Tesla Modifies Horsepower Ratings For Dual Motor Model S


Cutaway Of The Dual Motor System

Cutaway Of The Dual Motor System

Tesla deserves a bit of a slap on the wrist for this one for failure to comply with industry norms.

Previously, the automaker had stated that the horsepower ratings for the dual-motor Model S performance electric cars were simply calculated by adding the hp ratings for the front and rear motors to arrive at a combined figure.

Well, there’s a restricting factor called a battery.

Due to battery energy restrictions, the dual-motor Model S sedans don’t actually put out horsepower like the old ratings issued by Tesla, so the automaker has revised the figures.

This in no way affects the performance of the cars.  They still accelerate just like they did before. The cars remain the sames, while the hp numbers get changed.

Via Teslamondo, here are the new, reduced hp ratings:

Revised HP Ratings

Revised HP Ratings

Tesla Model S P85D Specs From Launch A Year Ago

Tesla Model S P85D Specs From Launch A Year Ago


One month ago, Tesla CTO J.B. Straubel tried to explains the AWD HP & torque discrepancy that some Model S owner were questioning. Straubel’s blog post on the topic can be found here.

Categories: Tesla


Leave a Reply

79 Comments on "Tesla Modifies Horsepower Ratings For Dual Motor Model S"

newest oldest most voted

It only took over a year for them to finally put down what should have been stated from the start. I have no problems with them saying it has two motors that can put out X amount of HP full tilt, You need to put down what people actually can do in the car they are buying. It wouldn’t shock me to see Tesla get lawsuits (They already have one in the European area). Dodge can’t tell me the new Viper has 1,000HP and it comes to light that’s only a track version with no restrictor software.

We shall see in the next few months what happens.

Makes perfect sense, except for one thing.

How come the P90D is faster to 100 mph than a Charger SRT Hellcat, which is suppose to have 707hp? According to the above the P90D has 532hp and the car also weights considerably more than the Hellcat, so how can it accelerate faster? Is it just that ICE’s are so wasteful and inefficient, that they sit there waiting for high revs before being able to make full power?

Actually that’s probably it. I’d love to know what the horse power rating of some sports cars are at <2,000 rpm… They must be quite a bit lower than the specs.

Torque and the way electric cars put it down from 1 RPM.

Hellcat has 650 lb.-ft. of torque, which is only available at the top of the power curve. Electric motor can do 100% from 0. In the case of P85D, all of 713 lb-ft as soon as your right foot move.

So HPs are no longer the best way to measure power.

HPs are a good way to measure power, but it should be measured from 0-max RPM not only some numbers at a certain RPM. And if you have more than one gear, all gears need to be mapped.

The hellcat might have only 200HP at 900RPM. Graphs anyone? Kdawg?

If you spin the gas engine at peak torque or power with fully open throttle even from the start while controlling via clutch slip, torque/power at start is max, not the level of idle. One would have to be a helluva tap dancer to pull it off or use electronic/servo controls on the clutch with rev limiter on engine.

Question is, why is gas car still slower than Tesla in 0-60, even with far more torque available at the wheels due to gearing advantage?

SparkEV asked:

“Question is, why is gas car still slower than Tesla in 0-60, even with far more torque available at the wheels due to gearing advantage?”

1. Because the torque rating given for a gas engine is typically its maximum power output, which it develops only at maximum or near-maximum engine speed… which it won’t be running at most of the time. Contrariwise, the type of electric powertrains used in modern EVs put out maximum torque even starting from a dead stop.

2. Because the poor gasmobile has to waste time shifting gears while accelerating from 0 to 60… and the Model S, like most well-designed EVs, does not.

1. So what’s stopping the gas cars from spinning the engine to produce max torque or horsepower from the start?

2. There is no gear shift involved; gas car is in gear that’ll maximize power at 60 mph.

SparkEV said: “1. So what’s stopping the gas cars from spinning the engine to produce max torque or horsepower from the start?” Ummm… is this a serious question? If so: The fact that making a direct mechanical connection between an engine running at high speed with wheels which are are stopped, is physically impossible. That’s why gasmobiles have clutches. Furthermore, the electric motor can provide full torque even when it’s not spinning at all — at a dead stop — whereas the gas motor will completely die if it’s turning too slowly. “2. There is no gear shift involved; gas car is in gear that’ll maximize power at 60 mph.” A bit of Googling shows that in the very top category, “Top Fuel”, drag racers actually do what you claim, much to my surprise — they use a single fixed gear ratio, no transmission, and so no gear shifts required. But they still use a clutch, so still can’t instantly engage the engine at full torque the way an electric powertrain can. However, I’ve never seen any article about a Model S running against a Top Fuel drag racer. The articles are usually about running the Model S against some… Read more »

1. If you’re saying gas cars cannot spin their engine at peak torque RPM at idle, well, my old Geo Metro would happily let me spin at any RPM at idle. Your assumption is wrong.

2. If pro drag race cars use clutch slip technique in one gear, what’s preventing normal gas cars from using the same technique? They are all capable of slipping the clutch to iad acceleration, yet all the argument you make that gas car’s engine RPM must be intimately linked to wheel RPM.

You also say clutch slip at constant engine RPM would lose torque. Obviously, you have no idea how basic Physics works.

Answer to point #2.
Drag cars have their clutch pack (there is more than one clutch in the Top Fuel cars) replaced after every 1/4 mile run. You want to replace a clutch every time you turn around?

THANK YOU Trey M. Finally, someone who seem to understand what I’m talking about. Yes, I agree it’s awful for the clutch. But for one good 0-60 mph run, it would seem gas car would be faster than Tesla.

Every gar car with stick goes through some level of clutch slip, especially when starting from stop. In that case, doing what I propose is just another form of operating mode. So if gas car does this to beat Tesla by burning up its clutch in one good run, it would seem that would be legitimate use case.

Even if it’s not used at peak torque RPM, it would seem that limited slip could make gas car much quicker. The question is, what level of clutch slip is acceptable? Obviously it can’t be zero.

1) When you rev your engine with the clutch in while sitting at a stop light, your engine isn’t “idle” anymore, by definition. Even though your car remains stationary, that isn’t the same as your car’s engine remaining idle. Those are two different things that are unrelated.

2) The FULL power from the engine isn’t getting to the wheels while the clutch is slipping. That’s why those clutches are getting hot. That is what is called “Conservation of Energy”. The full torque of the engine isn’t being transferred to the wheels.

I think what you have in mind is a CVT transmission. CVT’s can keep the RPM’s in a specific range, while having the gear ratio change “infinitely”. Instead of changing the engine RPM as the vehicle accelerates, the transmission continually changes the effective gear ratio.

3) Gas engines do not produce full torque/HP without load. Just revving the engine does not actually produce power alone. It just spins a relatively light crankshaft. The amount of energy required to spin just a crankshaft at 5000 RPM is much less than the amount of energy required to spin the motor at 5000 RPM under full load. That is why you can rev your motor up to 5000 RPM quite easily with only part throttle with the clutch in. It simply doesn’t take that much energy. So it is wrong to conflate peak power under load at a specific RPM, with RPM alone. If you rev your 700 HP engine up to 5000 HP at a stop light, you are NOT putting the full 700 HP worth of power to your spinning crankshaft, because it doesn’t take 700HP to spin your crankshaft at 5000 RPM. So you can’t just say that the engine is producing 700 HP just because it is revving at 5000 RPM (or whatever RPM). It isn’t. It is wrong to conflate the RPM with the power output, as if you always produced a certain HP at the same RPM regardless of load. Another example… Read more »

“peak” is the problem when it comes to comparing cars with identical “peak” HP or Torque ratings. Peak is just the maximum measure when the motor is operating at the peak.

But motors don’t operate at their peak 100% of the time. So what matters for 0-60 and 0-100 runs is what the power is throughout the entire operating range of the motor.

If a motor that is rated at a very high Peak HP and/or Peak Torque spends more time at much lower power levels, it might not be as fast as a lower rated motor.

You have to compare the whole graph of HP and Torque, and then figure out how much of the time the motor will be operating outside of the “power band”. Otherwise peak anything means nothing.

Pound foot… *lol*


Wouldn’t it go faster if you don’t pound the feet?

If Hellcat spins the engine at full torque RPM with fully open throttle while tap dancing on slipping clutch, wouldn’t it have all its torque avaialable even at 1 RPM of the wheel? This is why I don’t quite understand why gas cars are slower.

If they can tap dance on clutch, they can put it in whichever gear that’ll hit max torque at 60MPH without shifting. With mechanical advantage, power to wheels should be far more than Tesla’s single gear.

Physics would say gas car would be faster, but not in real life. Why is this? Inadequate tap dancing?

Yes but from 0-59mph, what are your HP? Right they are below max, maybe far below at 0-10mph.

For 0-60mph, you don’t care what happens after 60 mph. Also, gas car power doesn’t cut abruptly at 59mph. Gas car should be quicker. I don’t know why they aren’t.

I think I misread your Q, and you misread my post. Gas car is spinning at max torque RPM even at start. For race like this, horsepower doesn’t really enter into the picture as it’s only at single RPM.

But if the driver wanted peak HP instead, they can use another gear for peak HP at 60 MPH, and spin the gas engine fully open throttle at peak HP RPM from the start while tap dacing on clutch slip. Then the car would be pushed with max HP even from the start.

Physics would suggest gas car should be much quicker than Tesla. But they aren’t. Hmm?

Because the power band is so narrow that you run out of gear pretty quick.
2- 3 seconds then you have to shift and slip it again trying to keep the motor at its apex.
It’s not tap dancing, it’s trying to catch your shade!
It very demanding on the driver let alone the transmission.
I know, I’ve burn some clutches.
I’ve switch to electric drive, they’re unbeatable.
Wayyyyyyyyyyy more easy.

There is no gear shift involved! Only one gear that’ll deliver peak torque (or HP) is used while clutch slip serving as “gear”. Just like EV, max torque of the engine is delivered to the wheels.

SparkEV said:

“If full torque is not delivered on clutch slip, then engine RPM will increase. To keep the RPM constant at full torque RPM, the clutch slip MUST deliver the torque to wheels, not any less.”

Spark, you appear to be very confused about how the transmission in a typical internal combustion engine powered vehicle works.

Start with this:


You seem to be completely unfamiliar with manual transmission and how clutch works. I suggest you go and learn to drive one. Further, you seem to lack basic Physics concept in relating torque to rotational speed. I suggest you go take a high school Physics course. Until you learn them, you won’t have a clue what I’m talking about.

Simple answer to your question is that you would be wasting a lot of power in the clutch if you are slipping it.

Amount of power lost in clutch is just like how EV cannot put down full horsepower at idle. It’s simple Physics that relate torque to power.

But EV hits the peak power at some relatively slow speed and after that it’s flat peak power all the way. If you accelerate ICE car with single gear you will get max power at wheels only when you reach max power rpm and clutch is no longer slipping.

EV’s don’t “idle”. When an EV stops, the electric motor stops too. The electric motor doesn’t continue to turn at 750 RPM like a gas car.

I don’t think you know what the word “idle” really means in respect to a gas engine. You seem to be wrongly conflating the vehicle sitting motionless (one definition of the word “idle”) with the engine running at the “idle RPM”.

A gas car can sit “idle” (stopped) with or without the engine running at the “idle RPM”. You can rev the engine with or without the vehicle moving, and you can have the engine running at the “idle RPM” with the vehicle moving or stopped (using neutral or clutch). The two are not the same.

Have a read about CVTs (continuously variable transmission). They are able to vary the gear ratio continuously (no shifting) so in theory you are always at the right rpm band. In practice however, cvts can’t handle high horsepower, and are generally used to improve fuel economy and provide smooth acceleration (no shifting).

SparkEV said: “If Hellcat spins the engine at full torque RPM with fully open throttle while tap dancing on slipping clutch, wouldn’t it have all its torque avaialable even at 1 RPM of the wheel?” No! If the clutch isn’t fully engaged, if it’s slipping, then full torque isn’t being delivered to the wheels. In a typical gasmobile, using a typical transmission, it is simply impossible for the engine to deliver full torque to the wheels from a dead stop, or in fact at any engine RPM less than maximum (or near-maximum) engine speed, and with the clutch fully engaged. Note that in drag racing you’ll often see drivers spinning the rear wheels at the start of the race, so they can get the drivetrain running at the speed at which it can deliver high torque, even at the expense of losing traction for a second or two. You’d never see an EV race car wasting time doing that (unless it was just to please the crowd by smoking the tires). Theoretically, if you look at how the Voltec powertrain is engineered, there might be a way to deliver full power from an ICEngine running at maximum speed to a… Read more »

If full torque is not delivered on clutch slip, then engine RPM will increase. To keep the RPM constant at full torque RPM, the clutch slip MUST deliver the torque to wheels, not any less.

An example: gas car red line is 10KRPM, peak HP at 9KRPM, peak torque at 8KRPM. Driver pushes the throttle fully open with disengaged clutch on second gear (8KRPM at 60 MPH), engine hits 10K RPM, rev limited.

Upon green light, driver dances the clutch slip while keeping the RPM at 8KRPM and only 8KRPM never more or less. There is no gear change. Then the max torque of the engine must be transferred to the wheels to keep the engine at 8KRPM. One can do this with 9KRPM for max HP instead of max torque.

Either way, gas car will put down max torque or HP to the wheels from the very start without requiring gear shift, just like EV. In addition, lower gear would have mechanical advantage over EV. Then why are gas cars slower in 0-60?

You are correct. Torque is exactly same at both sides of clutch even if the clutch is slipping. However, power is torque x rpm. If you have 5000 rpm before clutch and 1000 rpm after clutch, you have 20% of power transmitted through the clutch and 80% wasted in the clutch.

Even for Tesla, power at start would be 0, and 0.000001 RPM of the wheel would be close to 0. As I said, the proposal I make would make gas car to behave essentially like EV.

There is absolutely no way to transfer FULL engine power to the ground while a clutch is slipping. By definition the energy is going towards heat. Conservation of energy means that your engine power is being converted to heat and therefore cannot be going to the ground. Energy cannot be at two places at once. It is either consumed in producing heat, or consumed in creating motion (acceleration).

This has no relationship at all to an EV, where the motor never loses the direct connection with the drivetrain. There are no energy losses to slippage, and the millisecond spent at 0.000001 RPM is meaningless. It is so meaningless that it wouldn’t even show up on a graph of power output.

1. All Wheel Drive
2. Max Torque available from 0 RPM
= 3. Model S faster on Hole Shot and out to ?? until Hellcat’s full power can be brought to bear

james asked:

“How come the P90D is faster to 100 mph than a Charger SRT Hellcat, which is suppose to have 707hp? According to the above the P90D has 532hp and the car also weights considerably more than the Hellcat, so how can it accelerate faster?”

Sadly, none of the above replies gives the real answer to James’ question.

Internal combustion engine HP ratings are given in maximum power, while electric motor HP ratings are given in sustained power, or continuous load rating. So unfortunately, you can’t directly compare HP ratings of electric motors and gasoline engines.

And also unfortunately, there isn’t any simple rule of thumb conversion factor. You’ll see claims that it’s a simple 3:1 conversion (3 HP electric = 1 HP ICE), and that may be true for certain applications such as appliance motors, but it’s certainly not going to hold true for every comparison between EVs and gasmobiles.

See, for example, reply #3 in this discussion thread:


I’ve seen at least one claim that you can do a direct comparison if you use the motors’ BTU ratings rather than HP ratings, but I don’t know if that holds up in practice.

hey James. Anytime a carmaker advertises HP, it’s ALWAYS “up to XXX HP”.

From a roll, the P90d would NOT be faster than a Hellcat. The Tesla only benefits from a standing start.

Dodge officially tested the Hellcat Charger with aftermarket street legal Nitto 555R drag radials and got the world record 1/4 for a production sedan at 10.8 secs. It would be even faster with (non-street) drag slicks.

You should see the video below.

3.4 KFarad (Yeah KiloFarad!!!) @ 2.7V cost just around 60$ so 150 of them are just 9000$ (150*2,7V= 405V)

…why not consider that as an option to actually use the complete motor power (even if only for 1 sec…) could possibly improve regen also esp. with lower battery pack sizes… and enable ludicrous ++ Mode 😉

…and of course would reduce power draw peaks from the battery reducing stress…

150 3,4kF caps running in 2,7-2,0V range would have about 1700Wh capacity or if you do 10 sek drag 600kW average power

Yeah those things are great!!! Maybe 10 sec is a bit optimistic. I tend to say appr. 5sec@600kW but far too lazy to calculate now…

The point is, that this power would be atop to the power delivered by the battery pack. so it might suffice to put in 400 F capacitors @ less than 10$/each.

Once Tesla goes supercapacitors, they will eventually become cheaper 😉 Right now it seems more like a niche market.

How much do 150 3.4 kF capacitors weigh?

copied from a datasheet [Maxwell_Technologies_k2_2_85v_ds_3000619en_1-491975.pdf]:

Minimum Specific Energy, Emax 7.4 Wh/kg
Typical Specific Energy, Emax 7.7 Wh/kg
Minimum Stored Energy, Estored 3.84 Wh
Typical Stored Energy, Estored 4.00 Wh
Absolute Maximum Voltage 3.0 V
Absolute Maximum Current 2,500 A

Sorry I forgot to answer your question 😉

Mass, typical 520 g
So 150*520g=78kg

of course one would have to add wiring, electronics etc… Let’s roughly guesstimate 150kg.

…and…are you proposing to put the 150 capacitors in series to place 405V across them (“150*2,7V= 405V”) ??? Maybe time for some reading…

hehe, you are right… I forgot that part…

well I still propose it. Maybe we just have to wait another 5 years… There was a piece on IEEE that supcaps are to follow moores law in the mid-term future (while I doubt that, I hope it works out to be true)

Hmmm.. I won’t give up on that one…

What if we put 3 parallel Strings of 141 3,4KF @2,85V (rated) in serial (max serial voltage seems to be around 700V, so no prob on that side…)

That would give roughly 72 Farad @ 400 V
which would be sufficient to supply the missing 430A (230hp@400V) for appr. 0,1 seconds.

For just 25500€ (+electronics, wiring, development…)

Would that be worth the 225kg of additional weight??? (excl. electronics, wiring, casing)

While I see the drawbacks, I would really like to see such a configuration just for the fun factor. It somehow reminds me of the Flux-capacitor thing…

btw. The more I think about it, the more I tend to believe that those Moore Law prediction might be right… When I was a kid all capacitors I played with (daddy: “don’t play with capacitors, they are dangerous”) had this strange “µ” sign on it… 😉

Gee. I wonder what would happen if you took one of those capacitors and put it across 240V AC… 😉

Yeah, I did that long, long time ago. Far more dangerous than anything around the house! Defnitely don’t try it, kids! I’m serious! You’ll kill yourself!

Nice idea!
I wish it could be done.
What about lithium titanate battery that have C numbers in the hundred, if not more.

Well that would be somewhere “in-between” regarding the specs… Biggest drawback would be cycle life optimistic values for lithium-titanate are 7000 cycles. With supercaps we talk about several million cycles. I think it would be better to use higher cycle stability elements for this use case (accell/decell) as this happens quite a lot in a driving situation. The supercaps would take a lot of stress from the battery pack, which should be the main reason for implementation while the 0,1 sec power gain is just a gimmick in the never-ending race for lower 0-60mph times…

heisenberght said:

“There was a piece on IEEE that supcaps are to follow moores law in the mid-term future…”

Like fun.

Using traditional technology, capacitors require increased volume to store increased energy, so increasing energy density isn’t possible to any significant degree.

Now, dual-layer thin-film capacitors use a surface effect, and offer the possibility of significantly increasing energy density if the surface area can be significantly increased within the same volume. Theoretically, that is possible by using graphene (or carbon nanotubes) or some other structure which can be folded into intricate shapes at the molecular level. But in practice, we’re nowhere near being able to mass produce objects made of graphene. Currently, they can only be made in tiny amounts at great cost, and they are so full of microscopic flaws that the molecular structure breaks down over time. Probably we will eventually find a way to overcome those problems, but various companies and university research terms have been trying to solve those problems for several years now, without much success.

So don’t hold your breath.

Hi PP, I also said: “(while I doubt that, I hope it works out to be true)” So, I know I have to hold my breath for quite some time 😉 I found the link: “spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/how-a-microscopic-supercapacitor-will-supercharge-mobile-electronics” Those units are made with some low-tech solution… I can easily imagine a way to make this continous on a roll… Producing graphene can be quite simple. Microscopic faults would not be too problematic cause we are far from nanometer scale so basically we are talking bout conductive ink to increase effective surface. Graphene sounds high tech, but it’s far from miracle and yes there are ways to mass-produce (low quality – no problem here…) graphene-covered paper/foil. You are right that traditional capacitor tech is close to theoretical limits. But theoretical limit of energy density for a capacitor made of graphene on a roll has yet to be calculated… Obviously there will be a theoretical limit to supercap energy density, but there is no doubt that we can push harder to get there. Once demand drives a market there will be solutions to those hurdles of mass-production. While I see that I am talking bout laboratory scale prototypes, I also see that in my… Read more »

While I definitely think it is an improvement that Tesla is now reporting more accurate numbers for their cars performance, people should be aware that it is an exercise in futility to try to compare hp of different cars.

And if your curious as to a few of the reasons as to why, I recommend reading this informative article:

Personally, I will use acceleration, top speed, and towing capacity if I want to compare two cars.

First, I have Inside EVs to thank for concluding, hours within the P85D announcement, that it was the first “battery limited” Tesla. We discussed it, and the way the car was being promoted. Here we are, again.

That said, I’m a little tired of reading “exercise in futility to try to compare HP”. It NEVER was, especially as we revisit what that statement invited from Tesla.

Maybe over at Tesla Motors Club, where it seems there’s an overweight of Silicon Valley geek-dom, but not on a more general car website. Tesla gave the actual 463HP rating, for the P85D. No shame, there. Certainly, no shame in the 713lb ft torque spec, either. It does the trick, because it doesn’t let go.

Car people can be even smarter than some Silicon Valley people, because we can relate HP or torque to the area under a curve. Amazing. It really isn’t hard to figure out what a relatively flat power curve will do for a car’s acceleration. You don’t need to sell it as “EV”, “ICE”, or “motor” power, unless you want trouble.

I am Si Valley people and I understand the “area under the curve” very well.

HP spec is often quoted with a RPM number next to it for a reason.

Of course, the best kind of information is the full 2-D chart alone with gearing ratio. But that would be too much math for commmon people.

Stating max motor output is not unreasonable, nor intentionally deceptive. It’s far simpler to do that, than list every possible permutation of battery configuration or the effects of SOC. People find the oddest things to get bent about.

Glad to know that an updated battery can make a Tesla perform even better in the future.

From several on TMC (i.e. smac): Tesla is using ECE R85 for fulfilling EU statutory requirements of how to report Max. Net power for EU cars. (and seemingly Norwegian)

So I if I take Barbie power wheels and put two 500HP motors with same controller and battery (12V SLA), then I can claim that its 1000HP EV? It’s simpler to describe it that way, right?

Anon said:

“Stating max motor output is not unreasonable, nor intentionally deceptive.”

If the numbers in question were to stand in isolation, I would agree. But when you list the specs for a car, they are intended to offer comparison to other cars. If the numbers are to be compared, then the method of arriving at that number has to be standardized.

That Tesla chose to list numbers arrived at in ways which don’t conform to industry standards. As they say: You must not only avoid impropriety, you must avoid the appearance of impropriety. Whether or not Tesla meant for the original numbers to be misleading, they certainly were misleading.

Anon continued:

“People find the oddest things to get bent about.”

I don’t find it at all odd that people “get bent about” a company ignoring complaints about misleading figures in the specs for its product, and refusing to correct that for the space of (according to this article) an entire year. As a Tesla fan, I find that embarrassing. At worst, this should have been corrected immediately. Even better, Tesla should have taken care to list their specs according to industry standards in the first place.

Hey Eric… in a story about how the horsepower ratings have changed, it would be nice to mention what the old numbers were (instead of assuming your readers know).

They were higher…good enough, (=

Just added in the P85D launch specs/screenshot from its debut a year ago. Good suggestion.

I remember when Ford had to settle a lawsuit for overrating the output on their first 32 valve Mustang Cobras.

From several on TMC (i.e. smac): Tesla is using ECE R85 for fulfilling EU statutory requirements of how to report Max. Net power for EU cars. (and seemingly Norwegian)

Front HP went up?

What’s odd is rear motor horsepower is greater than P85D combined horsepower. Battery limitation without Ludicrous?

So this makes them even more impressive

Horsepower’s never been a good measure. Or maybe it once was but it has passed its prime. I don’t think an EV should ever be measured by it. Let’s just stick to keeping it simple. Continuous kW, peak kW and some figure that divides it by kerb weight to give a ratio.

What a shame that it took a year for Tesla to correct the misinformation that it put out about the maximum HP rating for the Model S.

Tesla is doing a fantastic job on pushing forward the EV revolution. It’s too bad that their marketing seems bent on putting out so much hype that it’s to the point that one must question every claim they make.

Yes, I’m still a Tesla fanboi, and I’m still very optimistic about what Tesla Motors has achieved and is trying to achieve. But the amount of B.S. coming from their marketing has become downright embarrassing. Everyone expects a certain amount of hype from marketing for all auto makers, but this is so excessive that I think it’s hurting the company’s reputation.

That’s not to say that other auto makers don’t sometimes engage in Ludicrous™ levels of hype. Remember the “230 MPG” claim for the GM Volt? But for Tesla, it seems like Ludicrous™ claims are becoming almost the norm rather than the exception.


Man talk about “Straining out the Knat”… So 2 motors ACTUALLY have less horsepower than each motor running individually off the same battery.

Not sure how this is so newsworthy. Since its the same principle as a water faucet, I can only assume that people have never paid attention.

Tesla didn’t change anything. The motor power power remains the same (outside of the upgrade from the Ludicrous launch which made it 762hp motor power, up from 691hp). The battery number is simply a different measure.

Hi PP,

some more on this: “Probably we will eventually find a way to overcome those problems, but various companies and university research terms have been trying to solve those problems for several years now, without much success.”

Problems, problems, problems. That sounds like a german engineer 😉 (Don’t take me too serious OK?) I’m just sayin that we somehow tend to see problems and then focus on them and not on solutions.

One possible solution: Take a research budget of 10M$ hire an engineer, a physics person, a chemist and a lawyer maybe also a business person. Tell them they will get 0.01$ per capacitor sold if they can achieve an energy density of let’s say 10Wh/kg within 2 years. They will eventually work their ass of, achieve 9.5 Wh/kg within 3 years and become rich.

As you can see, I live in a fairytale world 😉

“Problems” != “solutions to be found”
“without much success” != “with at least some success”

…of course this only works out if you don’t hire a german engineer too stupid to click on reply…

(anyone mind to move this entry up to the P-P post?)

It seems I’m repeating myself in asking the same question: why is gas car with more power and lighter weight slower in 0-60 MPH than P90DL. By bringing to bear full (or close to full) power to wheels, it would be quicker, but people here are so caught up in that gas cars cannot put down full power to wheels on low RPM that they cannot see the basic Physics. I mean, if 20 lb/hp motorcycle can pull a wheelie that requires almost 2G of acceleration, why couldn’t 5 lb/hp gas car not be able to pull 1.1G for 2.5 seconds?

I put a more detailed description of this in my blog, hopefully someone can answer why gas cars are slower and no one’s doing it.


I would like to remind people that this was posted on insideevs not long ago:

BMW M4 vs “700 HP” Tesla Models S P85D

…. except unlike most other videos, this race starts at both cars doing 40mph. Check out what happens at the 1min mark.

And FYI the M4 only has a mere 425 hp.

This is exactly why people shouldn’t expect astonishing lap times from Model S on motor tracks like Nurburgring. Being fast off the line means nothing on track. You need fast acceleration in 40-100+ range when coming to straights from corners. And being big and heavy car doesn’t help in corners either.

…but of course that is not what the Model S is built for.