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

[P85DEE]

Make it my wife's P85 vs your P85D (Insane, not Ludicrous) both at 80% SoC (or less) with that 5 car lead and make it title for title and you've got a deal. I could always use another P85D, especially if you'd be giving one away like that.

(Spoiler alert: The P85 would win by almost a car length, assuming we're talking Model S car lengths and equal reaction times)

Then why not simply state that in order to have a chance the P85D will need to be running at an 80% state of charge or less and at a five car distance behind the P85 in order for the P85 to win by "almost a car length", and disregarding any reaction time advantage?

Way too many variables in that to even consider.

Indeed, it's laughable. I'm supposed to race you on a somewhere around a 79% state of charge AND spot you 5 tenths for over 100 grand. :lol:

If you're talking about that kind if an advantage, then you've already proven my point.

Also, weren't we discussing 85D vs P85D?

 

[wk057]

Then why not simply state that in order to have a chance the P85D will need to be running at an 80% state of charge or less and at a five car distance behind the P85 in order for the P85 to win by "almost a car length", and disregarding any reaction time advantage?

Way too many variables in that to even consider.

Indeed, it's laughable. I'm supposed to race you on a somewhere around a 79% state of charge AND spot you 5 tenths for over 100 grand. :lol:

If you're talking about that kind if an advantage, then you've already proven my point.

Also, weren't we discussing 85D vs P85D?

Was your idea, I just added the 80% SoC portion (for both cars, not just the P85D) to prove how your race could be easily thwarted by tweaking one simple variable, where it should have been impossible to tweak for a win if the P85D actually had 691 HP, or any significant horsepower advantage and not just a burst of initial torque. Edit: I also didn't say our race had to disregard reaction time advantages, was just saying that reaction times being equal this would be the outcome. If you're that much faster with the tree, you'd still win... but that wouldn't be the case, so, no worries on my part.

As for the 85D and P85, the 85D and P85 power and torque numbers are virtually the same. The 85D even has a traction advantage over the P85, so, I'm doing you a favor by using the P85.

 

[P85DEE]

Was your idea, I just added the 80% SoC portion (for both cars, not just the P85D) to prove how your race could be easily thwarted by tweaking one simple variable, where it should have been impossible to tweak for a win if the P85D actually had 691 HP, or any significant horsepower advantage and not just a burst of initial torque. Edit: I also didn't say our race had to disregard reaction time advantages, was just saying that reaction times being equal this would be the outcome. If you're that much faster with the tree, you'd still win... but that wouldn't be the case, so, no worries on my part.

As for the 85D and P85, the 85D and P85 power and torque numbers are virtually the same. The 85D even has a traction advantage over the P85, so, I'm doing you a favor by using the P85.

I bought the car with more emphasis on how it performs over the distances that I'm apt to use it, than I did emphasis on horsepower numbers.

Performance capability where and how I'll be using it, is why I bought it.

However something following your edit of your last post caught my eye, and goes in part to what I was saying earlier, with regard to the 85D, though you seem to equate it's performance with the P85;

Edit: If you want a really good laugh, let's make it 40% SoC. The P85 would actually gain ground on the P85D after the initial jump. lol. With a 5 car lead, at 100% on both we're looking at maybe a 30-40' (2-3 car lengths) loss for the P85 in the 1/4, .....

And that tells me enough, and for me, justifies my purchase.

A car which can give up five car lengths at the start of a quarter mile race, and can still win it by 2 to 3 car lengths, tells me all that I need to know.

Had they started out even, and run head up, it would not even be close. Unless of course you want to run them both at a less than an optimum state of charge.

 

[wk057]

Something following your edit of your last post caught my eye, and goes in part to what I was saying earlier, with regard to the 85D, though you seem to equate it's performance with the P85;

And that speaks volumes

A car which can give up five car lengths at the start of a quarter mile race, and then can still win it by 2 to 3 car lengths, tells me all that I need to know.

I've driven (and have vbox data) from my P85 and an 85D. They're pretty much the same car, performance wise, in clear conditions. The 85D has an advantage when traction is questionable, but that's not drag race conditions. Feel free to collect your own data and prove me wrong.

BACK TO THE HORSEPOWER ISSUE.... The P85D's advantage over the P85/85D/90D is additional peak *torque* NOT additional horsepower. THAT is my point. The vast majority of the P85D's ability to win such a contrived race (at 100% SoC) is due to the initial higher torque. The rest of the advantage is the ~50 or so real horsepower advantage, which is really much less of a proportional advantage due to the power:weight ratios of the cars. (Edit: And drop the SoC on the P85D and the real power:weight ratio gets worse and worse with every % from 100% until it's actually worse than a P85/85D at the same SoC).

The fact that the P85D has higher peak torque due to the larger motor in the rear combined with the front motor is not and has never been in question. You scenario almost solely focuses on the torque advantage (the initial launch to catch up) and not any real horsepower advantage, thus further proving the point that the originally advertised ~250 HP advantage is meaningless. Edit: Worth noting that the torque figure for the P85D was not initially advertised.

 

[P85DEE]

I've driven (and have vbox data) from my P85 and an 85D. They're pretty much the same car, performance wise, in clear conditions. The 85D has an advantage when traction is questionable, but that's not drag race conditions. Feel free to collect your own data and prove me wrong.

BACK TO THE HORSEPOWER ISSUE.... The P85D's advantage over the P85/85D/90D is additional peak *torque* NOT additional horsepower. THAT is my point. The vast majority of the P85D's ability to win such a contrived race (at 100% SoC) is due to the initial higher torque. The rest of the advantage is the ~50 or so real horsepower advantage, which is really much less of a proportional advantage due to the power:weight ratios of the cars.

Well your point is well taken, and here is mine.

I'm not one of those who really care so much about what the horsepower number is, so much as I care about what the car will do when I get ready for it to do what I want it to do.

As a side note, that's part of the reason why I'm on board for the Ludicrous upgrade. I'll take more short distance capability if it is there to be had. But I could use more from a roll passing capability. And if it gives me that and to my satisfaction, well then I don't really care how much additional horsepower it offers in doing so.

The fact that the P85D has higher peak torque due to the larger motor in the rear combined with the front motor is not and has never been in question. You scenario almost solely focuses on the torque advantage (the initial launch to catch up) and not any real horsepower advantage, thus further proving the point that the originally advertised ~250 HP advantage is meaningless. Edit: Worth noting that the torque figure for the P85D was not initially advertised.

You need to argue with some of these guys in here who actually care one way or the other what the actual horsepower numbers are. If the car does what I want it to do. I don't care whether it's done with smoke, mirrors, torque or horsepower.

I didn't buy the car based on it's horsepower numbers, but rather it's performance numbers in the areas where it is important to me for it to perform.

I care about one thing, and that's how the car performs in the type driving that I tend to do. I don't care what the horsepower number is, if the car can do what I want it to do, when I call upon it to do it, well then I feel like I got my money's worth.

I sought first performance and where I want it. Not horsepower.

 

[wk057]

Well your point is well taken, and here is mine.

I'm not one of those who really care so much about what the horsepower number is, so much as I car about what the car will do when I get ready for it to do what I want it to do.



You need to argue with some of these guys in here who actually care one way or the other what the actual horsepower numbers are.

I didn't buy the car based on it's horsepower numbers, but it's performance numbers in the areas where it is important to me for it to perform.

I care about one thing, and that's how the car performs in the type driving that I tend to do. I don't care what the horsepower number is, if the car can do what I want it to do, when I call upon it to do it, that's alright with me.

I sought first performance and where I want it. Not horsepower.

For once, we seem to be in complete agreement, in general. If you care about 0-60 type performance and off the line performance, then the P85D is the clear winner over the P85/85D. If you care about highway passing performance, then the P85D has no real advantage over the P85/85D, especially beyond the first 40 miles of driving or so.

Now where we aren't in agreement for some reason is when Tesla advertised 691 HP on the P85D this pointed to and implied vastly improved highway passing performance vs the P85/85D (and in my case and some others this was confirmed via conversations with Tesla). The fact that the *real* difference in power was hidden and is not so significant, and that early buyers such as myself had no way of knowing this beforehand, is the thing I have an issue with.

 

[P85DEE]

For once, we seem to be in complete agreement, in general.

If you care about 0-60 type performance and off the line performance, then the P85D is the clear winner over the P85/85D.

Indeed, we are in total agreement on that. I'll tell anybody, I chose it because of Insane and it's early adopter's quarter mile results.

I was looking for a sedan which would run with my Vettes in the quarter mile.

That this one was electric made it all the more appealing to me.

So the performance and the price were the first couple of things I looked at. Horsepower figures were down the list and when I saw this strange "horsepower motorpower" reference, I thinking "OK. I don't really know what that means in these new electric cars. But I've actually test driven it, and have been in it during an Insane launch, and I've seen what it can do in the quarter. So whatever they mean by that, it must be something good, because these are the performance numbers it puts up, and I want those performance numbers in my sedan."

In effect, I've seen enough to make my purchasing decision.

Similar to my experience with Ludicrous in test driving a P90D with it.

I did did two Ludicrous launches and took a highway cruise in one and decided I had seen enough.

If you care about highway passing performance, then the P85D has no real advantage over the P85/85D, especially beyond the first 30 miles of driving or so.

I won't even argue that, as I have no roll on experience against those cars in my P85D, while you seem to have extensive experience in such testing. If you're looking for someone to argue the point you make above, well then you're talking to the wrong man, as the highway seems, from what I've read, to be the great equalizer when it comes to different trim levels of this particular EV.

I will tell and have told people that too. Every car has its own kryptonite.

However that said, and tying in to your above paragraph, and to some degree to your below paragraph, I'm in line for the Ludicrous upgrade. If Ludicrous gives me additional highway passing capability to my satisfaction, then it matters not to me how much additional horsepower it offers. I think someone bothered to calculate it out at around 50-60 horsepower if I recall correctly. That is perfectly fine with me if my car can dip into the low 11s and give me a bit more oomph on the highway.

I look at it this way. We're in the 21st century now. Back when, horsepower was the be all and end all. The dawn of a new day is upon us, and I think that there are going to be more and more customers who will tend to look at performance numbers and price, before they look at hp numbers.

In fact, I don't think that they even use hp numbers to sell small yard equipment such as snow blowers and such, preferring to use engine displacement instead.

Now where we aren't in agreement for some reason is when Tesla advertised 691 HP on the P85D this pointed to and implied vastly improved highway passing performance vs the P85/85D (and in my case and some others this was confirmed via conversations with Tesla). The fact that the *real* difference in power was hidden and is not so significant, and that early buyers such as myself had no way of knowing this beforehand, is the thing I have an issue with.

Well then you guys have a beef. And as with any situation like that, one has to decide what direction they're going to take toward resolving it.

Thus each man or woman in here who feels this way, will need to decide what he or she is going to do about it.

For some, that will mean moving to another product, for others, it will mean not buying another Tesla, for others, it may mean buying Ludicrous and becoming less fixated on the horsepower numbers if that should give them what they seek in terms of passing power, for others it may mean something else.

By now, some of you have figured that instead of just two positions on this matter, there are actually three.

Those who insist that the car makes its power rating. Those who insist that it doesn't, and those who do not care as much as either of the first two groups, as long as the car performs to their own expectations.

 

[NSX1992]

I am glad that P85DEE has finally seen the other viewpoint that some of us were mislead when ordering the cars in October of last year when all the current information was not available. As I have said before I love my Tesla and bought it for the 0-60 times and will be spending the 5K for the Ludicrous upgrade. But I feel that Tesla was misleading in the hp description and am glad that they now show the true hp available.

 

[Auzie]

Here's the problem. Once the mistake was made,,there's no way back. None. Any voluntary admission of culpability or compensatory offer is an admission of guilt that invites suits, etc. and would significantly impact mission. so, those long term supporters need to decide how many mistakes they allow tesla before abandoning them.

It could be said that mistakes were made by both parties to the deal.

Tesla has already implied some sort of admission, by discounting L upgrade to affected customers.

Public apology and acknowledgement by Tesla would be inappropriate and not well placed for numerous reasons. Such admission would imply full Tesla culpability and no fault on behalf of the other party.

Both parties made some mistakes in this deal. People making purchase (or any other) decisions are the sole rightful owners of their decisions.

The degree of each party's culpability is a matter of opinion. Tesla might have better chances in front of judges but poorer odds in front of public.

To put Tesla's L upgrade offer in perspective: VW made the offer to affected customers, two $500 vouchers.

 

[lolachampcar]

I associate the discounted L upgrade as a nod to early buyers once it became clear to Tesla that they could not pull off L without a hardware change.

If I remember correctly, the sequence of events was-

Initial shipments.
Tweet and blog posts about an over the air update to provide P85D owners with high speed performance not seen outside the factory pending engineering validation.
Announcement of Ludicrous as a paid for upgrade to the P90D and acknowledgement to P85D owners allowing them to field upgrade at half the cost.

My take on the series of events is that Tesla shipped the P85D before Ludicrous was ready (no surprise, they do this all the time and we end up getting products that get better with time). The engineers ran into contactor problems during validation testing and perhaps damaged a fuse or two. Elon had already set expectations that this whole deal would be a free over the air upgrade. Knowing P85D owners would be hurt by not having access to Ludicrous, Tesla generated a field update program and made Lemmon Aid out of lemons by making Ludicrous a ludicrously high margin option.

The only possible link to poor high speed performance would be Elon's early announcement of the free OTA update being tied to very early customer complaints. I am too late to this conversation to know the exact timing. How did the Tweet align with very early discontent on passing performance?

 

[Andyw2100]

The only possible link to poor high speed performance would be Elon's early announcement of the free OTA update being tied to very early customer complaints. I am too late to this conversation to know the exact timing. How did the Tweet align with very early discontent on passing performance?

My recollection is that there really wasn't much discussion of poor passing performance at the time we first heard about the coming OTA update. And while there may have been a Musk tweet, the main information I think most of us talk about with respect to that was the information which was actually posted on the Tesla website. (In other words it was more "official" than just a Musk tweet.)

As I recall, it really didn't feel like that was in response to anything. In fact, when the grumblings started, a lot of people were saying, essentially, "Let's just wait for that OTA update. It's sure to fix the problem."

At least that's how I remember things, but I could be mistaken.

 

[vip gts]

My recollection is that there really wasn't much discussion of poor passing performance at the time we first heard about the coming OTA update. And while there may have been a Musk tweet, the main information I think most of us talk about with respect to that was the information which was actually posted on the Tesla website. (In other words it was more "official" than just a Musk tweet.)

As I recall, it really didn't feel like that was in response to anything. In fact, when the grumblings started, a lot of people were saying, essentially, "Let's just wait for that OTA update. It's sure to fix the problem."

At least that's how I remember things, but I could be mistaken.

Yes that's how I recall it. I think it was mainly after the realization that the update was never coming that some owners became vocal. I predict that the same will happen f the p90d never gets close to 10.9

 

[jpet]

Yes that's how I recall it. I think it was mainly after the realization that the update was never coming that some owners became vocal. I predict that the same will happen f the p90d never gets close to 10.9

Yep, I totally agree. Within the first 2 weeks it was clear to me that there was something going on with the car's HP, but since we had to wait for torque sleep as well, I thought it would be fixed OTA.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If things are so "simple", why wasn't Tesla prepared to give a similar explanation when asked by confused owners? After months of giving owners the silence treatment, Andy had the idea to drop the question right on Elon's desk. (Thank you Andy.) This again resulted in no direct answer, even to date, but we did get a blog post by JB that did not! include the real battery limited hp figure. Why did we have to go on a crusade with Tesla to get the simple facts about this car?

The only answer I can come up with is because Tesla over promised and under delivered and did not know how to handle the situation. As far as I can tell, they still don't know how to handle the situation and that's not a good way to treat customers that buy your top-of-the-line model.

I answered this already. It was because by the time Tesla found out it would be an issue (in the March/April time frame), there was already a thread that was hundreds of pages long, with people threatening to sue. Tesla had to be careful in what they were writing and I'm sure by then Tesla's lawyers and PR people were already parsing everything. Just posting the battery-limited number would have just resulted in more passionate discussion and people being upset (I predicted this and it came true) and it being used immediately in lawsuits (someone else predicted this and it also became true). Even today knowing everything we know about how Tesla got those numbers, the people who felt misled do not feel that "solves" the issue. Posting the same thing a couple months earlier would not really have resulted in much difference in the result except perhaps a couple months more of angst and related threads having more discussion.

I disagree however with your "overpromising" terminology as it implies Tesla had intended to deliver or promise 691 hp battery-limited power when so far there is zero evidence they did (or even that it is possible in practical terms with technology Tesla is currently using). Ludicrous is still far short of 691hp battery-limited power.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I've never had a ptoblem with torque and power figures, that's because they are different things and both are published.

A BMW Diesel engine puts out 321bhp and 465 lb/ft (640d) (~45% bigger number in a car!!)

A BMW petrol engine puts out 325bhp and 332 lb/ft (640i)

How is this possible?! Why hasn't BMWs world fallen apart?

and if you want the ultimate irony..

VW (which we can all laugh about) put a V12 Diesel engine in some their vehicles with... Can you guess...? 493bhp and 738 lb/ft of torque... Sound a bit like a tesla?

I stayed away from this thread for the whole Thanksgiving, but as soon as vgrinshpun made that comment about 50% higher torque than power I knew someone would use a diesel car as a counter example. I will say however: 640d and 640i has exactly the same 0-60: 5.2 seconds.

The extra peak torque was absolutely worthless in terms of acceleration. That is why vgrinshpun's point seems to still stand in this example. Advertising only the battery-limited power and torque number does not do the job to explain the performance of the P85D. Your example also explains why people care far less about torque (unless they were buying a truck), and perhaps why Tesla marketing felt that would not be sufficient to advertise the car.

 

[JonG]

I stayed away from this thread for the whole Thanksgiving, but as soon as vgrinshpun made that comment about 50% higher torque than power I knew someone would use a diesel car as a counter example. I will say however: 640d and 640i has exactly the same 0-60: 5.2 seconds.

The extra peak torque was absolutely worthless in terms of acceleration. That is why vgrinshpun's point seems to still stand in this example. Advertising only the battery-limited power and torque number does not do the job to explain the performance of the P85D. Your example also explains why people care far less about torque (unless they were buying a truck), and perhaps why Tesla marketing felt that would not be sufficient to advertise the car.

I know the 0-60 performance is similar - that's the whole point, the individual numbers can vary significantly relative to each other (in this case acceleration and HP similar but torque very different) so justification based on ratios is flawed. Lets consider if Tesla changed their gearing for instance which sacrificed 0-60 but gave much better high speed performance. Battery limits stayed the same. Torque stayed the same. Motor power stayed the same. Everything stayed the same, just a change in gearing. We end up with a car that has a 0-60 time the same as those BMWs but much better mid range performance. The need to equate the car to a 691hp car would now seem irrelevant.

Anyway.. It's getting media coverage now

Watchdog: Owner bemused by Tesla’s power shortfall | Carbuyer

 

[rns-e]

vgrinshpun - as I understand you and others, you advocate that the 691 hp motorpower was the most correct way to advertise the power of the P85D, since that was the best way to tell the customers about the acceleration, torque etc. Because telling those things with 0-60 times and actual torque numbers would not reflect real life performance.

If I were to follow that logic, then how do I differentiate the performance of the following four cars that all have 503 hp rear and 259 hp front and 713 lb-ft;

P85D
P85D
P90D
P90D

All of a sudden it is in Teslas own interest to show actual power numbers and not just motor power, because now it is 463 hp vs 532 hp that is telling the correct story about real life performance.

I know you will most likely not agree, but those are the only numbers buyers are presented with by Tesla along side 2.8s vs. 3.1s 0-60 mph times.

But torque, 0-60 times, battery limited hp figures are not presenting real life performance correctly or has that changed now?

Edit: Just wanted to add the following quote from the article JonG found from the UK;

“A true indication of EV performance that is directly comparable to an internal combustion engine is the 0-60mph time and torque figures we quote.”

Apparently Tesla agrees that 0-60 times and torque figures are the best way to portrait real life performance, and then they forgot to tell us that they introduced the 1 foot rollout

 

[cynix]

Advertising only the battery-limited power and torque number does not do the job to explain the performance of the P85D.

It is not necessary to infer 0-60 performance from the hp number, because the 0-60 performance is already explicitly stated for each model. The hp number is only used for inferring high speed performance because Tesla doesn't publish high speed performance numbers. Therefore, in order for the hp numbers to be useful, it needs to be a number that reflects high speed performance, not 0-60 performance.

 

[P85DEE]

I know the 0-60 performance is similar - that's the whole point, the individual numbers can vary significantly relative to each other (in this case acceleration and HP similar but torque very different) so justification based on ratios is flawed. Lets consider if Tesla changed their gearing for instance which sacrificed 0-60 but gave much better high speed performance. Battery limits stayed the same. Torque stayed the same. Motor power stayed the same. Everything stayed the same, just a change in gearing. We end up with a car that has a 0-60 time the same as those BMWs but much better mid range performance. The need to equate the car to a 691hp car would now seem irrelevant.

Anyway.. It's getting media coverage now

Watchdog: Owner bemused by Tesla’s power shortfall | Carbuyer

"In the rare case when a customer finds their Model S isn’t for them, we’ll do what we can to help them move on.”

Read more: Watchdog: Owner bemused by Tesla’s power shortfall | Carbuyer http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/1513...used-by-tesla-s-power-shortfall#ixzz3smvzmOj6

I guess we may find out what she means by "move on". Her statement can be taken a few different ways.

 

[Jian Yang]

So they are organising a buy back? Now what would you do then folks?