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

[vgrinshpun]

Now I think you're being a bit disingenuous with that post.

You have read an awful lot of these posts. I know that because you comment on an awful lot of them. So I'm pretty sure you realize that almost no one here--maybe even no one--has been expecting 691HP at the wheels. All along the discussion has been that the P85D doesn't make 691HP any where. Bringing "at the wheels" into it just makes people on my side look unreasonable, and like we don't understand drivetrain loss, etc.

You also know that there are solutions short of buying the car back that would make at least some people happy. I've stated, as have others, that we think the Ludicrous upgrade would be a big step in the right direction. (I agree there probably is not one single solution that would make everyone happy.)

I actually would not be happy with an offer to buy my car back. I want to keep my car. There is one aspect of it that I believe Tesla needs to correct, or come as close to correcting as possible. There's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

That is exactly why I am saying that you *misinterpreted* information put out by Tesla. They did not claim that "P85D makes 691hp". Their claim was consistently about "691 motor hp", and this claim as was pointed out many times, is absolutely legitimate and in accordance with the only available pertaining Regulation ECE R85. It is unfortunate that some P85D owners did not pay attention to the word motor, and did not give Tesla enough of a doubt to spend some time pondering significance of this word. If they would the whole story would not lead this community to where it unfortunately is.

In this context you *are* being unreasonable. You got exactly the car that was advertised, with 691 motor hp and with 0 to 60mph acceleration matching that of McLaren F1. What you did not get is the car that *you thought* you've got.

 

[dsm363]

That is exactly why I am saying that you *misinterpreted* information put out by Tesla. They did not claim that P85D makes 691hp. Their claim was consistently about 691 motor hp, and this claim as was pointed out many times, is absolutely legitimate and in accordance with the only available pertaining Regulation ECE R85.

In this context you *are* being unreasonable. You got exactly the car that was advertised, with 691 motor hp and with 0 to 60mph acceleration matching that of McLaren F1.

Pretty much. It is a misunderstanding at worst. Yes, Tesla could have been more clear but I've seen none of the early buyers post anything about them asking to clarify what motor power meant before buying.

 

[Luclyluciano]

What is a 691 hp motor wgen it doesn't actually produce 691 hp? A Tesla.

 

[vgrinshpun]

What is a 691 hp motor wgen it doesn't actually produce 691 hp? A Tesla.

Wrong answer. The two Tesla motors with combined rating of 691Hp *do* produce advertised hp per Regulation ECE R85.

 

[dsm363]

What does 'motor power' mean in a dual motor EV with no US defined standard from the SAE to rate the motor? Seems to me that might have been worth asking before buying if hp was a big factor in your decision to buy. The only people who might have a case is the Danes because of the poor translation of 'motor power'.

 

[Andyw2100]

I said at the shaft or wheels. The Ludicrous upgrade wouldn't get you the 691 hp you need to not feel cheated or lied to though.

Right. My point was that pretty much no one, (or possibly even on one), is arguing for 691 HP at the wheels.

P85D early adopters have shown a lot of flexibility when it comes to being willing to compromise and cut Tesla slack. Was there a huge outcry and public embarrassment when a large percentage of us were taking delivery without the seats we had paid for? Did that turn into anything when the short delay we expected turned into three, four, five, or more months for many of us? The answer is no. My point is that while I agree that it is likely the Ludicrous upgrade would not get us all the way home, it would go a long way towards that goal, and it would be a step in the right direction. Instead, by offering it at a price, to many of us that smacks of Tesla rubbing salt in the wounds.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong answer. The two Tesla motors with combined rating of 691Hp *do* produce advertised hp per Regulation ECE R85.

You know, everyone, but mainly you, keeps bringing that up, and it really is yet to be determined. The language in the regulation you quote from is anything but crystal clear. I would not be putting all your eggs in that basket. I think it is possible you will discover that Tesla did not actually meet those standards.

- - - Updated - - -

What does 'motor power' mean in a dual motor EV with no US defined standard from the SAE to rate the motor? Seems to me that might have been worth asking before buying if hp was a big factor in your decision to buy. The only people who might have a case is the Danes because of the poor translation of 'motor power'.

And it seems that if Tesla intended there to be such a humongous distinction between motor power and horsepower that perhaps they could have made an effort to correct even one of the dozens of articles being published that said the P85D made 691 HP.

 

[dsm363]

And it seems that if Tesla intended there to be such a humongous distinction between motor power and horsepower that perhaps they could have made an effort to correct even one of the dozens of articles being published that said the P85D made 691 HP.

Yes, that would have been the ideal thing to do but didn't happen for whatever reason. You seem to think Tesla purposely mislead people. I'm not so sure.

Why is that Tesla's responsibility to correct every error in an article? What happened to reporters doing their job and trying to find out what motor power meant since the public didn't ask prior to buying? If companies spent their time correcting every error that a blogger or reporter made they'd be putting out a press release every hour. How many articles in the last 3 years have screwed up the cost of the car, the range, the 0-60 time, have shown photos of the alpha Model S even 2 years after the car came out?

 

[flathillll]

+1 Andyw2100. If I knew the actual HP difference between a 85D and P85D was far less than advertised, I wouldn't have paid the 20.000 euro extra.

Which is why Tesla does not advertise combine HP. Motor HP represents the value of the car, not combined or total HP. It would be misleading for Tesla to advertise the combined HP of the P85D it does not indicate overall performance or value. Performance is indicated by the quarter mile and 0-60 and top speed. Value is indicated by motor hp. In a few years the Roadster will come out with 1600HP but that will be four 400HP motors. The combined HP may "only" be 800HP. Again the combined HP does not indicate the value of 4 motor torque vectoring or the increased continuous power handling.

Also note when the battery is upgraded performance is upgraded. This increases the resale value of the car.

 

[Matias]

When they saw, that reporters misunderstood the hp, they should have put a footnote to their site.

Btw, Tesla has had no problems to correct newspapers, when their facts haven't been right, if Tesla has felt it has got bad press.

 

[vgrinshpun]

You know, everyone, but mainly you, keeps bringing that up, and it really is yet to be determined. The language in the regulation you quote from is anything but crystal clear. I would not be putting all your eggs in that basket. I think it is possible you will discover that Tesla did not actually meet those standards.

Yes, it is mainly me who keeps bringing this up, because it is very relevant to the discussion at hand. It is almost seem that you *do not* want me to bring this up. I would think, that if you are genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this, you would be very *eager* to discuss this. May be I am wrong on this, but I am sure if I am you'll let everybody know...

Regarding your claim that Tesla possibly did not meet those standards, I would like to ask the question that you often ask of others in similar situation: where is your evidence to support this claim?

 

[Andyw2100]

Yes, that would have been the ideal thing to do but didn't happen for whatever reason. You seem to think Tesla purposely mislead people. I'm not so sure.

I'm still not certain it was on purpose. I'm far from certain, in fact. I do, however, think that they are responsible for people being misled.

Why is that Tesla's responsibility to correct every error in an article?

Because that's what ethical companies do when there's a significant mistake being made that is likely to result in people purchasing their product with the wrong expectations. They may not be able to find every instance of the error, but they could certainly find some of them. To the best of my knowledge, Tesla never corrected the number. They never came out and said, "Actually it's not 691 HP, it's 691 Motor Power, and here's what that really means." That's what they should have done.

What happened to reporters doing their job and trying to find out what motor power meant since the public didn't ask prior to buying?

If many seasoned reporters, accustomed to writing about sports cars didn't make the distinction, and Tesla never corrected them, I think it is fair to say that an average person, with only limited knowledge of sports cars, would have no reasonable expectation of being able to make the distinction. If this ever does go to court I'd expect that exact argument to be made.

 

[flathillll]

When they saw, that reporters misunderstood the hp, they should have put a footnote to their site.

Btw, Tesla has had no problems to correct newspapers, when their facts haven't been right, if Tesla has felt it has got bad press.

Why would Tesla correct the media when it this case it would lead to less sales? That would be idiotic. In any case Tesla is already passed the danger point now that the Model X and Tesla Energy has launched and they are back to having to limit production due to cell production capacity limitations. They could give a shite now about this "con-tro-ver-sy". The future of Tesla is totally dependent on the gigafactory. If the gigafactory fails Tesla is going to end up being bought by Google or Apple. Either way the world wins has the advent of the mainstream EV has been accelerated

 

[Andyw2100]

Yes, it is mainly me who keeps bringing this up, because it is very relevant to the discussion at hand. It is almost seem that you *do not* want me to bring this up. I would think, that if you are genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of this, you would be very *eager* to discuss this. May be I am wrong on this, but I am sure if I am you'll let everybody know...

Regarding your claim that Tesla possibly did not meet those standards, I would like to ask the question that you often ask of others in similar situation: where is your evidence to support this claim?

I have not researched this much. Sorka has, and I believe he may be planning on posting on this. But in rough terms, my general understanding of it is the following:

The language in that document is not very clear. You point to parts that you say mean that any power source could be used for parts of the test. But some of the language says stuff about the location of the power source, implying that the source is, in fact, a battery. Also there is language in the document about accessories not being connected, etc. Why would that language need to be in there if the power source was unlimited? That makes no sense.

I haven't wanted to get into this because I know I haven't researched it much, and frankly I don't want to, because it doesn't matter much to me. If Tesla didn't adhere to the testing parameters all your arguments go out the window. If they did adhere to the testing parameters, I still feel like they misled people, for all the reasons I've provided. So that document, and the arguments around it aren't that important to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would Tesla correct the media when it this case it would lead to less sales? That would be idiotic

Because that's what ethical companies do. The product was good enough to stand on its own.

 

[dsm363]

If Tesla did stick to the testing standards then there really isn't much to this. It just isn't the result people wanted. Tesla had no other standard to follow. If they posted a more 'realistic' number they could be accused of making it up anyway as they didn't follow a set of guidelines.

 

[flathillll]

- - - Updated - - -

Because that's what ethical companies do. The product was good enough to stand on its own.

You don't seem to realize Tesla needed the P85D sales to get them thru a critical juncture. They needed current owners to upgrade to the P85D. Don't be so high and mighty.

In any case Tesla is already passed the danger point now that the Model X and Tesla Energy has launched and they are back to having to limit production due to cell production capacity limitations. They could give a shite now about this "con-tro-ver-sy". The future of Tesla is totally dependent on the gigafactory. If the gigafactory fails Tesla is going to end up being bought by Google or Apple. Either way the world wins as the advent of the mainstream EV has been accelerated

 

[vgrinshpun]

I have not researched this much. Sorka has, and I believe he may be planning on posting on this. But in rough terms, my general understanding of it is the following:

The language in that document is not very clear. You point to parts that you say mean that any power source could be used for parts of the test. But some of the language says stuff about the location of the power source, implying that the source is, in fact, a battery. Also there is language in the document about accessories not being connected, etc. Why would that language need to be in there if the power source was unlimited? That makes no sense.

I haven't wanted to get into this because I know I haven't researched it much, and frankly I don't want to, because it doesn't matter much to me. If Tesla didn't adhere to the testing parameters all your arguments go out the window. If they did adhere to the testing parameters, I still feel like they misled people, for all the reasons I've provided. So that document, and the arguments around it aren't that important to me.
.

If you did not research this document much, I would suggest that you should not make claim that Tesla possibly did not meet this Regulation. If anybody else posting on this subject would do this you would be all over them...

So for now, until Sorka proves the opposite, I say that the this claim that you made is baseless and ask that you do not repeat it.

 

[Andyw2100]

If you did not research this document much, I would suggest that you should not make claim that Tesla possibly did not meet this Regulation. If anybody else posting on this subject would do this you would be all over them...

So for now, until Sorka proves the opposite, I say that the this claim that you made is baseless and ask that you do not repeat it.

You asked me why I wasn't answering you about the document, and I answered you as best I could.

I can say with 100% certainty, based on the excerpts from the document that you have posted, that the language is not clear at all, and thus the meaning of the language seems very open to interpretation.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[dsm363]

You asked me why I wasn't answering you about the document, and I answered you as best I could.

I can say with 100% certainty, based on the excerpts from the document that you have posted, that the language is not clear at all, and thus the meaning of the language seems very open to interpretation.

I'll leave it at that.

If it's open to interpretation then that means Tesla may interpret it differently that you might.

 

[shrspeedblade]

I'm a noob, but a lifelong car enthusiast and after having waded through the last dozen pages I feel I've earned the right to chip in lol!

From a certain point of view (think Ben Kenobi here), the P85D does produce the published power as it actually outperforms the estimates for several quarter mile calculators, part of the problem is it's just such a new/different technology that measuring it with the same yardstick is causing problems.
If Ford were to come out with a Mustang Cobra that had a fairly inefficient automatic transmission (ugh! who would dare) so it chassis dynoed low but the flyweel hp was still accurate and it still hit the advertised acceleration times would they be guilty of lying? I think not.
Plug the weight with 691hp into several quarter mile with around 4600lbs (is this right?) and the P85D beats them. The hard truth with electrics is that they will always have a low end advantage and a high end disadvantage compared to an ICE (at least until Tesla makes their next breathrough!)

FWIW I still think Tesla should offer the Ludicrous upgrade to early P85D owners at cost as a show of good will. It's revenue neutral for the company now and will almost certainly benefit them in the future. The bump to 155mph should be automatic for any owner who comes in and asks for it, but they aren't obligated to chase you down over it as it's hardly a safety issue. (Might be safer to leave it as is! )

 

[Andyw2100]

If it's open to interpretation then that means Tesla may interpret it differently that you might.

That;s not how it works.

When I say it's open to interpretation I mean by those of us "doing this for fun" and trying to figure out what Tesla did, etc.

If Tesla is going to test their cars to a standard, and claim that that standard justifies the numbers they published, then they have a responsibility to make certain they are actually following that standard EXACTLY as it is intended to be followed. If they did not follow the standard as it was intended to be followed (and here's the note for vgrinshpun--I'm not saying here that they didn't) then I think they will have some serious issues.