Tesla P100D Announced

[GroundEffect]

Specs:

Model S P100D with Ludicrous mode
Range: 315 miles (EPA Estimate) / 613 km (NEDC Estimate)
0-60 acceleration: 2.5 seconds
0-100 acceleration: 2.7 seconds
Price: starts at $134,500

Model X P100D with Ludicrous Mode
Range: 289 miles (EPA Estimate) / 542 km (NEDC Estimate)
0-60 acceleration: 2.9 seconds
0-100 acceleration: 3.1 seconds
Price: starts at $135,500

https://electrek.co/2016/08/23/tesla-100-kwh-batte...

[ScoobyChris]

I like that the advert highlights the 0-60 time. I think the 0-100 time is far more impressive!

Chris

[chandrew]

Whilst I'm sure this will grab the headlines after owning an EV I'm increasingly thinking the 60D is the sweet spot of the range. I suspect for 95% of most people's drives it'll cover the trip without needing to be charged during the trip and if you really struggle there's always the option of upgrading to 75, which isn't that much off the top of the range a few years ago.

[Dave Hedgehog]

So 60-100 in 0.2 Sec


I call BS on that

[Evanivitch]

60-100mph in 0.2 secs? Incredible.

[alock]

Dave Hedgehog said:

So 60-100 in 0.2 Sec


I call BS on that

Kph... I. E. 62mph

[768]

I guess faster is easier than increasing the range.

[TooMany2cvs]

768 said:

I guess faster is easier than increasing the range.

But that's what they've done... Range is primarily down to kwh - and the number is how many of them the battery holds. 100 gives you 11% more range, for the same consumption, than 90. And 90 gave you 50% more than 60.

Think of the battery's kwh capacity as the equivalent of the number of litres the fuel tank holds.

Sure, they've increased the size of the switches passing sparks to the motors a bit. But use more electrickery to accelerate faster, and watch the range shrink. The same logic applies to petrol. You wouldn't be surprised by the v8 range-topper having a smaller range than a 2.0 four-pot version, would you? The difference is that the electric motors probably use the same amount of sparks for the same driving patterns, no matter how much they CAN use at full bore.

I'm just surprised that Tesla's naming convention appears to be shared with HMRC's.

[dobly]

Range seems to be becoming less of an issue:

"Mr Musk said that in cool weather, a driver could travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles - a nearly 400 mile drive - without recharging."

source - http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37171455

[JonV8V]

A 90 doesn't give 50% more range than a 60.

346 v 248 and rear wheel drive cars are meant to be less efficient so the 60 should be penalised more. The 60 would however be lighter. It's just another one of Teslas extremely annoying promises that never quite delivered (ie ordering a 90 for its 6% more range over an 85 which should be 15 miles but never seems to be).

It's also worth noting that the tesla 2.5 to 60 is with 1 foot toll out and only when the car has a high state of charge. This is the same a 911 turbo s is clocked at. Or a Nissan GT-R also around 2.5s without roll out. It's obviously not slow, but Elon has an unhealthy appetite for pushing the envelope on his figures to grab headlines.

Edited by JonV8V on Wednesday 24th August 07:06

[TooMany2cvs]

JonV8V said:

A 90 doesn't give 50% more range than a 60.

In terms of nominal battery capacity, 90kwh is 50% more than 60kwh.

Yes, there're weight considerations, as well as the unusable overhead in the battery relative to the nominal capacity. And, yes, whether it's an AWD or RWD will have an effect - but there are AWD 60s and RWD 90s.

[JonV8V]

TooMany2cvs said:

JonV8V said:

A 90 doesn't give 50% more range than a 60.

In terms of nominal battery capacity, 90kwh is 50% more than 60kwh.

Yes, there're weight considerations, as well as the unusable overhead in the battery relative to the nominal capacity. And, yes, whether it's an AWD or RWD will have an effect - but there are AWD 60s and RWD 90s.

Actually it doesn't

A 90 has about 78kwh and 60 has something like 54

[TooMany2cvs]

JonV8V said:

Actually it doesn't

A 90 has about 78kwh and 60 has something like 54

Usable, or nominal?

[JonV8V]

TooMany2cvs said:

JonV8V said:

Actually it doesn't

A 90 has about 78kwh and 60 has something like 54

Usable, or nominal?

I don't buy nominal, I buy useable. A 60 has a 70 battery installed so it all has to be useable

[modeller]

JonV8V said:

Actually it doesn't

A 90 has about 78kwh and 60 has something like 54

citation?

I've only seen figures for the 85 (Jason Hughes teardown), which indicated 81 available, 77 usable. Therefore the 90 must have more.
The new 60 (with 70 actual) doesn't necessarily have the same pattern - all depends on what the software allows.

[JonV8V]

modeller said:

citation?

I've only seen figures for the 85 (Jason Hughes teardown), which indicated 81 available, 77 usable. Therefore the 90 must have more.
The new 60 (with 70 actual) doesn't necessarily have the same pattern - all depends on what the software allows.

Are you on the owners facebook group?

Or try here for other users experience

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/how-many-k... which at best looking at the battery spec gives a theoretical max of 80kwh and users experiecne below that.

The 60 on the other hand is a slice of a much bigger battery than its spec so can charge to 100% without degradation and without slowing down

[anonymous-user]

GroundEffect said:

Specs:

Model S P100D with Ludicrous mode
Range: 315 miles (EPA Estimate) / 613 km (NEDC Estimate)
0-60 acceleration: 2.5 seconds
0-100 acceleration: 2.7 seconds
Price: starts at $134,500

Model X P100D with Ludicrous Mode
Range: 289 miles (EPA Estimate) / 542 km (NEDC Estimate)
0-60 acceleration: 2.9 seconds
0-100 acceleration: 3.1 seconds
Price: starts at $135,500

https://electrek.co/2016/08/23/tesla-100-kwh-batte...

Starts at $134,000!! What will a half decently specced one cost in the UK? £150K?