Had they just managed to get my my friggin seats installed I would most likely have forgotten about this already
I simply want the actual car I ordered delivered in full...
-
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 simply want the actual car I ordered delivered in full...
jpet
Jan P.
Had they just managed to get my my friggin seats installed I would most likely have forgotten about this already
I'm totally with you Darthy. I followed your situation early this year and to me not having the next gen seats at the back would not be acceptable either. I had a telephone conversation with the European HQ to make sure they knew delivering my car without the next gen seats would be a no go for me. Did you get confirmation that they are at least planning to fix this for you some time in the future? They should give you the Ludicrous upgrade as a present because of this. I'm sure you would appreciate that.
Now the local chief of customer deliveries has promised he will follow this up himself, but the rest of the organisation has been "fixing" the situation since february... At least they managed to deliver the front seats in early june...I'm totally with you Darthy. I followed your situation early this year and to me not having the next gen seats at the back would not be acceptable either. I had a telephone conversation with the European HQ to make sure they knew delivering my car without the next gen seats would be a no go for me. Did you get confirmation that they are at least planning to fix this for you some time in the future? They should give you the Ludicrous upgrade as a present because of this. I'm sure you would appreciate that.
I've gone from hoping for some compensation to now openly demanding it.. Not that I've gotten any response on that subject either
Had I been on the other side of the fence I would've been embarrased!But enough of me hijacking the thread with my offtopic ramblings and misfortunes
Tesla advertised individual and combined horsepower of the **motors**, i.e. maximum power ratings (net power) of the motors according to ECE R85 (Per the Model S Manual). Since motors is just one of the components of the overall **propulsion system**, it is **not** the same as maximum horsepower rating of the whole propulsion system, and Tesla did not claim it as such.
The text of the ECE R85 is available here.
Here is the note regarding the limitations of the battery and how the power rating of the motor is **not** the same as the power rating of the vehicle (ECE R85, Section 5.3).
Last edited:
This is what my thinking around it has been as well. If they just put the motor on a stand and give it crap tons of power, that it would put out the right numbers.
Now the ultimate horsepower as seen on a mustang dyno will be lower, but I was at a supercharger the other week and they had a test vehicle there with strange attachments on the wheels. I asked about them and he told me they are for a dyno that connects directly to the wheel. So it isn't calculating HP by driving on the drum, but instead it is calculated when directly attached to wheel.
That would show some difference from the mustang dyno.
roblab
Active Member
Then why did the total amount of horsepower advertised increase when they went to ludicrous mode? The motors themselves did not change. I used to advocate your position, but the new higher horsepower claim is not consistent with that belief.
Can you link the data on HP that you are referring to in your post?
Thanks.
Can you explain how this is contradicting what I've posted?
Last edited:
I don't care about the HP numbers either, but your commentary seems a bit out of line. People are passionate about various things for various reasons. No need to make comments about their age, maturity, or how they were raised. I don't care if it is a joke or serious, it doesn't benefit the community in any way.
If you don't like the thread, don't read it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Most straightforward explanation is a software update on the motor controller. The same thing happened to the 85D. The motor power was rated at a lower 188hp each previously (376 hp combined), but the rating went up to 257 hp (514hp combined) with the 6.2 update. Now it is 259 hp each. This was all without any change in the motors.
Note how the P85D front motor/inverter combo (which we all know is exactly the sames as in the 85D) is rated at the same 259 hp now vs the previous 221 hp. So Tesla simply updated the number to reflect the software changes they have made since the original rating.
As vgrinshpun noted, the ECE test does factor in the motor controller (it does not let you just pump an infinite amount of power into the motors), it is not simply the motor only. Thus "motor power" more accurately refers to the motor/inverter combination (ECE test also is this way).
Even if it was just the motor, it is possible for Tesla to re-rate the power of their motors if they find they can push it further than expected. It is always okay to underestimate power (I know the Japanese automakers used to do that with the "276 hp" agreement).
Last edited:
Because the Ludicrous Mode hardware changes and software allowed more HP to be delivered to the wheels.
That response does not address the question of the missing horsepower. I posted the following in the other thread where this is being discussed:
Tesla can't have it both ways.
They can't explain now, almost a year after the P85D was first announced, that they didn't really mean 691 HP in the way everyone else thinks of 691 HP.
Watch the following video, from about 2:04:
That's Elon Musk quite recently answering in the affirmative when asked about the P85D, "691 HP?"
There were no inane qualifiers about motor power, etc., etc. The interviewer restated the commonly known fact, propagated by Tesla, that the P85D makes 691HP, and Musk, on camera, confirmed it.
I'd ask anyone who feels like commenting on how we're whining, and how Tesla didn't mislead to please watch those ten seconds of that video before making your comments, because I think if you watch that video, you'll be hard-pressed to make your comments with a clear conscience.
Edit: It has been pointed out to me via PM that the interview with Musk was clearly edited. I hadn't noticed that, but looking at it again I'd agree. While we don't know what Musk might have said after answering in the affirmative, it may have included disclaimers or qualifiers. I would expect, though, that if they were significant, a reputable organization like "60 Minutes" would not have just edited them out.
Last edited by a moderator:
No mater how many times "missing horsepower" is repeated, it does not change the fact which I laid out several times, and which the new blog by JB Straubel further details, namely that motor horsepower is **not** a "gualifier" but a precise engineering term coming from international standard EC R85.
I believe that repeating the same false claim you are just in denial of all the information which was brought out for everybody to see.
It is time to acknowledge that Tesla did not set out to mislead, and all their claims are technically correct. There is just a massive confusion because the data and claims are looked at by public which is not technically versed enough to fully understand them and at the same time trigger happy to jump to a conclusion regarding the imaginary conspiracies.
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
The same 60 minutes that added fake engine noises to the piece on Tesla, and who's witness for their Benghazi story that was not even there?
CBS' '60 Minutes' admits to faking Tesla car noise
The disaster of the Benghazi story - The Washington Post
Similar threads
