Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

[wk057]

Pfft. I don't think so! Time for that revolt!

*passes out pitchforks and tickets to Fremont*

</sarcasm>

Edit: On a humorous note, I have the image in my head after reading my own post of a bunch of people in an airplane cabin with pitchforks headed to Fremont. lol. Maybe a comic artist could draw that.

 

[Andyw2100]

Just an update on the number of signers at this point...

So far, with the thread just over a day old, there are 44 signers, plus a couple more that attempted to sign, but have not yet sent the complete information, so I'm not counting those yet. I had hoped to get a minimum of 50 signers (though of course more is better), and it looks like that's not going to be a problem.

I also want to thank everyone who has been signing and adding notes of support with their messages, or voicing support here. I realize it is possible that I went about this the wrong way, but my intentions were definitely good. I really do appreciate the kind words! Thanks very much!

 

[darthy001]

That's been a bit of an issue for me - if people truly want to prevent negative press, an open letter in a very public forum doesn't seem a good way to accomplish that.

You have a point here, but whats the alternative when Tesla does not respond to most likely hundreds of requests here? See the danes for example. They had 14owners sign two letters, non-disclosed to the public, and got no response whatsoever to any of them. Many of the users here on TMC reports is reporting similar issue. All request to Tesla on other subjects have been answered. Requests regarding performance have been met by absolute dead silence.

And we are talking about a period of more than half a year that Tesla has _chosen_ not to respond at all.

The danes got a response soon after they went public...So that obviously works. Going under the radar obviously doesnt work if you have no inside contacts...

So once again, what should the owners here do in order to actually get a response from Tesla? Seems like public "shaming" is the only proven way. I dont like it, but this is by Teslas own doing boy ignoring request from numerous owners for months on end.

Edit: I dont think Andys letter is shaming in any way, but the public part of it can and has of course now been used for that purposed by the press whether we like it or not... Thus the part of seeing Bonnies point while still not seeing a valid alternative...

- - - Updated - - -

I've been trying to do find out how Tesla arrived at the 691hp "motor power" too. I spent a decent amount of time gathering a comprehensive list of motor power numbers and best estimate of REST API power numbers (power numbers measured from battery output). Long story short, the consistent thing is whenever there is a motor/inverter combination that is shared among models, the "motor power" number is the same (S60/S70 same as S85, S60D/S70D same as S85D). There are some changes to numbers from time to time, but if you look at numbers on the same page/time this has been consistent.

I have arrived at two theories:
1) "motor power" is the max capability Tesla has measured out of their motor/inverter combination installed in the car, regardless of battery capabilities (David Noland suggests that it illustrates the possible upgrade path with the car; in his case he upgraded his 60kWh pack to 85kWh and got more power out of his car/motors). Some have argued the increase from 470 rear+221 front motor power for the P85D to 503 rear+259 front motor power for the P90D L invalidates this theory. I don't think it does, given Tesla could have underrated the motor/inverters at the first go, or an older P85D may not have the same motor/inverters as a P90D L out of the factory today (we don't know yet that a retrofitted P85D L performs the same as a P90D L from the factory).
2) "motor power" is measured with a power supply (not a factory equipped battery) attached to the drivetrain, thus not taking voltage sag into account (as I suspect ECE R85 is doing).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-it-Up-to-691HP/page119?p=1115469#post1115469
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...etter/page36?p=1118587&viewfull=1#post1118587

Of course, from my back and forth with P85D owners, I don't think they want to find out or understand what Tesla really means when they say "motor power". From their perspective, their interpretation of "691hp motor power" is 691hp at the motor shafts with the entire system taken into account. The other threads have determined that the P85D does not make 691hp at the motor shafts. Thus reality does not match that interpretation and they feel Tesla owes them the missing power. If there is another logical interpretation of the "motor power" then that would undermine their case and I don't think they are interested in finding that out. I think what they are not seeing is that it is possible for a statement to be factually true, but still be misleading to people.

It is borderline dishonest of you at this point in time to leave out the fact that danes and norwegians did _not_ have the "motor power" wording initially in the design studio. Initially it simply said 700hp. That is not up for debate. So simply putting all in the "they dont want to find out or understand"-category is simply patronizing and factually incorrect in my view.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It is borderline dishonest of you at this point in time to leave out the fact that danes and norwegians did _not_ have the "motor power" wording initially in the design studio. Initially it simply said 700hp. That is not up for debate. So simply putting all in the "they dont want to find out or understand"-category is simply patronizing and factually incorrect in my view.

I have seen no evidence what you say is true. "700hp" is "700hk". I have never seen any evidence that the Denmark site ever showed "700hk" directly. It said "700hk ydeevne". Now that may be a bad translation of "700 hp motor power", but it's not simply the same thing as saying 700 hp alone.

I don't want to be too confrontational about that though. My comment is in the context of the entire 691hp issue, where it was mainly a discussion among the US crowd, which had full awareness of "motor power". I don't believe there was much danish or norwegian participation until after Ludicrous and the starting of the other letter to Tesla.

Edit: I looked at internet archive just to double check.
On January 28, 2015 (the oldest version that it shows up correctly)

Norway site said:
"700 hk motorkraft
224 hk foran 476 hk bak"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128163108/http://www.teslamotors.com/no_NO/models#battery-options

Denmark site said:
"700 hk ydeevne
224 hk foran, 476 hk bag"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128143513/http://www.teslamotors.com/da_DK/models#battery-options

English EU site said:
"700 PS motor power
224 PS front, 476 PS rear"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128163918/http://www.teslamotors.com/en_EU/models#battery-options

 

[Torben_E]

post #103 from Darthy001

@Darthy001... just a comment to the Danes got a respons .. to avoid any misunderstanding.

We the 14 Danes with 15 P85D´s (one has also bought one P85D for his wife) have not received the response that we were looking for namely a reply back from Tesla on our letters. What we did was to call someone inside Tesla and finally we reached V.P. Technology who was kind enough to have 2 telecons with us. He however clearcy said, I am not going to talk about sales, marketing or solutions. I can help you to explain how your cars is different from ICE and how to test your cars. We did not learn anything we did not know about SoC, tires, temperatur, weight etc. In my opinion this doalog is leading to a dead end an I want marketing / sales executives to contact us.

We never went public with our letters, but you can argue we went "semi public" as we opened up the "Calling P85D owners" on a few forums. The purpose was to see if we were just 14 crazy Vikings with problem about acceleration, horsepower and how to test the cars properly. We found out we were not at all the only one and on our homepage http://teslaforum.dk/p85d/ we collected in a week 48 co-signers that is intented for our 3rd and probably final letter to Tesla. With the 3rd letter we believe we have the full right to now speak on behalf of 10-15 Norvegiean, 10 Americans, a couple of Germans one Polish ++.

The timeline was the following :

1. March -June, nummerous letter, mails and meetings with Tesla to solve the issue. We believe a SW has downgrated the cars (we now know maybe to avoid the 1.300 A fuse from melting).
2. 26th of July out of fustration 7 of the 14 P85D owner have a crisis meeting where we discuss our options and route forwards.
3. 29th of July we personally hand over the 1st letter to Tesla. Ask for a response (not a solution but response) witin a week.
4. Having not heard from Tesla by the 5th we issue the second letter I think is was the 8th (letter dated 6th of August)
5. In the 2. letter we state that this has capital importance for us and if we dont get a respons (not a solution) by the 14th of August we will expand out investigation to the international P85D comnunity.
6. Friday the 14th at 12.00 CET after not having received any response we lauch our web page and start the debate on "Calling P85D ,,,,," We also sent a mail (not letter) to Tesla that we have launched the web page and are calling the P85D owners ww.
7. The forums picks up the invitation for discussion and for the first time we truly feel we are not alone about this.
8. Yet still not getting any response we manage to call a senior manager in the Tesla Motors organisation on the 15th (early mornning saturday over here). But as stated he did not want to talk about the content of the letter rather educate us about how we should test the car. This did not help us get the 700 hk or the 3.3 s so I see this as a dead end.
9. The 3rd and probably the final letter will be issued Monday the 24th of August. I will personally hand it over. I guess one thing that I am personally getting more and more frustrated about is that there is not even a kind reply to the letters.



Hope this clarifies.


Torben_E

 

[darthy001]

I have seen no evidence what you say is true. "700hp" is "700hk". I have never seen any evidence that the Denmark site ever showed "700hk" directly. It said "700hk ydeevne". Now that may be a bad translation of "700 hp motor power", but it's not simply the same thing as saying 700 hp alone.

I don't want to be too confrontational about that though. My comment is in the context of the entire 691hp issue, where it was mainly a discussion among the US crowd, which had full awareness of "motor power". I don't believe there was much danish or norwegian participation until after Ludicrous.

This is also not true. You have had several danes and norwegians explaining that your attempt of connecting ydeevne to motor power is simply ridiculous. Ydeevne means performance. It does not say that anymore of course now that Tesla has changed it. If it had any resemblance to motor power it would still be there.

You purposely ignore those actually able to read Danish because it doesnt fit with your argument. That does not suit you or the rest of your argument well.

edit: the danes have even shown you examples of other carmakers also using ydeevne in same the way simply meaning performance and nothing even close to motor power-term used by tesla. Then for the audi R8 e-tron. That you ignore as well...

edit2: sorry, did not catch the nonconfrontational part of the post at first, and that is a relevant comment! So my first version of this post is a bit harsh! Sorry once again for that.

Bus as you've seen the danes kept it localy until recently in a local forum. Norwegians have been discussing this since october last year in he norwegian forum as well.. So connecting this to ludicrous-update is mostly related to TMC. The same people have been on this for a long time before that.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is also not true. You have had several danes and norwegians explaining that your attempt of connecting ydeevne to motor power is simply ridiculous. Ydeevne means performance. It does not say that anymore of course now that Tesla has changed it. If it had any resemblance to motor power it would still be there.

You purposely ignore those actually able to read Danish because it doesnt fit with your argument. That does not suit you or the rest of your argument well.

edit: the danes have even shown you examples of other carmakers also using ydeevne in same the way simply meaning performance and nothing even close to motor power-term used by tesla. Then for the audi R8 e-tron. That you ignore as well...

edit2: sorry, did not catch the nonconfrontational part of the post at first, and that is a relevant comment! So my first version of this post is a bit harsh! Sorry once again for that.

Bus as you've seen the danes kept it localy until recently in a local forum. Norwegians have been discussing this since october last year in he norwegian forum as well.. So connecting this to ludicrous-update is mostly related to TMC. The same people have been on this for a long time before that.

See my update. What I see among the different EU sites is consistent with motor power. Again as I said, "ydeevne" is probably a bad translation (if it simply means "performance" whoever did the translating on that part should be fired), so maybe they have a point there. However, on the Norway site, it says motorkraft. I'm pretty sure that means the same thing as "motor power".

Repost below:
I looked at internet archive just to double check.
On January 28, 2015 (the oldest version that it shows up correctly)

Norway site said:
"700 hk motorkraft
224 hk foran 476 hk bak"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128163108/http://www.teslamotors.com/no_NO/models#battery-options

Denmark site said:
"700 hk ydeevne
224 hk foran, 476 hk bag"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128143513/http://www.teslamotors.com/da_DK/models#battery-options

English EU site said:
"700 PS motor power
224 PS front, 476 PS rear"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128163918/http://www.teslamotors.com/en_EU/models#battery-options

 

[WarpedOne]

So once again, what should the owners here do in order to actually get a response from Tesla? Seems like public "shaming" is the only proven way. I dont like it, but this is by Teslas own doing boy ignoring request from numerous owners for months on end.

Yes, public shaming has good history:
“It’s A Brick” – Tesla Motors’ Devastating Design Problem
The Lemon Law King Reaches Settlement With Tesla In Model S Case For $126,836

I say welcome to the club.

What should the owners do? Enjoy the vehicle as is or sell it and go away. It is that simple.
Everything else is childish extortion and in the end only damages the company. You had good intentions? Welcome to the hell.

Did danish site said something fishy? What does that tell us of danish translator quality?
Another open letter about their *** quality?

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

Sounds to me like tesla no longer have early adopters help to roll out their later cars. Just like the iphone when it came out. The early adopters are willing to over look aome flaws. Now however, they are not willing to over look these flaws anymore. Looks like a good time to rid myself od some shares.

But i agree with those who think tesla should make it right. It seems like in the beginning, tesla righted very problem people reported because they did not want people to say tesla cars are shotty. Now they are ignoring issues because thwy already have good advertisement and nonlonger need to address every problems.

Typically company progression. I guess not even tesla is immune. Unless something change soon, it starting to look like tesla is becoming like any other company who do business. Looking after the money instead of the goodness of their customer and the greatness of their product.

 

[rns-e]

@WarpedOne - we know you love Tesla, we get it. We love Tesla to.

$20k for something you did not get is not childish. The only one being childish now is you. Why should we as customers take a loss because Tesla did deliver on what they sold us.

Come on, table your anger and try to imagine that you spend $20k extra because you wanted the maddest of the baddest of the Teslas. That extra only being 1.1s and 270 some hp and then you find out that not only did you only get 0.6s and at best 140hp extra, but you also have to face the shaming and ridicule of fellow Tesla owners for pointing the shortcomings out and the complete silence from Tesla.

 

[darthy001]

See my update. What I see among the different EU sites is consistent with motor power. Again as I said, "ydeevne" is probably a bad translation (if it simply means "performance" whoever did the translating on that part should be fired), so maybe they have a point there. However, on the Norway site, it says motorkraft. I'm pretty sure that means the same thing as "motor power".

Repost below:
I looked at internet archive just to double check.
On January 28, 2015 (the oldest version that it shows up correctly)

Norway site said:
"700 hk motorkraft
224 hk foran 476 hk bak"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128163108/http://www.teslamotors.com/no_NO/models#battery-options

Denmark site said:
"700 hk ydeevne
224 hk foran, 476 hk bag"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128143513/http://www.teslamotors.com/da_DK/models#battery-options

English EU site said:
"700 PS motor power
224 PS front, 476 PS rear"
https://web.archive.org/web/20150128163918/http://www.teslamotors.com/en_EU/models#battery-options

Yes, the norwegian site was changed quite fast. That is one of the reasons I am personally saying that I was aware of the "motor power"-term before taking delivery due to refreshing that site several times a day. But I am 98% certain the norwegian site said "700hk" and nothing else the first few weeks in Norway. So actually worse than the danish site at first, but it was of course "corrected" on the norwegian site to say "motor kraft" which is 1:1 with "motor power". That is a big contrast to the danish site. So the danes have a much better claim there.

Sadly I didnt take any screnshots of this on the norwegian site, and as you mention the webarchives didnt either.. I didnt even think there was a reason to take screenshots then based on Teslas proven track record at that time of overdelivering on specs for all of its previous models.

 

[rns-e]

I've been trying to do find out how Tesla arrived at the 691hp "motor power" too. I spent a decent amount of time gathering a comprehensive list of motor power numbers and best estimate of REST API power numbers (power numbers measured from battery output). Long story short, the consistent thing is whenever there is a motor/inverter combination that is shared among models, the "motor power" number is the same (S60/S70 same as S85, S60D/S70D same as S85D). There are some changes to numbers from time to time, but if you look at numbers on the same page/time this has been consistent.

I have arrived at two theories:
1) "motor power" is the max capability Tesla has measured out of their motor/inverter combination installed in the car, regardless of battery capabilities (David Noland suggests that it illustrates the possible upgrade path with the car; in his case he upgraded his 60kWh pack to 85kWh and got more power out of his car/motors). Some have argued the increase from 470 rear+221 front motor power for the P85D to 503 rear+259 front motor power for the P90D L invalidates this theory. I don't think it does, given Tesla could have underrated the motor/inverters at the first go, or an older P85D may not have the same motor/inverters as a P90D L out of the factory today (we don't know yet that a retrofitted P85D L performs the same as a P90D L from the factory).
2) "motor power" is measured with a power supply (not a factory equipped battery) attached to the drivetrain, thus not taking voltage sag into account (as I suspect ECE R85 is doing).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-it-Up-to-691HP/page119?p=1115469#post1115469
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...etter/page36?p=1118587&viewfull=1#post1118587

Of course, from my back and forth with P85D owners, I don't think they want to find out or understand what Tesla really means when they say "motor power". From their perspective, their interpretation of "691hp motor power" is 691hp at the motor shafts with the entire system taken into account. The other threads have determined that the P85D does not make 691hp at the motor shafts. Thus reality does not match that interpretation and they feel Tesla owes them the missing power. If there is another logical interpretation of the "motor power" then that would undermine their case and I don't think they are interested in finding that out. I think what they are not seeing is that it is possible for a statement to be factually true, but still be misleading to people.

Tesla sell a $20k upgrade on two thing 1.1s faster to 60 and some 270 hp more than the 85D. You tell us that the average Tesla buyer should use the time do the research a you did and maybe come to the same conclusions as you before making the decision on spending $20k more on what turns out to be only 0.6s and maybe 140 hp more than the 85D.

I think it is dishonest of Tesla to present their customers with two options that are not comparable. The motor power figures are not comparable with the hp claims on the other Tesla models. And the P85D apparently uses rollout where the other models do not.

So the comparison Tesla should give the customers is:

P85D vs 85D
3.5s vs. 4.2s true 0-60
550 hp vs. 417 hp (kW from the battery)

Please decide if you want to spend an extra $20k. They could have put it that simple and there would be no case. However Tesla wanted to have the quickest mass produced sedan and they inflated the numbers like a butcher pumping the meat full of water. And the customers rightly feel cheated when they find out.

So weather the term motor power means one or the other is less relevant. The relevant thing is that Tesla is not presenting their customers with comparable options to choose from. And they still don't. The average buying, myself included, will think the different specs for the different models are 100% comparable, and Tesla deliberately supports that believe, with no explanation of the term motor power and how it differs from their rating of all the other models.

If that is not deliberate misleading, I don't know what is.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

If that is not deliberate misleading, I don't know what is.

I would say there is a great deal you don't know, and that's why you're upset. You're commenting on speculation as though it's fact. You can be upset that you don't understand how Tesla arrived at the numbers they're quoting, but saying that you didn't receive what you ordered if flat out incorrect.

It's been pointed out a million times, but show me where added horsepower will increase performance above a certain speed on a vehicle with a single gear. Show me where Tesla arrived at the performance numbers they are quoting, then show me how the comparable independent testing shows a discrepancy.

Again, stop discussing this issue like you have information that is anything more than conjecture.

 

[No2DinosaurFuel]

@WarpedOne - we know you love Tesla, we get it. We love Tesla to.

$20k for something you did not get is not childish. The only one being childish now is you. Why should we as customers take a loss because Tesla did deliver on what they sold us.

Come on, table your anger and try to imagine that you spend $20k extra because you wanted the maddest of the baddest of the Teslas. That extra only being 1.1s and 270 some hp and then you find out that not only did you only get 0.6s and at best 140hp extra, but you also have to face the shaming and ridicule of fellow Tesla owners for pointing the shortcomings out and the complete silence from Tesla.

My only guess is WarpedOne is probably one of those TSLA investors aways shining a bright light on their products.

 

[dsm363]

Everyone's value proposition is different. When does $20,000 become worth it. 0.6 seconds. 0.9 seconds, 1.2 seconds? Tesla Roadster owners paid $14,000 extra for 0.2 seconds for reference.

 

[tezzla]

Everyone's value proposition is different. When does $20,000 become worth it. 0.6 seconds. 0.9 seconds, 1.2 seconds? Tesla Roadster owners paid $14,000 extra for 0.2 seconds for reference.

I think the difference was that in October (when P85D was announced), it was either 691hp (3.2 secs) or 85D, 4xxhp (5.2 secs). $20k but a lot more performance, 3-4 months later, after the P85Ds were delivered, they upped the specs on the 85D to 4.x secs. (I'm too lazy to get the specific numbers). Now the 20k difference looks stupid.

 

[wk057]

I think the difference was that in October (when P85D was announced), it was either 691hp (3.2 secs) or 85D, 4xxhp (5.2 secs). $20k but a lot more performance, 3-4 months later, after the P85Ds were delivered, they upped the specs on the 85D to 4.x secs. (I'm too lazy to get the specific numbers). Now the 20k difference looks stupid.

The $20k difference would still be fine if they actually delivered the originally advertised specs. I'm fine with something better coming out later and having missed out, but that's not the case here.

 

[tezzla]

The $20k difference would still be fine if they actually delivered the originally advertised specs. I'm fine with something better coming out later and having missed out, but that's not the case here.

I agree. As it is now though, the 85D (with much less "reported" hp) performs about the same as our P85Ds (above 30 mph).

 

[wk057]

I agree. As it is now though, the 85D (with much less "reported" hp) performs about the same as our P85Ds (above 30 mph).

Yep. As mentioned previously, given all of the information I have today I would not have upgraded from my P85 at all.

 

[rainman50]

@WarpedOne - we know you love Tesla, we get it. We love Tesla to.

$20k for something you did not get is not childish. The only one being childish now is you. Why should we as customers take a loss because Tesla did deliver on what they sold us.

Come on, table your anger and try to imagine that you spend $20k extra because you wanted the maddest of the baddest of the Teslas. That extra only being 1.1s and 270 some hp and then you find out that not only did you only get 0.6s and at best 140hp extra, but you also have to face the shaming and ridicule of fellow Tesla owners for pointing the shortcomings out and the complete silence from Tesla.

I agree and don't have a P85D (I have a P85) but I'm waiting to purchase one next year, probably the ludicrous model, but want to make sure I'm getting what I paid for.