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

[Andyw2100]

It does not matter how hard it is to find the information and that was part of the point. Auzie asked you for information and you denied her and told her if she really wanted it she could go back looking through this thread...just as if you wanted to know what motor power horsepower meant you could have investigated without Tesla's information (even though when asked Tesla produced the information).

Tesla did not produce the information when asked for quite some time. People were emailing, asking for the information for months. Threads were growing on TMC, with Tesla employees well-aware of their existence, for months. Also the situations are not at all comparable. One involves a TMC member asking another for information, when the two posters have essentially no relationship or responsibility to each other. The other involves customers who have spent well over six-figures on a product, asking the company they purchased the product from for information about their purchase. These are two very, very different situations.

The other point being that (to my knowledge) nobody who now has an issue with the hp number ever asked Tesla in the first place what motor power horsepower meant; you all assumed it meant the same as horsepower did if you were buying an ICE

This isn't close to the truth. Many people have posted that they did ask, and were told that it was the horsepower at the motor, as opposed to at the wheels. wk057 has posted many times that he asked this question specifically. I don't believe that the Tesla employees who provided the incorrect answers did so with any intent to deceive. I believe that at the time, they were providing the information as they understood it.

 

[P85DEE]

Besides another several thousand message board posts? I don't expect much else to happen. I suppose that it will have a very small downward effect on Tesla's sales due to a lessening of the word-of-mouth benefit they will get from some customers, a somewhat larger but still very minor effect if either the Scandi actions garner widespread press attention or if someone files suit in the US and it attracts significant attention in the automotive press. I don't think there is any scenario where this drama has a significant effect on their brand, nor do I think there should be.

I do think that Tesla could probably eliminate even that small downward effect on their brand with some kind of customer outreach, but I've become skeptical that they will do so. If they intended to offer some token to affected customers I'd have expected them to do so already.

The less tangible effect is that now many people are less willing to assume the best about them. If, for instance, no customer car ever achieves the performance advertised for the P90D, I think that people will react much worse than they might have previously.

I appreciate your feedback and much of your prediction above, is consistent with some of my own.


Though I don't believe that lessening word of mouth benefit is apt to happen in the U.S. because the car has built quite a reputation in just a very short time.

And it's to a point to where it's reputation actually precedes it.

One of the strangest things I've seen, is that non owners actually will talk the car up for us.

Some of the stuff is legend extending to outright myth, seemingly straight from out of Snopes. For example, I saw on another forum, someone, a non owner, claim that the Ludicrous 0-60 spec was 2.6 seconds as opposed to 2.8.

There are YouTube videos of it everywhere stomping the crap out of very powerful cars in the quarter mile.

The magazine articles, constantly reinforcing the 700 plus horsepower number, also figures to also play a significant role.

In in the words of the late Al Davis, "just win baby", as long as it continues to do that on the strip and stoplight to stoplight, what we are discussing in this thread won't impact it and Tesla much IMO.

If/when the Ludicrous cars consistently hit the very low 11s and go into the 10s, and god forbid someone manages to break 10.9 and video it, well then its reputation will be firmly cemented even if there is raging argument in the midst that it only has 200 horsepower.

 

[yak-55]

It is not wrong. The explanation is here.

The P85D with motors rated 463hp will be slower 0 to 60 than 85D that has motors with combined rating of 518hp

Wrong again. The RATING is irrelevant. Its the power produced in the vehicle which matters.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Wrong again. The RATING is irrelevant. Its the power produced in the vehicle which matters.

The rating defines torque according to the formula T=691 x 5252 /rpm, where rpm is motor speed at which motor power reaches it's max rating of 691hp. The torque is constant up to about 40mph, as explained in my post linked above. You have to spend time to read and understand the post I linked to realize how wrong you are.

 

[tomas]

Wrong again. The RATING is irrelevant. Its the power produced in the vehicle which matters.

Achhhh! The motor produces the power. Please look a v's hp/torque charts.

 

[kennybobby]

...To say that Tesla misrepresented their car by claiming 691 motor hp is simply incorrect. The first thing that I look at when looking at a complex system that has few inbuilt motors that make such system perform any work, is to look at motors spec. That spec is one of the most informative metrics of the system, as it determines the system performance in various scenarios.

Well it seems to me that if someone is looking at electric motor 'specs', then for ac induction motors the specs would be as stipulated by the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) Standard 60034. For example, Part 1: Rating and Performance, defines the duty cycle ratings on a scale from S1 to S10, which relates the operational time and load for which a motor can run to reach thermal equilibrium at a specified maximum temperature. S1 is continuous duty, S2 is short-time, S3 is intermittent periodic duty, etc.

When a rated quantity (output power, voltage, speed, torque) may assume several values or vary within limits, then the rating shall be stated at these values or limits. The motor will have the applicable ratings listed on the label.


Another electric motor standard is available from the Institute of Electical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Std 112-2004, IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, which provides instructions for conducting and reporting the more generally applicable and acceptable tests used to determine the performance and characteristics of polyphase (mostly 3-phase) induction motors and generators.

Of course if TMC were selling motors, then they would be required to have a motor rating label just like everyone else, but obviously they don't sell motors—-they sell cars.

So it makes you wonder why they tried to use some ECE automotive standard to express electric motor performance, when these other standards already existed solely for rating electric motors?

- - - Updated - - -

Achhhh! The motor produces the power. Please look a v's hp/torque charts.

No the motor is commanded to produce torque, this is covered and clearly explained in the patent describing the AWD control system. The output power is calculated based upon this torque and the resulting speed that the motor can reach against the sum of the loads.

To move a 5000 lb vehicle from 0 to 60 in 3.2 sec only requires an output power of 342 hp before losses.

Add in friction, aero loads and losses of energy-conversion and the number goes up to 463 hp for a tesla vs 707 hp for a hellcat vs 691 hp for a McLaren F1. So the tesla wins by being the most efficient at converting energy against real loads as measured by the real output power.

--updated with more mind-numbing technical details--

The rotational force or torque produced by a three phase induction motor is a function of the magnetic flux in the stator poles, the rotor current, and the cosine of the phase angle between the rotor emf and rotor current.

The gory maths and details can easily be found on the web, but in simplest terms it boils down such that the torque is proportional to the stator current squared. So to double the torque requires 4 times more current.

The speed that a motor runs is determined by the balance between the torque generated by the current, and the external load forces against which the motor is trying to overcome. When the torque exceeds the loads, acceleration occurs.

The mechanical output power can then be calculated by multiplication of the applied torque times the resulting speed.

 

[Auzie]

...............
So it makes you wonder why they tried to use some ECE automotive standard to express electric motor performance, when these other standards already existed solely for rating electric motors?

My guess is that they tried to use a language and wording that had a slim chance of being understood by a wide audience. It looks like it did not work. It does not mean that Tesla was wrong, it just means that Tesla may be very lonely where they are now, with not many people who can understand what they talk about.

If you were Tesla, would you try to talk to anyone who is not highly trained in the matters discussed here, using the language that you used below? Such discussion would just fly over people's heads, people would tune out

......... Rating and Performance, defines the duty cycle ratings on a scale from S1 to S10, which relates the operational time and load for which a motor can run to reach thermal equilibrium at a specified maximum temperature. S1 is continuous duty, S2 is short-time, S3 is intermittent periodic duty, etc.
When a rated quantity (output power, voltage, speed, torque) may assume several values or vary within limits, then the rating shall be stated at these values or limits. The motor will have the applicable ratings listed on the label.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Well it seems to me that if someone is looking at electric motor 'specs', then for ac induction motors the specs would be as stipulated by the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) Standard 60034. For example, Part 1: Rating and Performance, defines the duty cycle ratings on a scale from S1 to S10, which relates the operational time and load for which a motor can run to reach thermal equilibrium at a specified maximum temperature. S1 is continuous duty, S2 is short-time, S3 is intermittent periodic duty, etc.

When a rated quantity (output power, voltage, speed, torque) may assume several values or vary within limits, then the rating shall be stated at these values or limits. The motor will have the applicable ratings listed on the label.


Another electric motor standard is available from the Institute of Electical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Std 112-2004, IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, which provides instructions for conducting and reporting the more generally applicable and acceptable tests used to determine the performance and characteristics of polyphase (mostly 3-phase) induction motors and generators.

Of course if TMC were selling motors, then they would be required to have a motor rating label just like everyone else, but obviously they don't sell motors—-they sell cars.

So it makes you wonder why they tried to use some ECE automotive standard to express electric motor performance, when these other standards already existed solely for rating electric motors?

The first standard that you mention includes generic definitions of motor duty cycles. The ECE R85 has specific definitions of duty cycles that were established as required for presenting characteristics of electric drivetrains - maximum and 30 minutes power rating. So the principle that is addressed in IEC 60034 is incorporated in ECE R85. The obvious reason for using ECE R85 over IEC60034 is that the former includes specific duty cycle that is mandated for use in Europe to define the rating of an EV drivetrain, while the latter establishes a general principle that purchaser has to specify duty cycle, and provides general definitions as to how electric motor duty cycle is determined.

As for the second standard, IEEE 112-2004, it deals with testing of the induction Motors, and flat out does not apply to the Tesla drivetrains. The characteristic of the induction motor is different than characteristic of the Tesla drivetrain that includes induction motor controlled using Flux Vector PWM drive.

Disclosure: I am a professional EE (PA and WI) and IEEE member for more than 20 years.

 

[LetsGoFast]

The rating defines torque according to the formula T=691 x 5252 /rpm, where rpm is motor speed at which motor power reaches it's max rating of 691hp. The torque is constant up to about 40mph, as explained in my post linked above. You have to spend time to read and understand the post I linked to realize how wrong you are.

Is there anything that could not be entirely explained with torque and horsepower (real hp, not rated hp) curves. The higher rated motors produce more torque and have higher low-end performance, but that could that not be described with the torque curve? If so, there is no need to provide some hypothetical "motor rating" when there are real measurables which could do all of that.

 

[vgrinshpun]

No the motor is commanded to produce torque, this is covered and clearly explained in the patent describing the AWD control system. The output power is calculated based upon this torque and the resulting speed that the motor can reach against the sum of the loads.

To move a 5000 lb vehicle from 0 to 60 in 3.2 sec only requires an output power of 342 hp before losses.

Add in friction, aero loads and losses of energy-conversion and the number goes up to 463 hp for a tesla vs 707 hp for a hellcat vs 691 hp for a McLaren F1. So the tesla wins by being the most efficient at converting energy against real loads as measured by the real output power.

The motor is indeed controlled by the inverter that make the motor produce constant torque from 0 to about 40mph. The value of this torque is determined by the capabilities of the motor, that are expressed by rated max power and rpm at which this rated maximum power is achieved. As I posted above these two values (max power rating and the corresponding rpm) uniquely define torque that the inverter is called to produce by controlling the motor.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there anything that could not be entirely explained with torque and horsepower (real hp, not rated hp) curves. The higher rated motors produce more torque and have higher low-end performance, but that could that not be described with the torque curve? If so, there is no need to provide some hypothetical "motor rating" when there are real measurables which could do all of that.

If P85D would have been specified with the 463hp and torque produced by the motors, there would be a mismatch between the torque and hp ratings, and it would be as confusing as any other variants that were suggested. The HP calculated using torque and rpm would not match the battery limiting hp.

There would be also a "little" problem of the mismatch between the ratings shown on European Certificates of Conformity required for every vehicle sold in Europe and the rating that you suggest Tesla should have been using (463hp), without mentioning combined motor rating of 691hp.

This goes back to what I was mentioning above (and preceding posts vividly demonstrate this) - Tesla did something pretty clever and innovative by using differently rated components of the P85D propulsion system to an effect of maximizing performance from the stand still, in spite of the limitation imposed by the battery - performance that they specifically based their marketing campaign on, performance that they absolutely provided, and performance that can be enjoyed by absolutely everybody, any time they wish, not just being on the race track. The basics of this are pretty involved and do not lend themselves to be easily explained by one or two numbers. You need to require prospective customers to take an engineering course to understand what Tesla did with the introduction of P85D.

 

[stopcrazypp]

More telling for me is

"It corresponded to the way horsepower is traditionally measured in cars, and accurately reflected the performance of the various models.

The new horsepower number, however, is simply a measure of the maximum power that the motor itself is capable of producing. It does not take into account any limitations imposed by the particular battery and inverter that power that motor in a specific vehicle."

The first sentence refers to how Tesla used to report power levels for their cars. Note what I consider to be a simple common sense collection of words "and accurately reflected the performance of the various models". This pretty much sums up my dismay. Tesla migrated away from an understandable common sense method of communicating their product's power levels and to some BS method that speaks only to the motor(s) itself/themselves. Normally this would happen out of a need to conform to an external standard or a need to BS your customers. What I find especially interesting are the people in this thread vehemently defending the specification by excruciating examination of every word and reference to a European testing method all in an attempt to explain such an idiotic move.

Yes, the author in this case shared the same opinion of some here (namely that the only hp metric that makes "common sense" is one that reflected the whole system; I've disputed that this was "common sense" rather than just opinion in previous posts, so I don't want to rehash here). I should note that the author, David Noland, does get fairly critical of Tesla at times (this was one of his more "neutral" articles). Anyways, Straubel's post basically explained the logic behind the decision, namely they felt the "motor power" numbers were better reflective of the performance of the dual motor vehicles (which was why they introduced this with them). They seemed to track correctly with the performance, given there was not really criticism of the numbers for 5 months.

Personally given I understood what the numbers meant from the moment they were posted (again the S60 vs S85 numbers being the same just stuck out to me as well as the "motor power" wording), I never felt it was BS, so I don't see things the same. It's just a different method of rating the motors (the article actually is slightly incorrect, as the standard Tesla uses does take into account inverter limitations, the only thing left out is the battery). I can see why those that didn't understand what they meant would see things that way, but I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the majority view (again a unbiased consumer survey would have to be done on "horsepower" to determine this, not only the opinions of those in this thread).

I know it has been suggested that Tesla could have done the same with torque numbers, but torque gets a back seat as a performance metric (unless you were shopping for a truck). During the announcement, Tesla did mention the P85D had 50% more torque than the P85 (that was the only thing they mentioned in the official written dual motor announcement), but everyone still focused on the hp number.

Also, the P85D does perform as like a 691hp car up until it hits the battery limit (which is from the fact that it is a 691hp capable set of motors). Just showing the torque and battery-limited power doesn't really demonstrate this. What does work is what they do now showing both numbers, but I suspect as tomas puts it, they may have thought that would cause more confusion, so they switched everything to one system across the board (with "motor power" to distinguish the change).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...P90L/page181?p=1249119&viewfull=1#post1249119

As for the discussion about the standard, in Europe at least, that was applied since before the dual motor launch (screen shot linked below). It's also what's listed on the certificate of conformity. At this moment, we can't really say for sure if it was legally required or not in Europe (in the USA I know it's not, since there is no legal requirement for using a certain standard).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...or-P85D-and-P90L/page81?p=1229983#post1229983

The Norway decision by the consumer group, if it turns out to be positive for Tesla, I think it is fairly certain the EU requirement was there. If it turns out negative it will remain a question mark.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. That's the article that includes the following:

"The company is already working on an update to the website to explain this distinction between net power and "motor power." "

I suspect what happened is that the reaction to the numbers didn't turn out unexpected (everyone felt it made sense given the measured performance) and then that got put on the back burner in respect with blog posts for other things: Model X factory retooling, gigafactory, battery swap, Roadster 3.0, Straubel's post explaining range of the Model S dual motors, 70D, etc.

It was only 5 months later (in March starting with the 691hp thread) were there rumblings that it might be an issue, and that was the time Tesla made multiple changes to the numbers on the site (as I documented in previous posts).

 

[rns-e]

Yes, the author in this case shared the same opinion of some here (namely that the only hp metric that makes "common sense" is one that reflected the whole system; I've disputed that this was "common sense" rather than just opinion in previous posts, so I don't want to rehash here). I should note that the author, David Noland, does get fairly critical of Tesla at times (this was one of his more "neutral" articles). Anyways, Straubel's post basically explained the logic behind the decision, namely they felt the "motor power" numbers were better reflective of the performance of the dual motor vehicles (which was why they introduced this with them). They seemed to track correctly with the performance, given there was not really criticism of the numbers for 5 months.

It was only 5 months later (in March starting with the 691hp thread) were there rumblings that it might be an issue, and that was the time Tesla made multiple changes to the numbers on the site (as I documented in previous posts).

For users in Denmark it was about 1,5 week after delivery the first users contacted Tesla saying something was wrong. I assume we start the clock from when the first cars was delivered and not from October 10th 2014? First cars delivered in Denmark was mid March 2015.

- - - Updated - - -

Achhhh! The motor produces the power. Please look a v's hp/torque charts.

And the battery delivers the energy for the motor to produce power, and in this case the battery turns out not being able to deliver all the power that the motors needs, so it is a 'whole car' issue

But we have been over this a million times.

Please show me just one customer that has been able to produce the 691 hp without voiding their warranty - not possible in the P85D

 

[yak-55]

The rating defines torque according to the formula T=691 x 5252 /rpm, where rpm is motor speed at which motor power reaches it's max rating of 691hp. The torque is constant up to about 40mph, as explained in my post linked above. You have to spend time to read and understand the post I linked to realize how wrong you are.

This is plausible (but unsupported by data outside Tesla). And while an elegant and circuitous way to realize its the low speed torque that is "responsible" for the high 0-60 acceleration, we agree. The problem with talking about a peak HP RATING to infer something about low speed torque is that the peak rating ALSO implies something about the car's performance at high speed. This high speed behavior is never witnessed because the CAR never produces the RATED hp. This is misleading and invites false comparisons to other cars that do produce (something close) to their rated peak hp.

If Tesla wants to publish the huge torque figures produced by the car great. But that's not what they are doing. They are over-reaching with marketing to claim silly hp numbers for the car, and then hiding behind a European part specification to defend themselves. The wheels may be rated for 1000 hp, but it would be misleading to use that to suggest the P85D is comparable to a Veyron (or Maclaren).

 

[lolachampcar]

Am I the only one here that looks at the P85+ (my old car) and the P85D (the current one) and thinks-

Ok, they are drawing 25%-33% more power from the battery which explains some of the difference and
They are putting the power down via four versus two wheels with some most excellent traction/launch control enabling 1.6 sec 60 foot times.

I'm sure if you peek around under her skirt you can desect the hardware specs sufficiently to claim it is the bigger motor's ability to suck more current at very low rpms thus the motor rated horsepower is relevant. I can not and will not argue with that but it is meaningless when you consider where the performance gains actually come from and the idea that Tesla likely made no changes to the rear P drive unit thus it is likely exactly the same between the two cars, just provided with more current (battery, not motor based).

These rated HP numbers discussions are what I am referring to when I say people are going to extremes to explain how Tesla is technically correct in their combined motor hp statements. They may very well be but that is not why the PD is faster.

I do agree that Tesla was put in the awkward position of having to generate one liners for the press that truly represent how brilliant the PD actually is. I simply think 691 was not the right choice especially given hindsight and the current backlash. Then again, everything is obvious with the benefit of time.

 

[lolachampcar]

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.

 

[Krugerrand]

Tesla did not produce the information when asked for quite some time. People were emailing, asking for the information for months. Threads were growing on TMC, with Tesla employees well-aware of their existence, for months.

But they did produce the information regardless of the fact they took time to do so. In the meantime, nobody had to buy a vehicle they did not fully understand or have information for. Indeed, I'd bet that if nobody had bought the P85D until the information was made available, that Tesla would have been quicker to produce the information. :wink:

This isn't close to the truth. Many people have posted that they did ask, and were told that it was the horsepower at the motor, as opposed to at the wheels. wk057 has posted many times that he asked this question specifically. I don't believe that the Tesla employees who provided the incorrect answers did so with any intent to deceive. I believe that at the time, they were providing the information as they understood it.

And it is horsepower at the motor, thus accurately termed 'motor power' horsepower as opposed to 'wheel power' horsepower, or 'shaft' horsepower, or 'battery' horsepower, or whatever. So those performance minded people would then have asked additional questions; How much of that motor power horsepower am I going to get at the wheels? What sort of performance am I going to get when passing at higher speeds? Where can I find the technical data to support it? When can I test drive it?

Let's be real here. People got excited and in that exuberance they didn't do as much due diligence as they may have normally. In their want for owning the top of the line, best technology in this new vehicle arena, they didn't do as much due diligence at they may have normally. And because we're in new territory and people like to think they know more than they do, this particular detail got over looked, misunderstood, and down right assumed incorrectly.

I'm happy to place a certain amount of blame at Tesla's feet for not doing enough customer education, but at some point it would be nice if the unhappy owners took ownership for their part in the whole situation - unless of course they believe adults should be treated like children and have their hands held.

On the bright side of things, thanks to these early adopters, the information is now available for new consumers and we're entering a whole new level of understanding of electric vehicle system.

 

[Jian Yang]

The video of the first P85DL was posted on the other thread, and I think everyone should be happy now, right? Basically Tesla is already compensating for the P85D buyers by only charge a total 5000 USD to upgrade the P85D to P85DL, while charging 10000 USD for doing the same upgrade to a in factory P90D. It really looks to me that they were going to offer these upgrade over the air and then found out that the upgrade was not possible without hardware modification. And from the information out there, the hardware upgrade seems very complicated and difficult to pull off, and cost a lot. In fact I'm impressed that tesla was able to start the upgrade to P85Ds this quickly.

 

[Andyw2100]

The video of the first P85DL was posted on the other thread, and I think everyone should be happy now, right? Basically Tesla is already compensating for the P85D buyers by only charge a total 5000 USD to upgrade the P85D to P85DL, while charging 10000 USD for doing the same upgrade to a in factory P90D. It really looks to me that they were going to offer these upgrade over the air and then found out that the upgrade was not possible without hardware modification. And from the information out there, the hardware upgrade seems very complicated and difficult to pull off, and cost a lot. In fact I'm impressed that tesla was able to start the upgrade to P85Ds this quickly.

So we should be happy that we're being given the chance to pay an extra $5000 for something we thought we were getting in the first place, and something that even you acknowledge in your post Tesla thought they were to be providing at no charge in the first place? (You say you believe Tesla thought they'd be able to provide the upgrade over the air, and then discovered it wasn't possible.)

There's also no indication yet that this upgrade provides close to 691 HP. We're fairly certain it won't.

I'm sorry, but no.

 

[Jian Yang]

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. People complained about not getting something they mistakenly thought they were offered. IMO, P85D buyers and tesla are both responsible for this misunderstanding. Tesla is trying to provide the P85D performance improvement (which was not guaranteed), just like all other free OTA improvements. Tesla is actually trying to do something good here and this kind gesture does not mean they were guilty. So be at peace and enjoy.

 

[jpet]

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 would be satisfied if they would offer 691 hp at the battery, which is around 515 kW. That is what I expected to receive.

We could finally try to keep up with a 560 hp RS7.