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

[vgrinshpun]

Well, either you are stating the obvious that Tesla has not built such a pack or you do not know much about batteries. Either way, that is a poor way to respond.

It was certainly not meant to be.

I would like to have a link if you were talking about something available for use.

 

[dsm363]

I cannot see that the link you provided from Germany is giving any indication of what have been communicated by tesla when the P85D customers actually made their buing decision...

It doesn't. It shows it wasn't a standard Tesla pulled out of thin air just to deceive P85D buyers. They apparently have used it for years if the website is accurate and hasn't been updated recently to reflect that.

 

[kennybobby]

That pdf from auto outlet was created 12/9/14.

Speaking of word count, how many times did JB use the word 'confusion' in his blog to describe the situation which exists concerning the various hp ratings listed on their website?

For extra credit, what do you think is the significance and purpose of the blog post--what is he trying to eliminate...?

 

[rns-e]

It doesn't. It shows it wasn't a standard Tesla pulled out of thin air just to deceive P85D buyers. They apparently have used it for years if the website is accurate and hasn't been updated recently to reflect that.

You are correct, Tesla used ECE R85 the same way that Tesla used to show battery limited power for each model, but stopped doing that when they introduced the D-models as I wrote in this post:


Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L - Page 81

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm not subscribed to this thread anymore, but I got bored for a second and parsed out this thread. Let's see who the top posters in this thread are:

Thanks for doing this! I actually suggested to brianman in another thread that if someone did do an analysis on the number of unique posters they will likely find that the various threads are made up of many comments from a few poster (and that I was one of the "guilty" parties) and your analysis confirmed my suspicion.

 

[lolachampcar]

When talking about high(er) discharge rate batteries, I was thinking in general of my RC LiPo packs which routinely are pulsed discharged at over 20C and continuous discharge around 10C.

Credit to Techmaven for the following from another thread-
BTW, here is an interesting thread on pulse discharging and effects of high c-rate discharge on the NCR18650BE (very similar to the cell in 60/85 kWh packs) in comparison to other similar cells:

Continuous vs intermittent discharge

This little piece comparing samples of the NCR18650BE and the NCR18650BD is also interesting:
Comparing Panasonic 18650 BD vs. Panasonic 18650 BE 18650 Battery | BATTERY BRO

The BD can do 10A continuous discharge with basically the same capacity as the BE, but the charge rates are also vastly different. Would you be okay with 2/3's the supercharging rate but triple the discharge rate?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Edit: Actually, the earliest mention of ECE R85 I can find relating to Tesla is from stopcrazypp in August 2015, a full 10 months after the P85D was announced, and not from Tesla themselves.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I was not the first mention even on this forum. I only mentioned ECE R85 because someone else mentioned it in the context of the EU registrations using that standard in another thread and I dug up the actual text of the standard to take a look at what it says about rating power.

I do know the Model S manual was updated to mention it some time in March and rns-e had a screenshot from before the October 2014 launch that shows that ECE R85 was mentioned in a footnote in the EU specifications page (this was before the dual motor models were launched). I will update my post with references later, when I find them.

References:

I believe you are referring to this comment for my first reference to ECE R85:

I looked up the ECE R85 that the EU certificate uses.
...

Another person pointed out that there was a message on the website originally related to ECE R85 during P85D launch:

When Tesla put up 691hp on teslamotors.com there was a note which said "** Tested in accordance with ECE R85. This dyno based test does not take the battery into account."

Why would you still think the car would be able to dyno 691hp with the 85kW battery?

Follow up posts found that the EU Certificate of conformance even from the earliest P85Ds in Europe in January 2015 uses numbers consistent with website (only the front motor was updated to the same 259 hp / 193kW as software updated 85D in april rather than advertised 221 hp /165 kW; adjust as need for minor difference between European hp vs US hp).

...
My P85D was produced in January, so it is part of the first batch of cars that were built for the European market. When I received the car, I also received an EC certificate of conformity dated January 21, 2015. I'm wondering if more recently built P85Ds have the same numbers in the power plant section of this certificate:

View attachment 90700

193 kW front back then translates to x1.362 = 262.943 PK (European HP) so this matches the currently advertised number.
350 kW rear back then translates to 476.839 PK and this no longer matches the currently advertised number of 510 PK.

When I ordered the car the advertised PK number was 700 (221 front and 479 back) but apparently the certificate states 262 front and 476 back.

Also note the lines on Maximum hourly output and Maximum 30min power. I have no idea what they exactly measure or stand for but they might help understanding the real life performance of the P85D.

rns-e post:

...
Prior to the P85D launch, it seams that Tesla had some very vital information on their site stating for each model the max output of the engine with an ** and the output of the engine with an *** and then the following explanation:

** = " tested in accordance with ECE R85 - This force measurement was taken without considering the battery"
*** = Specific vehicle performance considering the battery

View attachment 100336
...

 

[Andyw2100]

Thanks for doing this! I actually suggested to brianman in another thread that if someone did do an analysis on the number of unique posters they will likely find that the various threads are made up of many comments from a few poster (and that I was one of the "guilty" parties) and your analysis confirmed my suspicion.

However there is really no way to tell just who is reading the comments and who may be being influenced by them, one way or the other.

I've received many private messages, thanking me for continuing to post on my side of the argument, many from people who haven't posted themselves. I have to wonder if some people aren't posting for fear of the possible retribution from Tesla. (I'm not criticizing those people. Just pointing out the possibility.)

I know people on the other side are also receiving private messages offering support.

My point is there are a lot more people "participating" in these threads than actively posting in them.

 

[dsm363]

So since Tesla has used that standard for years what does it say about rating dual motor EVs? I thought this had been covered multiple times.

 

[vgrinshpun]

So since Tesla has used that standard for years what does it say about rating dual motor EVs? I thought this had been covered multiple times.

In the portion of the standard that specifies testing it talks about a drivetrain (singular). In another portion that specifies data to be provided by the manufacturer it has a field where manufacturer supposed to note whether the drivetrain contains one or more motors. I'll dig out my post on the subject. This was also addressed by JB in the Blog:

Since the battery electric horsepower rating varies it is not a precise number to use for specifying the physical capability of an EV. The motor shaft horsepower, when operating alone, is a more consistent rating. In fact, it is only this (single or combined) motor shaft horsepower rating that is legally required to be posted in the European Union.

---------Updated---------

The link is here.

 

[stopcrazypp]

So since Tesla has used that standard for years what does it say about rating dual motor EVs? I thought this had been covered multiple times.

It doesn't say anything specific about dual motors, but Tesla obviously chose to just add the two numbers.

However, I think the wrong question had been asked. Rather than what it says about dual motors, the more important question is what it says about testing the drivetrain with a factory equipped battery pack vs just a power supply. The way I see it, it very obviously does not require you to test with factory equipped battery pack (or equivalently factory equipped DC voltage source if talking about a fuel cell or capacitor based vehicle, for example). Others have disagreed. From Tesla's disclaimers related to ECE R85, "battery-limited", and Straubel's blog post, I think they view things the same way as me though.

However, under the case where testing with a power supply is allowed, whether Tesla tests the two motors at the same time, or tested them independently and added the results is pretty much moot. The only difference between the two approaches would be related to gearing (P85D specifically has different front and rear gearing, S60D/S70D/S85D is not affected).

 

[AWDtsla]

It doesn't say anything specific about dual motors, but Tesla obviously chose to just add the two numbers.

However, I think the wrong question had been asked. Rather than what it says about dual motors, the more important question is what it says about testing the drivetrain with a factory equipped battery pack vs just a power supply. The way I see it, it very obviously does not require you to test with factory equipped battery pack (or equivalently factory equipped DC voltage source if talking about a fuel cell or capacitor based vehicle, for example). Others have disagreed. However, if this is the case, whether Tesla tests the two motors at the same time, or tested them independently and added the results is pretty much moot. The only difference between the two approaches would be related to gearing.

Gearing does not matter, it is not covered by any standard. Every manufacturer rates power under controlled and corrected conditions at the crank. There is no standard and/or correction model for battery power. A 1 gear Tesla could actually achieve some HP number, yet still not be able to output the battery HP at high speed because the motor can not output that power at high rpms. Would that satisfy some people here? Maybe. But probably not.

edit - that reminds me, combining the numbers for high speed performance is probably the right thing to do, it's just different numbers than the ECE numbers.

 

[vgrinshpun]

It doesn't say anything specific about dual motors, but Tesla obviously chose to just add the two numbers.

However, I think the wrong question had been asked. Rather than what it says about dual motors, the more important question is what it says about testing the drivetrain with a factory equipped battery pack vs just a power supply. The way I see it, it very obviously does not require you to test with factory equipped battery pack (or equivalently factory equipped DC voltage source if talking about a fuel cell or capacitor based vehicle, for example). Others have disagreed. From Tesla's disclaimers related to ECE R85, "battery-limited", and Straubel's blog post, I think they view things the same way as me though.

However, under the case were testing with a power supply is allowed, whether Tesla tests the two motors at the same time, or tested them independently and added the results is pretty much moot. The only difference between the two approaches would be related to gearing (P85D specifically has different front and rear gearing, S60D/S70D/S85D is not affected).

The standard requests manufacturer to indicate whether electric drivetrain is "Monomotor/Multimotors (number) - see my post above for link.

Why do you say that there is different gearing? The Manual specifies only one gearing ratio: 9.73:1

 

[stopcrazypp]

Gearing does not matter, it is not covered by any standard. Every manufacturer rates power under controlled and corrected conditions at the crank. There is no standard and/or correction model for battery power. A 1 gear Tesla could actually achieve some HP number, yet still not be able to output the battery HP at high speed because the motor can not output that power at high rpms. Would that satisfy some people here? Maybe. But probably not.

edit - that reminds me, combining the numbers for high speed performance is probably the right thing to do, it's just different numbers than the ECE numbers.

I clarified my point with an update. I'm talking specifically about gearing affecting the combined peak power number. Because the front and rear motors are geared differently in the P85D, it is possible that the peak power of the combined motors is not just the simple sum of the two motors. This is because when the wheels are at the same rpm, the motors are not and thus the peak power point/area may not match up, so the peak power may be slightly less.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The standard requests manufacturer to indicate whether electric drivetrain is "Monomotor/Multimotors (number) - see my post above for link.

Why do you say that there is different gearing? The Manual specifies only one gearing ratio: 9.73:1

I have been reading that front is 9.34, rear motor is 9.73, for example listed here:
http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2015/road-test-specs.html

I think it may have been listed in some press material during launch, but can't find it right now.

 

[SteveWest]

Just to confuse matters, the metric versions of the website list a different number again for the P85D's battery limited output.

My calculator says 376 kW = 504 hp, quite different to 463 hp.

 

[P85DEE]

Thanks for the thorough translation. It represents a completely different picture than the one previously presented. And it matches what I had been thinking. Tesla previously used a rating that that EU regulations had them use and now added a lower rating for clarity in response to complaints (while keeping the motor power numbers on the same page). This is different from a case where they are making a correction to an incorrect number. It goes into the importance of consumer perception vs legal requirements.

It'll be interesting to see how the consumer complaint case goes (although I'm not sure how applicable it is to the rest of EU, given from what has posted so far the group handling it is inclined to side more with the consumer in most cases). The significance of the incorrect translation in Denmark is going to be interesting too (AFAIK, the Norway translation was correct). That should answer the question of if Tesla is even required to append "motor power" when mentioning that rating.

Interesting.

I felt the same, or a similar way when this thread initially started.

I looked at this as being somewhat akin to an ICE vehicle manufacture electing to include a RWHP number, or an at the hubs hp number in addition to, but not as a replacement for , their crank horsepower numbers.

It is of course not a "correction", but rather an addition.

 

[brianman]

sorka,
I think you would be amazed at the performance of a P85D with sufficient battery to sustain 480 KW of discharge rate for an entire 1/4 mile run. 10.9 would not come close to describing the results

Where do I get one of these?

- - - Updated - - -

My calculator says 376 kW = 504 hp, quite different to 463 hp.

What a cluster _, Tesla. Seriously, do you really want to people to embrace EVs are just throw their hands up and get an ICE instead?

(Thanks for sharing the info, Steve.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

Just to confuse matters, the metric versions of the website list a different number again for the P85D's battery limited output.

View attachment 100981

My calculator says 376 kW = 504 hp, quite different to 463 hp.

The Ludicrous one is correct though: 397 kW = 532 hp.

463 hp is 345 kW so doesn't seem like a simple typo either.

 

[Troy]

Here is another statistics: 5 out of 6 people on my ignore list were added from this topic. This topic has been a great success in terms of separating blind fanatics from true supporters. With two consumer watchdogs investigating, possible lawsuits pending and all the negative media coverage, you would think people would agree this is not great for Tesla and mistakes were made. However some people speak as if this is exactly how things were supposed to happen. Even if you ignore the process and just look at the outcome, the outcome is bad for Tesla. This means they need to change things, which is what they are doing.

Many companies make mistakes. In a recent interview Elon said Tesla made lots of mistakes. What matters is whether they fix these quick enough. Tesla used to have misleading prices on the order page (prices were shown after gas savings). They fixed that. The horsepower numbers were misleading. They fixed that. Now they should compensate the people misled by incorrect hp numbers. Also they need to work more on timing. It takes too much time to correct mistakes. Reminds me of Nokia.

Screenshot source