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

[vgrinshpun]

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.

And I don't care how, if or what any customers knew - because it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether there were any malicious intent from Tesla to defraud customers by manipulating them into buying performance upgrade and not giving them what they paid for. This is what this and some other threads where prominently displaying as a foregone conclusion for months. It is evident that none of these foregone conclusions have any basis. And this is the reason I started to post on the related threads about one month ago.

I never claimed that communications from Tesla were what they should've been and have no intention of debating this as it is obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing of this sort. For quite some time there was point made that "nobody knew", all the while other members of TMC were posting link to the David Nolan article...

I think that it is time to stop propping this myth - because it is just not true.

 

[Andyw2100]

And I don't care how, if or what any customers knew - because it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether there were any malicious intent from Tesla to defraud customers by manipulating them into buying performance upgrade and not giving them what they paid for.

You know what might not be irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was any malicious intent? The fact that Tesla knew the issue needed clarification, according to the David Nolan "Green Car Reports" article you've been referencing, and that Tesla was even working on information for the website to explain it, but then --DID NOT EXPLAIN IT!-- I'm pretty sure that well may become relevant!

Here's the quote from the article, and a link to the article:

"The company is already working on an update to the website to explain this distinction between net power and "motor power."

Puzzling New Power Numbers For Tesla Model S: What's the Deal?

The above was written in October 2014. The only explanation Tesla ever published was the JB Straubel blog post, published about two weeks ago, almost a year (and how many thousands of P85D sales?) later.

I'm sure you'll still say "There's no evidence whatsoever that Tesla did anything to intentionally mislead anyone.", as you have been saying for a while.

I think the above is "some evidence."

 

[Mr X]

0-60 in 3 seconds and people are complaining about the horsepower number...

 

[dsm363]

0-60 in 3 seconds and people are complaining about the horsepower number...

Pretty much.

 

[30seconds]

Maybe someone can help me understand the roll-out issue. I am assuming that the timer doesn't start until the car is actually in motion for a foot vs. exactly when for a non roll out time? Would it be first detected motion?

Anyways I do find the 0-60 conversation a bit odd since in all the ICE cars you have to enter into launch mode which really is pretty ridiculous and basically a work around designed to goose the specs. I have it in one of my cars and have used it exactly once to see what is was like. Fun, but basically completely unusable.

 

[Andyw2100]

0-60 in 3 seconds and people are complaining about the horsepower number...

Pretty much.

Really? From a moderator?

 

[dsm363]

Really? From a moderator?

I am also a member here. Didn't write 'mod note' before it.

 

[Andyw2100]

I am also a member here. Didn't write 'mod note' before it.

Fair enough.

But you also have enough information to know that the issue is a lot more complicated than that.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

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.

It's not at all safe to say that. You have no idea. Have you polled all P85D owners? Of course not. You are proffering nothing more than an opinion that is steeped in your position.

- - - Updated - - -

You indeed bought very expensive high performance Tesla based on advertised specs. As is abundantly clear now car's performance and power match these specs. I am sympathetic with the fact that you misunderstood the specifications, but stating that this is "intentionally flat out misleading" is not supported by facts.

Let's get real here, the value of the Tesla performance upgrade (from 85D to P85D) is outstanding. Similar performance upgrade from Audi (from S7 to RS7) will cost you 30% more in US, and up to multiples of Tesla cost in other countries.

I asked you this yesterday and you have not responded to me. Can you please answer this question:

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. When the P85D was announced and you read the HP specification AT THAT TIME, did you believe the HP specification to be what the car actually delivered? Your citing of a specification by which Tesla rated the motors was not known by you until AFTER this controversy erupted. My question to you is what did you believe when the car was first introduced? Did you know back then that Tesla was specifying motor power independent of the car's ability to deliver that power?

Answer honestly.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I asked you this yesterday and you have not responded to me. Can you please answer this question:

I answered the question in another thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...ecifications?p=1180707&viewfull=1#post1180707

 

[gavinwang]

Can we put this all to rest now? I see people argue about different regulations, different practices to test 0-60 and even different cultures across the Atlantic, all over the 30 plus pages here. Hello, isn't it just a very simple fact that TM had intentionally or unintentionally misled would-be customers on the HP rating? What percentage of average P85D customers would have suspected the stated 691 HP is actually not comparable to a figure found on a normal ICE? I work in finance, if a financial product or deal is marketed to customers with this sort of ambiguity, much less deliberate misrepresentation, you can be assured of a big fine or even jail time. TM can most likely get away with this on technicality, but what matters is majority of people did get misled as a result (of negligence, poor judgement or even malicious marketing hyperbole), so it should own up to this deficit on best practice and make up to P85D owners in some way. I call on P85D owners to make a collective plea to TM on this matter.

 

[perkiset]

Disagree. "The majority" of peoole, IMHO, did not purchase Tesla for a number - they purchased it because it's ridiculously fast, sexy and electric (I did, and got 100% of my money's worth). Why is it not clear to everyone? Because marketing. Like every other company out there. "Mislead" and "Jailtime" and "Get away with it" and "Misrepresentation" are all fundamentally damaging to the Tesla brand and it's equally annoying to those of us that would rather not see Tesla disparaged as an outlier. It's unfairly hard on the stock and hard on the brand.

Therefore, debate rages on.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I answered the question in another thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...ecifications?p=1180707&viewfull=1#post1180707

I knew even before the launch of the D that the battery will be the limiting factor for the maximum power that p85D will be able to put to the motor shafts. Here is my TMC post just hours before the event speculating that total throughput of the car's propulsion system will likely be in the 480-500hp (turned out to be not a bad informed guess). So I knew that the car battery will likely limit the maximum hp throughput to be less than 500hp.

And for a customer who has no knowledge of electric propulsion and did not read your speculative post at TMC, how would that customer have reached the same conclusion simply by reading the information offered by Tesla?

About a week after the event, I read article by David Nolan of the Green Car Reports that not only explained the new way Tesla was reporting power, but even reported that company is working on an update to the website to explain the "motor power" term. Looking at the article now, it appears that David Nolan had a contact inside Tesla because otherwise he would not know that company is working on the update to the website explaining term "motor power". Here is the pertinent excerpts from the article. Aside from getting some details wrong the article has just the information that some owners now lament was nowhere to be found at the time:

So you're saying a potential customer would need to read a specific article in Green Car Reports in order to decode the specifications offered by Tesla. Who does that?

In summary, this information was not a secret at the time, and yes I understood what "motor power" meant. At the time I also considered upgrading my P85+ to P85D.

What you seem to be saying is that regardless of what Tesla specifies for its cars, it's up to the consumer to figure that out. You're saying there is no expectation of Tesla adhering to a common understanding that what they represent as HP is what the vehicle can actually produce, and it's up to the consumer to figure this out on their own. Therefore, a consumer must visit the forums and read speculative articles written by other owners as well as blog posts in order to understand the truth behind Tesla's numbers. This is a completely wrong and twisted view, in my humble opinion.

I should not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that when a manufacturer states an HP rating for their car or motor, that car or motor combination can achieve the specified rating. If the car cannot achieve the rating, then why even rate it? It's a completely useless, hypothetical number. That's like saying the car can go 0-60 in 1.5 seconds, only to find out that's because the motor was rated and tested in orbit at zero gravity. Where is the reality in these numbers? How are those numbers supposed to help a consumer when the car never makes those numbers?

 

[vgrinshpun]

I just answered your question. The summary is that myth that "nobody knew" propagated on several threads here for quite some time is just not true. That is all. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[stopcrazypp]

And for a customer who has no knowledge of electric propulsion and did not read your speculative post at TMC, how would that customer have reached the same conclusion simply by reading the information offered by Tesla?
So you're saying a potential customer would need to read a specific article in Green Car Reports in order to decode the specifications offered by Tesla. Who does that?
What you seem to be saying is that regardless of what Tesla specifies for its cars, it's up to the consumer to figure that out. You're saying there is no expectation of Tesla adhering to a common understanding that what they represent as HP is what the vehicle can actually produce, and it's up to the consumer to figure this out on their own. Therefore, a consumer must visit the forums and read speculative articles written by other owners as well as blog posts in order to understand the truth behind Tesla's numbers. This is a completely wrong and twisted view, in my humble opinion.

I should not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that when a manufacturer states an HP rating for their car or motor, that car or motor combination can achieve the specified rating. If the car cannot achieve the rating, then why even rate it? It's a completely useless, hypothetical number.

I don't think he is saying every potential customer has to read that article or that there is no one that was genuinely misled. Just that it is completely false that there was nobody that understood motor power to mean what Straubel is saying it means in the recent blog post. As for how many percentage of customers, it's impossible to say without a full survey. You are making the assumption that a large majority of customers made that assumption and also putting out your opinion that the number is a useless number when it is used in an established standard.

While perhaps in the ICE world it is not necessarily that common to have separate power ratings based on motors, it is quite common in the EV world. And the numbers are not completely useless numbers as they take into account the current and thermal limits of the motors and motor controllers. It lets you know if you upgrade your battery pack in the future, what kind of limits you can expect from the motors.

I believe somewhere in another thread others also pointed out that even for a car with the same battery limits, having dual motors with twice that limit still has a performance advantage as it allows you to put power down in situations that a dual motor car with the same as the battery limit can't.

That's like saying the car can go 0-60 in 1.5 seconds, only to find out that's because the motor was rated and tested in orbit at zero gravity. Where is the reality in these numbers? How are those numbers supposed to help a consumer when the car never makes those numbers?

This incorrect analogy illustrates the contention. Everyone knew at launch what the 0-60, 1/4 mile, and top speed of the car was. Those are the actual performance measures of the car. The peak HP number is just a number. It doesn't really tell you the performance unless you knew the power/torque curve, curb weight, and had the knowledge of how to calculate using those numbers. While some on this forum are expert enough to do that, I don't think it is a stretch to say many consumers don't know how to do that.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I just answered your question. The summary is that myth that "nobody knew" propagated on several threads here for quite some time is just not true. That is all. Please do not put words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm simply trying to understand your position that customers should have known that the "motor power" spec was theoretical and not achievable. Pointing to threads at TMC and an obscure blog/article on a web site does not cut it. That's not how consumers shop. In fact, the vast majority of Model S owners don't even participate in TMC or other online forums.

The question being asked here and in other threads is whether it's right for Tesla to advertise in this manner. You are defending Tesla by saying their specifications are in line with ECE whatever, but that is not consumer friendly. While I can see both sides to a point and I tend to excuse a lot of missteps by Tesla, I also thought that the 691 HP specification advertised by Tesla was ACHIEVABLE. I remember thinking wow, they went from 417 HP in my P85 to 691 HP. It was an impressive jump.

I remember posting a comment in a thread asking why the S60 and S85, both of which have different 0-60 times, were advertised as having the same HP. This was prior to the D launch. At that time, Tesla did not say "motor power", Tesla simply said HP. At least one person replied to me by saying that was a motor specification, not the actual HP produced by the car. This was before the P85D was launched. Some knew, some didn't.

The question I'm asking: Is this how we want Tesla to operate, by giving out specifications that are not achievable?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think he is saying every potential customer has to read that article or that there is no one that was genuinely misled. Just that it is completely false that there was nobody that understood motor power to mean what Straubel is saying it means in the recent blog post. As for how many percentage of customers, it's impossible to say without a full survey. You are making the assumption that a large majority of customers made that assumption and also putting out your opinion that the number is a useless number when it is used in an established standard.

I'm making a sweeping and unsupported generalization, but my gut tells me that most people who saw the 691 HP figure assumed that was achievable on that vehicle under ideal conditions. But now we find out nope, it's not ever going to be achieved because the battery lacks the necessary output. That's not consumer friendly and sets up the argument that Teslas cannot achieve the HP output it claims. One of the things that attracted me to this brand in 2013 was the fact that Tesla's specifications were easily beaten by those who tested their cars. Tesla's specifications were on the conservative side. This showed me that Tesla was a different type of car company, one whom I could trust to give me an accurate picture of what I was buying.

 

[dsm363]

People assumed it but it ended up being wrong. Assumed is the key word here. Tesla had a major part to play in that but the car delivers on the promised performance metrics. If it didn't then by all means raise the pitchforks.

 

[Jallum.pa.us]

Nobody is saying that they were written by Tesla. Can we stop propping the myth that "nobody new"?

Hey, bud. I really appreciate your passion on this issue. I do. That said, it's not really fair to fault people for not seeing your post (or the article), or for after reading it, not taking it as the gospel. I would hope that you would appreciate that to the vast majority of the people in the world, the suppositions of some random people on the internet, buried in a forum or posted in an article would not add up to the same thing as an official clarification from the company itself. To provide a clarification of my own: When I say "nobody knew", my meaning -- which I took, mistakenly I guess, to be commonly understood -- was that "nobody knew from official sources." I apologize for any confusion caused.

At the time, in the article, and many other folks, yourself included, did speculate about the batteries not being able to produce the power necessary to drive the motors to their rated values. This much is true. In the fullness of time this speculation turned out to be mostly correct. The basis of the supposition was that the batteries would be limited due to a cap on the discharge rate (~5C), and it turns out that it was actually the fuses and contactors -- the cells themselves are actually capable of the higher discharge rates required to produce the necessary power (which is why my old battery can be upgraded.) I point this out not to "count coup", but to illustrate that while the information you were providing turned out to be largely accurate in the effect, it was less than accurate in the particulars.

Tesla is a great company, and this communication problem amounts to an unforced-error. That it was almost completely avoidable makes it only more lamentable. The car is plenty impressive when explained in plain english. As a customer, I would hope that they take steps to correct their communication, and display some goodwill towards the early purchasers that were rightly confused. I'll add that as a long shareholder, this feeling is only underscored. I love my car.

 

[Luclyluciano]

@amped....
quote...(It's not at all safe to say that. You have no idea. Have you polled all P85D owners? Of course not. You are proffering nothing more than an opinion that is steeped in your position.). unquote

now you are being silly. Are you disputing that HP sells? Do you think I made this up? Did you even dish out the extra $$$$$ for a PD like I did?

 

[DoctorJJ]

I just laugh at the owners who are too proud to admit that they weren't smart enough to realize exactly what performance they were getting. The performance numbers were there for all the world to see from the very beginning. Just because you guys decided to use 691hp and a typical ICE hp/weight ratio performance metric, doesn't mean that it in any way should apply to the car you bought.