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

[llavalle]

Thought we already figured that one out? Of course they used the new Tesla standard of subtracting the first 50-ft rollout... and in about a year they'll add an asterisk next to it kind of explaining it, shortly after they put out a blog post about how EV quarter mile times are difficult to measure.

Lol. We all can argue about what motor hp is or is not... And whether we should account for the first one foot on a 0-60 run but one thing for sure : a quarter mile is a quarter mile and Tesla has yet to produce a P90D that does sub 11sec time (that 10.9 number is still being advertised)...

I really wonder how they'll spin that one..

 

[lolachampcar]

Thanks to WK's efforts, I've recently been recording certain CAN bus messages at full bus data rates. Some on this thread have been willing to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt regarding hp numbers. The data that is easily accessible on the car's internal buses clearly show exactly how much power the system as a whole is generating at any time. Tesla is very much aware of this data and has always known exactly how much power the system can deliver. Given the over the air update to provide high speed performance not seen outside the factory, it is obvious to me that the system at launch was tuned for power levels below yet to be tested elements of the battery's ability to deliver power. We now know that what was intended to be provided as an over the air update to allow this increased battery consumption required hardware modification.

Why rehash the above? Well, we now can see the same data Tesla saw. I am reasonably sure I could not look a customer in the face and tell them the car has 691 motor horsepower all the time knowing I had seen the data and that the system was delivering 500 to 550 hp worth of total system power (or, battery power). This, for me, is the crux of the whole situation. Tesla knew what the system was capable of yet chose to promote a component rating that gave them cover to claim 691 hp. We can debate the validity of the cover story but that is just discussing how good Tesla is at being sneaky. Doing so misses the point of why they would need a cover story in the first place.

Here is a link to some data from a wet launch mode 0-60 mph run. The wet was used to examine the traction control function.
Dropbox - PerfWetLaunchMode0_60_1_28_16.txt

Time......TPS....Speed.....R_Tq....F_Tq....BatV.....BatI......Pwr
6128.38 100.0 +000.00 +352.1 +170.1 366.87 -0108.7 039.8

This is but one frame from a set of 100 samples per second data. Neat to see launch mode puts 352 ft-lbs of torque on the rear and 170 ft-lbs of torque on the front wheels prior to launch.
Time is in seconds, TPS in %, Speed in .05 increments of MPH, front and rear torque is in ft-lbs, Current in amps and power in KW.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Nothing you've said negates anything in my post that you quoted. Just because other models used the same term afterwards doesn't invalidate what I've said. Owners of the 60D (did they even ship any of these?), 70D, 85D, etc purchased around the end of 2014/early 2015 are certainly are well within their rights to be pissed off as well, not just P85D owners.

Additionally, the 85D was advertised as ~376 HP initially. Buyers of the 85D while that spec was present now have over 400HP output at the battery, and thus have been made more than whole on the issue and have no additional say in this fight, IMO. 60D? I've yet to even see an emblem photo for one, or even hear of anyone actually buying it, so not sure what that gripe would be. There was no 70D at the time.

My point is, again, up until the release of the P85D (and yes, we all irrelevantly know that other models were released at the same time) all of Tesla's performance numbers met or exceeded advertised values. Are you disputing this?

I seriously hate this thread... heh. Over a year after the fact, and after Tesla both contradicts their own post and finally admits the actual horsepower numbers I'm just completely floored that there is even a debate here at all still. *facepalm*

What I am disputing is qwk's claim that this "motor power" change only affected the P85D, as a legal argument. I think so far my point stands pretty well.

Your claim about "P85D release" (rather than "dual motor release") is misleading in that it frames it like Tesla made the change just to boost up the P85D (which I believe both you and qwk is trying to imply).

60D, they didn't ship, but they shipped the 70D (which had an even higher 514 hp number at one point). Also anyone buying S60 at the same time of the P85D release would only see one number: 380 hp motor power (which is higher than the REST api number measured by others). This number continued for roughly the same time as the 691 hp number for P85D (3-4 months). So that single counterexample alone would kill any argument that the change only affected the P85D.

The reality is that all it did was separate the motor power ratings to coincide with dual motor introduction. If you see the table that was released at the time, it just makes complete intuitive sense to me (simple addition of the 4 different motor/drive unit types):

Model S drive comparisons
	60 kWh	85 kWh	85 kWh performance
Model:	60	60D	85	85D	P85	P85D
Total motor power (hp)	380	376	380	376	470	691
Rear motor power (hp)	380	188	380	188	470	470
Front motor power	N/A	188	N/A	188	N/A	221

Personally, I don't want to continue this debate either, but it was revived by others. However, I will not stay silent if I feel the facts aren't presented correctly.

I think everyone participating here (including me) is biased in some way because we all have our own ingrained position/view of the issue. Personally, I never saw motor power as a huge issue, because I understood it to mean motor/drive unit-only ever since the term was introduced. If they kept the battery number also (as they do now) it would address all the concerns, but I never saw anything wrong with publishing a "motor power" number and still think it is a useful number.

I would have a completely different view if the situation was as you/qwk are implying.
For example, if on October 10, 2014, Tesla launched the P85D only and said it had 691 hp (no mention of "motor power") and then kept all the other numbers the same. So line-up is as below:

	60 kWh	85 kWh	85 kWh performance
Model:	60	85	P85	P85D
hp	302	362	416	691

If that was the situation, I would buy the argument that it is clear Tesla introduced the 691hp number with only the goal of secretly boosting the P85D.

 

[wk057]

Thanks to WK's efforts, I've recently been recording certain CAN bus messages at full bus data rates. Some on this thread have been willing to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt regarding hp numbers. The data that is easily accessible on the car's internal buses clearly show exactly how much power the system as a whole is generating at any time. Tesla is very much aware of this data and has always known exactly how much power the system can deliver. Given the over the air update to provide high speed performance not seen outside the factory, it is obvious to me that the system at launch was tuned for power levels below yet to be tested elements of the battery's ability to deliver power. We now know that what was intended to be provided as an over the air update to allow this increased battery consumption required hardware modification.

Why rehash the above? Well, we now can see the same data Tesla saw. I am reasonably sure I could not look a customer in the face and tell them the car has 691 motor horsepower all the time knowing I had seen the data and that the system was delivering 500 to 550 hp worth of total system power (or, battery power). This, for me, is the crux of the whole situation. Tesla knew what the system was capable of yet chose to promote a component rating that gave them cover to claim 691 hp. We can debate the validity of the cover story but that is just discussing how good Tesla is at being sneaky. Doing so misses the point of why they would need a cover story in the first place.

Here is a link to some data from a wet launch mode 0-60 mph run. The wet was used to examine the traction control function.
Dropbox - PerfWetLaunchMode0_60_1_28_16.txt

Time......TPS....Speed.....R_Tq....F_Tq....BatV.....BatI......Pwr
6128.38 100.0 +000.00 +352.1 +170.1 366.87 -0108.7 039.8

This is but one frame from a set of 100 samples per second data. Neat to see launch mode puts 352 ft-lbs of torque on the rear and 170 ft-lbs of torque on the front wheels prior to launch.
Time is in seconds, TPS in %, Speed in .05 increments of MPH, front and rear torque is in ft-lbs, Current in amps and power in KW.

It's definitely amazing that Tesla's CTO went on the record trying to make it sound like specifying the real numbers for the P85D was such an impossible task when the data has been right in front of them from day 1. For proof, the version of firmware on my bench setup was from prior to any P85D deliveries, and it still has power numbers in the CAN data decoder for the P85D. And I agree, I could not in good conscience have plastered the 691 HP number all over the specs and let the media run with it knowing the real numbers were no where close. The "motor power" number that was advertised is completely useless to customers and should have never been displayed. Real peak HP and peak torque would have made much more sense.

I have to love seeing that ~90V pack voltage sag during full acceleration that no one ever believed me about last year. lol. That's over 115kW of heat being generated in the pack in addition to the output power. That's the output of something like a 400,000 BTU/hr heater...

Looks like your non-rollout 0-60 was 3.90s. Not too shabby in wet conditions. Shows how well the traction control actually works.

There's some more torque numbers for the rear drive unit in 0x106 that I worked out but haven't updated my PDF yet. Since 0x106 is high rate it might be pretty useful. Here's an excerpt from my perl script I'm making to parse logs:

$msg{'DI_torqueDriver'} = (($db0 + (($db1&0xF)<<8)) - (($db1&0x10)<<8)) * 0.250;
$msg{'DI_torqueDriver_ftlb'} = 0.737562149 * $msg{'DI_torqueDriver'};
$msg{'DI_torqueMotor'} = (($db2 + (($db3&0xF)<<8)) - (($db3&0x10)<<8)) * 0.250;
$msg{'DI_torqueMotor_ftlb'} = 0.737562149 * $msg{'DI_torqueMotor'};

DI_torqueDriver and DI_torqueMotor end up as torque in newton-meters. Not 100% sure the difference between the two, but one seems to be driver commanded torque and the other seems to be actual torque.

- - - Updated - - -

What I am disputing is qwk's claim that this "motor power" change only affected the P85D as a legal argument. I think so far my point stands pretty well.

Your claim about "P85D" release is misleading in that it frames it like Tesla made the change just to boost up the P85D (which I believe both you and qwk is trying to imply).

The reality is that all it did was separate the motor power ratings to coincide with dual motor introduction. If you see the table that was released at the time, it just makes complete intuitive sense to me (simple addition of the 4 different motor/drive unit types): (table, snipped -wk)

Personally, I don't want to continue this debate either, but it was revived by others. However, I will not stay silent if I feel the facts aren't presented correctly.

I think everyone participating here is biased in some way because we all have our own ingrained position/view of the issue. Personally, I never saw motor power as a huge issue, because I understood it to mean motor-only ever since the term was introduced.

You're going on about something no one has disputed. I even said in my post that other owners of non-P85D's bought around the same time would have similar legal gripes. Not 100% sure the purpose of reiterating that...

 

[dhanson865]

The only defense they have against this that I don't see discussed often is pack upgrades. Say in a year or two there is a 100KW pack. How many HP will a P85D put out if I replace the 85 kWh pack with a 100 kWh pack?

How about a P85D with a 100 kWh pack upgrade?

It doesn't get them out of the hot water of the original marketing mismatch but if they sell you an upgraded pack in year or two for a reasonable price that upgrades range and performance does it help from a technical standpoint that we'd notice (setting aside emotional responses).

 

[qwk]

What I am disputing is qwk's claim that this "motor power" change only affected the P85D, as a legal argument. I think so far my point stands pretty well.

Your claim about "P85D release" (rather than "dual motor release") is misleading in that it frames it like Tesla made the change just to boost up the P85D (which I believe both you and qwk is trying to imply).

60D, they didn't ship, but they shipped the 70D (which had an even higher 514 hp number at one point). Also anyone buying S60 at the same time of the P85D release would only see one number: 380 hp motor power (which is higher than the REST api number measured by others). This number continued for roughly the same time as the 691 hp number for P85D (3-4 months). So that single counterexample alone would kill any argument that the change only affected the P85D.

The reality is that all it did was separate the motor power ratings to coincide with dual motor introduction. If you see the table that was released at the time, it just makes complete intuitive sense to me (simple addition of the 4 different motor/drive unit types):

Model S drive comparisons
	60 kWh	85 kWh	85 kWh performance
Model:	60	60D	85	85D	P85	P85D
Total motor power (hp)	380	376	380	376	470	691
Rear motor power (hp)	380	188	380	188	470	470
Front motor power	N/A	188	N/A	188	N/A	221

Personally, I don't want to continue this debate either, but it was revived by others. However, I will not stay silent if I feel the facts aren't presented correctly.

I think everyone participating here is biased in some way because we all have our own ingrained position/view of the issue. Personally, I never saw motor power as a huge issue, because I understood it to mean motor/drive unit-only ever since the term was introduced. If they kept the battery number also (as they do now) it would address all the concerns, but I never saw anything wrong with publishing a "motor power" number and still think it is a useful number.

I would have a completely different view if the situation was as you/qwk are implying.
For example, if on October 10, 2014, Tesla launched the P85D only and said it had 691 hp (no mention of "motor power") and then kept all the other numbers the same. So line-up is as below:

	60 kWh	85 kWh	85 kWh performance
Model:	60	85	P85	P85D
hp	302	362	416	691

You and I have been here for a long time, so let me refresh your memory. When the P85 hit the streets, it was advertised as 416hp. Data logging done by several, concluded that the P85 cars hit 360ish KW for peak power. That is 480ish hp. Some time around the dual motor car release, Tesla changed the specs of the P85 to read 470 hp. Does the P85 meet the power advertised under both released power specification scenarios?

The P85 was already power limited by the battery except the car did not get AWD type traction. Most of the improvement that came from the P85D, was additional traction, although Teslamade it sound like the car had gobs more power. It all boils down to this; if Tesla had advertised the true power of the P85D, it's fair to say that most of the P85 owners wouldn't have jumped on the upgrade.

Couple this with the 10.99 ET BS, and it pretty much paints a clear picture....

- - - Updated - - -

The only defense they have against this that I don't see discussed often is pack upgrades. Say in a year or two there is a 100KW pack. How many HP will a P85D put out if I replace the 85 kWh pack with a 100 kWh pack?

How about a P85D with a 100 kWh pack upgrade?

It doesn't get them out of the hot water of the original marketing mismatch but if they sell you an upgraded pack in year or two for a reasonable price that upgrades range and performance does it help from a technical standpoint that we'd notice (setting aside emotional responses).

The problem is that a 100kw pack isn't going to deliver much more power than the current offerings. The bottleneck aren't the cells, if we are only talking about a 10kw difference in pack size.

 

[lolachampcar]

My BS filter completely ignored the 691 hp claim. I purchased my P85D based on AWD (improved handling and traction), 0-60 times knowing about roll out and 1/4 mile times. Tesla delivered on each of the criteria I used. Some of our European friends actually expected to get 691 usable hp and our P90DL friends expected a 10.9 (not 10.99) 1/4 mile time. I can understand their dissatisfaction.

 

[3mp_kwh]

My BS filter completely ignored the 691 hp claim.

Same here. Mostly along with what WK said, about "motor power" being what should have also set the filter off, while Musk was talking at the "announcement". This ignores how P85D was advertised to a limited foreign group.

What I hope can be seen is how the steering wheel is part of TC. The recipe which is activating either the power kill and/or braking, I bet has inputs apart from slip. It would be good to get others feedback from the "TcOffEspOff" setting.

 

[Andyw2100]

My BS filter completely ignored the 691 hp claim.

Same here. Mostly along with what WK said, about "motor power" being what should have also set the filter off, while Musk was talking at the "announcement".

Tesla should use that in court: "We expect our customers to have sensitive enough BS filters to ignore our inaccurate marketing claims."

 

[whitex]

Lol. We all can argue about what motor hp is or is not... And whether we should account for the first one foot on a 0-60 run but one thing for sure : a quarter mile is a quarter mile and Tesla has yet to produce a P90D that does sub 11sec time (that 10.9 number is still being advertised)...

LOL, "1/4mile is a 1/4 mile?" Come one, really? You could argue 0-60 should be 0-60, yet if you subtract 1ft rollout, you are actually measuring X-60, where X is how fast the car is traveling after the 1ft rollout - but it's still advertised as 0-60 time. 1/4 can be manipulated just as easily. Given sufficient rollout you can hit any 1/4 time you want down to 5.8s with a Model S - to reach 5.8, just give it sufficient rollout so that the car is traveling at its max speed of 155mph before you start measuring, then the car will cover the next 1/4 mile in 5.8s. See how easily the performance numbers can be met just by adding a rollout?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying Tesla handled the communication of this difference well on one hand, but on the other hand I don't believe they were purposely using deceiving practices either.

I'm just saying that the difference between max battery power and peak motor power was only introduced with the P85D, and that is why Tesla eventually started making the distinction.

Not quite,Tesla quietly started using "motor power" in place of "hp", substituting the term and numbers in the very same place "hp" used to be. If they in fact provided both numbers, as they do today, this would not be an issue. Not only did they not provide both, their CTO posted a blog entry Tesla All Wheel Drive (Dual Motor) Power and Torque Specifications | Tesla Motors which said "This document will hopefully answer those questions." yet it very carefully avoided giving out the actual battery limited hp number which Tesla eventually disclosed just over 2 months later. So yes, Tesla knew the actual power number but tried very hard to hide it.

- - - Updated - - -

My BS filter completely ignored the 691 hp claim. I purchased my P85D based on AWD (improved handling and traction), 0-60 times knowing about roll out and 1/4 mile times. Tesla delivered on each of the criteria I used. Some of our European friends actually expected to get 691 usable hp and our P90DL friends expected a 10.9 (not 10.99) 1/4 mile time. I can understand their dissatisfaction.

Lola, with all due respect, can you honestly say that you knew that P85D numbers had 1ft rollout but S85D and others did not? That is some BS filter you must have, does it come with an ESP option? ;-)

 

[lolachampcar]

I knew that all high performance cars in the US normally include 1 foot roll out so I was forewarned. I really never paid attention to the other models thus never had a need to know if Tesla was being consistent across the board with how they spec'd 0-60. What I do know is Tesla told me something like 3.3 and it did about a tenth better. Again, all this is only from my (rather narrow) perspective.

I did mention my BS filter to one person at the Super Charger yesterday and they said something like "but Elon specifically addressed the battery being reworked to provide added power". I do not remember those words at launch (when I put down my deposit) but I still would have had a hard time swallowing the idea that the battery was reworked to to go from mid 400s to nearly 700 hp worth of power. It seemed there were little if any changes to the PD battery (those with part number knowledge should chime in here) so, if he did say this, it would seem a blatant attempt to mislead.

 

[whitex]

I really never paid attention to the other models thus never had a need to know if Tesla was being consistent across the board with how they spec'd 0-60.

If 85D was listing 3.2s and P85D listed 3.1s for 0-60, it would have made you think about spending the extra $20K, no? But wait, you know that 85D was not listing 3.2s, how do you know that if you didn't pay attention to that the other models specs? ;-) I'd be willing to bet that you at briefly paid attention to the number, and that you assumed it was measured the same way (with 1ft rollout in your case), but the number was sufficiently higher as to not factor into your decision making whether the P was worth the money.

 

[lolachampcar]

Nope..... Never knew what the 85D specs were until this thread dissected the matter in excruciating detail.
My statements were not made in defense of Tesla but only in explanation for my particular lack of anger. I most certainly understand why others are upset.

 

[thegruf]

The only defense they have against this that I don't see discussed often is pack upgrades. Say in a year or two there is a 100KW pack. How many HP will a P85D put out if I replace the 85 kWh pack with a 100 kWh pack?

How about a P85D with a 100 kWh pack upgrade?

It doesn't get them out of the hot water of the original marketing mismatch but if they sell you an upgraded pack in year or two for a reasonable price that upgrades range and performance does it help from a technical standpoint that we'd notice (setting aside emotional responses).

I have seen this stated before and it makes no sense.

The parameter to consider is how much current can be drawn from each cell. This is determined by the internal resistance of the cell.

You either have to have significantly lower IR so you can draw more power without overheating the cell, or a LOT more cells (heavier).
If capacity improvements bring at 110KWH battery in the forseeable future with the same number of cells as now, it will make no difference whatsoever to the P85D performance unless each cell can deliver more current. Tesla also have to consider longevity vs performance (something that is almost certainly missing from some of the wild claims being made by MB and Audi/Porsche).

 

[LetsGoFast]

LOL, "1/4mile is a 1/4 mile?" Come one, really? You could argue 0-60 should be 0-60, yet if you subtract 1ft rollout, you are actually measuring X-60, where X is how fast the car is traveling after the 1ft rollout - but it's still advertised as 0-60 time. 1/4 can be manipulated just as easily. Given sufficient rollout you can hit any 1/4 time you want down to 5.8s with a Model S - to reach 5.8, just give it sufficient rollout so that the car is traveling at its max speed of 155mph before you start measuring, then the car will cover the next 1/4 mile in 5.8s. See how easily the performance numbers can be met just by adding a rollout?

In America, 0-60 times are normally advertised with 1 ft rollout, although I can appreciate that some people didn't understand that. The quarter mile is extremely standard -- everyone advertises that with 1 ft rollout because that is how drag strips timing instruments work. If they arbitrarily used 100 foot rollout or whatever, that would be obviously fraudulent. It does appear that some magazines are somehow able to obtain the 10.9, but it can't be achieved by manipulating rollout.

I will say that one of the interesting things about Tesla prior to this point has been the astonishing repeatability with which people can achieve the posted 1/4 times. With most performance cars, you have to be quite skilled to reach the advertised times -- the launch requires a good feel for when to drop the clutch at high revs and you need to be bang on with your shifts. Its not uncommon at all for ordinary owners to fail to hit the 1/4 times by a wide margin at the local drag strip. This is pretty obvious when you watch Tesla crush cars on YouTube at the strip where the numbers indicate that the results should have been much quicker.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You're going on about something no one has disputed. I even said in my post that other owners of non-P85D's bought around the same time would have similar legal gripes. Not 100% sure the purpose of reiterating that...

You framed your response to me in a way that says qwk's claim was correct. Thus I had to reiterated my point and why you saying "P85D release" rather than "dual motor release" was misleading.

You and I have been here for a long time, so let me refresh your memory. When the P85 hit the streets, it was advertised as 416hp. Data logging done by several, concluded that the P85 cars hit 360ish KW for peak power. That is 480ish hp. Some time around the dual motor car release, Tesla changed the specs of the P85 to read 470 hp. Does the P85 meet the power advertised under both released power specification scenarios?

The P85 was already power limited by the battery except the car did not get AWD type traction. Most of the improvement that came from the P85D, was additional traction, although Teslamade it sound like the car had gobs more power. It all boils down to this; if Tesla had advertised the true power of the P85D, it's fair to say that most of the P85 owners wouldn't have jumped on the upgrade.

Couple this with the 10.99 ET BS, and it pretty much paints a clear picture....

Again this is once again another P85D-centric view. The S60 was advertised at 380 hp motor power (S70 later at 382 hp motor power). REST numbers measured ~320hp peak. This counterexample disproves the following point (which was my only goal):

All the plaintiffs attorney would have to do, is point out the advertised HP of all the other models(60, 70D, 85, P85, 85D) is slightly exceeded in real life, but the top of the line, most expensive car, falls really short. There really isn't much defense to that.

My main point is that such a claim would not work in a hypothetical lawsuit.

 

[qwk]

You framed your response to me in a way that says qwk's claim was correct. Thus I had to reiterated my point and why you saying "P85D release" rather than "dual motor release" was misleading.


Again this is once again another P85D-centric view. The S60 was advertised at 380 hp motor power (S70 later at 382 hp motor power). REST numbers measured ~320hp peak. This counterexample disproves the following point (which was my only goal):


My main point is that such a claim would not work in a hypothetical lawsuit.

It's pretty clear to anyone paying attention, that the target demographic for upgrades were current P85 owners.

Nothing is certain in a court of law....

 

[wk057]

Well, arguing aside, I don't think anyone can argue with this:

Definitely the most fun P85D settings lol

 

[Andyw2100]

Well, arguing aside, I don't think anyone can argue with this:


Definitely the most fun P85D settings lol

What happened to waiting until you needed new tires? Just couldn't wait?

 

[MuppetOwl]

Is it possible to lower the air suspension settings in the developer menu?

I have heard a rumor about that its possible to adjust the settings so the car get lower without the need for lowering links..