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

[thegruf]

I'm quite puzzled by that too.

I am wondering if Range mode, which other charts has shown applies the initial accelration more progressively, actually gives the battery/inverter less grief, so the power actaully holds in there a bit longer before tailing off. This could well be what the OTA software update addresses that Elon promised soon back in January (which doesnt seem to be in 6.2?).

I had a great time. Probably the best story is from my first run. There was a group of kids with their various Mustangs and the first one of them (a 5 liter GT) ended up slotted next to me. He was telling his friends he wanted to let someone else in front of him so that he could get a "good race." His buddy said "Dude, that guy is going to kick your ass. That's one of those new Teslas." His friend was right.

Because it was a test and tune day, I ran against some highly modified rides, so I also got schooled a couple of times. One guy had a tubbed out Honda with no interior, N2O and I don't know what the heck kind of drive train, but he beat me to 60' and never looked back.

Always the best thing about these days, great mix. Fantastic camera angle - shows that launch superbly.

 

[krisg81]

we do know without question, both cars in that roll and dead stop race were at 100% SOC......

Ok- I didn't know that, where do you see that information then?

 

[brianman]

Ok- I didn't know that, where do you see that information then?

You might want to click the links in his signature after reading the thread title for this link:
My P85D and P85...

 

[LetsGoFast]

Thanks for reputation points. Feels very much like I won a high school class office.

 

[30seconds]

Thanks for reputation points. Feels very much like I won a high school class office.

this is way more entertaining

 

[fiksegts]

hmm, I wonder.... I charged the cars....

Ok- I didn't know that, where do you see that information then?

 

[Danal]

LetsGoFast, I put your data in the spreadsheet, which is now modified to take 0-60 and/or 1/8 Mile and/or 1/4 mile. If you'd rather I remove it, please let me know. If you are OK with it, please consider adding the other info (Software Release, build date, etc).

And, all of you folks who've been saying "Data, data, we need more data", please add rows!!


Sheet here

 

[ThirdMartini]

Can I just point out that a ICE does not make the same HP output at different altitudes. My 414 Peak HP M3 does not make anywhere near 414 HP in Denver. My P85D puts out it's peak HP irrespective of altitude. Should my M3 have an asterisks on it's HP output too? Different power plants have different limitations.

 

[krisg81]

Can I just point out that a ICE does not make the same HP output at different altitudes. My 414 Peak HP M3 does not make anywhere near 414 HP in Denver. My P85D puts out it's peak HP irrespective of altitude. Should my M3 have an asterisks on it's HP output too? Different power plants have different limitations.

I'm not sure how that even relates to the topic here. No one is disputing environmental related power output changes.

this is simply about the power output of the car based on current available fuel/battery charge. Does your M3 put out 20-30% less power less with a quarter tank of gas vs. Full? If it does, compare away then.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm not sure how that even relates to the topic here. No one is disputing environmental related power output changes.

this is simply about the power output of the car based on current available fuel/battery charge. Does your M3 put out 20-30% less power less with a quarter tank of gas vs. Full? If it does, compare away then.

I thought that was his point. Batteries perform worse at lower SOC. Engines perform worse at higher altitudes. Expecting them to have the same characteristics is unrealistic.

 

[krisg81]

I thought that was his point. Batteries perform worse at lower SOC. Engines perform worse at higher altitudes. Expecting them to have the same characteristics is unrealistic.

Totally different parasitic loss %... Also doesn't matter, if you live and drive 99.9% at a certain altitude, like slightly above sea level like me- it makes no difference which is why it's pointless. If you drive your Tesla or M3 at the top of Mt Everest, ok cool.. I understand there is a difference. For the rest of us, power losses any time fuel levels drop suck

 

[Terra117]

Can I just point out that a ICE does not make the same HP output at different altitudes. My 414 Peak HP M3 does not make anywhere near 414 HP in Denver. My P85D puts out it's peak HP irrespective of altitude. Should my M3 have an asterisks on it's HP output too? Different power plants have different limitations.

Not just altitude, or more accurately air density, but temperature, relative humidity, engine tempreature, fuel quality (octane, additives, age, presence of ethanol), and the amount of cylinder and valve wear (which effect compression ratio).

 

[Danal]

Not just altitude, or more accurately air density, but temperature, relative humidity, engine tempreature, fuel quality (octane, additives, age, presence of ethanol), and the amount of cylinder and valve wear (which effect compression ratio).

All of which are pretty small. I did the math, via several of the online calculators, for temp/pressure correction (for ICE). Within reasonable numbers, temp deltas of 20F, things like that, the changes were a lot smaller than my "butt dyno" in my LS2 engine SSR would have previously believed.

 

[ThirdMartini]

I'm not sure how that even relates to the topic here. No one is disputing environmental related power output changes.

this is simply about the power output of the car based on current available fuel/battery charge. Does your M3 put out 20-30% less power less with a quarter tank of gas vs. Full? If it does, compare away then.

It relates perfectly. BMW claims 414 Peak HP... at sea level, at optimal temperatures. ( If it's 100F the M3 won't deliver 414 HP either ). No one blinks an eye at the fact that the 414HP is best case under ideal conditions. Same as the Tesla... the 691 is best case under ideal conditions. The conditions are just different, since after all the technology is different.

It's one think to try to understand the limitation of the power plants and the conditions that limit their IDEAL PEAK HP output/performance... it's another to complain that a vehicle does not deliver the PEAK HP values under ALL or event MOST conditions.

BTW... if we get Pedantic...my M3 is slower around the track with a FULL tank, than a when the tank is at 10%. After all those 12 Gallons of gas weight an extra ~75LBS . I don't think the teslas' mass changes much with the number of electrons pulled from the battery. ( Technically the mass does change... a tiny little bit.. no where near 75lbs though )

Also would not call 62HP loss at 5000Ft ( Denver )... "small"

PS. I find this thread fascinating from the amount of information that is being collected about the behavior of the Teslas' power output. Keep the numbers and coming.

 

[Danal]

( If it's 100F the M3 won't deliver 414 HP either ).

Keep the numbers and coming.

100F makes about 4.6% difference to an ICE, as baselined to "standard day (59F)."

 

[ThirdMartini]

100F makes about 4.6% difference.

And the numbers that were posted by LetsGoFast of 90%SOC and 40%SOC were 3% performance loss.... to me the far more interesting numbers are the % performance loss caused by heat soak of the batteries... since that seems far more significant.

 

[Danal]

Not sure where you are seeing 3%. Here are letsgofast's 89% and 40% runs, turned into percentages for each stat:

1/8 Time	Speed	1/4 Mile Time	1/4 Mile Speed	60'	330'
-4.74%	-6.19%	-3.94%	-0.97%	-7.03%	-5.50%

 

[ThirdMartini]

Not sure where you are seeing 3%. Here are letsgofast's 89% and 40% runs, turned into percentages for each stat:

1/8 Time	Speed	1/4 Mile Time	1/4 Mile Speed	60'	330'
-4.74%	-6.19%	-3.94%	-0.97%	-7.03%	-5.50%

I'm using his 45% SOC number as the 40% run seems a bit suspect. IE: Slower time, but higher trap speed? The 89 and 45% numbers don't have that anomaly. But even with that... the 1/4 Mile time is 4% different and 1/4 MI speed is 1% different.

I would discount the 60' ft times as that can be a traction issue... specially since the 1/4 mile time is far divergent. I think more runs (data) would bring clarity here.


But even if I give you 7%. Thats's still far less then the 15% loss in performance I have (I lose 62HP in Denver vs LA ) yet BMW still advertises the car as 414HP. So I see nothing wrong with Tesla using 691 peak. BTW there is not much I can do about the 15% loss due to altitude here in Denver.... but I can make sure the P85D has >50% SOC most of the time.

Like I said ... my beef here is the double standard that Tesla needs to put a * next to their peak HP number.... and the handwaving about how it's different for ICE cars.

PS. As for MT Everest... the M3 would be down to 50HP... I don't think she would make it.

 

[Danal]

It is interesting to note that recent use of the car on the track seems to be the biggest factor in letsgofasts runs. Motor/Inverter/Battery temp???

In fact, that easily could be be why the 45% run looks anomalous.

		Comparison to original 89% run
Prior Motor Use	SOC	1/8 Time	Speed	1/4 Mile Time	1/4 Mile Speed	60'	330'
Track - 5 Min	87%	-1.91%	-2.45%	-0.87%	2.49%	-7.47%	-3.06%
Street	45%	-1.94%	-2.49%	-2.20%	-2.99%	-0.44%	-1.65%
Track - 20 Min	42%	-4.02%	-5.86%	-3.52%	-1.18%	-5.60%	-4.46%
Track - 7 min	40%	-4.74%	-6.19%	-3.94%	-0.97%	-7.03%	-5.50%

 

[ThirdMartini]

It is interesting to note that recent use of the car on the track seems to be the biggest factor in letsgofasts runs. Motor/Inverter/Battery temp???

In fact, that easily could be be why the 45% run looks anomalous.

We only have 1 driver and limited number of runs. There could be variability in run to run as well. More traction 1 run, less another,more/less TC interference, tire temp, etc, etc. His data is a good start but IMHO insufficient to conclude accurate results. It's clear that there is some loss from SOC, and certainly some loss from (likely) heat soak. But IMHO it will end up closer to 3-4% rather than 6-7%.