We do not have agreement on anything apparently. I consider making sure the fuel use (gasoline, diesel, propane, hamsters in wheels, or batteries) by the motors for testing to be a vital part of running a motor/engine and for an accurate measurement of a motor built for a specific application, such as in a a car. You apparently do not.
Not sure where I ever said to put diesel in a gasoline car or vice versa. lol. Seems to be some more fluff for you to throw out to make it, again, appear like these arguments actually have merit.
"Pretty sure the ICE still gets fed gasoline (or diesel or whatever fuel it's supposed to use). If it were fed something more exotic for gross testing I think people would have a problem with that."
That may be the wrong interpretation on my part reading it more carefully (admittedly I skim sometimes). I am referring to this line when talking about switching between gasoline and diesel.
At least we agree that an ICE will run differently if given different fuels. Extend that to the motors behaving differently with a different power source and we're finally getting somewhere. The former isn't permitted, or would immediately be seen as fraud if used to inflate numbers. You want to allow the latter even though it's the exact same thing as the first for the platform at hand.
I am not an expert in the SAE standards to comment exactly on the fuel, but it appears the standard was changed to add a fuel specification.
http://standards.sae.org/j1995_199506/
It could be possible the Gross standard didn't disallow high octane fuels or nitrous oxide (a search didn't turn up much).
At any rate, I don't agree with the analogy that fuel = battery. To me fuel = electricity in this case. The battery serves more function that fuel does and hard to compare to fuel. A power supply can also simulate battery characteristics by adjusting voltage and current and may make sense to include in a motor test bench. Whereas fuel is not the same (you need a tank and a pump).
However, the main reason I don't agree with the fuel analogy is because it is not necessary for the main argument. SAE gross got higher numbers than SAE net because it allowed automakers to use equipment and calibrations connected to the engine that were not stock. The main reason why they did that was because they were more concerned about the characteristic of the engine than the car as a whole. I don't see how this is different from Tesla's motor power rating.
While your (and Tesla's) interpretation of ECE R85 is definitely in question as far as I'm concerned, I fail to see the relevance of anything I just quoted above. We know how Tesla came to the numbers now thanks to JB Staubel's admission. They tested the motors, individually and independently of the battery and simply summed up the numbers. I'm pretty sure this had been accepted as the official source of the 691 HP number. So I'm not sure the point of the above excerpt. No one is questioning how they arrived at the number anymore, since it has been explained. The problem is the fact that the method they used to arrive at the number is complete BS when used as a spec for the P85D, the car. Again I point out that we bought *cars* from Tesla. Not motors. If I had bought the front and rear motors from Tesla... just the motors... and they gave me an invoice saying they sold me 691 HP worth of motors, I would have no argument. But they sold me a 691 HP *car* that can not produce 691 HP. How is this even in question, especially after admitting it in their own blog?!
I bring up ECE R85 because that is a standard that is accepted in the EU and it seems it doesn't factor in the battery. You were asking me if I feel if a standard that leaves out the battery should be allowed, so I pointed out that out as an example that it
IS allowed and approved in the EU at least. That seems very relevant to the discussion. It would be a very different case if I were not able to find any examples of horsepower standards for cars that didn't consider the system as a whole. My argument is that SAE Gross and ECE R85 are two such examples (and Tesla's "motor power" would be the analog to those). As for the rest, Tesla advertised 691 hp "motor power," they didn't advertise 691 hp car power. So far only the Denmark group has a case where Tesla advertised "691 hp performance" because of a bad translation for "motor power".
And as it relates to the whole SAE Gross analogy, you can similarly say back before the 1970s that you were buying a car with say 691 hp of power, not an engine, but SAE gross meant that the car you buy can never produce the 691 hp at any point in the pipeline because during the test it uses headers and calibrations that is not present in the stock vehicle.
At least for this, I think we both misunderstood each other. I was not saying that the motor would output max HP at any RPM. JB was referring to the summed motor power ratings, which is a static number, which makes the sentence in question false. (515 kW < 415 kW)
However, building on that, let's say the car was bolted to the ground, all four tires and the drive units unable to spin at all. The inverters were then commanded to produce maximum power. Now, the motors are not able to spin, but they can exert a force against their entrapment equal to the amount of power input... at 0 RPM... likely ending with the death of some components. This seems counter intuitive, but it doesn't change the definition of 1 HP (electric) being ~746W. The input power doesn't just disappear because the shaft isn't turning. Exactly how much power could be input in this situation I don't know for sure, but I'm damn sure it's far more than represented by the graphs you posted.
You may be parsing Straubel's statement in this way:
"With the P85D the
peak combined motor shaft power can often exceed the battery electrical horsepower available."
I am parsing it without the "peak" added, so my interpretation is that Straubel is saying that for the P85D there is a large chunk of the rev range (above ~40mph) where the available combined motor shaft power is higher than the battery hp because of battery limits. However, under that rev range, there is more battery hp available than there is combined motor shaft power. Note I am using mph here because the motors are geared differently, and are synchronized through the road. It is not because I am trying to obfuscate and switch to considering the car as a whole.
"With the P85D the combined motor shaft power can often exceed the battery electrical horsepower available."
I'm not sure if this is true or not, admittedly, because history is definitely not my field. Second hand, a reliable source (real world older friend who is very knowledgeable in auto history) tells me this is nonsense.
Logical thinking, however, is a pretty strong suit of mine. So logically, even if the reasoning for adoption were in fact to under advertise power due to a temporary fuel crisis, why maintain and utilize the same standard for 40+ years after the situation had passed? I mean, people want cars with high horsepower regardless of fuel economy these days when buying a powerful vehicle. No one looks at horsepower ratings as a measure of fuel economy these days, so why doesn't everyone just use SAE gross again to make the numbers look better if that's acceptable? Oh, because inflating the numbers isn't actually acceptable. DOH!
I'm not an expert on the automotive history of that time period either, but the era I'm talking about is referred to as the malaise era. It is my impression the most important point characteristic of that era was the fuel crisis. There were also things like emissions controls and unleaded gas that may have made it a good idea to have a lower advertised number (according to articles posted below). However, I don't believe for a second that automakers would be willing to switch to advertising 25-30% lower numbers out of the goodness of their heart.
As for why it continues, I think is up to a gentleman's agreement. I see it similar to Japan's 276 hp agreement, which continued until 2005 when someone finally broke it. Unless someone breaks from the crowd, everyone tends to like to maintain the status quo. There is no law however requiring automakers stick to a certain standard in all of these cases.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...ecifically-what-about-this-1979-ford-granada/
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
