-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Andyw2100
- Start date
This has been written several times now, and you seem to ignore this vital piece of info. Tesla DID NOT use the term motor power in Denmark.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Tesla should just let them give the car back and they will give them their money back minus depreciation, of course. They can then buy a different car.
That could be a fair option.
personally I am just glad Tesla is finally clarifying all of this
jpet
Jan P.
I could not agree more. We don't want the "VW-style" to become the standard. The benefits to Tesla of maintaining nothing less than the highest integrity standards are huge. Respect needs to be earned and Tesla has somewhat been diverting from the right path. Everybody can make mistakes; what's important is to learn from them.
I've posted about it up the thread:
Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread - Page 37
- - - Updated - - -
What exactly does this mean? Didn't Tesla used their website in Denmark? Do you mean that version of the website they use in Denmark was/is different from the websites in other countries? If so, can you provide a link or a snapshot of how their website looked in Denmark?
Thanks
Where? I have read the ECE 85 document and cant find any info about it beeing the europe rule to be ok to only list the max power of the engine without considering fuel or battery power the car can provide.
https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://125.32.98.1/critenon/%25E5%259B%25BD%25E5%25A4%2596%25E6%25A0%2587%25E5%2587%2586/ECE/Ece085e.pdf&ved=0CBwQFjABahUKEwiB6Kvpu5XIAhWE8nIKHfRuCOc&usg=AFQjCNERBajjXvEFCkQJ6QmHZisgbKWwQg
Last edited:
The ECE R85 regulation includes specific rules on what power rating of the electric drivetrain should be and specifics on how these ratings have to be confirmed via designated tests. The ratings that manufacturers are directed to use for electric drivetrains are NET POWER (Max Net Power) and MAXIMUM 30 MINUTE POWER covered in paragraphs 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.
Annex 6 includes specifics on method of testing. It does not include the battery or any electric equipment that supposed to model the battery for the purposes of this testing.
Paragraph 5.3 of the ECE R85 Regulation specifically states that drivetrain supposed to be supplied from a DC voltage source of the defined stiffness (5% maximum voltage drop). Furthermore, as I posted before, Paragraph 5.3 includes the following note:
To sum all of this up, this Regulation directs manufacturers to use motor ratings without taking into consideration any limitation from the battery.
The full text of the ECE R85 is available here.
Last edited:
Danish website was indeed different yes. Screenshot shown several times in the "Calling all owners"-thread started by the danes. It in other threads as well. Thats why I am getting tired of people not respecting the danish claims here. They have clear undebatable proof that Tesla advertised the car as having 700hp.
Teslas danish design studio said "700hk ydeevne" which directly translates to "700hp performance". Not a single mention of "motor power" anywhere. And before anyone asks, "ydeevne" is commonly used in this manner in Denmark. It is _not_ a version of motor power.
PS! I believe the norwegian site did the same for a few weeks, but I have not been able to find a single screenshot from that period. So I am open to that being my bad recollection.
Attachments
One key part of the test though is this
I think there is no argument that a Model S motor is pretty limited under the 30 minute rating. (69kW across the board). What we don't know is how long it takes before it gets too hot. 1 minute? 2 minutes? 29 minutes?
Can a Model S motor run for 3 minutes at a constant 400kW ?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That 400kW would be split over two motors.
As for your 69kW rating, it is exactly the same as the "Maximum continuous rated power" on the EU certificate of conformity (CoC) for the P85 (from 2013). I suspect whatever sheet you had just had an incorrect number.
The number is supposed to be filled in on the V55 by looking at the certificate of conformity. Since the 2013 P85 CoC didn't have a maximum net power number, only a "Maximum continuous rated power" number, I suspect that is what they used to fill in that line.
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/dvla/V355_290613.pdf
The V5C that you were issued would then reflect the numbers of whoever filled in that application (but it may not match up with the CoC exactly).
The newer EU certificates for the P85D give three different power ratings, where the "27.3 maximum net power" corresponds to the motor power Tesla advertises.
If you look at a V5C of a P85D, I suspect it will have the correct numbers there.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...tions/page28?p=1166701&viewfull=1#post1166701
Last edited:
As I've mentioned in our discussion before, the 69kW is not the 30 minutes power, it is continuous rating of the motor. It can run at 69kW indefinitely.
I can assure mine is not an isolated case they all say this (I've seen 4 personally, and spoken to numerous other people in UK / Norway / EU), so it isn't some simple clerical error on the part of someone filling in a form.
The figure given for the 85D is actually lower on official documents @ 67kW.
We are going round in circles here, but I find it highly unlikely a Model S motor can run at 400kW for 3 minutes straight. Why would Tesla design it to do so? It is pointless in the real world, and the only reason would be to pass an EU test that up until now no one gave a hoot about.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes and can it run 400kW for 3 minutes?
If not the test is invalid for maximum.
Yes it can. It was tested according to the EC R85 to do just that. What kind of information do you have to casually question this??
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I didn't say it was an isolated incident, just that whoever decided to fill in the V55s for Tesla decided to fill in the continuous number rather than the actual maximum net power numbers. One possible explanation is that the CoCs previously only had the continuous number (as it appears to be the case from my search) and they continued using the same number even when the newer CoCs have three power ratings listed.
Again, I linked that the 2013 P85 CoC had 69kW listed as the "Maximum continuous rated power", I don't think it is a coincidence that your V5C for your P85 also had 69kW written:
For the purposes of our discussion however, what's on the V5C is not necessarily the maximum net power number as written on the EU CoC. Looking at the P85D CoC makes this pretty clear:
If the 85D is 67kW I suspect that corresponds to the "27.2 Maximum hourly output" line on the EU certificate of conformity. Maybe have your friends look at their actual EU certificate of conformity line 27 to see which number it actually corresponds to instead of relying on the V5C.
Last edited:
I don't think so.
Here a P85D gets limited after one and a half minutes of aggressive driving:
But I do not think this is the point.
The point is that the car was advertised as a 700 hp car and has less than 555 hp and even today there is still misleading information on the Tesla website:
Is this misleading advertising an accident? An oversight? Or is Tesla trying "to pull a Volkswagen"?
Is there any technical reason they can give combined hp for the 70D and 85D but not for the P85D?
Last edited by a moderator:
I would humbly suggest that we don't conflate this issue with the Volkwagen crimes. Even stipulating that Tesla was intentionally misleading (I peraonally think they were just careless, but can be swayed), they are orders of magnitude apart in severity, intention, and consequences.
Somehow I don't think they will go bankrupt and threaten the European economic union over this.
Similar threads
