Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

[lolachampcar]

I agree with the person above (do not want to type the name incase I do not use the acceptable letters in the right order) in that the larger HP rated motors produce more near zero RPM torque. Put differently, Elon's combined 691 motor hp will not result in a Model S having 691 hp but it will allow the car to produce more near zero rpm torque.

Where I part company with all the fancy graphs is the fact that the increased torque ALONE is only useful in that small band between the end of two wheel drive traction limited and 60 mph for a 0-60 run. That band is small and the added torque alone does not account for the significant 0-60 difference between my P+ and my PD.

A majority of the difference in performance between the two is the fact that there are two more wheels that can now be driven at the traction limit. A simple comparison of the 60 foot times shows the dramatic difference in launch between the two cars. The 60 foot times are generated while the car is traction and torque (not battery power) limited thus completely driven by the added two wheels being driven.

No glossy pictures with circles and graphs (a shout out to Arlo at Alice's Restaurant) are needed to understand the above.

Does the 691 combined motor hp worth of extra low end torque help. Yes. Does its contribution come anywhere near close to that of the extra two driven wheels or the increase in battery power limit. No.

 

[LetsGoFast]

I've explained relationship between the motor power and torque ratings more than once. It would be interesting to read why do you think they "have nothing to do with each other".

The problem isn't that they "have nothing to do with each other" it is that "motor power" is only relevant to imply torque. There is no particular reason to represent torque obliquely through the use of "motor power" -- Tesla could simply have said they produce 686 lb/ft of torque compared to 443 for the P85. This would have perfectly described the reason for the prodigious low end acceleration without providing misleading information about the engine's power. It was particularly disingenuous given that it was already commonplace to specify horsepower either at the motor shaft or at the wheels and it had to be clear that most reasonable people would have assumed that 691 hp "motor power" was attempting to say 691 hp at the motor shaft, not 691 hp in some hypothetical application not in any actual car being sold.

 

[AWDtsla]

The problem isn't that they "have nothing to do with each other" it is that "motor power" is only relevant to imply torque. There is no particular reason to represent torque obliquely through the use of "motor power" -- Tesla could simply have said they produce 686 lb/ft of torque compared to 443 for the P85. This would have perfectly described the reason for the prodigious low end acceleration without providing misleading information about the engine's power. It was particularly disingenuous given that it was already commonplace to specify horsepower either at the motor shaft or at the wheels and it had to be clear that most reasonable people would have assumed that 691 hp "motor power" was attempting to say 691 hp at the motor shaft, not 691 hp in some hypothetical application not in any actual car being sold.

To be fair, most people think that the thing they feel in a fast car is HP, and have no idea what this torque thing is. Most people want more cylinders with more HP, then never exceed 3500 RPM - utilizing a third of the HP they paid for.

....just to try and recreate the group think that brought the 691HP number.

 

[tomas]

The problem isn't that they "have nothing to do with each other" it is that "motor power" is only relevant to imply torque. There is no particular reason to represent torque obliquely through the use of "motor power" -- Tesla could simply have said they produce 686 lb/ft of torque compared to 443 for the P85. This would have perfectly described the reason for the prodigious low end acceleration without providing misleading information about the engine's power. It was particularly disingenuous given that it was already commonplace to specify horsepower either at the motor shaft or at the wheels and it had to be clear that most reasonable people would have assumed that 691 hp "motor power" was attempting to say 691 hp at the motor shaft, not 691 hp in some hypothetical application not in any actual car being sold.

I wish everyone could stipulate that the improved launch performance of the P85D is due to some combination of: a) more torque, b) all wheel drive, c) 2 motors (less loss in transmission than 1 motor AWD), d) more power in one of the 2 motors, (which increases availability of power until battery limitations kick in), e) software which controls traction and extracts the most useful power to each wheel. I think that the assertion that it is just more torque is an over-simplification that comes from single engine, RWD ICEland. I wish everyone could also just stipulate that Tesla should have provided battery-limited HP numbers, but also acknowledge that they didn't so that's water under the bridge. People can make whatever buying or divesting decisions they want with the facts.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I agree with the person above (do not want to type the name incase I do not use the acceptable letters in the right order) in that the larger HP rated motors produce more near zero RPM torque. Put differently, Elon's combined 691 motor hp will not result in a Model S having 691 hp but it will allow the car to produce more near zero rpm torque.

Where I part company with all the fancy graphs is the fact that the increased torque ALONE is only useful in that small band between the end of two wheel drive traction limited and 60 mph for a 0-60 run. That band is small and the added torque alone does not account for the significant 0-60 difference between my P+ and my PD.

A majority of the difference in performance between the two is the fact that there are two more wheels that can now be driven at the traction limit. A simple comparison of the 60 foot times shows the dramatic difference in launch between the two cars. The 60 foot times are generated while the car is traction and torque (not battery power) limited thus completely driven by the added two wheels being driven.

No glossy pictures with circles and graphs (a shout out to Arlo at Alice's Restaurant) are needed to understand the above.

Does the 691 combined motor hp worth of extra low end torque help. Yes. Does its contribution come anywhere near close to that of the extra two driven wheels or the increase in battery power limit. No.

Just to let you know, all the snarky comments (latest examples in bold above) do not add anything to your argument, just reflect poorly on you.

As for the comment about the traction afforded by the dual motor setup, it is necessary to put 55% more torque and 55% more power down up to the point when they become limited by the battery, but without this 55% increase in power and torque, there would be *NO* improvement in 0-60mph acceleration for P85D over P85. This is very easy to see while comparing 85D and P85D. The 85D has advantage of dual motor drive, but in spite of having about 10% gain in power rating of the motors over P85 and 10% gain in torque, it does not accelerate faster than P85 - the additional torque and power just compensate for the fact that 85D is about 300lbs heavier than P85. The AWD is not enough to have a 0.8s improvement in 0-60 acceleration - it is necessary to have 55% higher rated power of the motors and 55% higher rated torque. It is just the point that is clearly illustrated by the graphs I provided.

You are simply wrong in your conclusions.

Just to add to your "glossy pictures with circles and graphs" comment, you are right, generally speaking they are not required. I have made my conclusions quite some time ago, without doing the graphs - the graphs just demonstrate that my conclusions were correct. The graphs also help as they make complicated technicalities easier to understand for those who do not necessarily have just the right technical background.

 

[redox]

To be fair, most people think that the thing they feel in a fast car is HP, and have no idea what this torque thing is.

Do you think these people don't understand a 0-60 figure?

 

[AWDtsla]

Do you think these people don't understand a 0-60 figure?

The history of these threads proves that this is more nebulous that it should be.

 

[Canuck]

Just to let you know, all the snarky comments (latest examples in bold above) do not add anything to your argument, just reflect poorly on you.

I appreciate your posts and your graphs. I also wish people could disagree with you respectfully instead of being condescending.

Hey, stop using logical thinking to make us look stupid. Do you want to get banned again?

Really? You're suggesting people have been banned for logical thinking? I know it's suppose to be a joke but there's really no humour in suggesting the moderators here conspire against certain positions. That's just plain rude to the good people who volunteer their time to keep this place civil.

 

[LetsGoFast]

I wish everyone could stipulate that the improved launch performance of the P85D is due to some combination of: a) more torque, b) all wheel drive, c) 2 motors (less loss in transmission than 1 motor AWD), d) more power in one of the 2 motors, (which increases availability of power until battery limitations kick in), e) software which controls traction and extracts the most useful power to each wheel. I think that the assertion that it is just more torque is an over-simplification that comes from single engine, RWD ICEland. I wish everyone could also just stipulate that Tesla should have provided battery-limited HP numbers, but also acknowledge that they didn't so that's water under the bridge. People can make whatever buying or divesting decisions they want with the facts.

I agree that it is an oversimplification to assert that torque is the entire explanation for the 0-60 performance. I do think that it is true that torque is more relevant than HP. The ability to perform extremely rapid modulations of power to the wheels in an electric car accounts for a lot of the extraordinary performance of their traction control system. TBH, 0-60 performance is probably more about fantastic traction control than any other single factor. Look at the Porsche launch system for compelling evidence of same.

- - - Updated - - -

I appreciate your posts and your graphs. I also wish people could disagree with you respectfully instead of being condescending.

I'd like that too, but there is an extent to which VG is reaping what he sows. He has a strong tendency to assert that anyone who disagrees with his conclusions does so only because they fail to understand them. I do absolutely appreciate the knowledge he drops -- I have learned a good deal about the performance trade-offs of electric motors from him.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The problem isn't that they "have nothing to do with each other" it is that "motor power" is only relevant to imply torque. There is no particular reason to represent torque obliquely through the use of "motor power" -- Tesla could simply have said they produce 686 lb/ft of torque compared to 443 for the P85. This would have perfectly described the reason for the prodigious low end acceleration without providing misleading information about the engine's power. It was particularly disingenuous given that it was already commonplace to specify horsepower either at the motor shaft or at the wheels and it had to be clear that most reasonable people would have assumed that 691 hp "motor power" was attempting to say 691 hp at the motor shaft, not 691 hp in some hypothetical application not in any actual car being sold.

The problem with using only peak torque is that as pointed out elsewhere, for example with diesels the torque numbers are drastically higher, yet it performs no better than an equivalent gasoline vehicle in 0-60. Thus torque has been a figure that people buying performance cars care far less about than power (only people buying trucks care a lot about torque). Saying 50% more torque and 50% more "motor power" is essentially equivalent in this case, but the latter caught on far more. Using only the torque figures also undersells the equipment in the car. Ludicrous is only possible because the motors and motor controllers have a higher power limit that has yet to be fully unlocked.

Anyways, all this is kind of academic now (although Tesla certainly still feels motor power is relevant since the site still uses it). Tesla has chosen to have all numbers posted (torque, motor power, battery-limited power) and that is the best approach that should satisfy the concerns of all parties. The only thing left is the question of if any compensation is owed by Tesla for when they didn't post the battery-limited number.

 

[LetsGoFast]

The problem with using only peak torque is that as pointed out elsewhere, for example with diesels the torque numbers are drastically higher, yet it performs no better than an equivalent gasoline vehicle in 0-60. Thus torque has been a figure that people buying performance cars care far less about than power (only people buying trucks care a lot about torque). Saying 50% more torque and 50% more "motor power" is essentially equivalent in this case, but the latter caught on far more.

This sounds a bit like saying "people don't understand any other numbers, so we'll just inflate the one number they do know."

Using only the torque figures also undersells the equipment in the car. Ludicrous is only possible because the motors and motor controllers have a higher power limit that has yet to be fully unlocked.

They have a robust history of introducing software upgrades that unlock more horsepower and they would have done just fine to simply announce the new HP when they enabled it.

Anyways, all this is kind of academic now (although Tesla certainly still feels motor power is relevant since the site still uses it). Tesla has chosen to have all numbers posted (torque, motor power, battery-limited power) and that is the best approach that should satisfy the concerns of all parties. The only thing left is the question of if any compensation is owed by Tesla.

On this, we can agree completely, although I'd add that there is a question of whether or not Tesla will offer anything that they are not compelled to do by a court or regulatory body.

 

[tomas]

On this, we can agree completely, although I'd add that there is a question of whether or not Tesla will offer anything that they are not compelled to do by a court or regulatory body.

They have. Half price L upgrade for a period. I'm sure someone will sneer, but I'm pretty sure it was offered because of this noise. I predict that's it, because (as I've posted before, but stuff gets buried here quickly) anything more would likely be construed as an admission of guilt, and would invite sharks to swim rapidly to the blood.

 

[brianman]

Good thing I said nothing even remotely close to that. So once again, brianman, we don't disagree. Though you sure have been trying hard to carry on a dispute.

The portion I said indicated that "Everyone else" -- which given context included you -- "does not care" if Tesla provides "accurate numbers to base their buying decision on". I guess we just use English differently.

And no, I'm not trying hard to do anything. I do find it frustrating when I see the appearance of defending FUD or dishonesty, and feel it appropriate to call it out.

 

[Auzie]

This sounds a bit like saying "people don't understand any other numbers, so we'll just inflate the one number they do know."

The number was not inflated, it is a true number that represents some aspects of car performance. It is unfortunate that what the number represents was misunderstood by some customers.

 

[brianman]

The people who started this whole thing ...

I think we disagree again. The people who started this whole thing are employees of Tesla.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Tesla is learning, and if nothing else comes of all this, at least there is that.

I feel like the Tesla marketing department doesn't fully appreciate how good the Model S is, so to some extent uses traditional marketing tactics when they don't have to. Tesla could publish complete information on roll out, and the numbers would still be incredibly impressive, and in all likelihood about the same number of people would complete purchases....

And I really wish they would. In the extreme, even flooding the marketplace with "deep data" on how good Model S is helps the mission while this "horsepower drama" detracts from the mission and the proper priorities of Tesla w/r/t to that mission.

 

[redox]

The history of these threads proves that this is more nebulous that it should be.

We must read it differently then: I haven't seen anybody arguing that 3.2 to 0-60 isn't a fair representation of "fast"...

 

[brianman]

Another way to look at this as a missed opportunity.....

I just got back from a run where I was pondering this whole source of energy to make something perform versus the mechanical device that turns that energy into kinetic energy (perceived performance). I can not imagine how to put this into sensational sound bites (or bytes), but it was entertaining to consider the differences between BeV and ICE.

BeV's energy source versus ICE
Long range battery technology does not support sustained high discharge levels (at least not for cost effective production batteries) while gas in a gas tank can be pumped at an alarming rate.

It would be lovely to plot the energy consumed and the energy imparted to the vehicle for both ICE and gas. We would then see that, for example, the 500 hp BeV sucks power from the battery until motor rpm allows for that 500 hp to be drawn then the curve flattens out for a bit for as long as the battery can tolerate a 500 hp draw followed by tapering off of power delivered from the battery to protect it at higher speeds/longer duration runs. Below the battery draw curve can be the vehicle kenitic energy curve showing how much of what you have pulled from the battery actually makes it to moving the car forward. These curves would compare nicely.

The same could be done for a 500 hp ICE by using a flow meter to integrate fuel consumption. It would be instantly apparent to anyone looking at the graphs that the ICE uses 1500 hp of fuel to produce 500 hp of engine power and that the 500 engine hp is inefficiently transferred to vehicle energy.

The only reasons ICE perform as well as they do at highway speeds is because of the wanton wasting of energy.

It is a shame none of this reduces well to sound bites usable at a product launch.

With some "opposite but similar" marketing, one could call the ICE a "1500hp fuel power" vehicle. Right? Why don't they do that?

- - - Updated - - -

People will never get 691 hp on the wheel, period, so stop hoping for it. Tesla never offered 691 hp on the wheel, they offered 691 hp motor power.

I really wish this straw man would stop coming up. To my knowledge, nobody on TMC has expressed the expectation of "691 hp on the wheel".

In contrast, there was an expectation of an "after losses" number at least coming close to "691 power at the motors" -- which apparently is "completely different" from "691 hp motor power" and only idiots or people that "didn't do due diligence" didn't understand instantly. /rolleyes

 

[stopcrazypp]

This sounds a bit like saying "people don't understand any other numbers, so we'll just inflate the one number they do know."

Not really. I see it similar to "MPGe" used to describe efficiency. Some people think that is complete BS, but it is a way to put the numbers so that most people can understand. And it is technically correct.

They have a robust history of introducing software upgrades that unlock more horsepower and they would have done just fine to simply announce the new HP when they enabled it.

But then they also have a history of promising first and then taking a long while to deliver. This is just one such example (autopilot is another that had lots of discussion). Although the analogy is not quite fitting (I'm not implying Tesla is promising 691hp battery-limited power in some future upgrade, just that motor/controllers can support that).

On this, we can agree completely, although I'd add that there is a question of whether or not Tesla will offer anything that they are not compelled to do by a court or regulatory body.

Someone has to bring it to actual court first. I believe Denmark there is an actual lawsuit pending (Hookmaker I believe is working on that). The Norway consumer council case is in not actual court though (from the Apple iTunes case, even if that council reaches a decision the defendant can ignore it; Apple's case never went to court and took 3 years before Apple did something that satisfied the Council).

 

[brianman]

Most people I have read complaining about this issue seems to be in one of two camps:

1: Tesla lied and I want them to refund me the car.
2: Tesla lied and I want ludicrous for free.

We interpret differently. My impression is that the majority of "upset by Tesla on this issue" folks fit into neither of those buckets. In contrast, I see a lot of those "seeing Tesla as not having done wrong here" seem to want to put "the upset" into those two buckets for some reason. I guess it's a "cognitive simplicity" thing or something or just rudeness; I'm not sure which.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually to that end if you note there is a difference in performance between the 85D and the P85D, yet they both have the same battery... So I wonder what could possibly be the difference between the two cars... Hrmmm could it be the larger and more capable motor in the back?

"More capable" is an interesting assertion. As hinted in another post soon after the one you quoted, the motor pairing in the 85D is "more capable" of sustaining high speeds than the pairing the P85D.

 

[stopcrazypp]

With some "opposite but similar" marketing, one could call the ICE a "1500hp fuel power" vehicle. Right? Why don't they do that?

They don't do that because ICE car horsepower has always described power of the ICE itself, not the fuel. But they have done (and continue to do) something similar to Tesla, which is to use non-factory equipment during testing of the engine/motor.