What will be the new HP numbers for AWD and P after 12.4?

[Swampgator]

I have an AWD and with previous 8% and now pending 5% bump I calculate my car at 392 hp. Am I doing that right? I'm also thinking AWD will now be 3.9 sec car (w/rollout) which puts it even with BMW M3 and Alfa Quad. Performace models both. Then I'm thinking the original hp number for P3D was 450. So 510 hp after the past 8% plus this coming 5%? Or did P3D not get the 8% the AWD was reported to get?

 

[dfwatt]

I have an AWD and with previous 8% and now pending 5% bump I calculate my car at 392 hp. Am I doing that right? I'm also thinking AWD will now be 3.9 sec car (w/rollout) which puts it even with BMW M3 and Alfa Quad. Performace models both. Then I'm thinking the original hp number for P3D was 450. So 510 hp after the past 8% plus this coming 5%? Or did P3D not get the 8% the AWD was reported to get?

I don't think the previous bump on the Dual Motor Performance version was anywhere near 8%. Probably barely four or 5%. But one of the things you have to keep in mind is that the horsepower numbers for electric vehicles have a certain level of 'promotion factor' relative to drivetrains on an ICE car. Two reasons for that. There is no awkward 90 degree torque translation associated with a drive shaft. That drive shaft really creates significant parasitic losses and some people estimate that for example in a four-wheel drive vehicle drivetrain losses can be anywhere between 12 and 18% and as much as 8 to 12% for rear wheel drive. We don't have precise numbers for the Tesla system but I suspect it's somewhere around 3 or 4% tops.

So in that sense our horsepower numbers have to get bumped up to be compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle with a conventional transmission. Additionally there's less parasitic loss in direct drive compared to most transmission although the difference is probably only a few percent. Last but not least, electric motors have a very flat horsepower curve unlike peaky gasoline engines.

The one disadvantage is that our horsepower output drops as you get up into the higher speed ranges, depending on gearing of course but in the Model 3 it starts to drop off at about 45 miles an hour. It doesn't drop as much as a gas engine would running at twice its peak power RPM (which would be way past its Redline and probably blow the motor up!). And then there's how Peak torque is available way lower in the motor RPM range than even on a turbo car.

When you put all that together it explains why for example the model 3 can get to 0 to 60 in just a tick over 3 seconds when its power to weight ratio is not as good as a BMW M3 which it pretty much Romper Stomps but which can have a similar trap speed. It's also though why our ET in the quarter mile which is around 11.5 or 11.6 in the performance version is so much better then our trap speed. One possible solution of course is to have two gears but that adds weight, complexity and parasitic losses.

 

[Swampgator]

I don't think the previous bump on the Dual Motor Performance version was anywhere near 8%. Probably barely four or 5%. But one of the things you have to keep in mind is that the horsepower numbers for electric vehicles have a certain level of 'promotion factor' relative to drivetrains on an ICE car. Two reasons for that. There is no awkward 90 degree torque translation associated with a drive shaft. That drive shaft really creates significant parasitic losses and some people estimate that for example in a four-wheel drive vehicle drivetrain losses can be anywhere between 12 and 18% and as much as 8 to 12% for rear wheel drive. We don't have precise numbers for the Tesla system but I suspect it's somewhere around 3 or 4% tops.

So in that sense our horsepower numbers have to get bumped up to be compared to an internal combustion engine vehicle with a conventional transmission. Additionally there's less parasitic loss in direct drive compared to most transmission although the difference is probably only a few percent. Last but not least, electric motors have a very flat horsepower curve unlike peaky gasoline engines.

The one disadvantage is that our horsepower output drops as you get up into the higher speed ranges, depending on gearing of course but in the Model 3 it starts to drop off at about 45 miles an hour. It doesn't drop as much as a gas engine would running at twice its peak power RPM (which would be way past its Redline and probably blow the motor up!). And then there's how Peak torque is available way lower in the motor RPM range than even on a turbo car.

When you put all that together it explains why for example the model 3 can get to 0 to 60 in just a tick over 3 seconds when its power to weight ratio is not as good as a BMW M3 which it pretty much Romper Stomps but which can have a similar trap speed. It's also though why our ET in the quarter mile which is around 11.5 or 11.6 in the performance version is so much better then our trap speed. One possible solution of course is to have two gears but that adds weight, complexity and parasitic losses.

Good response thanks. I know the real important number for EVs is torque and not hp. But the listed power of the drivetrain is always in KW which can be converted to HP. Wonder if the 5% power increase is KW or torque? Elon being a physics wonder I think power has to = KW, right?

 

[dfwatt]

Good response thanks. I know the real important number for EVs is torque and not hp. But the listed power of the drivetrain is always in KW which can be converted to HP. Wonder if the 5% power increase is KW or torque? Elon being a physics wonder I think power has to = KW, right?

Yes I'm pretty sure you can just look up online what kilowatts translates into in terms of horsepower. I assume that when they release this new firmware everybody will be out testing both on dynos and and acceleration runs to really determine what this looks like. But it is pretty nice to have a car that's a year old that's still getting better. And better. And better again!

 

[MoreAgain]

I wish there were better numbers available for all the variants. I generally use the wikapedia numbers. They did update these after the last bump, and hopefully will after this next one.

 

[MagnusMako]

I don't think those figures are universally accurate, especially 412 for the AWD. I think the numbers are different between Europe and USA and the 980/990 motors. Someone in another thread posted the actual numbers. You can see from this post here that there are kW differences depending on dates of registration in EU based on the actual parts catalog - For AWD owners wanting a P3D- .

Also @Swampgator, the 8% increase was reported for the AWD not the P3. 0-60 times on the AWD dropped a tenth in the 0-60 but stayed about the same or barely less for the P3.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

The original 450HP/472lb-ft torque say that peak HP was achieved at about 5010rpm which works out to about 44mph being where peak HP is first reached assuming 9:1 final reduction (it is not exactly this I think). (Probably HP starts dropping around 50mph but no idea.)


With first update, got about 5% torque increase and looked like about 5% HP increase (again reached at 44mph).

Can eyeball this - looks like nearly exactly 5% increase in acceleration (proportional to torque).
5% increase in power

So that would be (assuming same speed for onset of peak HP) : 472.5HP, 495.6lb-ft.

So if we get the same sort of increase (torque and HP - rather than just an increase in the speed at which peak HP is reached - which is a possibility and that would mean very little improvement in 0-60), we should be at 496HP, 520lb-ft torque (which would be great for 0-60 and might actually break loose the MXM4s).

 

[MoreAgain]

I don't think those figures are universally accurate, especially 412 for the AWD. another thread posted the actual numbers. - For AWD owners wanting a P3D- .

I agree, I don't think anyone really knows definitively. The max power output listed in the thread you reference (RWD 306 HP, AWD 462-476 HP, P 483-489 HP) seem to be theoretical and it is the software that determines what they actually output in the real world.

 

[ptronus31]

Motor Trend lists the LR AWD non-P at 346 hp and 376 lb-ft. I have no idea where they got their numbers, but it feels right to me. My LR AWD does not feel like 400+ HP.

 

[dfwatt]

I agree, I don't think anyone really knows definitively. The max power output listed in the thread you reference (RWD 306 HP, AWD 462-476 HP, P 483-489 HP) seem to be theoretical and it is the software that determines what they actually output in the real world.

If you look at the table you can see that they made it clear addition error around the horsepower numbers for all wheel drive. It's absurd to think that the performance version has only 20 more horsepower then the regular all-wheel drive.

 

[gavine]

If you look at the table you can see that they made it clear addition error around the horsepower numbers for all wheel drive. It's absurd to think that the performance version has only 20 more horsepower then the regular all-wheel drive.

Maybe they are publishing the max horsepower of which the motors are cable, and not what the actual battery/inverter are putting-out? The motors in the P and non-P are almost the same but the output allowed from the battery is different.

 

[MoreAgain]

It's absurd to think that the performance version has only 20 more horsepower then the regular all-wheel drive.

I agree, and that's why I think the wikipedia's numbers of 412 vs 473 'sound' more accurate, but again it seems only Tesla know what they actually allow the cars to produce.

 

[dfwatt]

Maybe they are publishing the max horsepower of which the motors are cable, and not what the actual battery/inverter are putting-out? The motors in the P and non-P are almost the same but the output allowed from the battery is different.

The motors are identical. It's much more likely that they had a typographical error that was not caught in editing. And for sure it is software limiting in terms of what current level or kilowatts the inverter puts into the motors.

The one thing I wish Tesla would do is offer an upgrade for all wheel drive cars to get to Performance level output. They'd sell a zillion of them if they were priced intelligently and fairly

 

[dfwatt]

I agree, and that's why I think the wikipedia's numbers of 412 vs 473 'sound' more accurate, but again it seems only Tesla know what they actually allow the cars to produce.

There's some really good Dyno testing on the motors but it does not reflect the latest software update, only the earlier ones with some modest power bump. I have that file somewhere maybe when I get to where I'm going I'll post it.

 

[ch_model_s]

The one disadvantage is that our horsepower output drops as you get up into the higher speed ranges, depending on gearing of course but in the Model 3 it starts to drop off at about 45 miles an hour. It doesn't drop as much as a gas engine would running at twice its peak power RPM (which would be way past its Redline and probably blow the motor up!). And then there's how Peak torque is available way lower in the motor RPM range than even on a turbo car.

When you put all that together it explains why for example the model 3 can get to 0 to 60 in just a tick over 3 seconds when its power to weight ratio is not as good as a BMW M3 which it pretty much Romper Stomps but which can have a similar trap speed. It's also though why our ET in the quarter mile which is around 11.5 or 11.6 in the performance version is so much better then our trap speed. One possible solution of course is to have two gears but that adds weight, complexity and parasitic losses.

Sorry but this is wrong. I think you mean torque and not power. Peak power will be achieved at a certain speed, maybe at 45mph like you said. Before that power is increasing in a linear way since Power = Torque x Rpm. With permanent synchron motors you have first a constant torque region until the base speed of the motor where the back-emf is as high as the battery voltage. To go higher in Rpm you have to weaken the magnetic-field. To do that you use some of the current which was used to produce torque. So torque starts to drop (according to you at 45mph) but Rpm goes up and the power stays the same so you enter the constant power area on a dyno graph. There are some losses included at higher speeds (eddy currents and so on) so power will also decrease a little bit as well. So the 5% increase will be noticeable at 45mph and higher but not from the stand still. To get more power from 0-45mph (or whatever the base speed of the motor is) you need to increase torque (you can’t increase rpm since it’s a single speed gearbox) and with that more current. But I think the inverter is already at is limit of the IGBT current rating. So when they talk about optimizing the motor control that means they can control the motor better in the field weakening area (more current is used to produce actual torque and with that more power is produced).

 

[jjrandorin]

They'd sell a zillion of them if they were priced intelligently and fairly

What charge would be "intelligent and fair"? It would have to be at least the difference between the cost of the two versions without the performance package (at a minimum), and ideally, to keep people who actually purchased the P version off the bat, would need to be a little more than that delta to "reward" the people who purchased the P first from the factory vs upgrade.

Most threads on this topic of upgrading devolve into people thinking they should be able to purchase the upgrade for "a couple thousand" because "its just software".

 

[dfwatt]

Sorry but this is wrong. I think you mean torque and not power. Peak power will be achieved at a certain speed, maybe at 45mph like you said. Before that power is increasing in a linear way since Power = Torque x Rpm. With permanent synchron motors you have first a constant torque region until the base speed of the motor where the back-emf is as high as the battery voltage. To go higher in Rpm you have to weaken the magnetic-field. To do that you use some of the current which was used to produce torque. So torque starts to drop (according to you at 45mph) but Rpm goes up and the power stays the same so you enter the constant power area on a dyno graph. There are some losses included at higher speeds (eddy currents and so on) so power will also decrease a little bit as well. So the 5% increase will be noticeable at 45mph and higher but not from the stand still. To get more power from 0-45mph (or whatever the base speed of the motor is) you need to increase torque (you can’t increase rpm since it’s a single speed gearbox) and with that more current. But I think the inverter is already at is limit of the IGBT current rating. So when they talk about optimizing the motor control that means they can control the motor better in the field weakening area (more current is used to produce actual torque and with that more power is produced).

Nope, it's not I didn't mean torque I meant horsepower. Check it out from any number of reliable sources. Power drops off at 45 miles an hour at a given motor RPM, obviously due to torque reduction. Look before you leap!

 

[ChargedSociety]

Surely someone has access to a dyno and can do a before/after before the next update? I'd love to see the two graphs overlayed. I'm confident that when Elon says 5% power increase, he isn't talking peak HP but rather 5% through the curve. Not that one is ultimately better than the other but I can see how optimizing the frequencies could result in an improved powerband but I'm less optimistic that optimizing the inventer can produce 5% more peak power.

 

[ch_model_s]

Nope, it's not I didn't mean torque I meant horsepower. Check it out from any number of reliable sources. Power drops off at 45 miles an hour at a given motor RPM. Look before you leap!

Then you have invented new physics and should rewrite every book that I have read. I develop high-performance PM motors at work so I know some of this stuff...

a graph from Mclaren. The point where torque starts to drop and peak power is reached is called base speed.

Also: Tesla Model 3 SR+ Dyno Testing You can clearly see the constant torque area and power increasing until torque starts to drop. That's why cars have gearboxes. Power is just a product of torque x rpm. You need torque to accelerate.

Good read for beginners: Motor Control 101

 

[dfwatt]

What charge would be "intelligent and fair"? It would have to be at least the difference between the cost of the two versions without the performance package (at a minimum), and ideally, to keep people who actually purchased the P version off the bat, would need to be a little more than that delta to "reward" the people who purchased the P first from the factory vs upgrade.

Most threads on this topic of upgrading devolve into people thinking they should be able to purchase the upgrade for "a couple thousand" because "its just software".

We agree.