Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter

[ev-enthusiast]

A bunch of really very poor people here spending $100000 for a vehicle and then loosing some 0.5sec.
Y'all really think this problem deserves this much emphasis?
No bigger problems here?
Happy people!

Have a nice day!

 

[Matias]

I've been avoiding taking this on, because to do this right is going to be a bit of a challenge, but I have decided to take it on anyway.

I will compose a letter that I hope many of us, with differing views on this, will be able to sign. It may take me a couple of days, as I have a lot on my plate right now, and I'll want to run a draft of it by a few people before posting, but I --will-- get this done in the next few days. At that point, I will start a new thread with the letter, and post pointers to it in the other relevant threads.

In the letter thread I will seek signatures. Posters willing to sign on openly may post their support, and then send me their name (and VIN number if they own a Tesla), privately. Those wishing to sign on to the letter without it being known in the forum may just send me the information privately. Names and VIN numbers will, of course, be shared only in the letter, which will be addressed to Elon Musk.

I will seek guidance from Bonnie with respect to how best make sure the letter reaches Elon Musk, or his staff. (I haven't run this by Bonnie yet. If she is unable to provide this guidance, or is not comfortable doing so because she does not agree with what we are doing, I will endeavor to get the information elsewhere.)

It is my intention that this letter will be written in such a way that people with widely varying views on this topic will be able to comfortably sign it. That's going to be the tricky part. Once the letter is written, and the new thread started, I imagine I'll collect signatures for at least a week, and possibly longer, before actually sending the letter.

This is not meant to step on the toes of the Danish group that started this thread. The letter that I'll be writing will certainly be broad enough to include that group, but the Danes have some specific complaints that do not apply to everyone, which is why I think the letter I will write needs to be written in addition to anything they may be doing.

More in a couple of days. (Perhaps sooner.)

Good plan.

 

[mgboyes]

Without expressing any opinion on whether the aim of this thread is realistic/reasonable or not... FYI:

Tesla Model S P85D Test Results - Consumer Reports

 

[rns-e]

Without expressing any opinion on whether the aim of this thread is realistic/reasonable or not... FYI:

Tesla Model S P85D Test Results - Consumer Reports

So here is what they are saying about the acceleration: Our P85D took 1.4 seconds to reach 30 mph and a scant 3.5 seconds to get to 60 mph in "Insane" mode—a bit short of the advertised 3.1 seconds. Tesla promises the new “Ludicrous” mode will lower that to 2.8 seconds, but based on our testing, we're not convinced. The quarter-mile mark blew by in 12.1 seconds at 111.9 mph. Interestingly, we didn't see a drop off in acceleration times after multiple runs.

That is in lines with what we are seeing in Denmark. It is interesting how they before testing is sceptical about the Ludicrous mode ...

 

[Torben_E]

It's utterly clear that the people griping here are simply angling for Tesla to provide a free L upgrade; the ball really only got going after the L was announced. Rather than more futzing around with 10ths, kW and rollouts on this website, why don't you just come out with it, make your case in writing to Tesla and be done with it?

Dear Sandpiper, thank you very much for your comment and point of view about what we want. You suggest it is a free L Upgrade. Being the co-author and co-signer of the two letters to Tesla Motors I would like to have a say in this matter.

I am not sure you will fully accept what I am going to say in the following but your suggestion about us wanting a free L upgrade deserves a reply.

I like to start to define something that should cut it clear what we are talking about.

Insane. The original Insane mode was included in the price of the P85D. We can keep debating on the spec however on the Danish homepage it said a combined 700 hk (adding up the two motors) and 3,3 s 0-100 km/h.

Ludicrouse. The Danish homepage does not add up the two motors they just say front 262 hk and rear 510 hk. The acceleration is now defined as 3,0 s 0-100 km/h.

I like to state that what we want (and I allow myself to speak on behalf of the 15 Danish VIN numbers) is Insane performance. We dont want it for “free” because we already paid for it. How Tesla Motors are going to deliver the Insane performance we will leave to Tesla Motors. If it is new SW, a larger melting fuse that does not burn, better batteries or a downgraded "Ludicrous" solution we dont really care about as long as it is a durable and reliable solution that meet the spec.


It could come as a surprise to some of you but we do have some power hungry P85D owners among the 15 that also want the Ludicrous and they are willing to pay for that new extra super performance. We dont see any reason why Tesla Motors would give us that for free. What we however is debating internally now is whether the 0-100 km/h in 3,0 s will be delivered as we have been so disappointed with the Insane until now. Good news is however anyone paying for an Ludicrous upgrade should not later on say “... ohhh I never heard about there was issues with the Insane performance”.


All the best and lets see what this all leads to in the end.

Torben_E

 

[Matias]

Torben, just out of curiosity; what will you do, if you don't get any answer to your letter?

 

[dsm363]

So here is what they are saying about the acceleration: Our P85D took 1.4 seconds to reach 30 mph and a scant 3.5 seconds to get to 60 mph in "Insane" mode—a bit short of the advertised 3.1 seconds. Tesla promises the new “Ludicrous” mode will lower that to 2.8 seconds, but based on our testing, we're not convinced. The quarter-mile mark blew by in 12.1 seconds at 111.9 mph. Interestingly, we didn't see a drop off in acceleration times after multiple runs.

That is in lines with what we are seeing in Denmark. It is interesting how they before testing is sceptical about the Ludicrous mode ...

Again is that with 1 foot rollout? Not sure why you gloss over that. The 3.5 seconds would be consistent with not using a one foot rollout while Tesla does. Nothing to see here. You don't like the fact Tesla used a one foot rollout and I agree but they did and these times seem to match.

 

[Torben_E]

Torben, just out of curiosity; what will you do, if you don't get any answer to your letter?

Fair question.

I was from day number one being called a bit naive by some of the other members of our 15 man group, naive that I would expect a reply from Tesla Motors after so many mails had ended blind. I however thought it would be the right thing to do and at least I wanted to give Tesla Motors a fair chance to write back to us.

We have not decided on our next actions however we do have more options in our toolbox.


Br

Torben

 

[dsm363]

It's utterly clear that the people griping here are simply angling for Tesla to provide a free L upgrade; the ball really only got going after the L was announced. Rather than more futzing around with 10ths, kW and rollouts on this website, why don't you just come out with it, make your case in writing to Tesla and be done with it?

Dear Sandpiper, thank you very much for your comment and point of view about what we want. You suggest it is a free L Upgrade. Being the co-author and co-signer of the two letters to Tesla Motors I would like to have a say in this matter.

I am not sure you will fully accept what I am going to say in the following but your suggestion about us wanting a free L upgrade deserves a reply.

I like to start to define something that should cut it clear what we are talking about.

Insane. The original Insane mode was included in the price of the P85D. We can keep debating on the spec however on the Danish homepage it said a combined 700 hk (adding up the two motors) and 3,3 s 0-100 km/h.

Ludicrouse. The Danish homepage does not add up the two motors they just say front 262 hk and rear 510 hk. The acceleration is now defined as 3,0 s 0-100 km/h.

I like to state that what we want (and I allow myself to speak on behalf of the 15 Danish VIN numbers) is Insane performance. We dont want it for “free” because we already paid for it. How Tesla Motors are going to deliver the Insane performance we will leave to Tesla Motors. If it is new SW, a larger melting fuse that does not burn, better batteries or a downgraded "Ludicrous" solution we dont really care about as long as it is a durable and reliable solution that meet the spec.


It could come as a surprise to some of you but we do have some power hungry P85D owners among the 15 that also want the Ludicrous and they are willing to pay for that new extra super performance. We dont see any reason why Tesla Motors would give us that for free. What we however is debating internally now is whether the 0-100 km/h in 3,0 s will be delivered as we have been so disappointed with the Insane until now. Good news is however anyone paying for an Ludicrous upgrade should not later on say “... ohhh I never heard about there was issues with the Insane performance”.


All the best and lets see what this all leads to in the end.

Torben_E

You do want the upgrade for free it sounds like. I know you say you already paid for it but the hardware wasn't out when you paid for your car. You paid for the performance you believe you are due but for the actual Ludicrous upgrade you didn't pay for that. It's likely impossible for Tesla to upgrade your car via software to meet the performance metric you want so the Ludicrous upgrade is it. If Tesla can't find a way to update your car via software to your requirements what will you do if you don't want the upgrade for free? That's really the only option. Good luck on your efforts.

 

[Matias]

Fair question. We still dont have an answer to that at this point of time.
I was from day number one being called a bit naive from by some of the other members of our 15 man group, naive that I would expect a reply from Tesla Motors after so many mails had ended blind. I however thought it would be the right thing to do and at least I wanted to give Tesla Motors a fair chance to write back to us.

We have not decided on our next actions however we does have more options in our toolbox.


Br

Torben

Do you by the way have consumer protection system in Denmark? In Finland consumer can take problems to office, which has representatives from both market sides. It can make recommendations. Seller is not forced to obey recommendations by the law, but if they don't obey it, they will be put to public black list and all respected sellers want to avoid that.

 

[wk057]

Again is that with 1 foot rollout? Not sure why you gloss over that. The 3.5 seconds would be consistent with not using a one foot rollout while Tesla does. Nothing to see here. You don't like the fact Tesla used a one foot rollout and I agree but they did and these times seem to match.

Well, I think a review from Consumer Reports, which has been one of Tesla's strongest advocates to date, that shows the car doesn't meet performance specs is probably going to be pretty damning.

 

[dsm363]

Well, I think a review from Consumer Reports, which has been one of Tesla's strongest advocates to date, that shows the car doesn't meet performance specs is probably going to be pretty damning.

But a one foot rollout takes off about 0.3 seconds I thought. Brings in close to the 3.1 seconds. Tesla should simply state they use a one foot rollout.

 

[jerjozwik]

Well, I think a review from Consumer Reports, which has been one of Tesla's strongest advocates to date, that shows the car doesn't meet performance specs is probably going to be pretty damning.

hold your horses there wk057, a friend of mine that works for CR posted the article. this was our back and forth:

"honest question here, was the car fully charged when you tested the 0-60, and.. how many runs were done prior to the 3.5 number. there is quite a debate about the p85d missing its hp and 0-60 numbers. and some think state of charge can effect the acceleration or the battery temp monitoring software."

"3.5 Sec number is average of number of runs from fully charge (based on tesla's standard setting). More details will be up on our website in next few weeks."

 

[Hookmaker]

You do want the upgrade for free it sounds like. ........

Which part of DON'T WANTis it that you don't seem to understand??? Torben wrote specifically that WE DO NOT CARE what solution Tesla comes up with, as long as it fixes the problem!

- - - Updated - - -

Do you by the way have consumer protection system in Denmark? In Finland consumer can take problems to office, which has representatives from both market sides. It can make recommendations. Seller is not forced to obey recommendations by the law, but if they don't obey it, they will be put to public black list and all respected sellers want to avoid that.

Matis, yes we do, however being quite a resourceful group of people we´d like to handle things our own way. Also we consider the Consumer protection system to be some steps ahead, a kind of pre-judicial service. No need to go there. Yet.

 

[dsm363]

Which part of DON'T WANTis it that you don't seem to understand??? Torben wrote specifically that WE DO NOT CARE what solution Tesla comes up with, as long as it fixes the problem!

- - - Updated - - -



Matis, yes we do, however being quite a resourceful group of people we´d like to handle things our own way. Also we consider the Consumer protection system to be some steps ahead, a kind of pre-judicial service. No need to go there. Yet.

I understand quite well what he is saying. If you read what I said he stated he didn't want the upgrade for free then he said Tesla must fix the problem. Well to 'fix' the problem as you see it likely requires the Ludicrous upgrade. If you aren't willing to pay for it and you don't want it for free who is going to pay for it? I doubt Tesla can 'fix' the problem with software.

 

[rns-e]

Again is that with 1 foot rollout? Not sure why you gloss over that. The 3.5 seconds would be consistent with not using a one foot rollout while Tesla does. Nothing to see here. You don't like the fact Tesla used a one foot rollout and I agree but they did and these times seem to match.

Fair question and I think we can find the answer in Jerjozwik's back and forth with CR below, they have taken caution to go about it the right way. Also look here: Consumer Reports Car Test Center -  Consumer Reports

But since CR does not say anything about roll out and this and other threads already established that roll out is the defacto standard in the US, then it would be fair to assume it is with roll out when it is Consumer Report. Not following the standards for them would just be ... weird ?!?

hold your horses there wk057, a friend of mine that works for CR posted the article. this was our back and forth:

"honest question here, was the car fully charged when you tested the 0-60, and.. how many runs were done prior to the 3.5 number. there is quite a debate about the p85d missing its hp and 0-60 numbers. and some think state of charge can effect the acceleration or the battery temp monitoring software."

"3.5 Sec number is average of number of runs from fully charge (based on tesla's standard setting). More details will be up on our website in next few weeks."

 

[sorka]

So here is what they are saying about the acceleration: Our P85D took 1.4 seconds to reach 30 mph and a scant 3.5 seconds to get to 60 mph in "Insane" mode—a bit short of the advertised 3.1 seconds. Tesla promises the new “Ludicrous” mode will lower that to 2.8 seconds, but based on our testing, we're not convinced. The quarter-mile mark blew by in 12.1 seconds at 111.9 mph. Interestingly, we didn't see a drop off in acceleration times after multiple runs.

That is in lines with what we are seeing in Denmark. It is interesting how they before testing is sceptical about the Ludicrous mode ...

That 12.1 second 1/4 mile is far slower than we see here in the US typically which is 11.7 and sometimes even 11.6. We've seen over a dozen of these runs with time slips on youtube and the P85D is very consistent in the 11.7 second range. Do you have any REST logs yet for any of these 0-60 or 1/4 mile times or VBO files from Racelogic performance meters?

 

[Hookmaker]

I understand quite well what he is saying. If you read what I said he stated he didn't want the upgrade for free then he said Tesla must fix the problem. Well to 'fix' the problem as you see it likely requires the Ludicrous upgrade. If you aren't willing to pay for it and you don't want it for free who is going to pay for it? I doubt Tesla can 'fix' the problem with software.

No, apparently you don't. The ludicrous upgrade consists of a new fuse that can handle up to 1500A AND a SW control. IF the new fuse turns out to be the only fix Tesla can come up with that's their problem, but they would still be able to SW disable it to INSANE.

 

[Andyw2100]

So here is what they are saying about the acceleration: Our P85D took 1.4 seconds to reach 30 mph and a scant 3.5 seconds to get to 60 mph in "Insane" mode—a bit short of the advertised 3.1 seconds. Tesla promises the new “Ludicrous” mode will lower that to 2.8 seconds, but based on our testing, we're not convinced. The quarter-mile mark blew by in 12.1 seconds at 111.9 mph. Interestingly, we didn't see a drop off in acceleration times after multiple runs.

That is in lines with what we are seeing in Denmark. It is interesting how they before testing is sceptical about the Ludicrous mode ...

rns-e--You know I'm on your side in this. But of course Consumer Reports said they were skeptical of the 2.8 Ludicrous number, based on coming up "short" by .4 second on the 3.1 pre-Ludicrous number. They understand, though they aren't saying it, that both the 3.1 and the 2.8 numbers are based on 1-foot roll out. Again--I'm not making a judgement on whether or not Tesla should be doing this or on whether or not it is misleading. But there is nothing surprising about CR saying they are skeptical of the 2.8 number, when they know full well it includes 1-foot roll out, just as the 3.1 number did.

Well, I think a review from Consumer Reports, which has been one of Tesla's strongest advocates to date, that shows the car doesn't meet performance specs is probably going to be pretty damning.

I agree, if that's what the report really winds up showing. If it really just comes down to testing protocols (SOC, for example) and an argument over the 1-foot roll out being disclosed, I'm less convinced that it will be a big deal.

What I'd really like to know--the $691,000 question, so to speak--is if Consumer Reports tested horsepower.

hold your horses there wk057, a friend of mine that works for CR posted the article. this was our back and forth:

I wouldn't expect you to ask your friend to leak any results, but might you be able to ask your friend if Consumer Reports was successfully able to test horsepower or not, and if so, if those results will be among the results published on August 27?

Thanks.

 

[wk057]

It doesn't matter how they test it. If Consumer Reports says X and Tesla says Y people are going to believe Consumer Reports regardless of rollout/no rollout/unicorns/etc. They've been established and well trusted for something like what, 80 years?

I'll be very curious to see how Tesla reacts to this, if at all.