P85D motor hp controversy starts also to show in U.S. media

[vgrinshpun]

Are you sure of that ECE R85 definition for "motor power" including the drive controller?

It is pretty clear that it is the case. My advice is to invest some time into reading through applicable portions of ECE R85, and decide for yourself. The subject is covered in Section 5.3, Annex 2 and Annex 6.

If you'd like a summary, highlighting the exclusion of the battery limitation, you can read through this post.

 

[gavinwang]

There is fundamental problem with listing maximum battery power rating. One can specify ambient temperature, state of charge and age of the battery, and arrive at a number, call it Z. The thing that many people casually discussing this do not grasp is that it will not be possible to reach this rating in a real life conditions in a car at the time when motors reach speed at which they can use that much power.

Unlike any components in an ICE car the electrical output of the battery is based not only on factors I listed above, but also on the battery load profile *before* the time of the test. This is a key distinction between all power producing components in EV - battery, PEM, motor vs. internal combustion engine. The output of typical ICE does not depend on its load profile prior to measurement. For an EV, on another hand, since output of all power components - battery, PEMs, motors - is limited mostly by heat, the power output at any given moment will depend on the load profile *prior* to testing.

This is fundamental distinction which is not well understood by casual observers, and, really, is at the core of all misunderstandings. Like I said in another thread, square peg will not fit in the round hole.

I think you should stop sugarcoating it. There is absolutely no defense for TM to list a spec that the car, under no circumstances, will ever deliver but average customers naturally assume it will. It's equivalent to quoting a graphic card's highest resolution but omitting the fact that the laptop's LED panel is only capable of displaying half that resolution.

- - - Updated - - -

Name me a large, successful business that doesn't follow industry marketing standards or industry practices and sees no negative impact.

What Tesla is doing is no different than how the smart electric drive is able to advertise itself as cost $12,500, despite having a base MSRP of $25,000.

Regarding bringing a lawyer and an engineer, that's just a fact of every day life. Every EV maker out there advertises the $7500 tax credit right on the front page, and usually in the biggest font. I guarantee most people would need to consult the IRS or a tax preparation service to find the answer to that question (most do not qualify for the full $7500). Every food you consume can potentially have deleterious long-term health effects, especially for weight levels and diabetes risk--there's usually a huge health difference between those that stick to a nutritionist-approved diet, versus those that simply stick to nutrition labels to determine what to eat.

Why single out Tesla, specifically? Just because they're a new company doesn't mean they're subject to the same regulatory environment for the 100+ year ICE history. Write to your lawmaker if you find this distressing, and while you're at it please have lawmakers include scientific journals on the health effects of food in your grocery store, force customers to learn IRS tax code related to EV credits, and force customers to understand how an EVSE install works too.

Bragging about something that is only occasionally achievable is called marketing; Saying something that is NEVER achievable but letting people believe it is, is dishonesty and deception. The issue here is P85D can never ever deliver that 691 HP. I'm really shocked by a number of people here who can't discern this difference.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I think you should stop sugarcoating it. There is absolutely no defense for TM to list a spec that the car, under no circumstances, will ever deliver but average customers naturally assume it will. It's equivalent to quoting a graphic card's highest resolution but omitting the fact that the laptop's LED panel is only capable of displaying half that resolution.

.

I have a question about your analogy. Do you think that high resolution of the graphic card in this laptop will ever has any use if the LED panel is only capable to display half of this resolution?

What specs do you think this laptop should display?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Are you sure of that ECE R85 definition for "motor power" including the drive controller?

Yes. It is very clear cut about that.

Look at page 42, Table 1. It clearly lays out what must be attached to the motor that must be "standard-production equipment". The No. 2 item is: "Speed variator and control device" / "Yes: Standard-production equipment".
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R085r1e.pdf

Also on page 4 describing scope: "The electric drive trains are composed of controllers and motors and are used for propulsion of vehicles as the sole mode of propulsion."

The point of contention has been the No. 1 item in Table 1, which says: "DC voltage source" / "Voltage drop during test less than 5 %". It notably does not say "standard-production equipment" for that line (to make it clear "DC voltage source" could be a battery, a power supply, a fuel cell, a supercapacitor, etc). Also, the scope notably does not include "DC voltage source".

- - - Updated - - -

So how does my P85D motor change its rating to 762 HP motor power by changing a couple of items in the system.

There are two separate points:
1) My point is that the 691hp motor power rating is inclusive of the motor controller. That means even if the motor hardware is unchanged, a software change that changes the control strategy (a concrete example would be torque sleep) or parameters (such as current and thermal limits) can change the overall rating. The most concrete example is the individual 85D motors going from 188hp motor power to 259hp motor power just from a software update.
2) Brian's point is that your P85D motor may not have changed its rating. All Tesla has done is changed the rating of motors rolling out of the factory since the P90DL launch (deliveries happened somewhere in mid-August 2015). No where did Tesla say they are changing the rating of pre-Ludicrous P85Ds. So his point stands: it is not impossible for the motor hardware to have changed between a pre-Ludicrous P85D vs a post-Ludicrous P85D/P90D, and such a change may have been the cause of the change in ratings for the P85D/P90D delivered somewhere in mid-August.

 

[Dwu0212]

- - - Updated - - -


- - - Updated - - -

I think you should stop sugarcoating it. There is absolutely no defense for TM to list a spec that the car, under no circumstances, will ever deliver but average customers naturally assume it will. It's equivalent to quoting a graphic card's highest resolution but omitting the fact that the laptop's LED panel is only capable of displaying half that resolution.

- - - Updated - - -



Bragging about something that is only occasionally achievable is called marketing; Saying something that is NEVER achievable but letting people believe it is, is dishonesty and deception. The issue here is P85D can never ever deliver that 691 HP. I'm really shocked by a number of people here who can't discern this difference.

Yes! Exactly!

Instead of using common sense, they play word games and making excuses for Tesla that are laughable. I gave up explaining to them, sometime people are blind to truth

 

[Luclyluciano]

Yes. It is very clear cut about that.

Look at page 42, Table 1. It clearly lays out what must be attached to the motor that must be "standard-production equipment". The No. 2 item is: "Speed variator and control device" / "Yes: Standard-production equipment".
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/2013/R085r1e.pdf

Also on page 4 describing scope: "The electric drive trains are composed of controllers and motors and are used for propulsion of vehicles as the sole mode of propulsion.

The point of contention has been the No. 1 item in Table 1, which says: "DC voltage source" / "Voltage drop during test less than 5 %". It notably does not say "standard-production equipment" for that line (to make it clear "DC voltage source" could be a battery, a power supply, a fuel cell, a supercapacitor, etc). Also, the scope notably does not include "DC voltage source".

- - - Updated - - -


There are two separate points:
1) My point is that the 691hp motor power rating is inclusive of the motor controller. That means even if the motor hardware is unchanged, a software change that changes the control strategy (a concrete example would be torque sleep) or parameters (such as current and thermal limits) can change the overall rating. The most concrete example is the individual 85D motors going from 188hp motor power to 259hp motor power just from a software update.
2) Brian's point is that your P85D motor may not have changed its rating. All Tesla has done is changed the rating of motors rolling out of the factory since the P90DL launch (deliveries happened somewhere in mid-August 2015). No where did Tesla say they are changing the rating of pre-Ludicrous P85Ds. So his point stands: it is not impossible for the motor hardware to have changed between a pre-Ludicrous P85D vs a post-Ludicrous P85D/P90D, and such a change may have been the cause of the change in ratings for the P85D/P90D delivered somewhere in mid-August.

Nowhere does Tesla say only CERTAIN P85Ds will be able to go ludicrous with the upgrade... Show us a link as proof that states this. Where are you coming up with this?

 

[Andyw2100]

Nowhere does Tesla say only CERTAIN P85Ds will be able to go ludicrous with the upgrade... Show us a link as proof that states this. Where are you coming up with this?

I'm pretty sure that wasn't what he was saying.

I think their point is the numbers on the Tesla website would be referring to sales of new cars, which could, conceivably, have different motors from the older cars (though there is no evidence of that--it remains only a possibility.)

I don't believe the numbers published on the website have ever been represented as what the numbers would be for an original P85D that was later updated to Ludicrous. In other words, the numbers on the website are for cars coming from the factory with that configuration.

 

[SDRick]

I have a question about your analogy. Do you think that high resolution of the graphic card in this laptop will ever has any use if the LED panel is only capable to display half of this resolution?

What specs do you think this laptop should display?

This is a simple question. If it was your company's laptop, what do you think would be the proper advertised spec(s)?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Nowhere does Tesla say only CERTAIN P85Ds will be able to go ludicrous with the upgrade... Show us a link as proof that states this. Where are you coming up with this?

I see where the confusion comes from. The Ludicrous retrofit does not necessarily change the motor power specs. As Andy puts it, no where does Tesla say that the Ludicrous upgrade will change the P85D's motor numbers or that the numbers currently posted apply to P85Ds with the Ludicrous retrofit.

In fact, the current pre-order page makes it clear that a P85D upgraded to Ludicrous will not preform the same as a P90D with Ludicrous from the factory.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Can you explain how the 762 motor HP for the Ludicrous upgrade is derived when the motors were originally rated for only 691 motor HP. Or do we need a court system to decipher that as well? [sarcasm]

If you check the drive unit serial numbers, they are constantly being revised. It's quite possible Tesla made some revisions to the electronics, but not the motor itself, to achieve the higher rating. What's on the web site doesn't mean that your P85D motor specs have changed. Only the specs of currently shipping motors may have changed.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's equivalent to quoting a graphic card's highest resolution but omitting the fact that the laptop's LED panel is only capable of displaying half that resolution.

There are useful reasons to quote a graphic card's highest resolution regardless of the included panel's resolution (to clarify I'm talking about the case of quoting both numbers).
1) There is a video output that supports external screens of higher resolution. Analogy with Tesla is the pack is swappable and upgradeable, so there are ways to utilize higher power available from the motors/controllers.
2) Graphics benchmarks are frequently done in a resolution normalized way. For example, the iPhone for has a lower resolution than most other smartphones, so in some benchmarks that gives them a huge advantage. However, if you care about the capability of the graphics chip itself, then you test with a benchmark that renders at a higher resolution than the iPhone can display. This is called an "offscreen" benchmark. ECE R85 may be that analogy (a test that doesn't include the battery).
3) Sometimes you have to display something that is at a higher resolution than your display (down conversion). For example, 1080p/2K/4K movies can be higher resolution than many displays and it is important to people to know if the graphics card can process such movies.

As for not advertising the screen resolution at all (quoting only one number), it really depends on the conventions used by the industry. It appears from the very first laptop, the screen was advertised with a resolution spec (52x24 character).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laptop
http://www.oldcomputers.net/osborne.html

Whereas for ICE vehicles, until the 1970s, the power advertised only considered the engine (SAE gross power) until the switch to SAE net. For the EV world, the standards have not been established yet.
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

In a way, even SAE net is not a 1-to-1 analogy. For a monitor or laptop, we know the ultimate resolution we will see as an end user. For a car, we don't know the ultimate power we see (which is wheel horsepower). Instead, the numbers we see advertised are at the motor shaft (which we as a user will never see).

 

[Soolim]

It is pretty clear that it is the case. My advice is to invest some time into reading through applicable portions of ECE R85, and decide for yourself. The subject is covered in Section 5.3, Annex 2 and Annex 6. If you'd like a summary, highlighting the exclusion of the battery limitation, you can read through this post.

New to this controversy and thanks for the link. After reading the parts your quoted, I am puzzled at why Tesla chose to label the motor Hp of the 70D, 85D and P85D in different manner as illustrated by pass threads. Had Tesla provided the same data i.e. listing the front and rear motor Hp of all models consistently, any doubt on its intent to encourage buyers to choose 85D over P85D due to higher Hp would be greatly diminished. Buyers would have a more consistent metrics to compare between models of Tesla, even without knowing the technical aspect of ECE R85. Now if they want to compare the motor Hp of EV to Hp of ICE, then more education is required. An "*" on the motor Hp data to direct the buyer to refer to ECE R85 will suffice imo.

 

[stopcrazypp]

New to this controversy and thanks for the link. After reading the parts your quoted, I am puzzled at why Tesla chose to label the motor Hp of the 70D, 85D and P85D in different manner as illustrated by pass threads. Had Tesla provided the same data i.e. listing the front and rear motor Hp of all models consistently, any doubt on its intent to encourage buyers to choose 85D over P85D due to higher Hp would be greatly diminished. Buyers would have a more consistent metrics to compare between models of Tesla, even without knowing the technical aspect of ECE R85. Now if they want to compare the motor Hp of EV to Hp of ICE, then more education is required. An "*" on the motor Hp data to direct the buyer to refer to ECE R85 will suffice imo.

I have been following the history of this. Starting from October 2014 with the launch of dual motors, Tesla only advertised with combined motor power for all models (adding motor power of dual motors). Starting in March/April 2015 (which coincides with the thread complaining about the 691 hp rating of the P85D) Tesla removed the combined number. They also changed to advertising the system numbers along with motor power numbers (except for the P85D). You can look at the internet archive to verify (although it doesn't show 2014 pages correctly so only 2015 can be verified) and also press numbers as of October 2014 launch. I have posted before with links, but it'll take a while to dig up.
Here's one quick example:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/10/20141010-tesla.html

The inconsistency appears to have been ironically introduced in response to the complaints about the P85D number, whereas before it was consistent.

 

[Luclyluciano]

In fact, the current pre-order page makes it clear that a P85D upgraded to Ludicrous will not preform the same as a P90D with Ludicrous from the factory.

That's interesting. Where did you see that? I was under the impression they would perform the same. Therefore the upgrade. I thought the only difference was the range difference. Link please....

 

[brianman]

That's interesting. Where did you see that? I was under the impression they would perform the same. Therefore the upgrade. I thought the only difference was the range difference. Link please....

Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters LUDICROUS MODE ONLY (P85D) - PRE ORDER DEPOSIT

(The retrofit will not be an exact equivalent performance spec as a new P90D.)

- - - Updated - - -

There are useful reasons to quote a graphic card's highest resolution regardless of the included panel's resolution.

Ok, I'll bite. I've shopped for laptops every few years since the 1990s.

Can you point out some links to some current laptop providers pages that show the GPU resolution but not the screen resolution? I'm honestly curious if there's anybody that does that.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Can you point out some links to some current laptop providers pages that show the GPU resolution but not the screen resolution? I'm honestly curious if there's anybody that does that.

LOL!

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's interesting. Where did you see that? I was under the impression they would perform the same. Therefore the upgrade. I thought the only difference was the range difference. Link please....

Sorry I missed the link. It is here:
"This upgrade represents an estimate 10% increase in power over the already insane P85D, provides for a 0.2 second improvement over both the 0-60 mph and the quarter mile time, from your current vehicle performance. (The retrofit will not be an exact equivalent performance spec as a new P90D.)"
http://shop.teslamotors.com/products/model-s-ludicrous-mode-pre-order

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, I'll bite. I've shopped for laptops every few years since the 1990s.

Can you point out some links to some current laptop providers pages that show the GPU resolution but not the screen resolution? I'm honestly curious if there's anybody that does that.

That is not what I am saying, perhaps I should rephrase. I am quoting examples where knowing a GPU resolution number that is higher than the screen resolution is useful. It is not a completely worthless number, just like how motor power is not a completely worthless number (as people have been suggesting).

However, in terms of industry convention for laptops, the resolution quoted is the screen resolution the user sees (even from the very first laptop), not the GPU.

That is not the case for cars. Until the 70s the number quoted was engine only, and even today the number quoted is not something a user can see (it is a shaft number, not the wheel number). Those are why the analogy doesn't fit in with the EV case. While people may find it unacceptable to quote only a GPU resolution and not the screen resolution they see (and this has been this way from convention), people have not found it unacceptable to quote only an engine number or a shaft number, even though the wheel number is the only number they can actually verify.

The closest analogy I can find to shaft vs wheel power is with TVs. There are 1080i TVs that actually have 768 pixel tall panels but most people would not know that.

 

[gavinwang]

Sorry I missed the link. It is here:
"This upgrade represents an estimate 10% increase in power over the already insane P85D, provides for a 0.2 second improvement over both the 0-60 mph and the quarter mile time, from your current vehicle performance. (The retrofit will not be an exact equivalent performance spec as a new P90D.)"
http://shop.teslamotors.com/products/model-s-ludicrous-mode-pre-order

- - - Updated - - -


That is not what I am saying, perhaps I should rephrase. I am quoting examples where knowing a GPU resolution number that is higher than the screen resolution is useful. It is not a completely worthless number, just like how motor power is not a completely worthless number (as people have been suggesting).

However, in terms of industry convention for laptops, the resolution quoted is the screen resolution the user sees (even from the very first laptop), not the GPU.

That is not the case for cars. Until the 70s the number quoted was engine only, and even today the number quoted is not something a user can see (it is a shaft number, not the wheel number). Those are why the analogy doesn't fit in with the EV case. While people may find it unacceptable to quote only a GPU resolution and not the screen resolution they see (and this has been this way from convention), people have not found it unacceptable to quote only an engine number or a shaft number, even though the wheel number is the only number they can actually verify.

The closest analogy I can find to shaft vs wheel power is with TVs. There are 1080i TVs that actually have 768 pixel tall panels but most people would not know that.

No, most people do know what the "i" means in 1080i, because there is usually a "1080p" next to it. I agree even ICE only advertises shaft power not wheel power, and loss can be non-negligible from shaft to wheels; however shaft power is at the least an output the car can put out at some point of the car in real life, whereas 691 on P85D is a thing the car can never produce at ANY part of the car, which means it's never real and never useful in real life. What if the battery was so bad and could only support 300HP peak output, instead of 550? Would you still find slamming 691 on the ad as the only number acceptable?

 

[vgrinshpun]

No, most people do know what the "i" means in 1080i, because there is usually a "1080p" next to it. I agree even ICE only advertises shaft power not wheel power, and loss can be non-negligible from shaft to wheels; however shaft power is at the least an output the car can put out at some point of the car in real life, whereas 691 on P85D is a thing the car can never produce at ANY part of the car, which means it's never real and never useful in real life. What if the battery was so bad and could only support 300HP peak output, instead of 550? Would you still find slamming 691 on the ad as the only number acceptable?

The major distinction between this analogy and the P85D power ratings is that while screen resolution uniquely defines characteristic which people pay money for, the total output including limitation of the battery (550hp) is *NOT* what defines the major selling point of P85D - 0.8s improvement in 0 to 60mph acceleration. This 0 to 60 acceleration, which is essentially what Tesla is selling in P85D and what it is charging the premium over 85D for, is absolutely defined by the motor hp per ECE R85, i.e. 691hp, *NOT* by the battery limit defined throughput of 550hp.

This is the major point which is very hard to grasp for anybody without technical (as in electrical engineering) background. All of the analogies I saw so far are really not valid. Essentially, the reason so many try to come with analogies (which are invariably wrong) is an indication of the fact that there is a lack of understanding and appreciation of the differences between EV and ICE based propulsion systems. I am hoping to carve time to demonstrate this clearly for anybody willing to give it a thought with an open mind, even without technical background.

The above reason for this analogy being flawed is a major, but not the only one. The second one is that while screen resolution is a fixed number, the battery power limitation is not. While a lot of people mention ambient temperature, state of charge and age of the battery, few if any realize that battery power output also depends on prior loading profile.

I've have mentioned these points before, but I believe very few people involved in this conversation understand/appreciate them.

 

[eloder]

You clearly don't understand how this tax credit works. This is not a deduction. You get to take the credit regardless of whether you itemized or took the standard deduction as long as you have *any* tax liability after that. If you have more than $7500 after your deductions, you get to take the entire amount otherwise it's whatever you have left under $7500.

So it's my fault that I didn't do the proper research?

You're 100% right. I did not do enough proper research; therefore I am in error. I, personally, am responsible--not Tesla's marketing. I'm not going to blame Tesla--and every single other car manufacturer in the world--for advertising a $7500 tax credit that I can never obtain, though, even though there's no physical way I can obtain that level of depositing performance as advertised in real-world conditions.

Hey, this seems eerily similar to another topic at hand that we're discussing...