Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter

[sorka]

What motor power means is exactly the problem with this whole debate. Tesla wasn't clear.

I thought each motor had its own fixed gear but must be wrong about that.

Ahh. I see the confusion. I thought you meant a two speed gearbox. The P85D's rear reduction ratio is 9.73 and the front is 9.34.

- - - Updated - - -

And I assumed what some here did... that the HP rating listed on Tesla's order page was the HP that the car actually delivered somewhere, somehow. I would never think a car manufacturer would advertise a hypothetical HP rating that its car never actually produced.

At this point, I think we would have been happy with even if it was power quoted all the way upstream at the battery in GROSS before any losses

 

[dsm363]

Ahh. I see the confusion. I thought you meant a two speed gearbox. The P85D's rear reduction ratio is 9.73 and the front is 9.34.

Thanks. That's what I meant. You obviously understand a lot more about this than I do but I always thought a car with more gears would be able to stay at maximum output for longer. The P85D stays at max power for longer than the P85 does which appears to lose steam at 80mph. That's why I wasn't too surprised that the P85D fell short of expectations even with the inflated hp number.

 

[Joe Harsanyi]

I tend not to comment on forums much, but this is my observation from the perspective of an electrical engineer.

Mr. Sorka always tries to offer data with a thorough analysis to support his position on this topic.

Mr. dsm363 (among others on this forum) engages in this debate with Mr. Sorka mostly with qualitative/subjective information like:

"Compared with 95+% of other cars out there. Certainly better than any car I'd ever owned or driven before. The P85 isn't bad for that matter. Yes, there are cars that are better I understand that."

and with information that is really unrelated to the "marketing of horsepower" issue like:

"Does the M4 get a similar ~85mpg when driving sedately? If you compare every metric the P85D will lose some of them."


Just like dsm363 and the many others, I am an enthusiast. I really love my car.......even planning to get the Ludicrous upgrade.

But, I also have a technical background in both physics and electrical engineering, and that is why I believe that Sorka reliably (and relentlessly) makes the stronger argument based on the measured data and the physics of the problem.

I think we all should at least acknowledge the difference between comments based on enthusiasm or Tesla evangelism and those that are based on technical analysis using measured data and the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory and Newtonian mechanics.

Respectfully,

Joe

 

[Vger]

At this point, in retrospect, I think it is fairly clear why Tesla published the higher "motor power" numbers. They knew that the technical basis of the "ludicrous mode" was in development and would eventually be released. Elon even hinted at the initial "D" event that the car would get better over time.

They knew that the motors were capable of delivering to the drivetrain more power than the original P85D could muster, due to the limitations in the battery. Once the battery bottleneck was relieved with the smart fuse and upgraded contactors, more of the "motor power" was available to the wheels, and at a great range of speeds— this is the essence of the Ludicrous Mode. The upgrade to ludicrous mode is available to P85D owners precisely because the motors, as shipped, had reserve power available!

So I do not look on the original motor power numbers as misleading; I choose to see them as a hint to the alert optimists among the P85D owner base. That optimism is now rewarded with the limited-time availability of the LM upgrade. When did any other supercar manufacturer EVER offer a deal like that??

 

[hpham007]

When did any other supercar manufacturer EVER offer a deal like that??

Are you asking when if ever a car manufacturer overstated their car's hp, sold it as such and then when unable to produce said hp, offered to "upgrade" the cars for an additional cost to bring it close to what was originally promised and already paid for? None, that I can think of....

 

[Vger]

Are you asking when if ever a car manufacturer overstated their car's hp, sold it as such and then when unable to produce said hp, offered to "upgrade" the cars for an additional cost to bring it close to what was originally promised and already paid for? None, that I can think of....

Obviously not what I meant. If a Model S could be accelerated by sarcasm, well...

Point is, they did NOT overstate the CAR's horsepower, they stated the motor horsepower, which some assumed was equivalent to car HP. Those who do not read the fine print are doomed to missed expectations.

 

[bonnie]

I tend not to comment on forums much, but this is my observation from the perspective of an electrical engineer.

Mr. Sorka always tries to offer data with a thorough analysis to support his position on this topic.

Mr. dsm363 (among others on this forum) engages in this debate with Mr. Sorka mostly with qualitative/subjective information like:

"Compared with 95+% of other cars out there. Certainly better than any car I'd ever owned or driven before. The P85 isn't bad for that matter. Yes, there are cars that are better I understand that."

and with information that is really unrelated to the "marketing of horsepower" issue like:

"Does the M4 get a similar ~85mpg when driving sedately? If you compare every metric the P85D will lose some of them."


Just like dsm363 and the many others, I am an enthusiast. I really love my car.......even planning to get the Ludicrous upgrade.

But, I also have a technical background in both physics and electrical engineering, and that is why I believe that Sorka reliably (and relentlessly) makes the stronger argument based on the measured data and the physics of the problem.

I think we all should at least acknowledge the difference between comments based on enthusiasm or Tesla evangelism and those that are based on technical analysis using measured data and the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory and Newtonian mechanics.

Respectfully,

Joe

If only life was so simple that one could decide what data mattered & ignore everything else. It's almost like you're saying 'it doesn't matter how other manufacturers obtain or report their data'. I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Respectfully.

(fyi, a very large percentage of the people who disagree with Sorka are engineers or in a science field. Might be best not to jump so quickly to conclusions...)

 

[dsm363]

I tend not to comment on forums much, but this is my observation from the perspective of an electrical engineer.

Mr. Sorka always tries to offer data with a thorough analysis to support his position on this topic.

Mr. dsm363 (among others on this forum) engages in this debate with Mr. Sorka mostly with qualitative/subjective information like:

"Compared with 95+% of other cars out there. Certainly better than any car I'd ever owned or driven before. The P85 isn't bad for that matter. Yes, there are cars that are better I understand that."

and with information that is really unrelated to the "marketing of horsepower" issue like:

"Does the M4 get a similar ~85mpg when driving sedately? If you compare every metric the P85D will lose some of them."


Just like dsm363 and the many others, I am an enthusiast. I really love my car.......even planning to get the Ludicrous upgrade.

But, I also have a technical background in both physics and electrical engineering, and that is why I believe that Sorka reliably (and relentlessly) makes the stronger argument based on the measured data and the physics of the problem.

I think we all should at least acknowledge the difference between comments based on enthusiasm or Tesla evangelism and those that are based on technical analysis using measured data and the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory and Newtonian mechanics.

Respectfully,

Joe

I don't doubt his numbers and Tesla did give out a misleading number. The disagreement is on how Tesla arrived at their numbers, if people should have taken Tesla's word with the vague 'motor power', and what one should expect to expect from the car at higher speeds with its fixed gears for two motors. The other issues there is no scientific basis to support one claim or the other. Some feel the car absolutely should be able to output the 691hp at the wheels and others don't from what Tesla provided.

 

[Andyw2100]

I don't doubt his numbers and Tesla did give out a misleading number. The disagreement is on how Tesla arrived at their numbers, if people should have taken Tesla's word with the vague 'motor power', and what one should expect to expect from the car at higher speeds with its fixed gears for two motors. The other issues there is no scientific basis to support one claim or the other. Some feel the car absolutely should be able to output the 691hp at the wheels and others don't from what Tesla provided.

For everyone saying "Tesla never said the P85D made 691 HP", etc., etc., let me ask something...

The screen captures below are from the recent "Consumer Reports" review of the car, available here:

2015 Tesla Model S P85D | Reviews and Ratings from Consumer Reports

This unbiased source is showing the HP as 691 HP. "Consumer Reports" did not test the P85D's horsepower themselves. Where do you suppose they got the number?

This article has been hugely positive for Tesla. Tesla most definitely knows about it. There was a tweet from marketing about it the morning it came out, posted somewhere on TMC. That was several days ago now. That 691 HP figure appears on the CR website currently. The number also appears in the article itself:

"The larger battery also comes with more powerful motors. While the two motors in the all-wheel-drive 70-kWh version put out a combined 328 hp, our rear-wheel-drive 85-kWh version makes 373 hp. The all-wheel-drive 85 kWh Model S produces 417 hp, while the top-of-the-line Model P85D puts out 691 hp through two motors, one each at the front and rear."


How hard do you think Tesla is working to correct that number, again, for those saying, "Tesla never claimed 691 HP?"

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't doubt his numbers and Tesla did give out a misleading number. The disagreement is on how Tesla arrived at their numbers, if people should have taken Tesla's word with the vague 'motor power', and what one should expect to expect from the car at higher speeds with its fixed gears for two motors. The other issues there is no scientific basis to support one claim or the other. Some feel the car absolutely should be able to output the 691hp at the wheels and others don't from what Tesla provided.

Exactly. Sorka's argument remains that "motor power" must mean a number that the car generates at some pipeline along the way (whether it be the wheels, the motor shafts, from the battery, etc). However, the possibility he missed is that Tesla never meant that when they said "motor power".

Others who have laid out the chart of all motor powers ever advertised will immediately see that the S60 and S85 were advertised at exactly the same motor power, even though we knew the S60 does not have the battery capability to reach that number as equipped. This is exactly the same scenario that happened with P85D.

Whether it is misleading to advertise that way, and whether that is how they factually derived those numbers are two different arguments. It is very easy to get those two mixed up.

- - - Updated - - -

How hard do you think Tesla is working to correct that number, again, for those saying, "Tesla never claimed 691 HP?"

I don't know why there is that expectation and I think it is a strawman argument. I have never seen an example of an automaker going around asking publications to correct numbers when the number err on the side of being advantageous to the automaker. Those arguing "Tesla never claimed 691 HP" only point out they always use the "motor power" terminology when they advertise it (and the only valid exception I have seen argued so far is in the Denmark translation of "motor power" where they effectively said "691hp performance").

 

[dsm363]

For everyone saying "Tesla never said the P85D made 691 HP", etc., etc., let me ask something...

The screen captures below are from the recent "Consumer Reports" review of the car, available here:

2015 Tesla Model S P85D | Reviews and Ratings from Consumer Reports

View attachment 92557
View attachment 92558

This unbiased source is showing the HP as 691 HP. "Consumer Reports" did not test the P85D's horsepower themselves. Where do you suppose they got the number?

This article has been hugely positive for Tesla. Tesla most definitely knows about it. There was a tweet from marketing about it the morning it came out, posted somewhere on TMC. That was several days ago now. That 691 HP figure appears on the CR website currently. The number also appears in the article itself:

"The larger battery also comes with more powerful motors. While the two motors in the all-wheel-drive 70-kWh version put out a combined 328 hp, our rear-wheel-drive 85-kWh version makes 373 hp. The all-wheel-drive 85 kWh Model S produces 417 hp, while the top-of-the-line Model P85D puts out 691 hp through two motors, one each at the front and rear."


How hard do you think Tesla is working to correct that number, again, for those saying, "Tesla never claimed 691 HP?"

Who said Tesla never claimed 691 hp? They claimed 691 motor hp in the U.S. at least. Some feel the car should actually be able to output that exact amount and I understand that. Tesla just added we think the two max motor power together.

 

[Andyw2100]

- - - Updated - - -
I don't know why there is that expectation and I think it is a strawman argument.

The expectation is there because if Tesla knows that they published numbers that confused not only customers but publications as well, and those publications are printing information that isn't accurate and never was accurate, leading to even more confusion, the honest and ethical thing to do is to correct the confusion. If you don't expect that from Tesla then you're saying you don't expect them to act honestly and ethically in this situation, but rather allow the confusion they know exists--confusion that is misleading potential customers--to continue.

I have never seen an example of an automaker going around asking publications to correct numbers when the number err on the side of being advantageous to the automaker.

It would be a completely different situation if "Consumer Reports", or any publication, had independently come up with numbers that were more favorable to Tesla than their own. I would agree that no manufacturer should be expected to correct numbers in a situation like that. But that's clearly not what happened here. What happened was that CR was confused by what Tesla published the same way many others were, if we are to believe those that say Tesla never intended to say the car makes 691 HP. The other possibility is that Tesla --did-- intend to say exactly that, and perhaps said exactly that explicitly to "Consumer Reports."

- - - Updated - - -

Who said Tesla never claimed 691 hp? They claimed 691 motor hp in the U.S. at least. Some feel the car should actually be able to output that exact amount and I understand that. Tesla just added we think the two max motor power together.

That seems to be the crux of the argument some are making--that there is a significant difference between saying 691 HP and saying 691 motor HP. My point is if there is a significant difference, the significance was lost on "Consumer Reports", because they published the number simply as 691 HP.

If Tesla thinks there is a significant difference between 691 motor HP and 691 HP, they should be correcting "Consumer Reports" and other publications. If Tesla doesn't think there is a significant difference, then the car should be able to make 691 HP.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

They knew that the motors were capable of delivering to the drivetrain more power than the original P85D could muster, due to the limitations in the battery. Once the battery bottleneck was relieved with the smart fuse and upgraded contactors, more of the "motor power" was available to the wheels, and at a great range of speeds— this is the essence of the Ludicrous Mode. The upgrade to ludicrous mode is available to P85D owners precisely because the motors, as shipped, had reserve power available!

Except that after announcing Ludicrous, Tesla changed the combined HP for the P85D to 762 HP. That's not using "reserve power" in the previously advertised 691 HP, it's an entirely new claim. That means there was no power held in "reserve" when the claim was 691 HP, if there were, Tesla wouldn't have just upped the specs again.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The expectation is there because if Tesla knows that they published numbers that confused not only customers but publications as well, and those publications are printing information that isn't accurate and never was accurate, leading to even more confusion, the honest and ethical thing to do is to correct the confusion. If you don't expect that from Tesla then you're saying you don't expect them to act honestly and ethically in this situation, but rather allow the confusion they know exists--confusion that is misleading potential customers--to continue.

I think you have to keep the timeline in mind. I'm pretty sure Tesla had no idea the "motor power" number was misleading up until the 691 hp thread. No one really paid attention to that as the acceleration was the main headliner. And by the time that thread was out, that number was posted everywhere already (usually with "motor power" left out). And they were also not in the position to back track to a lower "system power" number (like 550hp); simply removing the number from their website would appear to be the best decision at the time.

And if you think Tesla should go around actively to all publications to correct all articles on this, I think that is an unrealistic expectation. After Ford and Hyundai got fined by the EPA for posting misleading MPG numbers (and there is plenty of evidence they had the intent to mislead), I don't believe there is any example of them going around to publications to tell them to update old articles or spec pages. All they did was change the numbers on their own website and let the publications do any corrections themselves.

It would be a completely different situation if "Consumer Reports", or any publication, had independently come up with numbers that were more favorable to Tesla than their own. I would agree that no manufacturer should be expected to correct numbers in a situation like that. But that's clearly not what happened here. What happened was that CR was confused by what Tesla published the same way many others were, if we are to believe those that say Tesla never intended to say the car makes 691 HP. The other possibility is that Tesla --did-- intend to say exactly that, and perhaps said exactly that explicitly to "Consumer Reports."

It's pretty apparent Consumer Reports took the old number and left out the "motor power". I doubt they had any input from Tesla. The current numbers Tesla is advertising is 503hp rear and 259hp front motor power. That CR page also says "engines available" and the Tesla doesn't have an engine (another example of an error that a lot of publications can get wrong on EVs).

- - - Updated - - -

Except that after announcing Ludicrous, Tesla changed the combined HP for the P85D to 762 HP. That's not using "reserve power" in the previously advertised 691 HP, it's an entirely new claim. That means there was no power held in "reserve" when the claim was 691 HP, if there were, Tesla wouldn't have just upped the specs again.

That's not true actually, there was never a combined number motor power number published at 762hp. The individual numbers went to 503hp and 259hp, but Tesla never published 762hp. And from the other threads, the evidence so far seems like the P90D L does not make 691hp (so it has not used up the "reserve" yet if there is one).

It's also possible that with the Ludicrous upgrade they found there was more "reserve" in the motors than expected. A motor controller update can push the motor more. That's exactly what happened with the S85D update I believe.

 

[gnxs]

Are you asking when if ever a car manufacturer overstated their car's hp, sold it as such and then when unable to produce said hp, offered to "upgrade" the cars for an additional cost to bring it close to what was originally promised and already paid for? None, that I can think of....

Ford did with the 1999 Cobra.

As the owner of a 2004 Cobra (and a P85), I couldn't remember exactly what year it was, but I knew Ford had a very public humiliation about this in the past. I just had to go look up the exact year as I had forgotten. I'm sure there are many links to the issue, here's one I found quickly that also notes how Ford "made it right" for their Customers:

A Claim Of Horsepower That Backfired - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel

 

[Andyw2100]

Are you asking when if ever a car manufacturer overstated their car's hp, sold it as such and then when unable to produce said hp, offered to "upgrade" the cars for an additional cost to bring it close to what was originally promised and already paid for? None, that I can think of....

Ford did with the 1999 Cobra.

As the owner of a 2004 Cobra (and a P85), I couldn't remember exactly what year it was, but I knew Ford had a very public humiliation about this in the past. I just had to go look up the exact year as I had forgotten. I'm sure there are many links to the issue, here's one I found quickly that also notes how Ford "made it right" for their Customers:

A Claim Of Horsepower That Backfired - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel

Actually Ford didn't.

Ford may have overstated the horsepower, and then offered to upgrade the cars to what was originally promised...things hpham007 listed in his question...but the big one missing is the additional cost. Ford was not attempting to charge for this upgrade. (So Ford doesn't meet the criteria hpham007 set.)

So the Ford example you linked to (thank you for that, by the way) is an example of a manufacturer that made a mistake with the advertised horsepower and did attempt to then do the right thing for their customers.

 

[rns-e]

Ford did with the 1999 Cobra.

As the owner of a 2004 Cobra (and a P85), I couldn't remember exactly what year it was, but I knew Ford had a very public humiliation about this in the past. I just had to go look up the exact year as I had forgotten. I'm sure there are many links to the issue, here's one I found quickly that also notes how Ford "made it right" for their Customers:

A Claim Of Horsepower That Backfired - tribunedigital-orlandosentinel

The man with the power, what would he say to the P85D? Or was he as wrong about the Cobra as many says we are about the P85D?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

That's not true actually, there was never a combined number motor power number published at 762hp. The individual numbers went to 503hp and 259hp, but Tesla never published 762hp. And from the other threads, the evidence so far seems like the P90D L does not make 691hp (so it has not used up the "reserve" yet if there is one).

While Tesla no longer states the combined motor power, the HP rating of the individual motors has increased since P85D launch. That does not point to there being any headroom in the previous figures. If there were, Tesla would have no need to increase the ratings. Make sense?

 

[gnxs]

Actually Ford didn't.

Ford may have overstated the horsepower, and then offered to upgrade the cars to what was originally promised...things hpham007 listed in his question...but the big one missing is the additional cost. Ford was not attempting to charge for this upgrade. (So Ford doesn't meet the criteria hpham007 set.)

So the Ford example you linked to (thank you for that, by the way) is an example of a manufacturer that made a mistake with the advertised horsepower and did attempt to then do the right thing for their customers.

I always forget what forum I'm on and how carefully I always need to word things here.

I was just trying to show a mfr. that had overstated their hp ratings and how they resolved the situation. That's it. Period. Of course I know there was no charge to the Customer, since I read the article I linked to and I was familiar with the at the time it happened (although I was on the GM side of that battle at the time since I owned a GN. And yes I know hpham had bolded that in his response. Maybe I should have cut that part out when I quoted him, but I really only thought people would like some insight into an example of hp being overstated in the past. My mistake I guess.

 

[Andyw2100]

I always forget what forum I'm on and how carefully I always need to word things here.

I was just trying to show a mfr. that had overstated their hp ratings and how they resolved the situation. That's it. Period. Of course I know there was no charge to the Customer, since I read the article I linked to and I was familiar with the at the time it happened (although I was on the GM side of that battle at the time since I owned a GN. And yes I know hpham had bolded that in his response. Maybe I should have cut that part out when I quoted him, but I really only thought people would like some insight into an example of hp being overstated in the past. My mistake I guess.

Actually he hadn't bolded it. I did that, for emphasis.

I was appreciative of the example, and thanked you for it. We're on the same side in this!

hpham007 was in a funny and somewhat sarcastic way saying that before Tesla was doing it now, no one had done it before. I just didn't want anyone reading casually, who didn't read the article in the link, to somehow think Ford actually had. That's all.

I really do appreciate that link because I was unaware of the Ford case. It demonstrates another example where a small discrepancy in advertised horsepower wound up as a real issue for the car manufacturer. Thanks again for posting it!