Thứ Năm, 24 tháng 11, 2016

P85D motor hp controversy starts also to show in U.S. media part 8

  • Oct 12, 2015
    DoctorJJ
    Somewhere out there on the Dodge boards, Hellcat owners are bitching and moaning about drivetrain losses robbing them of the power needed (that they paid for!!!!) to beat a Tesla stoplight to stoplight.
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    sorka
    On the contrary, I don't see anyone complaining in the forums at the fact that the Hellcat dynos 635 to 645 stock which means that the Hellcat actually makes 750 hp if you assume a 15% drivetrain loss(typical of rear wheel drive) or only 9.5% drivetrain loss if it actually makes 707 fwhp.

    P85D motor hp controversy starts also to show in U.S. media - Page 59

    http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1016920_dodge-challenger-srt-hellcat-dyno-tested-may-be-more-powerful-than-claimed-video
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    DoctorJJ
    Sarcasm is completely lost on you, isn't it?
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    JonG
    I hate to point out that when tesla listed the 85D and added the motors powers they rated the motors at only 188bjp each when those motors were in fact 259 bhp motors. Ie they may have added them together in the same way as the P85D but they only rated them at a deliverable power level. So saying that tesla did the same for the 85D is simply untrue, to be the same they should have quoted the 85D as having 518 bhp as that was the theoretical max combined motor power and equivalent to the P85D published standard.
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    sorka
    Oh geez. My bad :)
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I'm not talking about drivetrain loss here, but what a hypothetical "net power" or "system power" for the P85D might be. I extrapolated that for a different post from the P85 numbers.

    I'll show my work here:

    P85 was rated at 416 hp and people got a peak of 360kW (482hp) from REST API. The ratio from advertised system power vs maximum REST power would be 86.3% using this method.
    If I use the 470hp from the motor power rating, I get 88.5%.
    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/archive/index.php/t-20823.html

    The highest number people got for the P85D in REST API was 550 hp. 550hp*86.3% = 475 hp, 550hp*88.5% = 487 hp. So I just rounded to 480 hp.

    So what I have is if Tesla put a hypothetical system number for the P85D, the number would be ~480hp. We already know 691 hp motor power. 480hp/691hp = 69.5%, which is a 30.5% discrepancy.

    1971 Cadillac Eldorado 8.2L V8 rated at 235hp net and 360hp gross. 235hp/ 360hp = 65.3%, which is a 34.7% discrepancy.

    I thought a bit about a hypothetical measuring for upstream of an ICE, but the idea just doesn't work. An ICE is about 15% efficient (in 1970s) so you would be given the ICE a 85% advantage by doing that, but an electric motor + inverter is going to be in the 90% range so it only gets a 10% advantage. The comparison just doesn't match because of that big difference.
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    vgrinshpun
    Of course I did. As I mentioned, Annex 6 specifies method of measuring max. and 30 min. power of a drive train. Annex 2 indicates, that a drive train can be monomotor or multimotor. So testing of the multimotor drive train includes multiple motors by default. Furthermore, you were the one who drew attention to the Annex 6 paragraph 2.3.1 which states that "During the test, the auxiliaries necessary for the drive train operation in the intended application (as listed in table 1 of this annex) shall be installed in the same position as in the vehicle"

    This is the point that JB Straubel brought up in his Blog post as well.




    Let me note the obvious: you ostensibly was responding to my remark, which was clearly not directed at the time of the launch of P85D, but rather time when discussion about the "missing horsepower" was in full swing. The point I was making is that some owners unhappy with Tesla were choosing to ignore any and all information that did not fit their perception. *You* then responded, basically denying that you personally were part of the discussion of ECE R85. If you meant the period of time concurrent with introduction of P85D, your response was irrelevant to the point I made.

    In fact even now you insist that ECE R85 is "irrelevant" because it has "nothing to do with the horsepower of the vehicle". The problem is that it has something to do with how Tesla rated their drive train, so declaring it irrelevant because *you* want to talk about "horsepower of the vehicle" does not make much sense to me.

    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    In April, the 85D had the software updated in version 6.2 that boosted motor power by changing the motor controller firmware (remember that the number includes the motor controller).
    http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/new-update-sports-acceleration-85d?page=1

    And they did advertise the 85D at 514 hp motor power when that change happened.
    It's abundantly clear when they had both numbers on the same page for the same model.
    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/44691-P85D-691HP-should-have-an-asterisk-*-next-to-it-Up-to-691HP/page39?p=970726&viewfull=1#post970726
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    sorka
    I agree that the P85D has 19.7% to 30.5% less power than what was advertised. So if that's what you mean, I agree. The drivetrain loss between the battery and the wheels is about 10%. Most of that 10% is probably from the motor shafts to the wheels. It seemed you were implying that the drivetrain loss was 30%.
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    cynix
    ECE R85 would be relevant when Tesla starts selling bare drive trains. Until then, this regulation is irrelevant for a potential buyer of the vehicle as it does not measure the actual power of the vehicle as a whole.
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    sorka
    Sorry. Not seeing it. Where does R85 state you can add up the motor powers together? Why doesn't Tesla do it in the owners manual. The only place they ever listed 691 hp was in their sales literature where they *DON'T* mention ECE R85.


    Not true. I was responding to this comment by you:


    To which I responded:

    I never denied I was part of any conversion. You obviously misunderstood. I was denying that ECE R85 had been widely dicussed in the early days of this dispute and even before that. And it seems obvious that others interpreted what I meant, based on responses in this thread, even if you didn't.

    There's the bullet list that I put up earlier. Every single item on that list is *exactly* why ECE R85 is irrelevant :)

    - - - Updated - - -

    And then someone has to come along and show me how it's done :)
    �
  • Oct 12, 2015
    darthy001
    I find it very telling that you focus on semantics of my "a lot" instead of replying to the core of my argument which was your lack of any real world proof for misleading C-ratings on other manufacturers cars... Your focus on top speed is also interesting since you have no proof that Porsche hasnt simply limited all electric mode on purpose due to needing to high C-ratings for to long periods of time for higher speeds.

    -Do you think the 918 Spyder is capable of an all elecric mode 0-62 in 6.1seconds? And how is that possible with your Tesla imposed 5C max rating for a small battery as in that Porsche?

    -How much battery power would you think the Porsche actually needs in order to reach that acceleration time?
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    JonG
    and that's exactly my point.... They treated the P85D differently on that advert to the others. They explicitly stated the system power as well as motor power except on one model, and unfortunately it was the model with the biggest to lose.

    Edit: tesla knew when they upgraded the motor software that other limits kicked but elected not to and to my knowledge never have, said what the equivalent was for just one car. None of the examples you've shown for the 85D have left any ambiguity. Only on the P85D.

    Then add add in the different basis for 0-60 etc.

    They have simply done everything they can, deliberately, to exaggerate the gap between their models
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    If you look at the history, which I posted, the time when they "left out" the P85D started in April. This was the same time when the long 691 hp thread was already a long thread:
    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/44691-P85D-691HP-should-have-an-asterisk-*-next-to-it-Up-to-691HP

    If all Tesla intended to do was to "exaggerate the gap between their models" all they had to do is to not update the 85D to have more power. Thus, I don't believe they were intending to maintain a gap.

    I find it far more likely the reason they "left out" the P85D is that they are/were still evaluating what to do about the P85D complaining, while for the others they didn't have that worry.

    And my main point was that the only time there was a "gap" between the two advertised numbers was because in April they used two rating systems including the combined one. After that they removed the combined numbers (likely in response to the complaints). So there was really only one month where people may have seen such a gap.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    Dennis87
    vgrinshpun:

    When UNECE can't answer if Tesla have followed the R85 correctly how can you? I have also contacted two testing labs that test motors using R85 and they also can't answer that question since they also say that the regulation is not clear.

    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Looks like you simply contacted the wrong department. The person answering clearly does not have the technical expertise to interpret the document (and he said he was not authorized to do so in the first place), and he referred you to "Type Approval Authority and the Technical Service granting such approvals".

    Also, the way you worded your question was overly convoluted. The only question that needs to be asked is if the regulation requires connecting the stock traction battery to the EV drive-train under test.

    And I'm pretty sure the testing labs can answer a question like that. Are they always required to plug in the stock traction battery for an EV motor/inverter test or can they just plug in a power supply? If a lab can't even answer a simple question like that, how are they going to do the validation tests?
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    Dennis87
    One of the testlab did answer that they did know about the ECE R85 but had not tested electric motors alone, so they was not able to give a answer. They also did write that the ECE 85 regulation was not clear enough on electric motors. But they did write that on ICE engines the fuel pump and injectors have to be the same as the car is equipped with.

    So the standard is simply not clear enough when not us, test labs and even UNECE cant agree on how it should be tested.


    The AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY STANDARDS testing regulation is based on the ECE R85 but is much more clear.
    https://araiindia.com/hmr/Control/AIS/782013122003PMAIS_041_F.pdf


    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Well, if they never tested an electric drivetrain then they might not even know what to look for in the electric section. And I don't agree necessarily the UNECE doesn't agree, as you asked a different question to them (you asked about adding the motor power together, which the specification does not specifically address, but the "dc voltage source" it does address). Also they are not authorized to interpret either (even if the person answered it would be his personal interpretation, not that of the organization).

    On the ICE part it does say on page 31:
    "4 | Fuel supply pump3 | Yes, standard production equipment"
    "6 | Fuel injection equipment (petrol and diesel) | Yes, standard production equipment"

    However on EV part, page 42 it says:
    "1 | DC voltage source | Voltage drop during test less than 5 %"
    The argument is that given it does not say "standard production equipment" on that line (whereas it does elsewhere in the same table), it's optional, but having a testing lab verify their typical procedure obviously would be better.
    http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R085r1e.pdf

    That looks like a draft from some association in India. And they crossed out drivetrain everywhere and replaced with motor for some reason (which changes the scope of the test).

    Also the line you quote does not say the battery is required either, just that it might need to be recharged if it is attached. This would be similar to sorka's point elsewhere about a description of table 1 saying the items should be laid out as they are in the vehicle, as evidence that the stock battery pack is required to be attached, but actually table 1 had a bench test auxiliary fan that shows that the comment only applies where applicable (not to entire list).

    And it still has this line that indicates the test results may not necessarily reflect the battery performance:
    "If the battery limits the maximum 30 minutes power, the maximum 30 minutes power of an electric vehicle can be less than the maximum 30 minutes power of the motor of the vehicle according to this test."
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    AmpedRealtor
    Doesn't the existence of this thread, and others like it, show that Tesla's chosen paradigm is causing confusion among consumers?
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    brianman
    I think it's abundantly clear that it's causing a significant rift among the Tesla enthusiast crowd. That's pretty telling on its own. If I was employed by Tesla, this would bother me. As a stockholder, it definitely bothers me. It's frustrating that the decisionmakers at Tesla haven't recognized this yet and taken effective action.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    sorka
    Combined power was stated for the P85D like every other model until May when they removed the combined horsepower rating.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I should note even though the threads are long, it is a lot of the same people not being able to reach agreement (admittedly I'm guilty of that too). The absolute number of unique people may not necessarily be that many.

    Also, some of Tesla's recent reaction to the complaints may have made things more confusing (like adding back the system rating in April for the other models and pulling the P85D combined number in May). The method actually was consistent before April where all models were rated under motor power, but now the P85D/P90D is left out without a combined number.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    brianman
    I wonder if that's something that could easily be added to the thread stats somewhere: number of unique posters and number of unique posters in the last 2 days.

    Also a chart of unique viewers of time would be interesting. Probably something I'd write an app for rather than expect the forum to show it directly though.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    Max*
    A few of the other forums I visit have that (you can click on stats, it gives you poster name and number of posts in thread). I was surprised TMC doesn't.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    sorka
    I agree they were not consistent in April. The 85 and 85D put out more power than advertised while the P85D put out way less power than advertised.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    vgrinshpun
    First, the link above is for a draft of the document by Indian Department of Road Transport and Highways. The final Rev.1 of the document can be found here.

    I do not think so. It appears to be quite sloppy copy and paste job from the different documents without a thoughtful attempt of making requirements uniform, so that one can compare offerings from different manufacturers. The result is quite a mess of a potpourri. I think that in spite of differences in opinions between the frequent posters here, we could have come up with a more coherent document.:smile:

    For example:

    Para. 3.1 allows testing motor power by testing the motor using bench dynamometer *or* by testing the vehicle using a chassis dynamometer per **manufacturer's option** (How that allows consumer to compare apple to apples remains a mystery)

    Table 1 indicates that an Independent DC Voltage Source with voltage drop of less than 5% should be used as a power supply, while Para 4.2.2 says that power supply may be as given as in Table 1 (Independent DC Voltage Source) **or** from the Rechargeable Energy Storage System (REESS) of the vehicle. Then 4.2.2. goes on to say that "voltage shall be maintained within the specified limits by supplying energy to REESS using power supply in Table 1. (?? Are they suggesting connecting vehicle battery pack and independent DC voltage source in parallel to maintained "specified" 5% voltage drop??)
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Wow, good catch on that point. However, what you point out is important in a different way. It seems the India team there interpreted that Table 1 section of the ECE R85 the same way we did, namely that Table 1 refers to a power supply (Independent DC Voltage Source; they even used the term directly) as opposed to a RESS of the vehicle (AKA stock battery).
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    Stoneymonster
    Isn't this thread supposed to be about media mentions of this issue? Not another place to hash it out?
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    vgrinshpun
    We are trying to ensure that there is enough information posted here for media to write about:wink:
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Yes, another off topic thread. There really haven't been any media mentions other than shortly after the letter, so nothing much to add there.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    Andyw2100
    Actually that's not true.

    There were more media mentions after the blog post than after the letter.

    And apparently there's more going on in the media in some of the Scandinavian countries.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    vgrinshpun
    Yes, this is a notable point indeed.

    Just to make it clear, besides us and Indian Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, this Regulation was interpreted the same way by Tesla Motors (per the JB Sraubel's Blog Post), *and*, most importantly, by authorities which had jurisdiction over this. This is why the European Certificates of Conformance that come with Tesla's purchased in European countries include motor power on them.

    I know that some do not mention this Regulation without appending words "if one believes your interpretation", but it should be pretty clear by now for any open minded person familiar with the issue that this Regulation is without any doubt directs EV manufacturers to rate their vehicles using EV drivetrain hp rating, without taking into account the potential limitations of the battery pack.
    �
  • Oct 13, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Ah, you are right, it was after the blog, not the letter. Got confused from looking at first article in this thread (which mentioned the letter). What I meant was other than the articles posted around the same time as those linked by the OP of this thread, there haven't been much if any other media reporting (at least in English media, can't speak of other countries).
    �
  • Oct 14, 2015
    Luclyluciano
    All ICE potentially can produce more HP than what the car is marketed at with system upgrades. But the actual cars are not marketed that way as it is misleading. They have actually been sued for doing so. Teslsa's marketing of motor power is simply marketing the potential HP of the motors but not of the actual car itself and therefore is misleading leading to this controversy.
    It really is cut and dry obvious. You cannot sell potential HP without disclosing it.


    Hyundai Offers $85 Million to Settle Horsepower Suit

    Mazda Offers to Buy Back 2001 Miatas With Overstated Horsepower - AcuraZine Community


    Toyota and Honda lied to get sales. Horsepower
    �
  • Oct 14, 2015
    sorka
    ...and these are fairly small differences by 10 to 20 hp. I think Tesla gets first prize for most over stated power ever. In the daily driving range of the battery it's overstated by 136 to 211 hp and that's at the battery. If you factor in conversion losses before it reaches the motor shafts, the difference is even greater.

    That said, I'm willing to cut them handicap/discount due to the fact that the drivetrain losses from the motor shafts to the wheels is half of typical ICE AWD systems but that only makes up 10% at most.
    �
  • Oct 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    I already pointed out why those are not applicable at length up thread somewhere.

    In the first two examples, the cars lost power because of US market emissions controls. Thus even under their own testing standards, the car lost power compared to when they were advertised (which would presumably be power numbers before changes to the engine for US emissions reasons). Thus, their claim was literally false.

    This does not apply to Tesla's case, where it is simply a different testing standard. The car did not lose any power but in fact actually gained power for the 6.2 update.

    In the last link, all Toyota did was rerate their cars for future models and adopt the SAE standard instead of their own. They offered no compensation. This seems to illustrate there is no legal obligation to use a specific test standard (even when in the case of the ICE it was industry convention already, whereas in EV case there is no convention yet). There was also an example given about complaints over Nissan's Q45 acceleration numbers and it seems no compensation was offered for that too.

    So it is most definitely not cut and dry against Tesla.
    �
  • Oct 14, 2015
    Luclyluciano

    The point was they were sued for overstating horsepower. You shouldn't expend so much energy trying to defend trying to defend POTENTIAL HORSEPOWER. Like I said....even ICE are tested & can potentially make more HP with upgrades but automakers are not allowed to mislead the consumers by advertising that the motor could potentially produce more HP if only.................


    Furthermore, for those defending Teslas misleading advertising due to the ECE R85, here is an important stipulation which should put this all is to rest....


    1. 5.0 TESTING PROCEDURE
    2. 5.1 Bench Dynamometer procedure
    5.1.1 Auxiliaries
    5.1.1.1 Auxiliaries to be fitted
    During the test, the auxiliaries necessary for the [COLOR=rgb(50.196000%, 0.000000%, 50.196000%)]drive trainmotor[/COLOR]operation in the intended application as listed in Table-1 shall beinstalled in the same position as in the vehicle.


    I translate the "auxiliaries" to be the battery etc. They must be the same as in the intended application which is the actual car being sold. It already has been proven here that the auxiliaries of the car do not allow the motors to produce the advertised 691HP.
    �
  • Oct 14, 2015
    stopcrazypp
    Your examples show automakers were sued for misstating horsepower under their own standard. The first two examples was where the engines lost power for emissions requirement reasons. Thus even if a judge ordered them to test their engines under their own standard it would under perform. It has nothing to do with potential horsepower.

    And on that point, the standard Tesla used was not about potential horsepower, it is about rating a component (the motor) vs the car. And what would aid Tesla's case is that they advertised using "motor power" terminology.

    As for your specific point, it had been discussed multiple times already. The auxiliary line refers to table 1. Table 1 has an entry for "dc voltage source" (which would cover the battery) and that line did not specify it must be the "standard-production equipment" whereas it does for other items.
    �
  • Oct 14, 2015
    Stoneymonster
    Plus, looking at the compensation given in a lot of those cases, I wouldn't get too excited about a few hundred dollar gift certificate to the Tesla store.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)