05 in the traction limited phase and no transmission losses in the power limited phase. I did model drag at 0.55m^2 drag area.

10.9 would be about right if you include roll-out, but those assumptions above are a little optimistic.

Maybe Elon should update that spreadsheet Martin made in 2002?