Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

[cynix]

There is nothing wrong or incorrect with motor hp numbers on the website. Whoever decided to publish motor hp number did nothing misleading or wrong. A motor on an ev car is the main component of the car. The motor specification determines the car performance, therefore it is a relevant information that customers need to be informed about.

The misunderstanding came about because some customers incorrectly misinterpreted motor hp number to be something that it was not.

I was only responding to your assertion that if the number was indeed incorrect/misleading/confusing, it would require many people to conspire in order to display it. I'm merely saying that it could easily be a single person making the decision, without many people conspiring.

Whilst I also disagree that motor performance is equal to car performance without considering the battery limitations, this was not the point I was trying to make in my previous post that you quoted.

 

[Auzie]

I was only responding to your assertion that if the number was indeed incorrect/misleading/confusing, it would require many people to conspire in order to display it. I'm merely saying that it could easily be a single person making the decision, without many people conspiring.

Whilst I also disagree that motor performance is equal to car performance without considering the battery limitations, this was not the point I was trying to make in my previous post that you quoted.

It is soooo difficult to communicate clearly and to be understood correctly :biggrin:

 

[rns-e]

mindsweeper claims that Tesla is free to choose which claimant to respond to. Stopcrazypp doubts that, and there is validity to doubt, as it doesn't make sense to give that much freedom to the defendant. I am inclined to believe that Norweigan court system is based on logic and makes sense, hence Tesla was most likely required to respond to the comprehensive inclusive complaint.

I actually like that aspect of Norweigan court system, deal with a representative complaint and apply the findings to all, seems very efficient to me.


I am curious about Danish consumer protection system, is it much different to Norweigan system?

Where are you getting this information?

I'm still trying to understand the process in Norway but from what I have gathered is that the process is required by legislation in Norway. It is not a voluntary mediation process as you make it out to be. Tesla was required by law to participate -- and it did participate -- just like Apple did in their dispute in the same forum. That forum allows the government regulator (Consumer Ombudsman) to take different courses depending on where the evidence directs him but ultimately if either party disputes the "ruling" then they can still resort to the Courts. Apple was ruled against -- it "lost" in that process based on the evidence submitted by the parties. Then Apple fought it in Court but ultimately dropped the disputed terms (Apple discontinued its FairPlay DRM scheme worldwide) that Norway took issue with. Unlike Apple, Tesla "won" in the first instance. It was determined, based on the submissions, that the Consumer Ombudsman did not find any breach of Norway's consumer laws (which are very strict and consumer orientated by all accounts). So now, unlike Apple, the ball is in the owners' court to sue. In fact, it was much worse with Apple because there was a "ruling" (or perhaps "finding" is a better term) against them by the Consumer Ombudsman, Bjørn Erik Thon, that Apple needed the Courts to set aside. The owners don't even have that so that doesn't bode well for any potential lawsuits in Norway, or even in other jurisdictions if we are to take anything from this process. Of course, it's not binding on any judicial bodies but it is certainly persuasive.

If I'm wrong, I'm certain our Norway friends will step in and set me straight. I look forward to that so we can learn more about this process and where my comments are in error.

Here's where I am getting some of my assumptions:

Norwegian Consumer Council[edit]

In June 2006, the Consumer Ombudsmen in Norway, Sweden and Denmark challenged Apple's iTunes end user license agreement (EULA) through the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon, who claimed that Apple was violating contract and copyright laws in their countries. Thon stated that Apple's "being an international company does not entitle [it] to disregard the laws of the countries in which it operates. The company's standard customer contract violates Norwegian law".[SUP][236][/SUP] An official complaint[SUP][237][/SUP] was filed by the Norwegian Consumer Council in January 2006,[SUP][238][/SUP] after which German and French consumer groups joined the Nordic-led drive to force Apple to make its iTunes online store compatible with digital music players made by rival companies.[SUP][239][/SUP] A French law allows regulators to force Apple to make its player and store compatible with rival offerings.[SUP][239][/SUP] The consumer protection regulators of Norway, Sweden, and Finland met with Apple in September 2006 in hopes of resolving the issues without litigation,[SUP][240][/SUP] but the matter was only resolved after Apple discontinued its FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) scheme.[SUP][241][/SUP]

I understand why it is hard to understand. I did not say it was voluntary, but that 'http://www.forbrukerradet.no' can not do anything if the one part is not willing to participate. It is pre court and it is mandatory, the same way that Forbrukerrådet will not take a case unless you have filled a official complaint with the car dealer (in cases of cars).

Here is a quote from the Norwegian forum where a poster has posted this quote from Forbrukerrådet: '"Vi kan ikke se at Tesla sitt tilsvar viser særlig meglingsvilje, og finner det derfor lite hensiktsmessig å fortsette meglingen ved vårt kontor. Vi imøteser en snarlig tilbakemelding på kommentarer fra tilsvaret og om du ønsker å oversende saken til Forbrukertvistutvalget, senest innen 15.12.2015." (Calling P85D owners world-wide).

Which says that Tesla is not willing to participate in mediation and that leaves the Forbrukerrådet no other chiose than to stop the process. Forbrukerrådet has not sided with either part in the case.

As I read more about the Forbrukerrådet, I can see that it is very similar to the Danish system, but still different. Where Forbrukerrådet in Norway is a 'Forbrukerrådet er en uavhengig interesseorganisasjon som bistår forbrukerne og påvirker myndigheter og næringsliv i en forbrukervennlig retning. Forbrukerrådet er statlig finansiert, men fristilt politisk fra overordnet departement.'

The Consumer Council is an independent organization that assists consumers and influence government and business in a consumer-friendly direction, but where it differs from the Danish system, is that Forbrukerrådet is federally funded.

An important thing to know about the Forbrukerrådet is 'The person (ie Consumer Council's broker) has no right to give specific advice or to provide answers as to who may have a right in the present case.' - so Forbrukerrådet has no legal jurisdiction, their aim is to keep cases out of court in the hope that conflicts can be nipped in the butt.

In Denmark we have a Appeals Board for cars (bilklage.dk) setup by the trade associations Motoring, Danish auto industries Council and Automotive Denmark and consumer organization Federation of Danish Motorists (FDM). This is also pre court as Forbrukerrådet in Norway, but it only handels cars, and it is *not* federally funded. There is a fee for filing a complaint of max 500 DKK.

Appeals Board for cars will make a rulling, but it is not legally binding, meaning that if you do not agree, you can start the case in the traditional court system. However they do have more power than the Norwegian Forbrukerrådet, but you need to read at bilklage.dk to get more info.

The main thing with Forbrukerrådet and the Appeal Board for Cars is that anybody can file a complaint at no or very little cost. However, in this case I think it would be wise to have get advice writing the complaint, which I don't think they did in the case in Norway with the complaint to Tesla, and then it is just to easy for Tesla.

- - - Updated - - -

If you add up the two max net power numbers it comes out to ~727 HP... so... yeah, I'm confused.

To be fair, Tesla has stated in their answer to the complaints that they did not only deliver the 700 hk, they have upgraded it OTA to 772 hk since delivery. They do not say anything about the performance of the car not being improved by this upgrade.

- - - Updated - - -

mindsweeper claims that Tesla is free to choose which claimant to respond to. Stopcrazypp doubts that, and there is validity to doubt, as it doesn't make sense to give that much freedom to the defendant. I am inclined to believe that Norweigan court system is based on logic and makes sense, hence Tesla was most likely required to respond to the comprehensive inclusive complaint.




I actually like that aspect of Norweigan court system, deal with a representative complaint and apply the findings to all, seems very efficient to me.


I am curious about Danish consumer protection system, is it much different to Norweigan system?

Where are you getting this information?

I'm still trying to understand the process in Norway but from what I have gathered is that the process is required by legislation in Norway. It is not a voluntary mediation process as you make it out to be. Tesla was required by law to participate -- and it did participate -- just like Apple did in their dispute in the same forum. That forum allows the government regulator (Consumer Ombudsman) to take different courses depending on where the evidence directs him but ultimately if either party disputes the "ruling" then they can still resort to the Courts. Apple was ruled against -- it "lost" in that process based on the evidence submitted by the parties. Then Apple fought it in Court but ultimately dropped the disputed terms (Apple discontinued its FairPlay DRM scheme worldwide) that Norway took issue with. Unlike Apple, Tesla "won" in the first instance. It was determined, based on the submissions, that the Consumer Ombudsman did not find any breach of Norway's consumer laws (which are very strict and consumer orientated by all accounts). So now, unlike Apple, the ball is in the owners' court to sue. In fact, it was much worse with Apple because there was a "ruling" (or perhaps "finding" is a better term) against them by the Consumer Ombudsman, Bjørn Erik Thon, that Apple needed the Courts to set aside. The owners don't even have that so that doesn't bode well for any potential lawsuits in Norway, or even in other jurisdictions if we are to take anything from this process. Of course, it's not binding on any judicial bodies but it is certainly persuasive.

If I'm wrong, I'm certain our Norway friends will step in and set me straight. I look forward to that so we can learn more about this process and where my comments are in error.

Here's where I am getting some of my assumptions:

Norwegian Consumer Council[edit]

In June 2006, the Consumer Ombudsmen in Norway, Sweden and Denmark challenged Apple's iTunes end user license agreement (EULA) through the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman Bjørn Erik Thon, who claimed that Apple was violating contract and copyright laws in their countries. Thon stated that Apple's "being an international company does not entitle [it] to disregard the laws of the countries in which it operates. The company's standard customer contract violates Norwegian law".[SUP][236][/SUP] An official complaint[SUP][237][/SUP] was filed by the Norwegian Consumer Council in January 2006,[SUP][238][/SUP] after which German and French consumer groups joined the Nordic-led drive to force Apple to make its iTunes online store compatible with digital music players made by rival companies.[SUP][239][/SUP] A French law allows regulators to force Apple to make its player and store compatible with rival offerings.[SUP][239][/SUP] The consumer protection regulators of Norway, Sweden, and Finland met with Apple in September 2006 in hopes of resolving the issues without litigation,[SUP][240][/SUP] but the matter was only resolved after Apple discontinued its FairPlay digital rights management (DRM) scheme.[SUP][241][/SUP]

If you add up the two max net power numbers it comes out to ~727 HP... so... yeah, I'm confused.

I addressed that point here already. It is not unreasonable to add the two numbers for this particular standard (gearing aside) because this standard doesn't factor in the battery.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...P90L/page232?p=1267096&viewfull=1#post1267096

The reason the numbers are separate are likely because they were tested separately. I looked back on Tesla's answer and the 350kW rear drive unit was a test done on May 16, 2013 (likely for P85 given the date), 193kW front drive unit done on December 5, 2014 (date explains why the software may be newer than launch).

However, the UK registration certificate calls for a single "max net power" number, even though the CoC doesn't. I don't find it unreasonable to add in this case. Unfortunately I was not able to find a screenshot of the UK registration for a P85D.

The one thing that is clear to me however is that the 463 hp number has absolutely no role in this and does not legally fit in that line. There appears to be no standard where that number would be arrived at, but rather something Tesla did internally (perhaps that is also why it is a foot note instead of a primary number on the website).

It may not be unreasonable from a technical standpoint (although I think it is) but from consumer legal standpoint it is highly questionable.

The is one of the paragraphs from the Danish laws on marketing.

§ 3. Traders may not use misleading or false statements or omitting material information if this is likely to materially distort consumers or other economic conduct in the market.
PCS. 2. Marketing whose content, form or method used is misleading, aggressive or subjects the consumers or traders to undue influence, and which is likely to significantly distort their economic behavior is not allowed.
PCS. 3. accuracy of statements of fact must be documented.

Omitting battery limit was misleading to an extend where it influenced and significantly distorted the economic behavior of many P85D owners.

Can be read in its full here: Markedsføringsloven - Bekendtgørelse af lov om markedsføring - retsinformation.dk

 

[Soolim]

The is one of the paragraphs from the Danish laws on marketing.

§ 3. Traders may not use misleading or false statements or omitting material information if this is likely to materially distort consumers or other economic conduct in the market.
PCS. 2. Marketing whose content, form or method used is misleading, aggressive or subjects the consumers or traders to undue influence, and which is likely to significantly distort their economic behavior is not allowed.
PCS. 3. accuracy of statements of fact must be documented.

Omitting battery limit was misleading to an extend where it influenced and significantly distorted the economic behavior of many P85D owners.

Can be read in its full here: Markedsføringsloven - Bekendtgørelse af lov om markedsføring - retsinformation.dk

This part is interesting. If the battery limiting hp is given, it would probably give some pause to the buyer.

 

[rns-e]

This part is interesting. If the battery limiting hp is given, it would probably give some pause to the buyer.

This actually speaks to both the battery limit and the 1 foot rollout left out by Tesla. Accuracy of statements was not documented (the battery limit and the reference to ECE and 1-foot rollout was only added later). It was misleading setting up direct comparisons between the 85D (with no battery limit and no rollout) and the P85D (with battery limit and roll out) while omitting those facts. This clearly distorted consumers economic conduct. At least for customers who ordered before any the cars was on the road to test.

While the motor rating may be technical correct, it will not be enough documentation when advertising/selling the car as it is misleading omitting the fact the car is battery limited.

The way Tesla displays is today would be the right way to show data and at the same time not violating §3 in the Danish law on marketing.

 

[Soolim]

This actually speaks to both the battery limit and the 1 foot rollout left out by Tesla. Accuracy of statements was not documented (the battery limit and the reference to ECE and 1-foot rollout was only added later). It was misleading setting up direct comparisons between the 85D (with no battery limit and no rollout) and the P85D (with battery limit and roll out) while omitting those facts. This clearly distorted consumers economic conduct. At least for customers who ordered before any the cars was on the road to test.

While the motor rating may be technical correct, it will not be enough documentation when advertising/selling the car as it is misleading omitting the fact the car is battery limited.

The way Tesla displays is today would be the right way to show data and at the same time not violating §3 in the Danish law on marketing.

View attachment 103513

I clearly see your point. If all these info were given, one would think very hard before paying the extra $25k.

 

[lolachampcar]

I agree that Tesla crossed the line a little bit with gas savings and cost of personal gas pumping time factored in the car cost. However, I do not see the slightest intent to mislead there, just misplaced and inappropriate calculations, regardless of the accuracy or a lack of accuracy of these calculations. Maybe a bit patronizing, annoying, but not misleading.



Agree with you that Tesla team certainly understands the difference between car hp and motor hp. That does not necessarily mean that they deliberately set to mislead with their pitch. Quite contrary, the fact that they understand this difference full well makes the scenario of deliberate misrepresentation highly unlikely. How would that scenario unfold, so many people at Tesla decided to conspire and consciously publicly lie about their product? I find that highly unlikely.

It makes much more sense that they fell into a (self-created) trap with this motor/car hp communication issue. My speculation is that they did not think of car hp when mentioning motor hp. A messenger is likely to emphasize the information that he/she considers relevant when delivering the message. In this case, motor hp mattered and was mentioned, car hp not so much. Car hp is just one of the many parameters that define the car performance.

If there is a misunderstanding or omitted information that comes to light after the purchase, clarification is likely to make matters worse after the event. With expensive products, it is difficult to undo the purchase process that was based on the misunderstanding, regardless of who is at fault, if anyone is. For that reason, some businesses offer cooling off period, say 3-5 days or a week.

My wife sees the world through much brighter eyes than I do and I'm likely not giving Tesla enough of the benefit of the doubt. Trust has been eroded for me but I agree that I should back off the calculated intent and will try to do so moving forward.

- - - Updated - - -

There is nothing wrong or incorrect with motor hp numbers on the website. Whoever decided to publish motor hp number did nothing misleading or wrong. A motor on an ev car is the main component of the car. The motor specification determines the car performance, therefore it is a relevant information that customers need to be informed about.

The misunderstanding came about because some customers incorrectly misinterpreted motor hp number to be something that it was not.

but this is where we disagree..... Intent is disconnected from right/wrong for me. Regardless of Tesla's intent, there are a lot of confused customers that feel like they were mislead. Tesla can either own the problem moving forward or blame it on the customer. I'm ole school when it comes to business and have never had success blaming it on the dumb customer. In fact, I've had simply having that kind of talk in management meetings while agreeing to an "our fault" public face backfire on me. We were only successful in managing these types of situations by taking a customer is always right approach. That is not to say the customer is always right but it often is the best mindset to have when you are digging yourself out of a hole like this.

- - - Updated - - -

The (valid) arguments about higher hp motors providing more low speed torque aside, why does Tesla need a standard to fall back on when describing the capability of their product? I can understand how someone would be caught off guard taking delivery of a P85D with the mindset that the car has 700 ish hp. It would seem to be more accurate to describe the car has having gobs of low end torque (maybe even quote those astronomical numbers) and 500 ish battery limited horsepower. Sure, adding a term like battery limited horsepower is introducing something that must now be explained but is that not better than having to explain some obscure European standard that has you quoting 700 ish horsepower?

 

[Krugerrand]

Hindsight makes armchair judging really easy.

 

[lolachampcar]

Krug,
Could you not have seen this coming if you were sitting in meetings talking about using 700 ish hp to describe the P85D? I'm no genius but I'm reasonably sure I would have had some doubts about doing so.

 

[rns-e]

Hindsight makes armchair judging really easy.

No hindsight for Tesla in this case, since they used to list both battery limit power and ECE max power on their different trims of the Model S prior to the launch of the dual motor trims. So at some point someone at Tesla has had a meeting prior to the launch of the P85D where they decided not to list the battery limited power of the P85D and removed it for the trims they used to show it for. That did not happen by accident.

 

[dsm363]

There you go again, singling me out and trying to make it out like I'm doing something uncalled for like anything I mentioned isn't something that almost everyone in this thread has done at one point or another. Pick any page of this thread and you'll see some person state a "fact", someone else disprove said fact, and then the initial person sticking to fact X like it didn't just get get torn to shreds by a 500 lb gorilla for one reason or another. No one in particular singled out for this example, it's just how this thread and others like it have been since day one. We've got everything here, you name it. I think there's even some posts where some people deny that "one horsepower" isn't ~746 W because it doesn't fit their argument. I'm honestly just getting a kick out of the ongoing debate, for the most part, since at this point with Tesla's own admission of the actual horsepower numbers the whole thing is just laughable to me. If you look at my recent history with this topic you'll see I've given up arguing facts here, since it's pointless.

In any case, I didn't post to cast doubts on anyone's credibility, (IMO, the people who's credibility is actually in question do this on their own), yet you feel the need to single me out to try and make it look like I said something blasphemous. I consider that uncalled for.

When you said

Hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Means I have the correct info from then on.

I can't say the same about many others here, however...

I read that as you saying you're happy to be proven wrong and have the correct information but that others here don't care about correct information. Obviously that is not the case.

 

[vgrinshpun]

This actually speaks to both the battery limit and the 1 foot rollout left out by Tesla. Accuracy of statements was not documented (the battery limit and the reference to ECE and 1-foot rollout was only added later). It was misleading setting up direct comparisons between the 85D (with no battery limit and no rollout) and the P85D (with battery limit and roll out) while omitting those facts. This clearly distorted consumers economic conduct. At least for customers who ordered before any the cars was on the road to test.

While the motor rating may be technical correct, it will not be enough documentation when advertising/selling the car as it is misleading omitting the fact the car is battery limited.

The way Tesla displays is today would be the right way to show data and at the same time not violating §3 in the Danish law on marketing.

Can you explain what you mean by including in the bolded (by me) part of your post? Below is the screenshot that was used couple days ago showing that none of the variants had shown the battery limited power. The only inconsistent specs on Tesla web page at the time of introduction of dual motor drive were the acceleration for performance (with roll out) and non-performance models (without roll out).

 

[dsm363]

mod note: multiple posts moved here
snippiness
Let's stop with the whole username issue

 

[rns-e]

Can you explain what you mean by including in the bolded (by me) part of your post? Below is the screenshot that was used couple days ago showing that none of the variants had shown the battery limited power. The only inconsistent specs on Tesla web page at the time of introduction of dual motor drive were the acceleration for performance (with roll out) and non-performance models (without roll out).
View attachment 103527

Exactly - Tesla showed the P85D without telling about the battery limit, when in fact it was battery limited. The 85D with 380 hk was not battery limited. So it is inconsistent comparing 380 hk against 700 hk and omitting the fact that there is a 469 hk battery limit on the 700 hk.

 

[vgrinshpun]

It may not be unreasonable from a technical standpoint (although I think it is) but from consumer legal standpoint it is highly questionable.

The is one of the paragraphs from the Danish laws on marketing.

§ 3. Traders may not use misleading or false statements or omitting material information if this is likely to materially distort consumers or other economic conduct in the market.
PCS. 2. Marketing whose content, form or method used is misleading, aggressive or subjects the consumers or traders to undue influence, and which is likely to significantly distort their economic behavior is not allowed.
PCS. 3. accuracy of statements of fact must be documented.

Omitting battery limit was misleading to an extend where it influenced and significantly distorted the economic behavior of many P85D owners.

Can be read in its full here: Markedsføringsloven - Bekendtgørelse af lov om markedsføring - retsinformation.dk

So what exactly was the essence of the P85D owners complaint to the Danish Consumer Authorities? Is the text public and can be linked, or perhaps you just can post it? If not I would appreciate the digest.

 

[rns-e]

So what exactly was the essence of the P85D owners complaint to the Danish Consumer Authorities? Is the text public and can be linked, or perhaps you just can post it? If not I would appreciate the digest.

I don't have it. I believe at this point only two complaints have been filed and I think Tesla has only responded to one - but I do not know for sure. My self and others are still looking to settle this through dialog with Tesla via assistance from the Danish Motor Owner Association.

 

[Kalllagtunet]

No hindsight for Tesla in this case, since they used to list both battery limit power and ECE max power on their different trims of the Model S prior to the launch of the dual motor trims. So at some point someone at Tesla has had a meeting prior to the launch of the P85D where they decided not to list the battery limited power of the P85D and removed it for the trims they used to show it for. That did not happen by accident.

I would get a perfect undstanding of what to expect of the performance the car with 3 simple broadly used and understod facts: 0-100 time (no roll out noncence) , the availible HP in the weicle (yes the battery limited) and a max torc level (with a specfied rpm).

If i don't remember wrongly this was the way Tesla used to market their spec and I can not rememer much confusion or the need to educate the coustomers then.

 

[Soolim]

No hindsight for Tesla in this case, since they used to list both battery limit power and ECE max power on their different trims of the Model S prior to the launch of the dual motor trims. So at some point someone at Tesla has had a meeting prior to the launch of the P85D where they decided not to list the battery limited power of the P85D and removed it for the trims they used to show it for. That did not happen by accident.

Maybe Tesla marketing thinks that 463 hp would not sell very well (at $25k more) when compared to 417 hp?

 

[brianman]

... It is not unreasonable to add the two numbers ...

You're welcome to that opinion, but that doesn't satisfy K's request - IMO.

 

[rns-e]

Maybe Tesla marketing thinks that 463 hp would not sell very well (at $25k more) when compared to 417 hp?

One could get that impression from the way Tesla has handled this. And now that they need to differentiate the Ludicrous versions from P85D and P90D it all of a sudden made sense to use the battery limited power as that shows that Ludicrous har more power than Insane ...