Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

[smac]

Do folks think that the latest Consumer Reports customer rating for the P85D of 103 out of 100 (highest ever) will make the complaints here fall on deaf ears at Tesla? It would seem that with such high customer sat ratings, the complaints may not get much traction.

I'd hate to be wrong, but I don't expect any of the hard work Andy has done drafting this letter, or those willing to sign it, will be particularly material publicly or to those owners that feel upset.

I like everyone else on here thinks the S is a great car, it really doesn't need the gimmicks to stand on it's own two feet (as the CR report would attest to actually).

For me the HP and 0-60 claims simply set them up for a fall, when technically it seems they just couldn't meet the bold claims

IF they'd simply said the car could do 0-60 in 3.6, but was now AWD, EVERYONE would have been happy. Instead they have annoyed a very small (but vocal) contingent of their most loyal fans, and more widely fueled the anti-EV contingent with some ammunition in every debate that Tesla's claims aren't to be trusted.

The best we can hope for is this is influential in the future announcements, and a little bit more of a "straight bat" approach to claims starts happening in the future. Personally I think as a poster child for EV's Tesla need to be whiter than white. This episode has certainly been grey!

 

[sorka]

The Golf GTW is a parallel hybrid with both motor and engine driving the same wheels, versus the cars we were talking about where each power plant is working independently. Porsche does something similar with the 918 when discussing power to the rear wheels, which also have a hybrid power plant driving them. As far as the P85D, I don't think anyone has the data yet to know if both motors run at max output at some point, justifying the 691hp number, so I am not sure you can judge if its "proper" or not.

Both motors can't run at max output at the same time. If they did, we'd see greater than 525 kW but we only see 414 kW (550 hp), so yes, we have data and they have data.

- - - Updated - - -

Do folks think that the latest Consumer Reports customer rating for the P85D of 103 out of 100 (highest ever) will make the complaints here fall on deaf ears at Tesla? It would seem that with such high customer sat ratings, the complaints may not get much traction.

I think that's highly likely from a public perception standpoint but not a legal standpoint.

- - - Updated - - -

While fuel levels in a gasoline car won't effect hp, there are a myriad of other factors that would result in an ICE vehicle making less hp that expected/rated (even though the car was initially verified to make the rated hp #). Heat soak, state of tune, fuel quality, the trans gear the test was performed in, etc., etc. etc.

You can't really say state of tune. First cars don't need "tune" ups. They don't have parts that degrade performance. Even spark plugs by the time you're supposed to replace them won't cause you to lose any power. Heat soak will effect a P85Ds output far more than running a turbo car hard on the autobahn for 30+ minutes straight. If you're running the proper grade of fuel, brand shouldn't matter but detergent quality long term might clog fuel injectors although that's mostly a thing of the past now too.

The biggest factors effecting ICE output assuming everything is working properly is atmosphere. A car will have more power on cold days than hot days. A 400 hp car in Denver only makes 330 hp. Altitude is probably the single biggest factor.

In addition to the industry deciding on a good average SOC to test at(probably something that services the average SOC over a normal days driving range) I would be ok with a handicap that gives the EV handicap relative to altitude. Most cars aren't driven at sea level so if the average level was say 1000 feet, I'd be fine with EVs getting a handicap that gives them a proportional bump up over actual hp to account for the hp that all cars lose on average because some are operated at altitude.

 

[ecarfan]

Do folks think that the latest Consumer Reports customer rating for the P85D of 103 out of 100 (highest ever) will make the complaints here fall on deaf ears at Tesla? It would seem that with such high customer sat ratings, the complaints may not get much traction.

Tesla is likely to continue to ignore the complaints voiced in this thread, and ignore the letter which was sent. And I am fine with that.
The CR reviews and owner satisfaction rating (98/100), the fact that only a tiny fraction of Model S owners care about a fraction of a second difference in stated acceleration times or care about stated power values, and many other amazingly positive features about the S all mean that Tesla sales will continue to grow by leaps and bounds, producing many more happy customers.
Tesla will no doubt continue to make occasional stumbles in communication and indulge in a bit of product hyperbole in years to come, and there will be more eruptions on TMC.

 

[smac]

Tesla will no doubt continue to make occasional stumbles in communication and indulge in a bit of product hyperbole in years to come, and there will be more eruptions on TMC.

Why no doubt continue?

It's damaging to the brand. So if you are a fan or investor, irrespective of your view on this particular complaint you should be holding Tesla to the highest possible standards. Giving them a "pass" on this, is just turning a blind eye to an ongoing problem. Like many things small indiscretions build, and before you know it you have a serious problem.

Remember the "boy that cried wolf"

Right now it's probably isolated to a few on here, and can be managed. But let's not kid ourselves there are 70k+ cars and we are a small minority. Right now we care about poor expectation management, sooner rather than later a wider group will become vocal, and it will snowball.

I really hope Elon doesn't promise something not proven as deliverable at the X launch.

 

[Stoneymonster]

Why no doubt continue?

It's damaging to the brand. So if you are a fan or investor, irrespective of your view on this particular complaint you should be holding Tesla to the highest possible standards. Giving them a "pass" on this, is just turning a blind eye to an ongoing problem. Like many things small indiscretions build, and before you know it you have a serious problem.

Remember the "boy that cried wolf"

Right now it's probably isolated to a few on here, and can be managed. But let's not kid ourselves there are 70k+ cars and we are a small minority. Right now we care about poor expectation management, sooner rather than later a wider group will become vocal, and it will snowball.

I really hope Elon doesn't promise something not proven as deliverable at the X launch.

I think the point is that Tesla has pretty clear evidence that it is NOT damaging their brand in any meaningful way. Maybe there's a "yet" there, maybe not. Car forums are a pretty lousy indicator of actual customer satisfaction.

 

[smac]

I think the point is that Tesla has pretty clear evidence that it is NOT damaging their brand in any meaningful way. Maybe there's a "yet" there, maybe not. Car forums are a pretty lousy indicator of actual customer satisfaction.

Fair point.

I honestly think there will be a "yet" Especially in the UK given the release schedule issues... we are 8+ months behind.

People that ordered their P85D's last year only started getting delivered last week and many are still sat in Tilburg. Before they've even set eyes on their car the CR report saying it doesn't hit the numbers appears. It's not a great way to engender customer satisfaction.

Maybe the UK doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but if the hype wasn't there then issues like this wouldn't matter.

How many US P85D owners would opt for a P90D now we know what we do? If your car hadn't arrived would you cancel?

 

[DanKeen]

Heat soak will effect a P85Ds output far more than running a turbo car hard on the autobahn for 30+ minutes straight.

Just want to say this isn't quite true. My Lotus Exige will drop some 60+hp (which is major when it starts with 260…) when the intercooler heat soaks. At Thunderhill I'll lose 15+mph on the front straight.

Rest of conversation? Meh. They messed up. My P90D is in production. I'm looking forward to it but I don't expect it to make 700+hp (and am not surprised by Pete90D's results).

 

[sorka]

Just want to say this isn't quite true. My Lotus Exige will drop some 60+hp (which is major when it starts with 260…) when the intercooler heat soaks. At Thunderhill I'll lose 15+mph on the front straight.

Rest of conversation? Meh. They messed up. My P90D is in production. I'm looking forward to it but I don't expect it to make 700+hp (and am not surprised by Pete90D's results).

You're talking track duty. The P85D will drop a 100+ horsepower under the same conditions in just a few minutes.

 

[smac]

Just want to say this isn't quite true. My Lotus Exige will drop some 60+hp (which is major when it starts with 260…) when the intercooler heat soaks. At Thunderhill I'll lose 15+mph on the front straight.

Rest of conversation? Meh. They messed up. My P90D is in production. I'm looking forward to it but I don't expect it to make 700+hp (and am not surprised by Pete90D's results).

Dan just for you... what I bought instead of upgrading my 60 to a P85D (which was a lucky escape. given it would have been obsolete even before delivery!!!)

At least there are some benefits of being in the UK, even if not Tesla related

 

[Auzie]

Tesla is likely to continue to ignore the complaints voiced in this thread, and ignore the letter which was sent. And I am fine with that.
The CR reviews and owner satisfaction rating (98/100), the fact that only a tiny fraction of Model S owners care about a fraction of a second difference in stated acceleration times or care about stated power values, and many other amazingly positive features about the S all mean that Tesla sales will continue to grow by leaps and bounds, producing many more happy customers.
Tesla will no doubt continue to make occasional stumbles in communication and indulge in a bit of product hyperbole in years to come, and there will be more eruptions on TMC.

+1

Non response may be the correct response in this case, for numerous reasons, the main being no matter how Tesla responds to complainers, the complainers are so entrenched in their position that they are likely to further parse any potential response, split the hairs and drag the discussion into eternity.

It is my experience that the best way to finish such unproductive discussions is with silence.

It's damaging to the brand. So if you are a fan or investor, irrespective of your view on this particular complaint you should be holding Tesla to the highest possible standards. Giving them a "pass" on this, is just turning a blind eye to an ongoing problem. Like many things small indiscretions build, and before you know it you have a serious problem.

Right now it's probably isolated to a few on here, and can be managed. But let's not kid ourselves there are 70k+ cars and we are a small minority. Right now we care about poor expectation management, sooner rather than later a wider group will become vocal, and it will snowball.

It may be your view that there is a problem that needs rehashing publicly.

My view on the most likely scenario is:

There seems to be no clear industry standard developed for stating specification of an electric drive train with dual motors. When talking about their new exciting development (D), Tesla staff most likely did as the post below outlines

I think I understand why Tesla uses the term "hp motor power" and what it means. It means the theoretical maximum the motor could achieve by design. They use it because they are used to referring to these motors this way. Sometimes companies focus so much on internal communication, they lose sight of whether the information is relevant to the public. Currently Tesla has 3 different motors; 259, 382 and 503 hp. The motors are manufactured at second floor. If an engineer on first floor picks up the phone and says "we are running low on 85D front motors" it wouldn't make sense. The same motor is used in 70D, 85D and P85D. Instead he would say we need more 259's.

The S70 and S85 are interesting because they both have the same motor which has a theoretical maximum of 382 hp. That is the maximum power this motor can produce in a lab environment. It doesn't mean it will produce that much when installed to a specific car. For example it drops to 315 hp in an S70 but increases to 373 hp in S85. What would happen if that motor was designed to produce maximum 360 hp? Then the S85 would achieve 360 hp instead 373 because the design of the motor would be the holding back factor. To avoid this, by design the motors have slightly greater potential than can be achieved with the battery they are attached to.

What is interesting is that, somehow the horsepower P85D achieves is unknown, even though it is known for the other cars. If it scores same as 85D, the achieved number for the original P85D would be 556 hp. I don't know why Tesla didn't advertise 556. My guess is, they confused themselves too much with the theoretical numbers and Elon ended up mentioning 691 in a few interviews so they decided to stick with that.

	70	85	70D	85D	P85D original	P85D new
Theoretical max hp front			259	259	221	259
Theoretical max hp rear	382	382	259	259	470	503
Achieved hp	315	373	328	417	unspecified	unspecified
Achieved/Theoretical hp	82%	98%	63%	81%	unknown	unknown

I am not posting here to give Tesla a pass, I just see the issue discussed in this thread differently to what was outlined in the complaint letter. Tesla does not need a pass from me or anyone else.

It must be awfully tiring being on the receiving end of the enormous public scrutiny by an army of followers who are so eager to rehash every utterance, measure every wheel spin, motor output, battery you name it.

I bet that exhaustion can be easily treated by the outpouring of love :love: and support that goes Tesla's way. CR report has a lot of credibility, far more than a public letter without supporting data or evidence.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think I understand why Tesla uses the term "hp motor power" and what it means. It means the theoretical maximum the motor could achieve by design.

You seemed to have reached the exact same conclusion I reached long ago after laying out the "motor power" numbers nicely in a chart and comparing claimed/known system powers of the various models. However, as you may find out, there aren't many people who complained that agree with this and it's clear they interpreted it in a different way.

If it scores same as 85D, the achieved number for the original P85D would be 556 hp. I don't know why Tesla didn't advertise 556.

The time-line is October 2014, when Tesla launched their dual motor models, Tesla changed all models to "motor power". Then in March 2015 the thread about 691 hp "motor power" for P85D being misleading was posted. In May 2015, Tesla finally removed the 691hp "motor power" number as well as the rest of the motor power numbers. Recently they added "motor power" numbers. If Tesla adds a 556hp number for the P85D, they pretty much know from the thread at the time, that there would be backlash. The situation is different from if Tesla advertised only the P85D with "motor power" and the others differently from the start.

 

[smac]

+1

It may be your view that there is a problem that needs rehashing publicly.

My view on the most likely scenario is:
......
I am not posting here to give Tesla a pass, I just see the issue discussed in this thread differently to what was outlined in the complaint letter. Tesla does not need a pass from me or anyone else.

It must be awfully tiring being on the receiving end of the enormous public scrutiny by an army of followers who are so eager to rehash every utterance, measure every wheel spin, motor output, battery you name it.

I bet that exhaustion can be easily treated by the outpouring of love :love: and support that goes Tesla's way. CR report has a lot of credibility, far more than a public letter without supporting data or evidence.

Yes our views are different

CR report is great, and Tesla are to be applauded. However it is but a historical snapshot (and TBH one of cars < 1 year old!!). Things move on, and my view is even if in private a letter causes some reflection on toning down the hyperbole it is a good thing. The car doesn't need it!

As for the rehash of every utterance, yes this is true. But it's a two way street. Tesla's viral advertising strategy works wonders when they hit targets, when they fail to meet expectations they should expect the same. Live by the sword die by the sword

Anyway, as you say we could no doubt just end up splitting hairs, so best to wrap it up there.

 

[omarsultan]

Both motors can't run at max output at the same time. If they did, we'd see greater than 525 kW but we only see 414 kW (550 hp), so yes, we have data and they have data.

I have lost track of all the numbers being thrown around--where did this number come from? I ask because it seems to measure this you can only instrument this in a limited number of places like the output terminals of the battery pack or the sum of the input terminals for the two motors, no?

 

[rns-e]

You seemed to have reached the exact same conclusion I reached long ago after laying out the "motor power" numbers nicely in a chart and comparing claimed/known system powers of the various models. However, as you may find out, there aren't many people who complained that agree with this and it's clear they interpreted it in a different way.

I think we all agree that Motor Power describes is the maximum output of the engine under 'not real world' conditions. What we apparently do not agree about is if this is a honest way of marketing the car to end users.

This whole thread and the associated threads is more or less about our individual understanding of acceptable sales and marketing standards from Tesla.

 

[sorka]

I have lost track of all the numbers being thrown around--where did this number come from? I ask because it seems to measure this you can only instrument this in a limited number of places like the output terminals of the battery pack or the sum of the input terminals for the two motors, no?

This is the kW number reported via the "power" field in the REST API. I personally haven't seen 415kW but I have seen 414kW. Pete just pulled 456 kW from his P90DL. It's about 9% more than the power reported at the wheels by a vbox showing the incredible efficiency of the Tesla D car vs a typical AWD ICE car which loses more like 20%. There have been very detailed discussions on this in the other threads.

 

[Troy]

What we apparently do not agree about is if this is a honest way of marketing the car to end users.

I think the more interesting question is, why is Tesla using the correct method for 70, 70D, 85 and 85D models but not for P85D? On the order page they don't show motor power anymore except P85D. Other models only show actual achieved hp but not motor power. P85D shows only motor power* but not actual hp. Because this is a recent change, it shows they are aware it was misleading and they are try improve. They fixed the problem for other models but not for P85D. Why not? Because those other models already had the lower number as well. P85D didn't. Somehow 550 hp was forgotten from the beginning.

* motor power = Horsepower the motor is capable of producing by design in a lab environment when attached to a perfect power source. For example S70 and S85 share the same motor that could theoretically produce 382 hp. However with the 70 kWh battery it produces 315 hp and with the 85 kWh battery it produces 373 hp. These numbers (382 hp, 315 hp, 373 hp) are shown on the Model S page on Tesla website.

 

[smac]

This whole thread and the associated threads is more or less about our individual understanding of acceptable sales and marketing standards from Tesla.

+1 I think this is why horsepower and 0-60 are often conflated (though related), I also have a small issue with the false EPA for the same reason. This is product description.

We also have potential issues bubbling up in the service side (look at the Supercharger letter or Ranger issue).

I think all of the big complaint threads, stem from _exactly_ this. It's often seen as "poor communication", but ultimately it is poor "expectation setting", in many cases driven by overly ambitious marketing.

 

[Krugerrand]

... but ultimately it is poor "expectation setting", in many cases driven by overly ambitious marketing.

Just a small reminder...the whole 'expectation' thing works both ways. I've seen many people on here expect things that Tesla NEVER said/implied/promised/marketed/or otherwise. Just one example off the top of my head is the use of TACC in situations it was NEVER intended to be used, for which there is documented instructions, and yet people complaining it doesn't 'work' to sort and fold their laundry. Or the people who have deluded themselves into thinking Autopilot means they'll be able to have a nap on the way to their destination and if they can't - well, by golly, Tesla is going to hear about it!

 

[wk057]

The letter has been sent via Fed Ex, for delivery tomorrow morning, by 10:30 AM.

There were a total of 71 signers, made up mostly of P85D owners. We did have support from about ten other Tesla car owners, investors who do not own cars, and Tesla supporters.

As a group, we actually own a substantial amount of stock. After polling those signing, I wound up including the following line, along with the signatures:

"The signers of this letter together hold at least 13,523 shares of Tesla stock (self-reported.)"


I believe that is significant, as it demonstrates that we really are interested in Tesla's well-being, and not just our own.

Thanks again to everyone who signed, for everyone's support, and especially to wk057 and sorka for both their help with the letter, and their insightful posts that have helped so many of us understand the issue.

Thanks, Andy.

I think it's a bit telling that people seem to have completely ignored this post (I haven't seen it quoted or mentioned), which is the entire basis and culmination of this thread's purpose, and have continued the same back and forth with many still trying to find ways (or rehash the same ways) to defend Tesla's 691 HP number.

So the signers of a letter own at least $3.35M worth of TSLA (as of a quote from right now). While a proverbial drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, it is a pretty significant number and definitely does emphasize the tone a bit more. If just half of the signers are P85D owners that'd represent at least $3.5M in sales for Tesla represented in the letter.

Overall I think that's an appreciable percentage by multiple metrics and the letter definitely deserves a response.

 

[smac]

Just a small reminder...the whole 'expectation' thing works both ways. I've seen many people on here expect things that Tesla NEVER said/implied/promised/marketed/or otherwise. Just one example off the top of my head is the use of TACC in situations it was NEVER intended to be used, for which there is documented instructions, and yet people complaining it doesn't 'work' to sort and fold their laundry. Or the people who have deluded themselves into thinking Autopilot means they'll be able to have a nap on the way to their destination and if they can't - well, by golly, Tesla is going to hear about it!

For sure the best way to happy customers is to set expectations below what is delivered. Maybe they wouldn't make as many sales, but does it matter if you alienate customers who then won't buy another Tesla ever?

I'd be REALLY careful mentioning AutoPilot and I purposefully haven't raised it because it's still being worked on. RIGHT NOW it simply does not do what was shown at the press launch, i.e. automatically follow lanes without touching the wheel or have the ability to switch lanes from the stalk. Now even if the launch was a "futures preview" it certainly set expectations above what TO DATE has been delivered.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks, Andy.

I think it's a bit telling that people seem to have completely ignored this post (I haven't seen it quoted or mentioned), which is the entire basis and culmination of this thread's purpose, and have continued the same back and forth with many still trying to find ways (or rehash the same ways) to defend Tesla's 691 HP number.

So the signers of a letter own at least $3.35M worth of TSLA (as of a quote from right now). While a proverbial drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, it is a pretty significant number and definitely does emphasize the tone a bit more. If just half of the signers are P85D owners that'd represent at least $3.5M in sales for Tesla represented in the letter.

Overall I think that's an appreciable percentage by multiple metrics and the letter definitely deserves a response.

Sorry! Yes it's easy to get dragged off topic :redface:

Thanks for bringing it back, and thanks to Andy for penning the letter.