-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
At least you're open about being a tesla investor because your posts introduce spurious noise to deflect the point and paint tesla in a best light you possibly car. I'm afraid I think you are showing bias, unsurprising as you have a vested interest in the company.
The cars should be tested the same way. I think we can agree that should be the case.
There were doubts about the P85D and ludicrous times, doubts which never existed and still don't in other models. it then transpired they quoted a different standard, one that wasn't even an official standard but one from a magazine.
A 85D regularly gets timed significantly faster than its quoted spec (sub 4 seconds) irrespective of wheels or any of the other variables you've introduced. This indicates to me that the quoted spec is without rollout or worse they've published a slower more conservative time to exaggerate the difference.
They don't publicise the combined deliverable power on a P85/90D - they do for their other cars, and it's NOT the sum of the motor power. So why not for the P cars? And don't say 'it's difficult' because the same difficulty is there in the other cars.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Tesla still has motor power on this page. I believe this has been pointed out many times to you already but you continue to ignore it.
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options
As for why they continue to leave out the system power number for P85D, I already addressed that point multiple times across many threads. The obvious reason is it would upset the P85D owners complaining, whereas for the other models no one complained.
I should point out for probably the 10th time that the only number they advertised was "motor power" from the span between October 2014 (with dual motor launch) to March/April 2015. They did not set out with different numbering standards for different models. It only evolved to that way because of the complaints from P85D owners starting with this thread in March 2015:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...uld-have-an-asterisk-*-next-to-it-Up-to-691HP
We don't know if the numbers for the others are with or without rollout. It can equally be underestimating of those numbers. Others have also addressed the point why it makes sense for P85D vs other models. The P85D is Tesla's performance model that is frequently benchmarked against other performance cars by magazines here. The 3.1 second number was arrived at by Motor Trend, and Tesla chose to go with that number for advertising. Whereas for the other models most car magazines didn't even test at all.If Tesla is just following a weird american standard (which BTW violates everything every American learned at school about physics), why is the standard changing from car to car?
Sorry. There are no excuses for Tesla's conduct. It is pathetic.
- - - Updated - - -
I already addressed pretty much exactly the same question a long while back on this thread. There is no technical difficulty but rather customer satisfaction difficultly. All quoting a lower number right now will do is drive P85D owners complaining about it up the wall. Tesla has to first get them to understand the "motor power" rating they used previously.
For the other models no one complained about using motor power so they don't have the same constraint.
Edit: I found the post, it was actually asked by Laserbrain.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...hread/page45?p=1167860&viewfull=1#post1167860
Last edited:
Customers will only complain if it's significantly different to expectation. You post 'I've already explained that' in response to our complaints as if you've solved the issue, when all you are really doing is speculating on the bad publicity if they admit we are correct.
The performance figures for the 85D are easily bettered. While we have no comment from Tesla, this in itself says something about those numbers.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It gets really old when the same question gets ask multiple times and the answers are completely ignored and the question repeated again.
Jallum.pa.us
Member
It's pretty straightforward, really.
At the announcement (and really, for months past the delivery of the first cars), nobody knew about how they arrived at their motor power numbers -- there was no indication as to which standard or testing methodology might be in play. With an electric motor, one of the wonderful things about the rated numbers is that they tend to be very reproducible, provided you feed the motor the right amperage (and can keep the voltage high enough to meet spec). From what was known about the chemistry, configuration and other characteristics of the battery, and given that the limitations of the fuse were not public at the time, it's very possible that that a reasonable person could believe that the appropriate amount of power would be delivered by the battery delivered with the car, even if only for a brief time. It was easy to believe that the car would realize these amazing numbers -- every model tesla had sold to date had done so or better, right?
Now, in the ~year since the product announcement, a couple of important facts have dribbled out into the public:
- Motor testing parameters (indicating that the battery is not used during testing.)
- Various parts of the battery are limited to ~1300A, at all times.
Had this information been at / near the announcement, I would have been a fool to believe that the stated HP numbers were achievable in the real world. It would have been obvious it's just marketing-fluffery that the company has not gone to any length to correct. As it stands, I was made to be foolish -- quite a different thing.
I love my car. It's a wonderful machine. It does not do some of the things that I was led to believe that it would. This is naturally upsetting, but it's not the end of the world. I would appreciate it if those that have derided the owners that share my view of this as "conspiracy theorists" that are "out to get tesla" would take it down a notch.
At the announcement (and really, for months past the delivery of the first cars), nobody knew about how they arrived at their motor power numbers -- there was no indication as to which standard or testing methodology might be in play. With an electric motor, one of the wonderful things about the rated numbers is that they tend to be very reproducible, provided you feed the motor the right amperage (and can keep the voltage high enough to meet spec). From what was known about the chemistry, configuration and other characteristics of the battery, and given that the limitations of the fuse were not public at the time, it's very possible that that a reasonable person could believe that the appropriate amount of power would be delivered by the battery delivered with the car, even if only for a brief time. It was easy to believe that the car would realize these amazing numbers -- every model tesla had sold to date had done so or better, right?
Now, in the ~year since the product announcement, a couple of important facts have dribbled out into the public:
- Motor testing parameters (indicating that the battery is not used during testing.)
- Various parts of the battery are limited to ~1300A, at all times.
Had this information been at / near the announcement, I would have been a fool to believe that the stated HP numbers were achievable in the real world. It would have been obvious it's just marketing-fluffery that the company has not gone to any length to correct. As it stands, I was made to be foolish -- quite a different thing.
I love my car. It's a wonderful machine. It does not do some of the things that I was led to believe that it would. This is naturally upsetting, but it's not the end of the world. I would appreciate it if those that have derided the owners that share my view of this as "conspiracy theorists" that are "out to get tesla" would take it down a notch.
Wolfke
Member
That's also my point of view. It's a wonderful car and I love it. I think they made an honest mistake but as a customer I want an honest explenation and perhaps some suggestions what they can do to fix it.
+1.....
It's safe to say many would not not have bought the P85D if it were advertised as 550 HP. Tesla knew the true HP. We did not. They also knows HP sells. We were sold.
DillyBop
Member
The article and forum posts you're referring to are not written by Tesla, and not on the ordering page/spec sheet. You can't expect every potential customer to know where to find such unofficial information before ordering.
Nobody is saying that they were written by Tesla. Can we stop propping the myth that "nobody new"?
If the information didn't come from Tesla, then you didn't "know", you were just speculating. In fact you said it yourself: "Here is my TMC post just hours before the event speculating that…". It looks like your educated guess turned out to be correct — congratulations.
Potential customers had no way of knowing for sure, and that's the point Jallum was trying to make.
The information in the article was clearly coming from Tesla. No speculation there, plenty specific. You should just stop propping yet another myth: "nobody knew"
Krugerrand
Meow
No, I don't understand your confusion since I also wrote: Or suffering would be if there were no seats in your car at all and therefore you couldn't use it. In the latter case Tesla should give the customer a loaner.
Again, how is a potential customer supposed to know that he must read the Green Car Reports article before making a purchase on Tesla's website? And why should he? I don't care if David Nolan really knew (I'm not the one claiming "nobody knew", so let's just say he did know), because it's completely irrelevant to people ordering the car.
Why we are having such a hard time with reality? The article did not "question" Tesla - they explained the new rating plain and simple. Sorry, but it looks like another bubble just burst...
So I should know the content of that blog post when I did order my car in October last year? And where in that blog post is the proof?
I have contacted Unece that have the ECE R85 standard, Type Approval standards and some testing laboratories. So we can get an answer and stop speculating how it should be tested and how the power figures can be published.
Last edited:
Yep, me too. Shame on me to expect performance commensurate with the promoted 691hp. Some we apparently more skeptical/careful. Some even knew the number would have no bearing on the cars performance. Good for them. Hope they have their money in their pockets. I thought I was buying a high horsepower wonder car. It turns out to be a wonder car with extreme low end torque and outstanding traction control. The ultimate launch control - providing a neat parlor trick launch at just over 1g. Nice, but hardly performance comparable (in the larger sense) to the famous FI.
Similar threads
