Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

[WarpedOne]

I Believe Danish people speak Danish not Dutch.

Indeed, thanks for correcting me.

Cant you see the number 700 there?

So? For all that I really know it may even talk about 700 dwarfs hiding under the trunk.

The point is I don't understand the language and so I cannot say *anything* about what that picture is trying to sey.
I can count the letters but I won't know what it means. I can reason about it but I wont be paying 140k EUR based on those two 0 and 7 in that picture above.

The real question is *why* danish site was *not* a direct translation from English, why go and change the way the information was presented?
Just to delude those few danish buyers? Why not delude whole world then and profit even more?

My bet is that Denmark have some peculiar regulation on how car specs must be presented that is a poor fit for electric cars, even poorer fit for electric cars with two motors and even poorer fit for electric cars with two motors that have different characteristics. Not to mention an EV with motors that are more powerful than the fuel pump eee battery.

Things are not simple and every time one tries to describe a complicated thing in a simple way (say with a single number), he will be wrong in more than just one way.

One car makes 500 HP between 50 and 100km/h, the other makes 500 HP between 30 and 150 km/h.
Which one is more powerful? You may only answer with "First" or "Second".

What about one car that makes 500HP between 50 and 100 and the other that makes 400 between 50 and 70, 550 between 80-90 and again 400 above 100.

I know 99,9 readers here will go "WTH is he rambling about, they lied!!111oneoneone"
That does not make them right. They can only try to understand what electric motor really does and how different electric systems behave.
And for exercise he may try to describe those different systems with a single number and see what it does say about the system and what it does not.

And I am still waiting for a single person who vocal about 'cheating' and all to go to court and try their claim.
What, chicken?

 

[Oyvind.H]

Indeed, thanks for correcting me.
And I am still waiting for a single person who vocal about 'cheating' and all to go to court and try their claim.

I know people are taking legal steps both in Denmark and Norway. Probably in the US as well. But as we all know, it takes some time before the case ends up in court. Here in Norway you need to give the manufacturer notice of the problem and demand a repair within 2 weeks. If no repair is done the case goes to local consumer authorities who make a verdict based on info from the two parties. As the car does not produce 700 peak hp at any point (based on vBox, dynos, acceleration etc) it`s an easy verdict. If the manufacturer still doesn`t comply the case goes to court.

That`s how it`s normally done here in Norway. With about 10.000 Model S` sold here it`s quite a big market. Not sure how many of them are P85Ds, but I`m guessing hundreds.

 

[sorka]

There was no 700hp claim, there is/was 691 motor power claim.
And lots of poor reading comprehension I guess...

It's said "691 hp motor power", not "691 motor power". Nowhere did the define motor power but they did say "691 hp". If they meant something other than what the automotive industry meant they should have said. Nobody misread anything. All the pubs say "691 hp" and they don't add motor power behind it. Tesla never corrected them and pubs are still saying 691 hp because they still don't know.

 

[Lauz]

I know people are taking legal steps both in Denmark and Norway. Probably in the US as well. But as we all know, it takes some time before the case ends up in court. Here in Norway you need to give the manufacturer notice of the problem and demand a repair within 2 weeks. If no repair is done the case goes to local consumer authorities who make a verdict based on info from the two parties. As the car does not produce 700 peak hp at any point (based on vBox, dynos, acceleration etc) it`s an easy verdict. If the manufacturer still doesn`t comply the case goes to court.

That`s how it`s normally done here in Norway. With about 10.000 Model S` sold here it`s quite a big market. Not sure how many of them are P85Ds, but I`m guessing hundreds.

Well, since hp adverticed almost never is 'on the wheels' I don't expect it to be an easy verdict. But let's see.

But what I do know is that if Tesla looses, the p85d owners 'might' be able cancel the purchase. 'If' they took appropiate action fast enough. There will be little to no compensation, since the loss of paper-hp don't constitute a monetary loss. Even if the p85d owners sold an p85 in order to replace it.

The scandinavian courts do not work in that way.

So let's see. No matter the outcome, I expect the P85D group to end up very disappointed.

 

[MuppetOwl]

Well, since hp adverticed almost never is 'on the wheels' I don't expect it to be an easy verdict. But let's see.

But what I do know is that if Tesla looses, the p85d owners 'might' be able cancel the purchase. 'If' they took appropiate action fast enough. There will be little to no compensation, since the loss of paper-hp don't constitute a monetary loss. Even if the p85d owners sold an p85 in order to replace it.

The scandinavian courts do not work in that way.

So let's see. No matter the outcome, I expect the P85D group to end up very disappointed.

None of us is talking about horsepower on the wheels. Its over 20% less HP in the motors before drivetrain loss.

 

[Lauz]

None of us is talking about horsepower on the wheels. Its over 20% less HP in the motors before drivetrain loss.

And even if you 'win'? You might be able to cancel the purchase, 'but' your usage of the car will be deducted from the payment. In Denmark it constitutes 0,5 dkr pr 100.000 dkr value of the car.

so assuming you bought a p85d for 1.000.000 dkr, drove 20.000 km, sued Tesla and won.

You can't force Tesla to 'fix' your car. You can hand it back ('ir' you win), but due to the 20.000 km you get:

1.000.000 - (20.000 km X (0,5 kr x 10)) = 900.000 dkr in return.

but in the light of recent events (tax on EV's being raised 1/1 in Denmark), Danish P85D owners would probably be betyer of selling it on the private market. Norway and Sweden, depreciation of a 1 year old 20.000 km P85D is probably a bit higher than 100.000 dkr.

All in all - the end result will only benefit the lawyers

 

[hpham007]

And even if you 'win'? You might be able to cancel the purchase, 'but' your usage of the car will be deducted from the payment. In Denmark it constitutes 0,5 dkr pr 100.000 dkr value of the car.

so assuming you bought a p85d for 1.000.000 dkr, drove 20.000 km, sued Tesla and won.

You can't force Tesla to 'fix' your car. You can hand it back ('ir' you win), but due to the 20.000 km you get:

1.000.000 - (20.000 km X (0,5 kr x 10)) = 900.000 dkr in return.

but in the light of recent events (tax on EV's being raised 1/1 in Denmark), Danish P85D owners would probably be betyer of selling it on the private market. Norway and Sweden, depreciation of a 1 year old 20.000 km P85D is probably a bit higher than 100.000 dkr.

All in all - the end result will only benefit the lawyers

In America, Tesla would have to:

1. Modified the cars to produce what was advertised at no cost to the owners or
2. Purchase the car back at the full original selling price no matter the age or mileage

There's already legal precedent for both options.

 

[sorka]

In America, Tesla would have to:

1. Modified the cars to produce what was advertised at no cost to the owners or
2. Purchase the car back at the full original selling price no matter the age or mileage

There's already legal precedent for both options.

#2 only in certain circumstances. In California, if you win under Song-Beverly, it's a full price repurchase + sales tax + registration fees for every year you paid registration + attorney fees. But that's only under the Beverly-Song. It's not the automatically the case and if you sue and win but not under the Lemon Law, then it will be whatever the court decides.

 

[stopcrazypp]

In America, Tesla would have to:

1. Modified the cars to produce what was advertised at no cost to the owners or
2. Purchase the car back at the full original selling price no matter the age or mileage

There's already legal precedent for both options.

1. Where's the legal precedence for being required to do the first one? I think in almost all cases, the manufacturers were just ordered by the judge to give some sort of service coupon to make up for it (this was true of the EPA fuel economy settlements too). For power claims was true for Mazda and Hyundai. Ford did do a retrofit but they did that on their own will (where the issue was a production problem), not as ordered by a judge.

2. I also doubt #2 is required. Mazda offered full value buybacks, but that was done months into the launch, and was done because Mazda had image/sales problems in the first place with the affected models. In the lawsuit case, even in them most recent lemon law lawsuit Tesla settled, they deduced mileage (it was only $265 but that was still deducted). In standard lawsuits (vs something manufacturer is doing voluntarily), I think it is common to deduct depreciation in buybacks.

Note: I'm putting aside for the moment the circumstances of the above do not apply to Tesla's case due to the difference between literal falsehoods and misleading statements.

 

[sorka]

1. Where's the legal precedence for being required to do the first one? I think in almost all cases, the manufacturers were just ordered by the judge to give some sort of service coupon to make up for it (this was true of the EPA fuel economy settlements too). For power claims was true for Mazda and Hyundai. Ford did do a retrofit but they did that on their own will (where the issue was a production problem), not as ordered by a judge.

2. I also doubt #2 is required. Mazda offered full value buybacks, but that was done months into the launch, and was done because Mazda had image/sales problems in the first place with the affected models. In the lawsuit case, even in them most recent lemon law lawsuit Tesla settled, they deduced mileage (it was only $265 but that was still deducted). In standard lawsuits (vs something manufacturer is doing voluntarily), I think it is common to deduct depreciation in buybacks.

Note: I'm putting aside for the moment the circumstances of the above do not apply to Tesla's case due to the difference between literal falsehoods and misleading statements.

He clearly meant the manufacturer could choose which option.

 

[lolachampcar]

Andy,

When are you going to pen your note to Elon on 1/4 times assuming the data continues to come in as it is now?

 

[Hookmaker]

And even if you 'win'? You might be able to cancel the purchase, 'but' your usage of the car will be deducted from the payment. In Denmark it constitutes 0,5 dkr pr 100.000 dkr value of the car.

so assuming you bought a p85d for 1.000.000 dkr, drove 20.000 km, sued Tesla and won.

You can't force Tesla to 'fix' your car. You can hand it back ('ir' you win), but due to the 20.000 km you get:

1.000.000 - (20.000 km X (0,5 kr x 10)) = 900.000 dkr in return.

but in the light of recent events (tax on EV's being raised 1/1 in Denmark), Danish P85D owners would probably be betyer of selling it on the private market. Norway and Sweden, depreciation of a 1 year old 20.000 km P85D is probably a bit higher than 100.000 dkr.

All in all - the end result will only benefit the lawyers

Well Lauz, you seem to be very well versed in the court rooms of the world..., read= sounds like a load of un-substantiated BS to me!

 

[tezzla]

Andy,

When are you going to pen your note to Elon on 1/4 times assuming the data continues to come in as it is now?

Why the personal attack Lola? Totally uncalled for.

 

[dsm363]

He clearly meant the manufacturer could choose which option.

How so? He said

"In America, Tesla would have to:" which to me implies someone would force them.

 

[Andyw2100]

Andy,

When are you going to pen your note to Elon on 1/4 times assuming the data continues to come in as it is now?

Why the personal attack Lola? Totally uncalled for.

I'm wondering the same thing, lolachampcar, for a few reasons.

For starters, I said I was optimistic that Tesla would meet the 1/4 times. I've said that a few times, but most recently here, in response to a post where you questioned my rationale, and when I explained it and tried to extend a bit of an olive branch you didn't reply: Dragtimes P90D Ludicrous 0-60mph and 0-100mph video - Page 6

Also, as you know, I have not purchased a P90D, so this is not my battle to fight. I haven't even decided yet if I'm upgrading my P85D to Ludicrous.

I'm really confused by the above.

 

[Lauz]

Well Lauz, you seem to be very well versed in the court rooms of the world..., read= sounds like a load of un-substantiated BS to me!

I know the danish laws well enough to see where your case is heading in Denmark.

Piece of advice:

Laywers are first and foremost salespeople. The product they sell is billable hours. So be carefull when you go shopping. Some companies will sugercoat the truth in order to sell their product. This also applies to laywers.

So just because you find one that agrees with you does not mean he actually thinks you are right. Might just mean he wants your business.

Enjoy the lawsuit ;-)

 

[sorka]

How so? He said

"In America, Tesla would have to:" which to me implies someone would force them.

Really? Do you not understand that if the manufacturer were to actually do #1 that they wouldn't have to do #2. He clearly meant 1 OR 2, not 1 AND 2. I understood what he meant.

 

[lolachampcar]

Actually, it was a simple question asked without malice. If the motor horsepower issue deserved a letter then it would seem a 1/4 miss, if it comes to pass that it is truly a miss, would seem to deserve a letter as well. If you do not have an L then you have no dog in the fight and thus I could understand why you would not be writing.

Not sure why the "go to" was personal attack as that is not my MO.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Really? Do you not understand that if the manufacturer were to actually do #1 that they wouldn't have to do #2. He clearly meant 1 OR 2, not 1 AND 2. I understood what he meant.

I think dsm363 understood my point better. My point was that they don't have to do 1 OR 2. For #1 the option I pointed out that is commonly taken are service coupons. For #2 I pointed out examples where depreciation is deducted.

Here's another buyback example where depreciation is deducted:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/fca-will-buy-back-578000-ram-trucks-after-failed-recalls/

Nowhere in my rebuttal was I implying his point was that automakers have to do both at the same time. That doesn't make any logical sense anyways (why would they be forced to fix a car that they are buying back anyways).

 

[Vas Deferens]

Andy,

When are you going to pen your note to Elon on 1/4 times assuming the data continues to come in as it is now?

I'm waiting to hear the answer to this too. Because when he does, I may consider signing it.