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

[vgrinshpun]

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

What is also worth pointing out is that Andy does not have technical background and admitted that he might not fully understand technical nuances associated with this subject. Sorka, as I concluded from what he have posted is not an electrical engineer either.

I am not pointing this out to get to you guys, but in all honesty this might be exactly the root of the problem with misunderstanding. The issue I have with this is why you guys think that non-professionals like yourself can be right on reading of the pretty technical document like this, while Tesla engineers, no less than their Chief Technical Officer does not know how to interpret the standard?

 

[darthy001]

What is also worth pointing out is that Andy does not have technical background and admitted that he might not fully understand technical nuances associated with this subject. Sorka, as I concluded from what he have posted is not an electrical engineer either.

I am not pointing this out to get to you guys, but in all honesty this might be exactly the root of the problem with misunderstanding. The issue I have with this is why you guys think that non-professionals like yourself can be right on reading of the pretty technical document like this, while Tesla engineers, no less than their Chief Technical Officer does not know how to interpret the standard?

Didnt Tesla/JB delete/remove the reference(s) to this exact standard from this blog after it was published?

Edit: and to add to Teslas extreme attention to detail i their documentation my P85D owners manual states that according to ECE R85 the net power of the "big" engine is 145KW and for the "small" engine 193KW... That would "total" a whopping 338KW or 453HP

 

[brianman]

As a "car buff" you should know that things vary with what manufacturers claim. Real world is all that matters, you can still take virtually any car off the line. Not sure what's the big deal. The 0-60 time is still excessive on 4 door family sedan that takes 0 gas.

Ok, I'll bite.

Proposal: Tesla updates the website to explicitly list what peak HP achievable by a mere mortal anywhere in the speed range that Tesla chooses for at least 0.2 seconds. 515hp? 450hp? Pick a number that's real for the whole car as a product.
Standard response: Tesla can't do that...
Counter: What's the big deal? It's just a number, right?

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that there is no part of the range where the P85D delivers 691hp ever.

Indeed.

 

[darthy001]

sorry for the extreme paint skills

 

[brianman]

Look! No nose cone. (or a squirrel if you prefer)

Off-topic. I think you want the Model X thread.

- - - Updated - - -

I subscribe to winning the war against Global Warming by almost any means necessary.

Please take this to another thread so folks can properly agree or disagree vehemently without being off-topic. Many thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

No doubt there's a whole list of conditions a P85D would need to meet to get its advertised performance.
- Battery at 100% SOC
- Battery at rest after charging for X minutes
- Battery at 20C
- No HVAC running

At least a 100 kWh battery, maybe even newer fuses....

The issue is that the P85D never reaches 691hp on planet Earth. If your asterisk (*) requires you drive on a planet other than Earth, I think it's reasonable for earthling customers (and Tesla shareholders) to find this troublesome.

- - - Updated - - -

I mostly wished for Tesla to clean up their act

+3 (they better get their act together for Model 3)

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Was there any publication that didn't get this wrong? If most (every?) media outlet stated the range of the vehicle as 253 ft. on a full charge, you can be pretty sure Tesla would have corrected it VERY quickly.

If "the media as a whole" is "pretty much getting it wrong", Elon has a pretty big track record of putting forth effort (tweets, interviews, blog posts, etc.) to make sure the reality breaks through.

Does that show intent (re: "misled")? No. But it's not a stretch to draw that conclusion.

 

[darthy001]

Adding to my quest for ECE R85 references.. I cannot find a single reference anywhere on the norwegian Tesla website. Only reference I can find is in the owners manual showing a total of 338KW of net power.

-Not in the design studio
-Not on the spec page
-Not in the JB Straubel blog either

For those so focused on this ECE R85-spec here: if Tesla, and you, are so confident in their numbers why have they removed all references to this spec on pages showing the current motor power numbers?

Or am I missing the holy grail of "this is where we really explain this" on some hidden page? If I cannot find it when I am actively searching for it how can a normal person looking at these pages be expected to understand this?

PS! Still no info on usage of roll-out on P85D/P90D on Norwegian pages either.........

 

[brianman]

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

I couldn't disagree with you more. One word: integrity.

 

[darthy001]

Was there any publication that didn't get this wrong? If most (every?) media outlet stated the range of the vehicle as 253 ft. on a full charge, you can be pretty sure Tesla would have correctly it VERY quickly.

If "the media as a whole" is "pretty much getting it wrong", Elon has a pretty big track record of putting forth effort (tweets, interviews, blog posts, etc.) to make sure the reality breaks through.

Does that show intent (re: "misled")? No. But it's not a stretch to draw that conclusion.

EXACTLY! This is one point I find it incredible that so many Tesla supporters simply overlook or even worse think that its OK behavior....

 

[flathillll]

I couldn't disagree with you more. One word: integrity.

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

 

[AWDtsla]

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

How did they "need" to sell P85D with 1 billion dollars in the bank? This thread is off the rails...

 

[Canuck]

I consider CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc. to be "US Media", just like I think of CBC, CTV and Global as "Canadian Media".

I've never heard of Digital Trends or Left Lane before. I guess practically anything now passes for "US Media".

 

[Jallum.pa.us]

For whatever reason, they've decided to add a footnote on the order page about the 1ft rollout on the P* models, and a link to the (motor trends) testing methodology. I hadn't seen it mentioned on this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Rereading that, the wording is a bit strange to me. The use of the words "base option" seem to imply, to me at least, that the "L" version uses a different methodology.

 

[brianman]

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.

Spamming the same post doesn't make it accurate or correct. I disagree with this as well.

 

[Andyw2100]

Didnt Tesla/JB delete/remove the reference(s) to this exact standard from this blog after it was published?

Edit: and to add to Teslas extreme attention to detail i their documentation my P85D owners manual states that according to ECE R85 the net power of the "big" engine is 145KW and for the "small" engine 193KW... That would "total" a whopping 338KW or 453HP

I'm not sure there was ever a reference to ECE R85 in the blog post. I think people here just combined the blog post with the bit in the manual about ECE R85, and concluded that Tesla tested to the standard.

I had not realized that the part in the manual that references the standard uses lower numbers than the 691 HP (or 691 Motor Power) or kW figures that would result in lower numbers than those. I think that is significant.

If Tesla is not actually saying they tested to a standard to come up with the 691 figure, and the only reference to this standard is in the manual, which was not available before we took delivery...well, I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Didnt Tesla/JB delete/remove the reference(s) to this exact standard from this blog after it was published?

Edit: and to add to Teslas extreme attention to detail i their documentation my P85D owners manual states that according to ECE R85 the net power of the "big" engine is 145KW and for the "small" engine 193KW... That would "total" a whopping 338KW or 453HP

The JB Blog post never contained an explicit mentioning of the "ECE R85". He just referred to the fact that motor horsepower is the only metric that is required to be posted in EU.

- - - Updated - - -

Most car enthusiasts do know that is true. The problem is that there is no part of the range where the P85D delivers 691hp ever.

Indeed.

What is also true is that Tesla never advertised the car as "delivering 691hp". They advertised the car having "691 motor hp".

 

[vgrinshpun]

Was there any publication that didn't get this wrong? If most (every?) media outlet stated the range of the vehicle as 253 ft. on a full charge, you can be pretty sure Tesla would have correctly it VERY quickly.

If "the media as a whole" is "pretty much getting it wrong", Elon has a pretty big track record of putting forth effort (tweets, interviews, blog posts, etc.) to make sure the reality breaks through.

Does that show intent (re: "misled")? No. But it's not a stretch to draw that conclusion.

Here is the link to the David Noland's October 17, 2014 article "Puzzling New Power Numbers For Tesla Model S: What the deal?". This article was published 9 days after the P85D reveal. Did not take this author too long to get the scoop.

I would like to know which publications you think"got it wrong" as in what you and a lot of others posting on this subject got wrong, i.e. claiming that P85D "delivers 691hp". A lot of publications referred to 691hp, but it does not mean that authors "got it wrong" by thinking that the car "delivers 691hp", they simply quoted motor hp rating provided by Tesla without mentioning word "motor".

 

[brianman]

What is also true is that Tesla never advertised the car as "delivering 691hp". They advertised the car having "691 motor hp".

You're welcome to make that assertion, but that's irrelevant to the discussion that we (Vitold, LetsGoFast, and myself) were having. You've lost context on that discussion apparently. Here it is:

From the article:

The shaft power of the P85D's motors, however, "often exceeds the battery electrical horsepower available.

If above is true, than at some point P85D does offer full advertised power. Both EV and ICE advertise peak power, no one expects that full power will be available at all speeds. ICE outputs full power at certain RPMs and so does EV like Tesla.

Now, I also heard an argument that P85D battery is unable to output 700hp which would change things. However, none of the two articles listed by OP mention that so I don't know if that's an issue here.

The problem is that there is no part of the range where the P85D delivers 691hp ever.

Indeed.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Adding to my quest for ECE R85 references.. I cannot find a single reference anywhere on the norwegian Tesla website. Only reference I can find is in the owners manual showing a total of 338KW of net power.

-Not in the design studio
-Not on the spec page
-Not in the JB Straubel blog either

For those so focused on this ECE R85-spec here: if Tesla, and you, are so confident in their numbers why have they removed all references to this spec on pages showing the current motor power numbers?

Or am I missing the holy grail of "this is where we really explain this" on some hidden page? If I cannot find it when I am actively searching for it how can a normal person looking at these pages be expected to understand this?

PS! Still no info on usage of roll-out on P85D/P90D on Norwegian pages either.........

The reference to ECE R85 is in the Manual, where it actually belongs.

 

[flathillll]

Spamming the same post doesn't make it accurate or correct. I disagree with this as well.

Why would I write a different reply when I have the same disagreement. Tesla USA sales were way down year-to-date compared to the same period the year before before the launch of the P85D.

Elon musk tried to spin it but year to date the sales were way down in the USA. Yes September was a blockbuster month in the USA and WW, but he did not dispute the fact year to date sales in the USA were way down. WardAuto September sales prediction was incorrect, but not the year to date data based on registrations. He did not actually address the figures in the story.

Elon: "Article in @WSJ re Tesla sales is incorrect. September was a record high WW and up 65% year-over-year in North America."

 

[stopcrazypp]

Was there any publication that didn't get this wrong?

There was a publication that noticed the new "motor power" numbers during the dual motor launch in October 2014 and gave pretty much the same interpretation as Straubel explains now roughly a year later. And it was not made in reference to the P85D even, but rather how the S60/S85/P85 numbers changed. I actually read that article when it came out and it made 100% sense to me. I always assumed that "motor power" refers only to the motors and looking at the S60 vs S85 numbers made that clear to me.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal

If most (every?) media outlet stated the range of the vehicle as 253 ft. on a full charge, you can be pretty sure Tesla would have corrected it VERY quickly.

If "the media as a whole" is "pretty much getting it wrong", Elon has a pretty big track record of putting forth effort (tweets, interviews, blog posts, etc.) to make sure the reality breaks through.


Does that show intent (re: "misled")? No. But it's not a stretch to draw that conclusion.

Wrong analogy. Rather it is like when publications said the Model S got 300 miles of range (when it was still under ideal rating) and then later EPA got 265 miles. Tesla did not go around to correct publications. When errors are made that are to the advantage of a company, I have never seen them go around to correct them. Only when errors are made that are to a disadvantage do they do so. So I don't really feel such an expectation is reasonable.

An example I used when such a suggestion was brought up was the Hyundai and Ford EPA mpg numbers corrections. The two companies did not go around to publications to proactively correct the errors. And that was a case where they were clearly wrong.