Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

[TIppy]

I think he knows that. Hence my point.

No, I don't think he knows that. He was just blindly responding to some comments I had made.
I could be wrong, but I took his "no doubt" remark to mean of course he's run 10's he has the lastest and greatest.

 

[rowdy]

"The net result is that we can safely increase the max pack output from 1300 to 1500 Amps.

What this results in is a 10% improvement in the 0 to 60 mph time to 2.8 secs and a quarter mile time of 10.9 secs.

The new P90DLs are pulling 1600amps though aren't they? Isn't 1600amps required for a 10.8/10.9?

The original P90DLs can never achieve 10.9 without getting a swap to a 'new' battery. And even then, we don't know if any internal wiring in the car was upgraded to allow for the higher amperage. Might explain why some of the newer batteries are only usable in newer P90DLs.

Once again, early adopters have gotten screwed. Tesla are very naive if they think that this isn't getting back to potential buyers who are waiting for the bugs to get ironed out.

On the plus side I am very happy that Tesla have finally delivered a car up to spec and more importantly an improved battery with higher amperage and less voltage sag. It gives me great hope that we will see amazing things next year when the 21700 batteries get integrated.

 

[TIppy]

The new P90DLs are pulling 1600amps though aren't they? Isn't 1600amps required for a 10.9?

A new 1600 amp car has done 10.804.

 

[rowdy]

A new 1600 amp car has done 10.804.

Right. But no customer car @ 1500amp (the original claim) has ever done a 10.8/10.9

 

[TIppy]

Right. But no customer car @ 1500amp (the original claim) has ever done a 10.8/10.9

Doesn't mean it can't be done. In going from 1500 to 1600 amps its only a 2% increase in power. Surely a car and driver configured like TRC's that does 10.8 could do 10.9 with only 2% less power.

 

[St Charles]

Right. But no customer car @ 1500amp (the original claim) has ever done a 10.8/10.9

Very few have tried.

 

[rowdy]

In going from 1500 to 1600 amps its only a 2% increase in power.

Say what!? Power = Current(Amps) x Voltage.

We are seeing 1600amps (6.7% increase) with less voltage sag (higher voltage). Power is wayyy up on the new P90DLs

 

[TIppy]

Say what!? Power = Current(Amps) x Voltage.

We are seeing 1600amps (6.7% increase) with less voltage sag (higher voltage). Power is wayyy up on the new P90DLs

Yeah, but as you increase the current the voltage sags more. With my pack when I measured voltage and current I got:
1500 amps at 323 volts = 484500 watts
1600 amps at 310 volts = 496000 watts.

496000/484500 = 1.024

The P85DL packs sagged to 305 volts at 1500 amps.

 

[rowdy]

Yeah, but as you increase the current the voltage sags more. With my pack when I measured voltage and current I got:
1500 amps at 323 volts = 484500 watts
1600 amps at 310 volts = 496000 watts.

496000/484500 = 1.024

That's on your own 'New' battery. You can't apply your own 1500amp sampling to the original P90DL batteries. They are not the same. Original P90DL battery is not getting 323volts @ 1500amps.

Power difference between original P90DL and newest P90DL is way more than 2.4%

 

[TIppy]

That's on your own 'New' battery. You can't apply your own 1500amp sampling to the original P90DL batteries. They are not the same. Original P90DL battery is not getting 323volts @ 1500amps.

Power difference between original P90DL and newest P90DL is way more than 2.4%

Haven't seen any actual measurements of the 1500 amp voltage on pre-April packs, so can't say.

 

[St Charles]

The V1 P90DL was measured at 457kW. Assuming a 1500amp draw that's 304V
The V2 P90DL was measured at a max of 512kW. Assuming a 1600amp draw: 320V

Haven't seen any actual measurements of the 1500 amp voltage on pre-April packs, so can't say.

 

[vip gts]

Someone needs to do a run with and without 300 pounds and compare quarter-mile time.

 

[St Charles]

I've considered finding ways to temporarily lighten my car but I don't think I can get there. Car is still to new to me to let someone else race it.

Someone needs to do a run with and without 300 pounds and compare quarter-mile time.

 

[P85DEE]

you know your last 200 posts in a row have been in this thread... just wanted to point that out with how much time you have invested personally maybe its time to file a lawsuit if it truly bothers you so much you know like *sugar* or get off the pot?

if we look at the title for this thread its quite obviously about the new P90DL producing 662hp at the battery not about any of the pre refreshed cars at the least it maybe time you make a new thread for your battle...

You must be pulling your hair out right about now.

But if nothing else, you've probably figured out by now that it is difficult if not impossible to discuss one, without discussing the other.

 

[fiksegts]

read again, no doubt it can run 10s.

No, I don't think he knows that. He was just blindly responding to some comments I had made.
I could be wrong, but I took his "no doubt" remark to mean of course he's run 10's he has the lastest and greatest.

 

[St Charles]

read again, no doubt it can run 10s.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I hope to one day prove you right.

 

[fiksegts]

you don't know that for sure.

Yeah, but before the software update to the latest power, his car wasn't making use of the new hardware.

And 300 lbs can make a 0.2 second difference in 1/4 mile time.

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that a 6% increase in weight can cause a 2% increase in elapsed time.

Yeah, but before the software update to the latest power, his car wasn't making use of the new hardware.

And 300 lbs can make a 0.2 second difference in 1/4 mile time.

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that a 6% increase in weight can cause a 2% increase in elapsed time.

 

[fiksegts]

So you have "an idea" as to what they do... that's scientific?

why would you trust the magazines, they are the outliier here, if you want to go by crowd sourcing the data, then look around, plenty of attempts, no 10's.... except for 1, unknown correction factor to unknown raw data, not at a drag strip.

I guess you would say that I ran 10's as well, correct? I'll just punch in some #'s and correct my slips to the 10.9 @ 121 MPH? Do you think NEDRA would accept that as the "record" for the quickest EV (I currently hold this record BTW), or the Guinness book of world records?

I do have an idea of what they do with the raw data. That idea is based on reading what they wrote in their long and detailed article on their testing methodology. Testing, Testing - The Motor Trend Way - Motor Trend

"to ensure fair comparisons between cars tested in the high desert heat of summer and the dense cold of a Michigan winter, we record the weather conditions using a Computech RaceAir system and then use the SAE’s J1349 procedure as a guide to correct all test results to standard operating conditions of 77 degrees F, 29.32 inches mercury barometric pressure, and zero-percent humidity. This procedure also levels the field for multiple cars tested on a certain day that may start out cool and become blazing hot for the 10th car tested. To the best of our knowledge, only one competitor uses this same correction method. Another is believed to be using a different system to correct results to 60-degree dry air at 29.93 inches of mercury. Most others do not correct. Other than car-to-car variations, this is the main reason published test numbers vary for a given model of vehicle. It’s worth noting that the correction factor is reduced for turbocharged engines and for hybrids, because electric motors and turbochargers are not affected much by swings in barometric pressure (turbos reach a preset boost pressure regardless of intake air pressure)."


They also run multiple tests in both directions and average the results to account for head and tail winds or minor slopes on the track.

By contrast drag strip timeslips do not account for slower or faster results that might be due to:
- deep and shallow staging,
- track preparation,
- head and tail winds,
- minor slopes and
- other variations (altitude, temp) from one to track another.

Timeslips are not the end all that you think they are. Crowd sourcing the data, and compiling and aggregating it make it much more useful and, in the aggregate more reliable. But I would trust a magazine published results to be more representative of the car's actual performance capabilities than a single isolated time slip subject to all those factors.

In this case, the MT result was representative of a P90DL that weighs 4600 pounds and thus has no other heavy options.

 

[bhzmark]

Correct according the SAE J1349 standard for EVs. That would be fine. The correction is very minimal if it was anything. That's what MT did. You cant just make up the correction factor. Those who actually read the MT article on their testing methodology would see that.

MT aren't the outlier. A 4600 pound p90d is the outlier. Most people option up their car so it weighs more. And options have consequences.

Put 300 pound sand bags, or a couple passengers in your car next time at the strip. >=0.2 difference I bet.

So you have "an idea" as to what they do... that's scientific?

why would you trust the magazines, they are the outliier here, if you want to go by crowd sourcing the data, then look around, plenty of attempts, no 10's.... except for 1, unknown correction factor to unknown raw data, not at a drag strip.

I guess you would say that I ran 10's as well, correct? I'll just punch in some #'s and correct my slips to the 10.9 @ 121 MPH? Do you think NEDRA would accept that as the "record" for the quickest EV (I currently hold this record BTW), or the Guinness book of world records?

 

[fiksegts]

thats power measuring standard....

Correct according the SAE J1349 standard for EVs. That would be fine. That's what MT did. You cant just make it up.