I don't know... Sure lied might have a slightly negative connotation, but I my intent was never to sugar coat anything. The only reason I would sway the negative way is the other things tesla is doing recently with other tesla owners. Example: Supercharging, CPO quality, Drive unit replacement, warranty issues, etc. Personally the 3.1s or 3.2s acceleration of the P85D was definitely intended as a advertising scheme. If Tesla benefited from this advertising scheme, I would consider it as false advertisement. And I can assure you there are plenty of people here who probably traded their P85 for the P85D for those extra seconds base on the advertising scheme. Whether tesla intended to do on purpose or not that is another question. Most people here are giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt if they move forward to alleviate the issue.
-
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
I don't know... Sure lied might have a slightly negative connotation, but I my intent was never to sugar coat anything. The only reason I would sway the negative way is the other things tesla is doing recently with other tesla owners. Example: Supercharging, CPO quality, Drive unit replacement, warranty issues, etc. Personally the 3.1s or 3.2s acceleration of the P85D was definitely intended as a advertising scheme. If Tesla benefited from this advertising scheme, I would consider it as false advertisement. And I can assure you there are plenty of people here who probably traded their P85 for the P85D for those extra seconds base on the advertising scheme. Whether tesla intended to do on purpose or not that is another question. Most people here are giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt if they move forward to alleviate the issue.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
We do know that Tesla treated all models exactly the same ("motor power" was the only numbers advertised) starting in October 2014 up until May 2015, 2 months after the following thread was posted complaining about the 691 hp "motor power" number being misleading. At that time they removed the 691 hp number and everyone back then assumed it was in direct response to the thread.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-Up-to-691HP?p=1007850&viewfull=1#post1007850
As for why they don't add it back, I think it is fairly obvious that if they post any number lower than 691 hp, there would be backlash from the P85D owners complaining so far (and I think they already knew that months ago from that thread).
I noted that even though S60/S70, 70D do not meet their motor power ratings, there have been no complaints, so Tesla didn't feel the same pressure for those models. The S85/P85 did exceed their motor power ratings (and my guess is because the battery obviously isn't the bottleneck there). The 85D exceeded the pre-update rating 376hp motor power, but doesn't exceed the post-update rating of 514hp motor power.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-it-Up-to-691HP/page119?p=1115469#post1115469
Last edited:
Krugerrand
Meow
It seems that ICE manufacturers doctor their horsepower ratings on their cars:
Ford Engine Power, MPG Figures Tested Using Different Fuels
"An asterisked note on the power rating indicates that it is based on a test performed using 93-octane fuel, although the vehicle only requires use of conventional 87-octane gas."
Ford Engine Power, MPG Figures Tested Using Different Fuels
"An asterisked note on the power rating indicates that it is based on a test performed using 93-octane fuel, although the vehicle only requires use of conventional 87-octane gas."
It seems to me that the general public understanding of spaceship specs is on par with understanding the specs of an electric dual motor power train.
Perhaps the best course of action is to precede publishing of the specs of poorly understood new technologies with the comprehensive public education campaigns.
Great idea...
The only problem with my 'great idea' above is that the technology seems to be ahead of its full understanding, perhaps even by its developers.
If we sufficiently slow down the too fast technology development so people can catch up with their understanding of what is being developed, maybe that'll do it.
Perhaps the best course of action is to precede publishing of the specs of poorly understood new technologies with the comprehensive public education campaigns.
Great idea...
The only problem with my 'great idea' above is that the technology seems to be ahead of its full understanding, perhaps even by its developers.
If we sufficiently slow down the too fast technology development so people can catch up with their understanding of what is being developed, maybe that'll do it.
Tesla could educate us by releasing the actual combined hp output of P85D, as it has done with all the other models. Seems to me, that the problem is not with the general populations understanding, but the way Tesla chose to represent the facts. If it had continued by the same way as it has done in the past, this thread would not exist.
Please see this http://my.teslamotors.com/models/design
Tesla uses the term "motor power" only with P85D, not with 70D or 85D.
Not much difference than the Model S performing differently as the battery depletes.
I believe that was suggested back in March: P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it..
Krugerrand
Meow
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That's what I argue too. I think if Tesla posted say "550 hp" and the same motor power numbers (like they do with other cars now), the discussion will still continue, just in a different direction (likely far worse for Tesla). I don't think Tesla is dumb enough to do that at this point.
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options
It's a different matter to say what they should have done in the start, but that's with 20/20 hindsight. Tesla probably thought people wouldn't take a big issue with it (similar to S60/S70/70D reaction to the motor power numbers).
- - - Updated - - -
Not on the design page anymore, but they still have it on specs page:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options
I just wanted to post to let everyone know I'll be sending the letter via Fed Ex tomorrow, Thursday, August 27, so that it reaches Elon Musk's office on Friday morning, August 28. If you haven't yet signed, and still want to, you have roughly 24 hours left to do so.
Thanks!
Thanks!
jpet
Jan P.
let's hope he will not advertise the specs for the spaceship the same way as the P85D
Hehe, after 260 days of traveling, the spaceship will be 24% off its course to Mars. It's ludicrous, I know... :tongue:
It won't.. It will get 1/4 of the way there, decide it hasn't enough range, and head back to Earth to refuel
It can't use that one in case they get an email accusing them of not using it for long distance travel.
(Sorry I couldn't resist)
So, just curious for the folks signing the letter....
It would appear to be industry practice to present total horsepower as the sum on the motors/engines in the drivetrain: the BMW says the i8 is 357hp (129hp + 228hp) and Ferrari says the LaFerrari is 963 cv (800cv + 163 cv). So, if Tesla provides documentation of the horsepower of the two motors on the original P85D (470hp on the rear and 221hp on the front), will they be satisfied that Tesla delivered the 691hp car per the published spec?
It would appear to be industry practice to present total horsepower as the sum on the motors/engines in the drivetrain: the BMW says the i8 is 357hp (129hp + 228hp) and Ferrari says the LaFerrari is 963 cv (800cv + 163 cv). So, if Tesla provides documentation of the horsepower of the two motors on the original P85D (470hp on the rear and 221hp on the front), will they be satisfied that Tesla delivered the 691hp car per the published spec?
Similar threads
