Combined power was stated for the P85D like every other model until May when they removed the combined horsepower rating.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Combined power was stated for the P85D like every other model until May when they removed the combined horsepower rating.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I should note even though the threads are long, it is a lot of the same people not being able to reach agreement (admittedly I'm guilty of that too). The absolute number of unique people may not necessarily be that many.
Also, some of Tesla's recent reaction to the complaints may have made things more confusing (like adding back the system rating in April for the other models and pulling the P85D combined number in May). The method actually was consistent before April where all models were rated under motor power, but now the P85D/P90D is left out without a combined number.
I wonder if that's something that could easily be added to the thread stats somewhere: number of unique posters and number of unique posters in the last 2 days.
Also a chart of unique viewers of time would be interesting. Probably something I'd write an app for rather than expect the forum to show it directly though.
I agree they were not consistent in April. The 85 and 85D put out more power than advertised while the P85D put out way less power than advertised.
First, the link above is for a draft of the document by Indian Department of Road Transport and Highways. The final Rev.1 of the document can be found here.
I do not think so. It appears to be quite sloppy copy and paste job from the different documents without a thoughtful attempt of making requirements uniform, so that one can compare offerings from different manufacturers. The result is quite a mess of a potpourri. I think that in spite of differences in opinions between the frequent posters here, we could have come up with a more coherent document.:smile:
For example:
Para. 3.1 allows testing motor power by testing the motor using bench dynamometer *or* by testing the vehicle using a chassis dynamometer per **manufacturer's option** (How that allows consumer to compare apple to apples remains a mystery)
Table 1 indicates that an Independent DC Voltage Source with voltage drop of less than 5% should be used as a power supply, while Para 4.2.2 says that power supply may be as given as in Table 1 (Independent DC Voltage Source) **or** from the Rechargeable Energy Storage System (REESS) of the vehicle. Then 4.2.2. goes on to say that "voltage shall be maintained within the specified limits by supplying energy to REESS using power supply in Table 1. (?? Are they suggesting connecting vehicle battery pack and independent DC voltage source in parallel to maintained "specified" 5% voltage drop??)
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Wow, good catch on that point. However, what you point out is important in a different way. It seems the India team there interpreted that Table 1 section of the ECE R85 the same way we did, namely that Table 1 refers to a power supply (Independent DC Voltage Source; they even used the term directly) as opposed to a RESS of the vehicle (AKA stock battery).
We are trying to ensure that there is enough information posted here for media to write about:wink:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yes, another off topic thread. There really haven't been any media mentions other than shortly after the letter, so nothing much to add there.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Actually that's not true.
There were more media mentions after the blog post than after the letter.
And apparently there's more going on in the media in some of the Scandinavian countries.
Yes, this is a notable point indeed.
Just to make it clear, besides us and Indian Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, this Regulation was interpreted the same way by Tesla Motors (per the JB Sraubel's Blog Post), *and*, most importantly, by authorities which had jurisdiction over this. This is why the European Certificates of Conformance that come with Tesla's purchased in European countries include motor power on them.
I know that some do not mention this Regulation without appending words "if one believes your interpretation", but it should be pretty clear by now for any open minded person familiar with the issue that this Regulation is without any doubt directs EV manufacturers to rate their vehicles using EV drivetrain hp rating, without taking into account the potential limitations of the battery pack.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Ah, you are right, it was after the blog, not the letter. Got confused from looking at first article in this thread (which mentioned the letter). What I meant was other than the articles posted around the same time as those linked by the OP of this thread, there haven't been much if any other media reporting (at least in English media, can't speak of other countries).
All ICE potentially can produce more HP than what the car is marketed at with system upgrades. But the actual cars are not marketed that way as it is misleading. They have actually been sued for doing so. Teslsa's marketing of motor power is simply marketing the potential HP of the motors but not of the actual car itself and therefore is misleading leading to this controversy.
It really is cut and dry obvious. You cannot sell potential HP without disclosing it.
Hyundai Offers $85 Million to Settle Horsepower Suit
Mazda Offers to Buy Back 2001 Miatas With Overstated Horsepower - AcuraZine Community
Toyota and Honda lied to get sales. Horsepower
It really is cut and dry obvious. You cannot sell potential HP without disclosing it.
Hyundai Offers $85 Million to Settle Horsepower Suit
Mazda Offers to Buy Back 2001 Miatas With Overstated Horsepower - AcuraZine Community
Toyota and Honda lied to get sales. Horsepower
Last edited:
...and these are fairly small differences by 10 to 20 hp. I think Tesla gets first prize for most over stated power ever. In the daily driving range of the battery it's overstated by 136 to 211 hp and that's at the battery. If you factor in conversion losses before it reaches the motor shafts, the difference is even greater.
That said, I'm willing to cut them handicap/discount due to the fact that the drivetrain losses from the motor shafts to the wheels is half of typical ICE AWD systems but that only makes up 10% at most.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I already pointed out why those are not applicable at length up thread somewhere.
In the first two examples, the cars lost power because of US market emissions controls. Thus even under their own testing standards, the car lost power compared to when they were advertised (which would presumably be power numbers before changes to the engine for US emissions reasons). Thus, their claim was literally false.
This does not apply to Tesla's case, where it is simply a different testing standard. The car did not lose any power but in fact actually gained power for the 6.2 update.
In the last link, all Toyota did was rerate their cars for future models and adopt the SAE standard instead of their own. They offered no compensation. This seems to illustrate there is no legal obligation to use a specific test standard (even when in the case of the ICE it was industry convention already, whereas in EV case there is no convention yet). There was also an example given about complaints over Nissan's Q45 acceleration numbers and it seems no compensation was offered for that too.
So it is most definitely not cut and dry against Tesla.
Last edited:
The point was they were sued for overstating horsepower. You shouldn't expend so much energy trying to defend trying to defend POTENTIAL HORSEPOWER. Like I said....even ICE are tested & can potentially make more HP with upgrades but automakers are not allowed to mislead the consumers by advertising that the motor could potentially produce more HP if only.................
Furthermore, for those defending Teslas misleading advertising due to the ECE R85, here is an important stipulation which should put this all is to rest....
- 5.0 TESTING PROCEDURE
- 5.1 Bench Dynamometer procedure
5.1.1.1 Auxiliaries to be fitted
During the test, the auxiliaries necessary for the [COLOR=rgb(50.196000%, 0.000000%, 50.196000%)]drive trainmotor[/COLOR]operation in the intended application as listed in Table-1 shall beinstalled in the same position as in the vehicle.
I translate the "auxiliaries" to be the battery etc. They must be the same as in the intended application which is the actual car being sold. It already has been proven here that the auxiliaries of the car do not allow the motors to produce the advertised 691HP.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Your examples show automakers were sued for misstating horsepower under their own standard. The first two examples was where the engines lost power for emissions requirement reasons. Thus even if a judge ordered them to test their engines under their own standard it would under perform. It has nothing to do with potential horsepower.
And on that point, the standard Tesla used was not about potential horsepower, it is about rating a component (the motor) vs the car. And what would aid Tesla's case is that they advertised using "motor power" terminology.
As for your specific point, it had been discussed multiple times already. The auxiliary line refers to table 1. Table 1 has an entry for "dc voltage source" (which would cover the battery) and that line did not specify it must be the "standard-production equipment" whereas it does for other items.
Plus, looking at the compensation given in a lot of those cases, I wouldn't get too excited about a few hundred dollar gift certificate to the Tesla store.
Similar threads
