Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter

[dsm363]

They could offer the Ludicrous upgrade at no charge, which would get the cars a lot closer to the HP numbers they were supposed to make in the first place. While I don't know how many people would be satisfied with that, it would be a gesture that shows they are at least willing to work with their customers in good faith.

That they were supposed to get according to you and some others. Not according to how Tesla has now demonstrated they got to their numbers. Now that they have, your (probably rightfully so) assumed 691 actual hp doesn't fit with their 'motor power' definition. Since I believe they always described it as motor power in the US you don't have the same wiggle room the Danes have with the mistranslation.

They did offer the upgrade at a discount which is their way of trying to smooth things over for the imprecise way it as advertised and the confusion it caused. They weren't forced to offer that but did. Free would be nice I'm sure but your car still does the 0-60 as advertised with the rollout as explained in the blog.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Now it's up to Tesla to choose to do something about that or not. If they don't, in my mind they are no longer the same company I unconditionally loved and admired. Maybe the most relevant question is if Tesla really cares how I and a number of other P85D owners feel about this. Is it important to Tesla how their customers feel?

Well, I'd say that if you bought into the mantra that they exist solely to bring forth the electrification of personal transportation then I think that question has already been answered. Tesla has bigger goals than pleasing a vocal minority of owners that take issue with the way they chose to advertise one variation of their product.

I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of this stance.

 

[sorka]

Tesla may have misled either intentionally or unintentionally. Either way they have now stated how they came up with the number even if it was without qualifiers in interviews.

That's right. The controversy and the guessing is over. Tesla has formally stated that the combined hp rating was arrived at combining the motor powers and not the actual horsepower produced by the car. They should clarify this further on their design studio because there are still newbies here in this forum adding the two numbers up themselves and arriving at what they believe is actual horsepower. It would also be nice if Tesla listed the actual horsepower which we know to be less than 414KW (555 hp). It's not just for apples to apples comparisons with other ICE cars but with other Model S cars as well. If I'd known there was only 39 KW (52 hp) difference from a freeway roll between the P85D and the 85D I would have opted for the 85D.

Instead, I was led to believe that the car produced 691 hp when in fact it didn't. Tesla could have avoided this whole mess by clarifying rather than just stating "691 hp motor power".

- - - Updated - - -

Don't disagree but they've provided an answer even if it's one people didn't want to hear. Now I guess it's up to the people who want this resolved what would make them happy. Have a feeling Tesla is done with this issue. Hopefully they make the website more clear but the info is public now on how they came up with this.

Yes, and if they clarify this further so that consumers don't inadvertently add the two motor powers up and assume that's actual horsepower, then Tesla will be good and all will be well....for those at least that buy their P85D after such correction is made.

- - - Updated - - -

In their mind it likely does. They showed that they weren't making the numbers up completely. Either way outside taking the cars back for a refund of some kind, they can't fix the physics behind the numbers the cars actually get.

Agreed, there's no way to fix this with the current fuse level cells as regardless of what they do with the main fuse or contractors.

- - - Updated - - -

IMHO, offering a discount to upgrade to Ludicrous is more than enough, it's a shame people aren't in agreement.

I'm first on the list at my local SC but at this point I don't think it's ever going to happen.

 

[Dwu0212]

That's right. The controversy and the guessing is over. Tesla has formally stated that the combined hp rating was arrived at combining the motor powers and not the actual horsepower produced by the car. They should clarify this further on their design studio because there are still newbies here in this forum adding the two numbers up themselves and arriving at what they believe is actual horsepower. It would also be nice if Tesla listed the actual horsepower which we know to be less than 414KW (555 hp). It's not just for apples to apples comparisons with other ICE cars but with other Model S cars as well. If I'd known there was only 39 KW (52 hp) difference from a freeway roll between the P85D and the 85D I would have opted for the 85D.

Instead, I was led to believe that the car produced 691 hp when in fact it didn't. Tesla could have avoided this whole mess by clarifying rather than just stating "691 hp motor power".

- - - Updated - - -


agreed! AND they only used rollout with p85d. The only difference between 85d vs p85d are 0-60 time and HP, Tesla misled their once loyal consumers on both stats! How unethical can Tesla be?

 

[JohnSnowNW]

agreed! AND they only used rollout with p85d. The only difference between 85d vs p85d are 0-60 time and HP, Tesla misled their once loyal consumers on both stats! How unethical can Tesla be?

Other companies also only use roll-out with their performance models. Chevy for instance.

"Unethical"...really?

 

[sorka]

Other companies also only use roll-out with their performance models. Chevy for instance.

"Unethical"...really?

The 0-60 time has never been a beef of mine. I've been happy with that all along. However, for those that do take issue, the P85D's 0-60 was speced with the 1 ft rollout while the other model variants were speced without the rollout making the 0-60 gap between the P85D and all other models look much larger than it actually was.

Not my issue but I can understand why some do take issue with this.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

The 0-60 time has never been a beef of mine. I've been happy with that all along. However, for those that do take issue, the P85D's 0-60 was speced with the 1 ft rollout while the other model variants were speced without the rollout making the 0-60 gap between the P85D and all other models look much larger than it actually was.

Not my issue but I can understand why some do take issue with this.

Right, but as I pointed out in a previous thread Chevy does the exact same thing with the Camaro SS and Camaro ZL1. This isn't a Tesla specific metric, and this should be acknowledged.

 

[sorka]

Right, but as I pointed out in a previous thread Chevy does the exact same thing with the Camaro SS and Camaro ZL1. This isn't a Tesla specific metric, and this should be acknowledged.

You mean they use the 1 ft rollout for one car but not for the other? Just asking for clarification

 

[supratachophobia]

The 0-60 time has never been a beef of mine. I've been happy with that all along. However, for those that do take issue, the P85D's 0-60 was speced with the 1 ft rollout while the other model variants were speced without the rollout making the 0-60 gap between the P85D and all other models look much larger than it actually was.

Not my issue but I can understand why some do take issue with this.

How do I upvote this?

 

[Torben_E]

Finally finally finally....

JP Straubel himself issue this paper that most of you have probaly seen already. I just put my comment to it.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tesla-all-wheel-drive-dual-motor-power-and-torque-specifications


My comment is :

Tesla defines and accept that there is a lot of confusion. And listen to this :

Where some confusion occurs is that in the 85D and 70D vehicles the combined motor shaft power is very similar to the battery electrical horsepower under many normal conditions. With the P85D the combined motor shaft power can often exceed the battery electrical horsepower available. The dual motors utilize the battery horsepower in the widest variety of real world conditions. The true measures for any performance EV driver are acceleration times and driving performance of the vehicle.

What this tell me is that the 85kWh battery can deliver enough power to P85 (350kW) and 85D (315kW) but not to P85D (515kW). That is what we have said for ½ a year (and some in this forum has said for about 12 month). And our calculations suggest 415 kW with the current fuse. Thank you Mr. Straubel.

I am just questioning myself... why did it have take so long for Tesla Motors to issue this statement and if it had been done 1-2 weeks earlier we could have saved ourself and Tesla most and maybe all of the public dicussion in the Danish medias.

http://ing.dk/artikel/paastand-tesla-kan-slet-ikke-levere-de-lovede-hestekraefter-178910

http://pleasure.borsen.dk/bilen/art...jere_hvor_er_vores_hestekraefter_mr_musk.html

Anyway I am happy with first the disclaimer about "1-foot rollout" issued on the 4th of September and now that the current battery pack can not deliver enough chemical energy to the P85D issued the 21st of September.

for the curious.. here is our timeline : http://teslaforum.dk/p85d/performance-history/



Torben_E

 

[Dwu0212]

Right, but as I pointed out in a previous thread Chevy does the exact same thing with the Camaro SS and Camaro ZL1. This isn't a Tesla specific metric, and this should be acknowledged.

So your logic is it's ok to do the wrong thing because someone else is doing it too? Really..?

and BTW, p85d and p90d are the only two that used rollout, everything else did not, including p85+, which IS a performance model, if they going to use different standard on a same car, the least they can do is stating the use of rollout on the spec, yet it took them almost a year to put that on it.

And adding two motor power together then advertise that number knowing it will never make it? Yeah, dishonest and unethical.

 

[smsprague]

Other companies also only use roll-out with their performance models. Chevy for instance.

"Unethical"...really?

Here's to hoping Tesla is not turning into General Motors.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

So your logic is it's ok to do the wrong thing because someone else is doing it too? Really..?

and BTW, p85d and p90d are the only two that used rollout, everything else did not, including p85+, which IS a performance model, if they going to use different standard on a same car, the least they can do is stating the use of rollout on the spec, yet it took them almost a year to put that on it.

And adding two motor power together then advertise that number knowing it will never make it? Yeah, dishonest and unethical.

No, I'm simply saying it's an industry issue, not a Tesla issue, that you seem to have a problem with. As, again, other companies listing 0-60 times don't list the roll-out spec either. And also that your use of "unethical" is absurd.

If you want to be outraged at something, be outraged at the industry, not a small company trying desperately to succeed in this environment.

 

[sorka]

Right, but as I pointed out in a previous thread Chevy does the exact same thing with the Camaro SS and Camaro ZL1. This isn't a Tesla specific metric, and this should be acknowledged.

So I repeat, did chevy use the 1 ft rollout for 1 car but not for the other?

 

[JohnSnowNW]

So I repeat, did chevy use the 1 ft rollout for 1 car but not for the other?

Sorry, I thought you were joking. Yes, they did.

 

[sorka]

Sorry, I thought you were joking. Yes, they did.

Sorry. No wasn't joking. Is this documented somewhere? Or was there an in depth discussion with links earlier that I missed and that's why you thought I was joking

 

[Jaff]

Really? You would equate the failure of one company to acknowledge / hide / fail to correct a material defect which has resulted in driver / passenger deaths with that of a very few folks upset about .01 of a second 0-60 time?

Just a bit of a stretch there, don't you think?

Here's to hoping Tesla is not turning into General Motors.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Sorry. No wasn't joking. Is this documented somewhere? Or was there an in depth discussion with links earlier that I missed and that's why you thought I was joking

Yes, in another thread. Here are some links to the relevant info though:

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Vehicles/Cars/2015_Camaro_ZL1/Model_Overview/02_PDFs/Camaro%20Specs%20Update%205_14_14.pdf

2015 Chevrolet Camaro Review Ratings | Edmunds

So to summarize, Edmunds doesn't use roll-out and was within 0.1 seconds of the stated time for the Camaro SS. However, for both the ZL1 and Z/28, there is a 0.4 and 0.5 second discrepancy for both models, respectively. Also note that the discrepancy of 0.4 seconds occurs for the convertible version of the ZL1, as well.

 

[smsprague]

Really? You would equate the failure of one company to acknowledge / hide / fail to correct a material defect which has resulted in driver / passenger deaths with that of a very few folks upset about .01 of a second 0-60 time?

Just a bit of a stretch there, don't you think?

Hi Jaff,

No idea how you made that jump from my statement. In no way shape or form was I referring to a recall or defect. I do not in any way believe Tesla needs a recall on this.

But maybe I could have been more clear. What I meant by my statement was how Tesla Marketing may be slowing moving toward other Car Manufactures. For example the new pricing page showing Gas Savings deducted from the price. This thread is pretty heated maybe I should create a new thread to discuss the way Tesla is moving it Marketing to be like other car manufactures.

 

[Jaff]

Then I owe you an apology Sir!...it was the quote you included that was the "curveball"...