Performance increase for 100D. 0-100 in 3,3 sek

[Krash]

Well, I am not completely without hope. Something that feeds it is that, on the English Wikipedia, in the Model S specifications table the maximum motor power of the 100D is 'unavailable'.

It is only unavailable because we haven't filled it in. Tesla doesn't update that. We do - the community. The combined maximum power of the new drive units on the 100D is more than 1044hp which is what they test them at the factory to do. The cars are all limited by the batteries and appropriately by the warranty liability and market segmentation Tesla establishes to keep the 75s prices down.

I do think Tesla increases the 100D performance. The 75 was just the first increase. Every segment above it will eventually be faster.

 

[outie]

There are no "non ludicrous" P100Ds. Ludicrous was something added to the P85Ds and the P90Ds, all the P100Ds are ludicrous, whatever that means anymore.

Tesla was selling P100D inventory cars without ludicrous for another 10k discount last year. Not sure it that continued on throughout this year.

 

[evster]

The improved performance for 100D will come. Be sure about that! The local sales people that you guys talk to are so uninformed that it is pathetic. A normal forum member with the slight interest in Tesla know a lot more

Here in Europe the sales staff still deny the existence of the 85kWh battery even though there are hundreds of cars with the sticker on it and it's proved that it really is a 85kWh battery due to higher SuC speed close to 100% charging and the charging peek at about 115kWh which proves that it is 400v.

I really do love Tesla for most parts and the approach to update the production line all the time, but this mess around performance, battery sizes etc that we have seen lately really annoys me.

 

[R.S]

Tesla was selling P100D inventory cars without ludicrous for another 10k discount last year. Not sure it that continued on throughout this year.

They did that? Not even sure how that really works, since the whole "ludicrous" update was originally a fuse and wiring alloy change in the 90 and 85 packs. But since the pack is totally new and even a somewhat different layout, those cars were probably only SW limited.

Maybe that's whats coming for the 100D as well? Big rear motor but SW limited performance? Not sure if they can even get to 3.3s with only the small motor in back.

Or these are P100Ds nobody wants, so Tesla sells them as inventory in Europe with increased performance? But then you'd think they would ask a bit more for that extra performance, like they apparently did with the non-ludicrous P100Ds.

 

[ranma64]

The improved performance for 100D will come. Be sure about that! The local sales people that you guys talk to are so uninformed that it is pathetic. A normal forum member with the slight interest in Tesla know a lot more

Here in Europe the sales staff still deny the existence of the 85kWh battery even though there are hundreds of cars with the sticker on it and it's proved that it really is a 85kWh battery due to higher SuC speed close to 100% charging and the charging peek at about 115kWh which proves that it is 400v.

I really do love Tesla for most parts and the approach to update the production line all the time, but this mess around performance, battery sizes etc that we have seen lately really annoys me.

Going to test one S75D with 85kwh battery tomorrow here in Italy. Going to discharge itnear zero and test charging speed at a 120 kw supercharger stall.
i'm really curious about charging speed: if you check this teslarati article it should be locked to 90kw max current being am "A" battery type. Decoding Your Tesla Battery Pack Version

 

[Destiny1701]

Update: all Canadian inventory 100D's have now been updated back to the 0-100kph at 4.3 seconds from no speed the whole last week. Looks like someone quickly decided to put back the original speed so as to avoid a potential sales agreement hassle.

The exception being the one modelX 100D still showing 4.5sec 0-100kph. Odd.

 

[Krash]

...this mess around performance, battery sizes etc that we have seen lately really annoys me.

I don't mind it. You buy a minimum standard but sometimes but sometimes Tesla sneaks in something extra for field testing and you are the beneficiary.

...Not sure if they can even get to 3.3s with only the small motor in back.

Or these are P100Ds nobody wants, so Tesla sells them as inventory in Europe with increased performance? But then you'd think they would ask a bit more for that extra performance, like they apparently did with the non-ludicrous P100Ds.

They can definitely get to 3.3. Which means that the BTX8 batteries in the 75 could do 3.3 at likely minimal warranty risk to Tesla, although we'd likely never see it because 1) its not worth doing for a small batch 2) you can see from this thread that there would be huge backlash from those that won't get it and 3) there is some chance it messes up the performance differentiation for Tesla. In Europe you already pay a lot more for these cars so I am fine that the test runs there. Plus if I were running a randomized control trial for Tesla I'd want some in Norway, Spain and UAE.

 

[R.S]

They can definitely get to 3.3.

And how would you know that? I'm not so sure they actually can. You need quite a lot of hp and torque to get to 60 in 3.3s. These smaller motors are only rated at about halve what the bigger motor is rated at. So 3.3s could be beyond what those two motors can do.

 

[R.S]

Update: all Canadian inventory 100D's have now been updated back to the 0-100kph at 4.3 seconds from no speed the whole last week. Looks like someone quickly decided to put back the original speed so as to avoid a potential sales agreement hassle.

The exception being the one modelX 100D still showing 4.5sec 0-100kph. Odd.

Maybe you could call them/ write an e-mail and ask if it's really 4.5s. I asked my local sales person about a 100D in Munich, but he said he doesn't know and will get back to me. But I'm sure he won't.

Thing is he knows I'm not looking for a replacement right now, I'm in the middle of a lease, so I'm not interesting to him. Maybe someone could play the bait for us?

 

[Krash]

And how would you know that? I'm not so sure they actually can. You need quite a lot of hp and torque to get to 60 in 3.3s. These smaller motors are only rated at about halve what the bigger motor is rated at. So 3.3s could be beyond what those two motors can do.

I am no engineer so I have to look up that you need another 200 hp to get from 4.2 to 3.3. (edited) And I know they build these drive units to enable five years of headroom for performance increases. So much headroom that even the old drive units can to 4.2. Combine that with the leaks of the 3.3 increase before the accidental posting as well as knowing that they can't performance increase the 75s without increasing all the other tiers without destroying their differentiation.

 

[Krash]

Maybe someone could play the bait for us?

The sales people don't know and purposefully can't find out so it won't do any good to bait them.

 

[R.S]

I am no engineer so I have to look up that you need another 200 hp to get from 4.2 to 3.3. Then I see that the factory test is 768kw or 1044hp. And I know they build these drive units to enable five years of headroom for performance increases. So much headroom that even the old drive units can to 4.2. Combine that with the leaks of the 3.3 increase before the accidental posting as well as knowing that they can't performance increase the 75s without increasing all the other tiers without destroying their differentiation.

The car shows average kWh per mile, not an average of 768kW. And the poster actually made a mistake, he wrote kWh per mile, but it should be an average of 768 wh/mile, which fits the 84 miles at 90% charge.

So no the motors can't put out 768kW. And that's why I think they would need bigger rear motors. Maximum hp probably wouldn't even be the issue, but rather maximum torque. 400hp at the wheels would actually be enough, if the wheels would hold 1.1g. So maybe they could reduce gearing, or so. But IMO it's not possible with the current setup.

 

[Krash]

The car shows average kWh per mile, not an average of 768kW. And the poster actually made a mistake, he wrote kWh per mile, but it should be an average of 768 wh/mile, which fits the 84 miles at 90% charge.

Ok. So EnjoyingLife was looking at the Energy Consumption and Projected Range screen for a car that hadn't been reset, rather than some engineering test screen left up. I had assumed kWh was kW when it was actually Wh/mi. You are almost certainly right. I have misinterpreted this a few times. We'll see if a moderator will let me "unfake" a few comments.

So no the motors can't put out 768kW. And that's why I think they would need bigger rear motors. Maximum hp probably wouldn't even be the issue, but rather maximum torque. 400hp at the wheels would actually be enough, if the wheels would hold 1.1g. So maybe they could reduce gearing, or so. But IMO it's not possible with the current setup.

I think the new drive units will do 600kW combined, although I come to that from a mix of old unit performance numbers and commentary on new efficiency. I hadn't really thought about the torque limiting but of course that matters since the different models all have different slopes of linear acceleration over time until limited by the governor mechanism. Hence the inverted hockey stick metric in my graphs and this one, original source unknown:

But there is no way that the new drive unit was built to just make the 75s faster. It was almost certainly built to make the 100s faster as well.

Anyone engineers watching? Any easy way to estimate torque from known speed, distance and power over time? Preferably using two or three to compare.

 

[llavalle]

Anyone engineers watching? Any easy way to estimate torque from known speed, distance and power over time? Preferably using two or three to compare.

Just dump the power train CAN with a CANtact or other tools and you'll have the amps, voltage and torque values for both front and rear drive unit

Edit : here's what you can expect (1/4mi run on my 85D):

Left Axis :
Yellow : voltage
Green : front motor torque (nm)
Red : rear motor torque (nm)
Blue : speed in kph

Right Axis :
Purple : amps from the battery

 

[PhaseWhite]

Maximum hp probably wouldn't even be the issue, but rather maximum torque. 400hp at the wheels would actually be enough, if the wheels would hold 1.1g. So maybe they could reduce gearing, or so. But IMO it's not possible with the current setup.

IANAEE (I am not an EE), but my understanding is that the motors themselves are just conduits through which current flows, they do not "make" power like an internal combustion engine does. So with this understanding, the limits have more to do with heat capacity and cooling. I am also in the camp that believes that even the older motors can deal with the power output. The only thing we don't know for sure is if the inverters in each drive unit are capable. (Does anyone have a reference to this info?)

The 0-60 measure plays to Tesla's favor here since they don't have to deal with the large power / heat for more than a few seconds (literally about 3-4 seconds). We know that even the P cars drop power output off significantly after a few seconds of full throttle and that even the P cars get throttled significantly on the track (they cannot sustain high power because of heat / cooling limitations)

 

[Krash]

Just dump the power train CAN with a CANtact or other tools and you'll have the amps, voltage and torque values for both front and rear drive unit

Interesting. I hope to get that data off TM-Spy. The connector and pins haven't arrived yet for me to assemble the hardware yet.

No, what I am asking is to be able to take the PowerTools logs that I am collecting from others and approximate torque.

Even if I sent my TM-Spy or a CANtact module around with a device already configured to it, I think it is too much to ask of folks to disassemble their cars to get data.

 

[R.S]

IANAEE (I am not an EE), but my understanding is that the motors themselves are just conduits through which current flows, they do not "make" power like an internal combustion engine does. So with this understanding, the limits have more to do with heat capacity and cooling. I am also in the camp that believes that even the older motors can deal with the power output. The only thing we don't know for sure is if the inverters in each drive unit are capable. (Does anyone have a reference to this info?)

The 0-60 measure plays to Tesla's favor here since they don't have to deal with the large power / heat for more than a few seconds (literally about 3-4 seconds). We know that even the P cars drop power output off significantly after a few seconds of full throttle and that even the P cars get throttled significantly on the track (they cannot sustain high power because of heat / cooling limitations)

IAAEE, IAEAEDE (I am even an electric drivetrain engineer) and no, electric motors produce power just like any other motor, if it's a steam engine, or a petrol engine, there are limits. At some point the currents get too high and you damage them, permeability goes way down above a certain point, so you need even more current and at some point the rotor slip gets too high and torque actually goes down again.

I am sure there is some room for improvements, if you really don't care about reliability at all, but Tesla builds road legal cars, not racing cars. So no, they can't just increase power a lot.

Ok. So EnjoyingLife was looking at the Energy Consumption and Projected Range screen for a car that hadn't been reset, rather than some engineering test screen left up. I had assumed kWh was kW when it was actually Wh/mi. You are almost certainly right. I have misinterpreted this a few times. We'll see if a moderator will let me "unfake" a few comments.

I think the new drive units will do 600kW combined, although I come to that from a mix of old unit performance numbers and commentary on new efficiency. I hadn't really thought about the torque limiting but of course that matters since the different models all have different slopes of linear acceleration over time until limited by the governor mechanism. Hence the inverted hockey stick metric in my graphs and this one, original source unknown:
View attachment 245084
But there is no way that the new drive unit was built to just make the 75s faster. It was almost certainly built to make the 100s faster as well.

Anyone engineers watching? Any easy way to estimate torque from known speed, distance and power over time? Preferably using two or three to compare.

You mixed up torque and power in those graphs. The line that is constant first is torque, the line that gradually increases is power. So the P motors have 310 kW from about 40-75 mph. The 600 is Nm, torque. So to get to 600kW you'd need two performance units.

 

[SucreTease]

Tesla has now restored the 0-60 mph times to the spec sheets for new inventory vehicles in North America. However, the times for the 100D are now listed as 4.3 sec, which has never been the advertised value. Design Studio has always shown 4.2 sec until July 1, when it was changed to 4.1 sec (when the times for the S75 were also changed).

 

[Krash]

You mixed up torque and power in those graphs. The line that is constant first is torque, the line that gradually increases is power. So the P motors have 310 kW from about 40-75 mph. The 600 is Nm, torque. So to get to 600kW you'd need two performance units.

No, I understand those graphs. They are for previous generations of cars. My estimates of 600kW is what I think that the drive unit is capable of at a low failure rate. Not what Tesla will have them governed to when they resell them in 75s or 100s.

 

[R.S]

No, I understand those graphs. They are for previous generations of cars. My estimates of 600kW is what I think that the drive unit is capable of at a low failure rate. Not what Tesla will have them governed to when they resell them in 75s or 100s.

That isn't possible, it really isn't. Unless the guys at Tesla are incredibly bad at their jobs. The small motors, currently, are rated at 190kW each and Tesla doesn't even use that. To get to 600kW total, each of those motors would need a 57% increase in power. I am not sure how they would do that w/o redesigning the whole thing.

Maybe the small and big motor combined, that would be, maybe, possible. But not two small motors.