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

[JonG]

Can you summarize what actions you'd like Tesla to take?

For me, be open, honest and consistent across their models.

Even this EC whatever spec argument seems false as they don't seem to use that standardfor the 85D. I've not seen a defence from anyone on the different measurement standards used by tesla across their range.

 

[darthy001]

I will try to end my "contribution" to these threads by stating one fact:

There is only one slightly comparable car on the market today. The Mercedes SLS Electric. A european car from a european company adhering to the european standards. It has 4/four motors and more power than the P85D. And it goes like a bat out of hell at high speeds.

Mercedes lists it with BOTH combined motor power AND battery power. <- it can be done!

Tesla has never listed the battery power for the P85D or the P90DL.

Does anyone not see why Tesla has deliberatly chosen _not_ to list battery power?

For me this says it all. Tesla could easily have cleared this up in the same manner as other manufacturers list power in multimotor EVs. But they _chose_ not to.....

 

[AWDtsla]

Tesla has never listed the battery power for the P85D or the P90DL.

Does anyone not see why Tesla has deliberatly chosen _not_ to list battery power?

For me this says it all. Tesla could easily have cleared this up in the same manner as other manufacturers list power in multimotor EVs. But they _chose_ not to.....

Maybe because they don't know what it will be. It seems they have a pipeline of software undergoing validating. I think they fully expected to be able to raise the power of the P85D higher but ran into unexpected limitations. If the 85D software had not been updated, sorka would have lost his point. The base 85D specs, and the previous version of software were quite a bit slower than the car is today. In the balance the 85D upgrade summation of happiness of 85D customers (appears) to be less than the summation of unhappiness of P85D owners.


The out of the box solution seems to be to downgrade the drivetrain software on the 85D so P85D owners don't feel so bad.


edit - and no, I don't prefer that they went to a traditional car company style of "innovation" which means a new engine every 5-8 years, with barely changed specs.

 

[darthy001]

Of course Tesla has 100% control of what battery power their cars can deliver in the state they sell them in.

 

[AWDtsla]

Of course Tesla has 100% control of what battery power their cars can deliver in the state they sell them in.

That's actually and obviously not how it works at Tesla. The output of the powertrain is driven almost entirely by the drive software. Software is always being updated, they are a silicon valley company. It comes with good and bad.

I'm not arguing about HP, I'm arguing your point of view on Tesla. Have you ever heard the phrase "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"? Well, if you're working on the bleeding edge, then everybody is relatively stupid because no one knows what's going to happen.

That said, I think Tesla should try and refrain from releasing future specs, or at least show the shipping software specs along with the expected specs via update.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Of course Tesla has 100% control of what battery power their cars can deliver in the state they sell them in.

I think Straubel already addressed why he feels putting out a battery power number is not an ideal comparative measure. For example the 600kW number put out by Mercedes. At what SOC, temperature, battery age is that number measured? Unlike with a motor/inverter, the battery power number changes drastically based on those variables.

- - - Updated - - -

The out of the box solution seems to be to downgrade the drivetrain software on the 85D so P85D owners don't feel so bad.

I speculated about that too. People are upset about how close the 85D is to the P85D and the 85D only did that with a software update. When it came out, the gap was far larger between the two.

 

[WarpedOne]

Along with expected specs?
you missed the screaming abot autopilot?

it is not about features, it is abot people. Some will be happy, the others will not. No matter what.

 

[cynix]

At what SOC, temperature, battery age is that number measured? Unlike with a motor/inverter, the battery power number changes drastically based on those variables.

I'm sure people would have accepted a peak number.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I will try to end my "contribution" to these threads by stating one fact:

There is only one slightly comparable car on the market today. The Mercedes SLS Electric. A european car from a european company adhering to the european standards. It has 4/four motors and more power than the P85D. And it goes like a bat out of hell at high speeds.

Mercedes lists it with BOTH combined motor power AND battery power. <- it can be done!

Tesla has never listed the battery power for the P85D or the P90DL.

Does anyone not see why Tesla has deliberatly chosen _not_ to list battery power?

For me this says it all. Tesla could easily have cleared this up in the same manner as other manufacturers list power in multimotor EVs. But they _chose_ not to.....

I know you cross posted the same comment across many threads, but I'll respond here (I believe a similar question was also asked by another). Yes, Tesla could have technically advertised both motor and battery power, they could have advertised both the motor and system power number (as they are doing now with other models), or with only the system power (as they did previously with single motor versions). However, that is with 20/20 hindsight and before all the "691hp" complaining started.

The scenario is completely different today. Straubel gives a technical explanation about why he dislikes the battery power rating. My theory presented previously (it was not about battery power, but why the refuse to post a system power number for the P85D), was that all it will do is rile up the P85D complainers. Another theory I have seen is the threat of lawsuits means the lawyers will not let them freely put a lower number for the P85D/P90D. No matter what the reason, the situation is different today than it was a year ago.

 

[perkiset]

OK I'm reading back through this thread because, again, I am completely baffled as to how the 691 crew can be so put off. I keep thinking I'm missing something, but no.

I'm now really excited because I want to hear what 691 HP feels like. Clearly, I have no idea because I only know what a Model S feels like when I stomp it and have to back off at 100 on a freeway onramp.

That's what this has degenerated to. The car doesn't "feel like that" at 30-60 MPH. The only comp is ICE. So you folks that are all about I Was Mislead are telling us that, because it doesn't feel like an ICE at 700HP it was a deception. I was a lot more open to the argument but it's moved into the ridiculous zone and I am being moved away from reasonable debate because the opposing argument is more and more brittle and thin.

+1, DSM, as has been mentioned a boatload of times, it does what it says it would do. Just about anything else is horriblizing.

 

[AWDtsla]

That's what this has degenerated to. The car doesn't "feel like that" at 30-60 MPH. The only comp is ICE. So you folks that are all about I Was Mislead are telling us that, because it doesn't feel like an ICE at 700HP it was a deception. .

The car has a power gauge built in. How can it possibly be deception when it's telling you in realtime?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm sure people would have accepted a peak number.

Even for this whole motor power issue, the acceptance levels have a very wide variance, so I'm pretty sure it is not going to be that simple. The definition of "peak" is going to vary a lot from what people may find acceptable.

For battery cells and packs in other applications, the power ratings are typically continuous ratings (worthless in this case). There are pulse ratings, but how short a pulse would be acceptable?
Here's an example of how it can vary drastically:
Safe pulse discharge ratings: 95A < 0.5 sec, 65A < 1 sec, 40A < 5 sec, 30A < 6 sec
http://batterybro.com/products/samsung-inr18650-25r

What about temperature (how high a temperature can manufacturer specify)? What battery age range can they use (I know for capacity there is a rapid drop after the first couple of cycles, similarly battery resistance grows with age).

As it pertains to the P85D specifically, I'm pretty sure Tesla can push the pack more than they are doing now at the cost of contactors and fuses failing more quickly. Would such a rating be acceptable?

 

[WarpedOne]

The car has a power gauge built in. How can it possibly be deception when it's telling you in realtime?

There is nothing real time in that power gauge. Averaging over ~half a second interval.

 

[Auzie]

OK I'm reading back through this thread because, again, I am completely baffled as to how the 691 crew can be so put off. I keep thinking I'm missing something, but no.

I'm now really excited because I want to hear what 691 HP feels like. Clearly, I have no idea because I only know what a Model S feels like when I stomp it and have to back off at 100 on a freeway onramp.

That's what this has degenerated to. The car doesn't "feel like that" at 30-60 MPH. The only comp is ICE. So you folks that are all about I Was Mislead are telling us that, because it doesn't feel like an ICE at 700HP it was a deception. I was a lot more open to the argument but it's moved into the ridiculous zone and I am being moved away from reasonable debate because the opposing argument is more and more brittle and thin.

+1, DSM, as has been mentioned a boatload of times, it does what it says it would do. Just about anything else is horriblizing.

Bold mine. This unfortunate outcome is imho expected and likely given the set up that preceded it. People misunderstood/misinterpreted few things about a new technology car, invested a lot of money without making fully informed decision on their purchase, got disappointed as their expectations were not met, took vocal public intellectual positions on the issue, even published a letter... that is a lot of investment in terms of money, time, emotional energy = quite high stakes for many people. It is difficult to reverse out of such a deep position.

Had similar discussion on car hp happened before people made their purchase decisions, the outcome would have been different.

Some people blame Tesla for their disappointment but imho for the wrong reasons. Tesla is perhaps guilty of not doing more to avoid the set up that led to this outcome. It is quite understandable why Tesla was not more proactive in customer education, they were too busy developing new drive train technologies.

Most businesses that I was/am involved with put a lot of time/money/resources in customer education, be it practical classes, short educational videos on various technology topics, searchable product knowledge libraries, etc etc. Failing to do that, a business is setting the scene for many more threads like this one. For sure Tesla will get on top of this, it is much easier than making awesome cars.

.................. Yes, Tesla could have technically advertised both motor and battery power, they could have advertised both the motor and system power number (as they are doing now with other models), or with only the system power (as they did previously with single motor versions). However, that is with 20/20 hindsight and before all the "691hp" complaining started.

The scenario is completely different today. Straubel gives a technical explanation about why he dislikes the battery power rating. My theory presented previously (it was not about battery power, but why the refuse to post a system power number for the P85D), was that all it will do is rile up the P85D complainers. Another theory I have seen is the threat of lawsuits means the lawyers will not let them freely put a lower number for the P85D/P90D. No matter what the reason, the situation is different today than it was a year ago.

My 2 cents on specs

When buying a car, I would like to see the spec for each component with disclaimers on component test conditions

A system output might be too dependent on external conditions and on various components state. I'd be happy with the disclaimer to similar effect and perhaps with the statement: Please test drive the car to experience the system performance prior to making a purchase decision.

Then customers can compete in who can get the most out of the same specced cars and brag about their numbers, rather than chase Tesla stated numbers. Such approach might lead to abandoning single numbers marketing. Instead of claiming 'Our car can achieve xyz ...' Tesla might be better off to let the customers do the talking about the system performance. No one ever doubts customers numbers or accuses customers of cheating/misleading.

 

[cynix]

Even for this whole motor power issue, the acceptance levels have a very wide variance, so I'm pretty sure it is not going to be that simple. The definition of "peak" is going to vary a lot from what people may find acceptable.

For battery cells and packs in other applications, the power ratings are typically continuous ratings (worthless in this case). There are pulse ratings, but how short a pulse would be acceptable?
Here's an example of how it can vary drastically:
Safe pulse discharge ratings: 95A < 0.5 sec, 65A < 1 sec, 40A < 5 sec, 30A < 6 sec
http://batterybro.com/products/samsung-inr18650-25r

What about temperature (how high a temperature can manufacturer specify)? What battery age range can they use (I know for capacity there is a rapid drop after the first couple of cycles, similarly battery resistance grows with age).

As it pertains to the P85D specifically, I'm pretty sure Tesla can push the pack more than they are doing now at the cost of contactors and fuses failing more quickly. Would such a rating be acceptable?

I just want a number that's measured in the same way as the 70, 70D, 85, and 85D numbers on their website. Similarly, I want a 0-60 time that's measured in the same way as those other variants.

 

[JonG]

I just want a number that's measured in the same way as the 70, 70D, 85, and 85D numbers on their website. Similarly, I want a 0-60 time that's measured in the same way as those other variants.

Exactly - they seem capable of saying a 70D with 2x 259bhp motors can only produce 328bhp - so why is it not possible to do that with the P85D?

 

[gavinwang]

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.

With all due respect, if you don't even admit Tesla's choice of words was misleading, I think you are in the camp of irrational fanboys, not being able to discern the most basic facts. I love TM, my car and own stocks, so I have as much propensity to be an advocate for them as you do, but fact is fact. If you read my post carefully, you can see I didn't say majority of people based their purchase decision on the 691 number, but it is just fair to say it contributed to that decision making, at the least for lots of P85D customers. Even if many of them never cared about the HP rating and its ramification for at speed performance, it doesn't fully absolve TM from its negligence for not making reasonable effort to avoid customer misunderstanding. Is this about a fair statement in your eyes? Like I said, technically and legally TM probably is safe from any customer accusation, but it was NOT the right thing to do.

 

[Luclyluciano]

I definitely bought the car because I was let to believe 691 HP.

i definitely bought the car because I was led to believe that I costs $7 to fully charge my battery in my region at my rates.

i definitely would NOT have bought the car had I been told the true specs.

This all does not mean that I do not like the car or that I want to turn it in. It just means I was deliberately mislead. This is I am not happy about. The end does not justify the means.

tesla definitely knows the true HP OUTPUT and they know their system cannot produce this. Advertising motor power when the system cannot produce this HP rating is useless and I don't see any other purpose other than to deliberately mislead. I think most children can understand this. That's why I don't understand adults who don't get it.

 

[gavinwang]

I definitely bought the car because I was let to believe 691 HP.

i definitely bought the car because I was led to believe that I costs $7 to fully charge my battery in my region at my rates.

i definitely would NOT have bought the car had I been told the true specs.

This all does not mean that I do not like the car or that I want to turn it in. It just means I was deliberately mislead. This is I am not happy about. The end does not justify the means.

tesla definitely knows the true HP OUTPUT and they know their system cannot produce this. Advertising motor power when the system cannot produce this HP rating is useless and I don't see any other purpose other than to deliberately mislead. I think most children can understand this. That's why I don't understand adults who don't get it.

can't agree more

 

[perkiset]

With all due respect, if you don't even admit Tesla's choice of words was misleading, I think you are in the camp of irrational fanboys, not being able to discern the most basic facts. I love TM, my car and own stocks, so I have as much propensity to be an advocate for them as you do, but fact is fact. If you read my post carefully, you can see I didn't say majority of people based their purchase decision on the 691 number, but it is just fair to say it contributed to that decision making, at the least for lots of P85D customers. Even if many of them never cared about the HP rating and its ramification for at speed performance, it doesn't fully absolve TM from its negligence for not making reasonable effort to avoid customer misunderstanding. Is this about a fair statement in your eyes? Like I said, technically and legally TM probably is safe from any customer accusation, but it was NOT the right thing to do.

I was directly disputing the notion that the majority of people have been mislead. I think this is a wild generalization, since the majority of people do not even purchase the P, much less ludicrous. So there may well be (as Lucky points out) a group of people that feel mislead, But certainly not the majority of purchasers, IMHO. I honestly could not care less if the number is 691, 1 or 1000, and I'll bet if you polled ALL purchasers (not just the ones with an interest in being vocal here) I think you'd find the same. It is meaningless because I love how it feels to drive the car. I test drove it twice and borrowed a friends for about 30 minutes of real-world driving and it was done. There was no salesman involved for me, as there hasn't been for my last several cars (I work with a broker who gets a fixed rate, regardless of what we purchase). I may also not be in the majority, but I'll bet that I'm closer.