Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications

[sorka]

I still don't get the outrage over the hp numbers posted/claimed vs actual delivered. The only reason I bought this car was for the performance. And it has lived up to the advertised performance or beyond. Tesla said 0-60 in 3.2. It's been documented by multiple magazines, via the industry's standards, to do 0-60 in 3.1. I don't care if the battery is only capable of 5 hp. It's the performance that matters. This car delivers everything they said it would and more. I'm not naming names, but anyone who didn't realize that the performance from a roll wouldn't be as impressive as from a dig, is, well, a moron. You could look at the advertised and tested 1/4 mile times and trap speeds and see that it was all down low. Compared to the RS7, the P85D goes 0-60 almost half a second faster, yet runs the 1/4 in basically the same time and with a much lower trap speed. Anyone with a brain should automatically know that the 60-100+ performance of the P85D must be significantly less than the Audi. Am I the only one who realized this before I bought my car???

There were no advertised 1/4 mile times for the P85D. The RS7 out accelerates the P85D from 70-90 yet only has 560 hp (1 hp / 8 lbs). The P85D was advertised as 1 hp / 7 lbs but in reality only has 1 hp / 9 lbs. The P85D accelerates from 70 MPH exactly as fast as it should given it's weight and actual HP. If it had the 691 hp that was advertised, it would be faster than the RS7 from 70 to 90 MPH.

- - - Updated - - -

Taken out of context. That was directly after the sentence saying its performance that matters. I suspect your comment was a bit tongue in cheek, though.

It is performance that matters and when I was driving home on the day I got my car, I realized the performance was not as it should on the highway for a car that had 691 hp. it performs exactly as expected on the highway for a car that weighs 5000 lbs and makes 480 to 555 hp(depending on SOC). If they'd said how much power the car actually makes instead of some made up number that it doesn't actually make, I wouldn't have noticed any problem with the performance at highway speeds.

 

[AWDtsla]

It's certainly a well-reasoned post by JB and explains their thinking along with much of the technical details we've discerned on our own, but it kind of sidesteps the core issue: Tesla used MAX(Ideal battery horsepower, Ideal combined motor horsepower) instead of MIN() in their advertising. Certainly we're in uncharted waters, here, but it's pretty safe to say that if a vehicle as a whole can't produce the claimed horsepower under any (even ideal) conditions, then you should not be advertising it as such. That's the key point, I think.

The folks on the Subaru forums had less anger against Subaru when their intercoolers heatsoaked and their knock sensors went off, and they had to use terrible Cal 91 gas. They certainly were well below the SAE rated power if you somehow took that to mean MIN().

But I don't think anyone would have cared if they just said the car had 550hp.

 

[vip gts]

I still don't get the outrage over the hp numbers posted/claimed vs actual delivered. The only reason I bought this car was for the performance. And it has lived up to the advertised performance or beyond. Tesla said 0-60 in 3.2. It's been documented by multiple magazines, via the industry's standards, to do 0-60 in 3.1. I don't care if the battery is only capable of 5 hp. It's the performance that matters. This car delivers everything they said it would and more. I'm not naming names, but anyone who didn't realize that the performance from a roll wouldn't be as impressive as from a dig, is, well, a moron. You could look at the advertised and tested 1/4 mile times and trap speeds and see that it was all down low. Compared to the RS7, the P85D goes 0-60 almost half a second faster, yet runs the 1/4 in basically the same time and with a much lower trap speed. Anyone with a brain should automatically know that the 60-100+ performance of the P85D must be significantly less than the Audi. Am I the only one who realized this before I bought my car???

Did you notice the promise of high speed performance improvement in future OTA software on the order page?
That is what kept many P85D owners expecting eventual 691 actual output.
I am awaiting the promised upgrade and will pay for it even if it only improves the high speed performance a little.
The sooner the promised upgrade arrives the better for Tesla and P85D owners.

 

[scaesare]

This has nothing to do with the power factor. A controller has a phase amp limit and a battery amp limit. The same car driven with two controllers with the same battery limit but different phase amp limit would not accelerate at the same rate assuming the controller was hitting the phase amp limits at low rpm. The two systems could still hit the same peak hp number assuming peak hp was not being limited by by the phase amp limit (safeassumption

Well apparently you don't want to address the issues with your post that were pointed out, and instead throw out references to things like simulators and and use terms like "phase amps", I'll try again:

Please define "phase amps" [1] as it applies to an inverter.

(and incidentally, if what you were attempting to describe was one inverter than was only capable of delivering less 3-phase AC current to the motor than another, then please don't waste your time with the above. Deciding to limit power up stream of the motors in the inverter, as opposed to the battery, in no way provides justification that the theoretical motor HP is wha the entire car should be spec'ed at)

[1] Folks familiar with AC electrical theory would refer to this as "current"

 

[DoctorJJ]

Does it perform 50% better than a P85?

It performs better than Tesla stated it would. Verified by numerous magazines and independent tests. No one ever said 50% better performance than the P85.

 

[sorka]

The folks on the Subaru forums had less anger against Subaru when their intercoolers heatsoaked and their knock sensors went off, and they had to use terrible Cal 91 gas. They certainly were well below the SAE rated power if you somehow took that to mean MIN().

Yea, but at least their cars make the advertised horsepower at least *some* of the time

 

[DoctorJJ]

There were no advertised 1/4 mile times for the P85D. The RS7 out accelerates the P85D from 70-90 yet only has 560 hp (1 hp / 8 lbs). The P85D was advertised as 1 hp / 7 lbs but in reality only has 1 hp / 9 lbs. The P85D accelerates from 70 MPH exactly as fast as it should given it's weight and actual HP. If it had the 691 hp that was advertised, it would be faster than the RS7 from 70 to 90 MPH.

- - - Updated - - -



It is performance that matters and when I was driving home on the day I got my car, I realized the performance was not as it should on the highway for a car that had 691 hp. it performs exactly as expected on the highway for a car that weighs 5000 lbs and makes 480 to 555 hp(depending on SOC). If they'd said how much power the car actually makes instead of some made up number that it doesn't actually make, I wouldn't have noticed any problem with the performance at highway speeds.

This is patently false. It was advertised as 11.8 from the day it was released (Oct 9th).

 

[flathillll]

Well apparently you don't want to address the issues with your post that were pointed out, and instead throw out references to things like simulators and and use terms like "phase amps", I'll try again:

Please define "phase amps" [1] as it applies to an inverter.

(and incidentally, if what you were attempting to describe was one inverter than was only capable of delivering less 3-phase AC current to the motor than another, then please don't waste your time with the above. Deciding to limit power up stream of the motors in the inverter, as opposed to the battery, in no way provides justification that the theoretical motor HP is wha the entire car should be spec'ed at)

[1] Folks familiar with AC electrical theory would refer to this as "current"

clearly you have no experience in this area. I am an EE/ME and have designed both controllers and motors

 

[sorka]

This is patently false. It was advertised as 11.8 from the day it was released (Oct 9th).

Please provide a link.

Feel free to use web.archive.org and look at a snapshot of Teslas website from any day that you like.

This is from before they lowered the 0-60 time from 3.2 to 3.1. 1/4 mile times only appear after the announcement for the P90DL and only for the P90DL.

 

[Andyw2100]

It performs better than Tesla stated it would. Verified by numerous magazines and independent tests. No one ever said 50% better performance than the P85.

Elon Musk said it would have about 50% more power than the P85. It doesn't. It doesn't come close to that.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Please provide a link.

Feel free to use web.archive.org and look at a snapshot of Teslas website from any day that you like.

This is from before they lowered the 0-60 time from 3.2 to 3.1. 1/4 mile times only appear after the announcement for the P90DL and only for the P90DL.

I couldn't find it on the archives either, but unfortunately the internet archive doesn't appear to display pages in 2014 correctly. The content is missing.
The break point seems to be 1/11/2015-1/12/2015 when the website was updated.
1/11/2015 doesn't display correctly:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150111035919/http://www.teslamotors.com/models
1/12/2015 does display correctly:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150112113623/http://www.teslamotors.com/models

However, during the P85D launch it was definitely mentioned that it was 11.8. If you google "p85d 11.8" you will find many articles from October 9th 2014 that reference that number.

Here's an article from October 9th 2014 that lists all the quarter mile numbers Tesla specified (although it is unclear if they ever had it in the website):
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a6358/first-look-tesla-model-s-p85d-dual-motor/

 

[scaesare]

I am an EE/ME and have designed both controllers and motors

Then you'll have no problem addressing the issues with your assertions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Elon Musk said it would have about 50% more power than the P85. It doesn't. It doesn't come close to that.

I suspect Elon mixed up torque and power. On the official written announcement it says 50% more torque, not power:
"The P85D combines the performance of the P85 rear motor with an additional 50 percent of torque available from our new front drive unit."
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/dual-motor-model-s-and-autopilot

 

[DoctorJJ]

Elon Musk said it would have about 50% more power than the P85. It doesn't. It doesn't come close to that.

Even if he said 50% more power, that never means 50% better performance. Not to anyone with any modicum of car knowledge.

 

[sorka]

I couldn't find it on the archives either, but unfortunately the internet archive doesn't appear to display pages in 2014 correctly. The content is missing.
The break point seems to be 1/11/2015-1/12/2015 when the website was updated.
1/11/2015 doesn't display correctly:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150111035919/http://www.teslamotors.com/models
1/12/2015 does display correctly:
http://web.archive.org/web/20150112113623/http://www.teslamotors.com/models

However, during the P85D launch it was definitely mentioned that it was 11.8. If you google "p85d 11.8" you will find many articles from October 9th 2014 that reference that number.

Here's and article from October 9th 2014 that lists all the quarter mile numbers Tesla specified (although it is unclear if they ever had it in the website):
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a6358/first-look-tesla-model-s-p85d-dual-motor/

That's a better answer than "patently false"

But yea, it was never on their website. I don't count what magazines report as "advertising".

 

[DoctorJJ]

That's a better answer than "patently false"

But yea, it was never on their website. I don't count what magazines report as "advertising".

It was reported by 50 different sources on the same day. Do you think they all came up with 11.8 from thin air? That was Tesla's announced performance number. It's patently false that there wasn't a target performance of 11.8 in the 1/4. I know it's hard to admit that you were wrong. But you might want to try, just this once.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's a better answer than "patently false"

But yea, it was never on their website. I don't count what magazines report as "advertising".

I probably shouldn't get between the two of you. For the record I was not the one who said it was "patently false", I just responded because I did some quick googling for sources and it appears to be true that Tesla said that the P85D has a 11.8 quarter mile on launch day.

We don't know if it was never on the website because the archives don't show website correctly for 2014.

 

[sorka]

I probably shouldn't get between the two of you. For the record I was not the one who said it was "patently false", I just responded because I did some quick googling for sources and it appears to be true that Tesla said that the P85D has a 11.8 quarter mile on launch day.

We don't know if it was never on the website because the archives don't show website correctly for 2014.

Yea, I wasn't saying you said that I was just complimenting you for providing a more constructive response.

 

[Andyw2100]

I suspect Elon mixed up torque and power. On the official written announcement it says 50% more torque, not power:
"The P85D combines the performance of the P85 rear motor with an additional 50 percent of torque available from our new front drive unit."
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/dual-motor-model-s-and-autopilot

I don't think Musk mixed anything up. He was talking about adding the second medium sized engine at the time.

And if it was a mistake, it was one people based purchase decisions on, so Tesla needs to own it.

Even if he said 50% more power, that never means 50% better performance. Not to anyone with any modicum of car knowledge.

If the car actually made 50% more power we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[DoctorJJ]

Yea, I wasn't saying you said that I was just complimenting you for providing a more constructive response.

I didn't realize I was going to have to give you links for something so widely reported, widely known, and until now never disputed.