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

[sorka]

I don't know if they necessarily used a battery either because nowhere in the spec does it require a battery to be used as the DC source, while it does require the factory equipment to be used for the connected accessories.

A battery is not required but if the drivetrain has a battery, there are provisions clarifying it's use and what state of charge it should be in. There are also statements talking about testing the electric "drivetrain" and if that if the drivetrain fails the test two more drivetrains may be brought in to repeat the test.

Are you proposing that the could bring in a drivetrain that doesn't have battery and test it and then claim that they drivetrain they're shipping that does have a battery passed the test? The ECE R85 spec is very similar to J1349 in many respects and talks about testing the entire drivetrain for power, not an electric motor by itself.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't to me if they intend that "motor power" number to show the upgrade options as I suggested.

If that's what they intended then it would be intentionally deceptive if they meant something entirely different than what the industry means by horsepower without so much as a footnote that they meant something else and oh buy the way that the claimed "motor power" is actually made on most of the other Model S variants except the P85D (...and possibly the S60). Testing standards aside, you're suggesting that they never intended to deliver a car that makes 691 hp in any form NET or GROSS at any point upstream or downstream in the drivetrain but rather that they were giving a horsepower number that could be achieved from modifying the drivetrain at a later. L of course still doesn't actually get to 691 hp and it won't be free. It will be closer. I guess we'll need a fe more upgrades. oh but wait, they're not spewing each motor at a higher hp than before so there goes that theory.

The only reason Tesla isn't responding to this now is because if they come forward state the P85D makes 525 (555 at the battery minus some small conversion loss before it gets to the motors shafts) then they'd have to acknowledge that it's not really 691 hp publicly. I strongly suspect Tesla feels stuck between a rock and a hard place right now and they honestly don't have a clue what to do about this situation. This is a position I can fully understand. It's just the longer it goes on, the worse it will get. We've all seen what it did to Hillary.

 

[Andyw2100]

I strongly suspect Tesla feels stuck between a rock and a hard place right now...We've all seen what it did to Hillary.

OK, I know there's a joke in there somewhere involving Bill, Hillary, Monica, "stuck between", and the hard place. Unfortunately I just haven't got it.

Anyone?

 

[stopcrazypp]

A battery is not required but if the drivetrain has a battery, there are provisions clarifying it's use and what state of charge it should be in. There are also statements talking about testing the electric "drivetrain" and if that if the drivetrain fails the test two more drivetrains may be brought in to repeat the test.

Are you talking about footnote 8 in page 32? "Minimum power of the generator:the power of the generator shall be limited to that necessary for the operation of accessories which are indispensable for the operation of the engine. If the connection of a battery is necessary, a fully charged battery in good order must be used."
That is under the ICE testing section and is clearly talking about an accessory battery (AKA 12V battery).

If you go to the electric drivetrain section it makes no similar mention. Also, the whole description of drivetrain goes into a lot of detail about the motor, motor controllers, and accessories attached to them, but says nothing about the DC power source other than that the DC test voltage is specified by the manufacturer.

What stands out for me is table 1 on page 42. Notice for practically every line it says "yes: standard production equipment" (equivalent ICE test procedure table says the same in practically every line). However, on "DC voltage source" in it only says ""Voltage drop during test less than 5 %". It notably does not say "yes: standard production equipment". So I doubt leaving out the battery mention has to do with accommodating other ESS (like supercapacitors), but rather I think the standard expects/allows the drivetrain to be tested with a power supply for convenience purposes.

Are you proposing that the could bring in a drivetrain that doesn't have battery and test it and then claim that they drivetrain they're shipping that does have a battery passed the test? The ECE R85 spec is very similar to J1349 in many respects and talks about testing the entire drivetrain for power, not an electric motor by itself.

I don't know for certain how a typical electric drivetrain test bench is like (would be nice to see this), but I would not be surprised in the least it if comes with it's own DC power supply to connect to the drivetrain. The ESS may be characterized under a different rule. I am looking at the ICE section and it also does not seem to specify you must use the standard equipped gas tank to do testing either.

If that's what they intended then it would be intentionally deceptive if they meant something entirely different than what the industry means by horsepower without so much as a footnote that they meant something else

I already gave examples from Fisker and Ford that the "industry" also does the same thing. And Fisker did not even use different terminology (they just said kW).

and oh buy the way that the claimed "motor power" is actually made on most of the other Model S variants except the P85D (...and possibly the S60).

Not true. S85, P85, S85D makes that power. But notice how for all those models we already know the 85kWh battery can output ~550hp, so it should be no surprise the bottleneck is at motor/inverter. S60, S60D/S70D, S70, P85D do not make the claimed "motor power" (I don't have REST for S70D/S70, but from knowing the battery voltage and the lower net power ratings, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the characteristics are similar to the S60).

Testing standards aside, you're suggesting that they never intended to deliver a car that makes 691 hp in any form NET or GROSS at any point upstream or downstream in the drivetrain but rather that they were giving a horsepower number that could be achieved from modifying the drivetrain at a later. L of course still doesn't actually get to 691 hp and it won't be free. It will be closer. I guess we'll need a fe more upgrades. oh but wait, they're not spewing each motor at a higher hp than before so there goes that theory.

Actually, under GROSS hp the drivetrain does make it. From the article I read previously, under gross horsepower that allows the manufacturer to set ideal ignition timing and fuel injection calibration and does not require the connection of factory standard accessories (like the standard fuel/oil/water pumps or even the standard exhaust). The engine is the main thing in such a test. This would be similar to testing with a DC power supply.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

 

[JER]

Actually my point has been that it has been going on for EVERY VARIANT of the Model S.

Then you're wrong.

As Laserbrain pointed out with the capture of the website, and anyone can verify by looking right now, actual peak output is listed for every variant except P85D, just as I stated.

Never mind about motor power. It used to be the same as actual output (because older variants weren't battery limited,) but since P85D was announced (and overpromised) it's just become a means of obfuscation.

 

[sorka]

Then you're wrong.

As Laserbrain pointed out with the capture of the website, and anyone can verify by looking right now, actual peak output is listed for every variant except P85D, just as I stated.

Never mind about motor power. It used to be the same as actual output (because older variants weren't battery limited,) but since P85D was announced (and overpromised) it's just become a means of obfuscation.

He is just making it up. I can't figure out where he gets most of his stuff because every time he quotes something it doesn't *actually* support what he's saying so he' either intentionally obfuscating or he just doesn't get it.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you talking about footnote 8 in page 32? "Minimum power of the generator:the power of the generator shall be limited to that necessary for the operation of accessories which are indispensable for the operation of the engine. If the connection of a battery is necessary, a fully charged battery in good order must be used."
That is under the ICE testing section and is clearly talking about an accessory battery (AKA 12V battery).

No. I'm not referring to that section. Bottom of page 32 (annex 5) "Minimum power of the generator:the power of the generator shall be limited to that necessary for the operation of accessorieswhich are indispensable for the operation of the engine. If the connection of a battery is necessary, a fully charged battery in goodorder must be used". That's just an example. Read the entire entire document.

Section 5.3 on page 9 "Description of tests for measuring the net power and the maximum 30minutes power of electric drive trainsThe electric drive train shall be equipped as specified in Annex 6 to thisRegulation. The electric drive train shall be supplied from a DC voltagesource with a maximum voltage drop of 5 per cent depending on time andcurrent (periods of less than 10 seconds excluded). The supply voltage of thetest shall be given by the vehicle manufacturer.Note: If the battery limits the maximum 30 minutes power, the maximum30 minutes power of an electric vehicle can be less than the maximum30 minutes power of the drive train of the vehicle according to this test."

There are other examples conditions and criteria. Read the whole document. It's not that long. It's clear they the drivetrain includes whatever DC source is going to be used to generate power, not just the electric motor. It doesn't have to be a battery but it does have to be part of the drivetrain i.e. whatever drivetrain is shipping in the production vehicle.

Not true. S85, P85, S85D makes that power. But notice how for all those models we already know the 85kWh battery can output ~550hp, so it should be no surprise the bottleneck is at motor/inverter. S60, S60D/S70D, S70, P85D do not make the claimed "motor power" (I don't have REST for S70D/S70, but from knowing the battery voltage and the lower net power ratings, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the characteristics are similar to the S60).

It is true and the S70 with 315 hp and 0-60 of 5.5 *easily* makes more power than that. Same with the S70D. 328 hp and 0-60 in 5.2 seconds which is the same as the S85 which we *already* know dynos 375 at the wheels! Way more power than they claim. Anyone care to provide some rest data? Anyone want to borrow my vbox for some S70 or S70D testing? As far as the motors being the limiting factor in some of the drivetrains? I don't dispute that. My point is what power each drivetrain makes as delivered. The P85D maxes out at 550 hp at the battery. The S60 may or may not make the advertised power. We have no proof but it's suspect based on it's performance. The S85 has been proven. The 85D has been proven. The S70 and S70D haven't but it's clear from their performance that they easily exceed the speced power. Notice how Tesla has removed "motor power" even from S85 but it's still speced at the same power as before.

Actually, under GROSS hp the drivetrain does make it. From the article I read previously, under gross horsepower that allows the manufacturer to set ideal ignition timing and fuel injection calibration and does not require the connection of factory standard accessories (like the standard fuel/oil/water pumps or even the standard exhaust). The engine is the main thing in such a test. This would be similar to testing with a DC power supply.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

I don't know what you mean already does make it. You've already admitted power is limited to 550 hp at the battery source. That's as upstream and GROSS as you can get. This is before DC-DC conversion, inverter conversion, accessories, or motor conversion of power to kinetic energy.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Then you're wrong.

As Laserbrain pointed out with the capture of the website, and anyone can verify by looking right now, actual peak output is listed for every variant except P85D, just as I stated.

Never mind about motor power. It used to be the same as actual output (because older variants weren't battery limited,) but since P85D was announced (and overpromised) it's just become a means of obfuscation.

You are talking about something completely different. I'm talking about what "motor power" means, which is the original topic. Not talking about the separate net power. They still list "motor power" today for every model!
S70/S85: 382 motor power
S70D/S85D: 259 F/R motor power
P85D: 259 F / 503 R motor power
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options

And starting in October 2014 (with launch of dual motor models) until sometime in april 2015, they did not list a separate net power for the other variants at all, only the "motor power" was advertised. You can reference back to the article I posted:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal

Evidence from internet archive that on 3/30/2015 it was still "motor power" only:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150330020918/http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options

He is just making it up. I can't figure out where he gets most of his stuff because every time he quotes something it doesn't *actually* support what he's saying so he' either intentionally obfuscating or he just doesn't get it.

I knew you guys would claim I'm making things up, which is why I spent some time to gather all the numbers (with links!):
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...91HP/page119?p=1115469&viewfull=1#post1115469

See my response to JER for evidence that "motor power" was the only thing advertised for 5-6 months. And I've talked about it in previous posts, but I think it is not a coincidence they changed it back to net power after this thread started.

No. I'm not referring to that section. Bottom of page 32 (annex 5) "Minimum power of the generator:the power of the generator shall be limited to that necessary for the operation of accessorieswhich are indispensable for the operation of the engine. If the connection of a battery is necessary, a fully charged battery in goodorder must be used". That's just an example. Read the entire entire document.

Section 5.3 on page 9 "Description of tests for measuring the net power and the maximum 30minutes power of electric drive trainsThe electric drive train shall be equipped as specified in Annex 6 to thisRegulation. The electric drive train shall be supplied from a DC voltagesource with a maximum voltage drop of 5 per cent depending on time andcurrent (periods of less than 10 seconds excluded). The supply voltage of thetest shall be given by the vehicle manufacturer.Note: If the battery limits the maximum 30 minutes power, the maximum30 minutes power of an electric vehicle can be less than the maximum30 minutes power of the drive train of the vehicle according to this test."

There are other examples conditions and criteria. Read the whole document. It's not that long. It's clear they the drivetrain includes whatever DC source is going to be used to generate power, not just the electric motor. It doesn't have to be a battery but it does have to be part of the drivetrain i.e. whatever drivetrain is shipping in the production vehicle.

That's the only reference I saw that mentioned a battery. No where else does it do that in the EV. Can you show some examples that suggest the "drivetrain" is inclusive of the DC source? I didn't find any.

But the table missing "yes: standard production equipment" for the DC source stands out to me. I see no reason to leave that out unless the standard did not expect it. I also looked at the long list of specs that the results are supposed to list and none of it mentions parameters for the DC source other than the DC test voltage.

It is true and the S70 with 315 hp and 0-60 of 5.5 *easily* makes more power than that. Same with the S70D. 328 hp and 0-60 in 5.2 seconds which is the same as the S85 which we *already* know dynos 375 at the wheels! Way more power than they claim. Anyone care to provide some rest data? Anyone want to borrow my vbox for some S70 or S70D testing? As far as the motors being the limiting factor in some of the drivetrains? I don't dispute that. My point is what power each drivetrain makes as delivered. The P85D maxes out at 550 hp at the battery. The S60 may or may not make the advertised power. We have no proof but it's suspect based on it's performance. The S85 has been proven. The 85D has been proven. The S70 and S70D haven't but it's clear from their performance that they easily exceed the speced power. Notice how Tesla has removed "motor power" even from S85 but it's still speced at the same power as before.

The S60 was tested at 5.1 0-60 by dragtimes, yet REST peaks at 243 kW. So it is not clear from the 0-60 alone that it makes the power. I thought we learned our lesson already from the P85D about the dangers of using 0-60 to estimate horsepower :wink:.
http://www.dragtimes.com/blog/tesla-model-s-60-kwh-vs-tesla-model-s-85-kwh-performance

And unless Tesla is making up their net power numbers completely, how do you explain why the motor power number is the same 382hp for S70 and S85, yet net power is 315hp vs 373hp?
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options

You previously said they must have made a mistake with the S60, yet the same exact phenomenon occurs with the S70 almost a year later.

If motor power means shaft power as you suggest, then the "motor power" should be proportionally more for the S85 compared to the S70. I have yet to see this point addressed.

I don't know what you mean already does make it. You've already admitted power is limited to 550 hp at the battery source. That's as upstream and GROSS as you can get. This is before DC-DC conversion, inverter conversion, accessories, or motor conversion of power to kinetic energy.

GROSS power is not simply taking a standard equipped vehicle and measuring upstream. Read the link I posted. Other than the engine, everything else up and downstream does not have to be the same as a standard equipped model. Wouldn't testing an electric motor with a DC power supply (as I suggest) be the same idea?

http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

 

[dsm363]

He is just making it up. I can't figure out where he gets most of his stuff because every time he quotes something it doesn't *actually* support what he's saying so he' either intentionally obfuscating or he just doesn't get it.

- - - Updated - - -



No. I'm not referring to that section. Bottom of page 32 (annex 5) "Minimum power of the generator:the power of the generator shall be limited to that necessary for the operation of accessorieswhich are indispensable for the operation of the engine. If the connection of a battery is necessary, a fully charged battery in goodorder must be used". That's just an example. Read the entire entire document.

Section 5.3 on page 9 "Description of tests for measuring the net power and the maximum 30minutes power of electric drive trainsThe electric drive train shall be equipped as specified in Annex 6 to thisRegulation. The electric drive train shall be supplied from a DC voltagesource with a maximum voltage drop of 5 per cent depending on time andcurrent (periods of less than 10 seconds excluded). The supply voltage of thetest shall be given by the vehicle manufacturer.Note: If the battery limits the maximum 30 minutes power, the maximum30 minutes power of an electric vehicle can be less than the maximum30 minutes power of the drive train of the vehicle according to this test."

There are other examples conditions and criteria. Read the whole document. It's not that long. It's clear they the drivetrain includes whatever DC source is going to be used to generate power, not just the electric motor. It doesn't have to be a battery but it does have to be part of the drivetrain i.e. whatever drivetrain is shipping in the production vehicle.


It is true and the S70 with 315 hp and 0-60 of 5.5 *easily* makes more power than that. Same with the S70D. 328 hp and 0-60 in 5.2 seconds which is the same as the S85 which we *already* know dynos 375 at the wheels! Way more power than they claim. Anyone care to provide some rest data? Anyone want to borrow my vbox for some S70 or S70D testing? As far as the motors being the limiting factor in some of the drivetrains? I don't dispute that. My point is what power each drivetrain makes as delivered. The P85D maxes out at 550 hp at the battery. The S60 may or may not make the advertised power. We have no proof but it's suspect based on it's performance. The S85 has been proven. The 85D has been proven. The S70 and S70D haven't but it's clear from their performance that they easily exceed the speced power. Notice how Tesla has removed "motor power" even from S85 but it's still speced at the same power as before.



I don't know what you mean already does make it. You've already admitted power is limited to 550 hp at the battery source. That's as upstream and GROSS as you can get. This is before DC-DC conversion, inverter conversion, accessories, or motor conversion of power to kinetic energy.

When did you accept delivery of your P85D? Wasn't sure what the advertising was like when you ordered since this is a major issue for you. And he's not making things up.

 

[brianman]

From P85D certificate of conformity:
27.2 Maximum hourly output: 66kW
27.3 Maximum net power: 193kW (front), 350kW (rear)
27.4 Maximum 30min power: 79kW (front), 90kW (rear)

Supercharging comes to mind. Interesting.

 

[Jallum.pa.us]

It's in the owner's manual:

View attachment 93543

I bought a P85D last year, bud. As I recall, the manual wasn't updated with any details related to my model until March.

 

[darthy001]

I bought a P85D last year, bud. As I recall, the manual wasn't updated with any details related to my model until March.

At least correct for the Norwegian manual. Seems like someone here thinks we bought Deloreans or something

No official documentation I have found that have any references to ECE R85 from when I ordered the car straight after the D-event. And thankfully I saved the owners manual to prove it

 

[Jallum.pa.us]

When did you accept delivery of your P85D? Wasn't sure what the advertising was like when you ordered since this is a major issue for you. And he's not making things up.

I can't help but wonder just how much of a factor purchase date is in people's opinions on this matter? I'd be willing to wager that the majority of the folks that are moody are early buyers, and that it trails off to "stop whining" with purchases after say, April. Being a very early buyer, I have to admit to some disappointment.

 

[Brit4864]

Has anybody noticed with the v7 software, the power meter scale now shows 400kw at the top instead of 480kw as it did with v6.2? Sure, it does show the meter going a bit beyond 400 but as we know, it's only capable of approximately 414kw max anyway. I wonder if the P90D shows a higher figure?

 

[mlindner]

So are buyers of P85D just unable to slam their foot onto the accelerator pedal? This is breaking major news in Norway now apparently.

1. Charge it fully
2. Slam your foot down
3. Experience your 3.3 second 0-60MPH (including rollout) or 3.5 second 0-60MPH without rollout.

Why is this topic 158 pages?

 

[wk057]

So are buyers of P85D just unable to slam their foot onto the accelerator pedal? This is breaking major news in Norway now apparently.

1. Charge it fully
2. Slam your foot down
3. Experience your 3.3 second 0-60MPH (including rollout) or 3.5 second 0-60MPH without rollout.

Why is this topic 158 pages?

Not sure what you're trying to say. Slamming your foot down doesn't magically release more horsepower. The 0-60 times were never really in question in this thread, although most seem to agree it was shady of Tesla to use 1-ft rollout on the P85D and not for any other models without ever noting this until nearly a year later.

 

[mlindner]

Then what's still going on about it? The topic title is obviously wrong as no engine (electric or hydrocarbon) produces labeled shaft horsepower all the time.

 

[peteyswift]

And back to the beginning we gooooooo...

 

[cynix]

Then what's still going on about it? The topic title is obviously wrong as no engine (electric or hydrocarbon) produces labeled shaft horsepower all the time.

Nobody is expecting the motor/engine to produce the labeled hp all the time. This thread is talking about the motors never producing the labeled hp, versus a normal car where the engine will produce the labeled hp at least some point in time.

 

[MuppetOwl]

Tesla have now removed HP numbers from the order page.

 

[yak-55]

Tesla have now removed HP numbers from the order page.

Excellent! More progress. Finally stopped misleading potential customers (with the exception of the 10.9 quarter mile time claim which remains for the P90DL but remains unverified).

 

[Stoneymonster]

Tesla have now removed HP numbers from the order page.

There still on the specs page.