Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

[AmpedRealtor]

I worry it's not that simple. Political and big $ maneuvering still can kill off Tesla regardless of what we think as customers. As such, I worry about unnecessary missteps increasing that risk.

Self-inflicted wounds. I spoke of this a few months ago as being my worst fear for Tesla. It's Tesla's game to lose.

 

[smac]

I worry it's not that simple. Political and big $ maneuvering still can kill off Tesla regardless of what we think as customers. As such, I worry about unnecessary missteps increasing that risk.

There's a saying: Owe the bank $100 and you have a problem. Owe the bank $2bn and they have a problem.


My biggest worry for Tesla is actually the cost of money going up.

 

[lolachampcar]

An old CFO of mine once told me-
I owe you a buck, I work for you.
I owe you $1MM and you work for me.
He and I parted company.

 

[Vuvision]

To intentionally mislead the public and let them believe that "691 hp motor power" was actually 691 hp.

If you look at my posting history, before JB's blog, you'll see I stood up many times for Tesla and said that I didn't believe they intentionally mislead us and that they were trying to figure out how to solve this. And then Tesla came out with their "in the coming months" high speed update promise and we all knew that they were going to fix this and make it right. But the second part of that update never came.

Then JB posted his blog and it was that instant that I knew this was intentional all along. And before you go all on again about them stating what they were required to under ECE R85:


Consider the following:

• Tesla stated "691 hp motor power" on their website in multiple places. It did not state anywhere that "hp motor power" meant something other than hp produced by motors. There was no asterisk next to the horsepower spec stating that this is not actual horsepower produced by the production vehicle.
• The only place ECE R85 was referenced was inside the owners manuals and even these didn't contain the that reference until after the P85D was already shipping. Are we to expect that prospective buyers doing their research are supposed find this reference first in the owners manual?
• The subsystems page in the manual lists individual motor powers and does not add the front and rear motors together. In fact, if you add up front and rear motors, you get 728 hp, not 691 hp.
• Publications for over a year now have been publicizing 691 hp, not "hp motor power". Why hasn't tesla corrected them and why are they all still quoting 691 hp when the car only makes 480 to 555 hp depending on state of charge?
• The sales people repeatedly stated the P85D makes "691 horsepower" without ever adding the term "motor power".
• Elon Musk himself has been quoted as saying the P85D has 691 hp and did not use the term motor power. He's also been quoted as saying the P85D has 50% more power than the P85.
• If they were going to list a combined horsepower number, they had an obligation to list the power that the P85D actually makes. They do for the other Model S trims. In addition, since the P85D is the only Model S to lose power as the SOC declines in it's normal daily driving range, they should have clarified that the 555 hp is only at 90% SOC or greater and that below that, power will decline as charge declines. This is not true on the other Model S variants until you get much deeper in to charge state.
• Ignoring repeated multiple letters and emails over MONTHS asking for clarification about the horsepower rating. We get responses for everything else we ask but those that inquired about this got nothing. If they were being so above board about this with nothing to hide, how come they refused to respond to the question of "why is my car only making 480 to 555 hp (depending on SOC) when it was advertised at 691 hp"?
• Just because they test according to R85 to arrive at motor power ratings doesn't mean they get to use that in place of actual horsepower specified. Nowhere in the regulation does it state you can substitute horsepower rating of the vehicle with motor power capability of the drivetrain (with a power source not supplied). These are two entirely separate things. One is the actual horsepower produced by the vehicle. The other is an irrelevant specification that can't be reached with the shipping battery. It's only possible value would be knowing your drivetrain could handle more power if a battery with more power became available in the future.

- - - Updated - - -



It does if they violated the FTC's "Truth in Advertising" laws:

Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 41-58)

wow, I don't think anybody can explain better than that, well done.

It's sad people still going to find excuses for Tesla

A little late to the party here, but sorka above posting deserves another quote. Eloquently put and to the point.

Sorka - well done sir!

 

[supratachophobia]

Yes, sorka put it very well. And his post should be updated to mention that the P90D has been reference several times now as having ~730HP.

 

[Auzie]

My hat is off to great debaters

My favourite comment

Or the third one: MB advertised exactly in the same way as Tesla (so the easy answer - look, it can be done - is not a good one) *and* there is nothing wrong or misleading with the way of how EV manufacturers show their specifications. After all this is just a proof of what unhappy P85D owners were told for some time now: neither hp nor hp per lb of car weight are accurate determinants of performance (acceleration) to begin with, even when comparing EV to EV, forget about EV to ICE comparison. The only accurate measure of the performance is the acceleration time (the same point was made in JB's Blog).

So people got everything they paid for (and then some - the $140K family car beats $500K sports two seater) and there was no conspiracy whatsoever. There was misunderstanding of the specifications, which is not surprising for a new technology at all.

 

[Andyw2100]

News of this has been posted elsewhere, but I thought it was worth updating this thread as well, in case some people subscribed to this thread may not have seen this yet:

Tesla has finally added the asterisk and provided confirmation of what many of us have known for some time!

Discussion on this is taking place in a few threads. This is one of the new ones:

Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Kudos, Andy, for putting up with a lot of flaying on here over the past few months when you put forth your viewpoint.

 

[kennybobby]

Hey wait a minute,

i changed my mind and want to sign up on that letter now--it's not too late is it... LOL!

 

[jpet]

Now that the cat is out of the bag, it would be nice if Tesla would answer the letter. I really expected an answer when I co-signed it.

 

[tezzla]

We will never know, but I'm guessing they would have never updated the website with the correct numbers without this letter (combined with the Danes complaints). Bravo, Andy!

 

[WestCoastP85D]

We need a new letter. This one asking "what now..." Are we to simply smile and forget about it? Some might... hard for me to do so.

We will never know, but I'm guessing they would have never updated the website with the correct numbers without this letter (combined with the Danes complaints). Bravo, Andy!

 

[EarlyAdopter]

We need a new letter. This one asking "what now..." Are we to simply smile and forget about it? Some might... hard for me to do so.

What would you like to happen now?

 

[stopcrazypp]

We need a new letter. This one asking "what now..." Are we to simply smile and forget about it? Some might... hard for me to do so.

That's what the original letter should have addressed, but I think it was very obvious back then there was no uniform opinion what people wanted to happen. Thus the letter ended up offering no specific suggestion on how Tesla can "solve" this.

 

[Andyw2100]

Kudos, Andy, for putting up with a lot of flaying on here over the past few months when you put forth your viewpoint.

We will never know, but I'm guessing they would have never updated the website with the correct numbers without this letter (combined with the Danes complaints). Bravo, Andy!

Thanks very much! I wouldn't have had the information I needed to write the letter without the information provided by wk057 and sorka.

We need a new letter. This one asking "what now..." Are we to simply smile and forget about it? Some might... hard for me to do so.

That's what the original letter should have addressed, but I think it was very obvious back then there was no uniform opinion what people wanted to happen. Thus the letter ended up offering no specific suggestion on how Tesla can "solve" this.

The letter couldn't ask for anything specific. For starters, if it did anyone who didn't agree with that one specific request wouldn't have been able to sign the letter. I wanted to allow the letter to apply to as broad a base of owners and others as possible, so that as many people as possible would feel comfortable signing it, so that it would make an impression on Elon Musk. In that sense it may have been successful.

Also who are we to tell Elon Musk how to solve a problem like this? The purpose of the letter was to let him know that the problem existed, and that we wanted Tesla to do something to rectify the situation, and that we trusted that they would. I am still optimistic that Tesla may have plans to do something along these lines.

 

[WestCoastP85D]

I didn't participate in the first letter, but intend to on the second. It needs to be strong. This car costs more than many houses - one could feel defrauded by this behavior.

Thanks very much! I wouldn't have had the information I needed to write the letter without the information provided by wk057 and sorka.







The letter couldn't ask for anything specific. For starters, if it did anyone who didn't agree with that one specific request wouldn't have been able to sign the letter. I wanted to allow the letter to apply to as broad a base of owners and others as possible, so that as many people as possible would feel comfortable signing it, so that it would make an impression on Elon Musk. In that sense it may have been successful.

Also who are we to tell Elon Musk how to solve a problem like this? The purpose of the letter was to let him know that the problem existed, and that we wanted Tesla to do something to rectify the situation, and that we trusted that they would. I am still optimistic that Tesla may have plans to do something along these lines.

 

[Brit4864]

This car costs more than many houses - one could feel defrauded by this behavior.

Agreed

 

[brianman]

That's what the original letter should have addressed

This is incorrect, unless you're a fan of forgetting combined with revisionist history. At the time there was no consensus among the author and signers about recommendations for a path forward, while there was consensus on what was stated in the letter. Better to let Tesla know early rather than later, IMO.

That said, one might argue that the way forward is in Tesla's court. They have the letter. They have the open-ended "remedy" possibilities to consider. Reply to the letter with some proposals to start the discussion. It's both an opportunity and a sign of appreciation and respect for customers for Tesla to formally respond with some ideas for moving forward.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

It would seem the most effective way to get a response from Tesla, as well as some fun media attention, would be for an owner in California to sue Tesla in small claims court. California small claims limit is $10,000 isn't it? No lawyers. Consumers usually win. Judge will be sympathetic. A ruling against Tesla at this level would not be subject to appeal. A favorable ruling here could be significant for those who are looking for a specific financial outcome.

 

[Iotaherculis]

Watching from the space