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

[vgrinshpun]

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

It is more likely because Tesla engineering thinks that 700 motor hp better represent performance characteristics that Tesla marketing decided to use (0-60mph acceleration).

 

[Auzie]

...........

No Government will allow a court ruling that puts into question Govermnment Standard that was intended to provide a benchmark for consistent comparison of cars from different manufacturers. This will be equivalent to Government acknowledging that they did not do a good job coming up with the standard that was designed to avoid having misleading data from different manufacturers to begin with.

Government might not have a say in a court ruling in some countries. Perhaps you meant that the court is unlikely to rule against an entity for complying with a government standard

 

[AWDtsla]

Looks like up to $225.00 in cash and up to $325.00 in dealer credits for those owners of affected cars.

The lawyers really made out in that case.

"in that case"? If it goes to court, only the lawyers win.

 

[vgrinshpun]

And they will not do that. The ECE is intended to rate the motors and not for use in marketing/advertising. And the case is not the ECE rating, but the omission of the battery limit - but you know that now

If you read the ECE R85 and the document that it is Addendum to you'll see that the purpose of all the standards was "Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions". If, and that is the question that does not yet have clear answer in my mind, European Governments which contributed to and/or adopted this UN standard did a poor job with coming with uniform way of rating of electric drivetrains that is unambiguous and not misleading, in spite of the fact that this was the stated goal, these Goverment will not allow their courts to produce a ruling that highlights failure of the Government to provide such a standard.

I think that your best shot at resolution of this dispute in acceptable way is to continue your engagement with Tesla through Danish Motor Owners Association.

- - - Updated - - -

Government might not have a say in a court ruling in some countries. Perhaps you meant that the court is unlikely to rule against an entity for complying with a government standard

That is interesting. I would like to know which country has courts that are truly independent from the Government - it would be a good country to live in:smile:

 

[stopcrazypp]

And they will not do that. The ECE is intended to rate the motors and not for use in marketing/advertising. And the case is not the ECE rating, but the omission of the battery limit - but you know that now

The Norway case ruled it was valid to advertise using the horsepower numbers used to homologate the car.

In Norway, the law is that it is based on Directive 80/1269/EEC, of which the standard is a mix of ISO 1585 and ECE R85 according to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_80/1269/EEC

While ISO 1585 is not applicable to the Tesla (as that is for ICE only), ECE R85 obviously is.

 

[cynix]

No Government will allow a court ruling that puts into question Govermnment Standard that was intended to provide a benchmark for consistent comparison of cars from different manufacturers. This will be equivalent to Government acknowledging that they did not do a good job coming up with the standard that was designed to avoid having misleading data from different manufacturers to begin with.

The government has already admitted in an email to a forum member here that this regulation is not clear enough with regards to EVs, and that they're working on a new standard. No court case necessary!

 

[rns-e]

If you read the ECE R85 and the document that it is Addendum to you'll see that the purpose of all the standards was "Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions". If, and that is the question that does not yet have clear answer in my mind, European Governments which contributed to and/or adopted this UN standard did a poor job with coming with uniform way of rating of electric drivetrains that is unambiguous and not misleading, in spite of the fact that this was the stated goal, these Goverment will not allow their courts to produce a ruling that highlights failure of the Government to provide such a standard.

I think that your best shot at resolution of this dispute in acceptable way is to continue your engagement with Tesla through Danish motor Owners Association.

I agree that the best way to solve it is via dialog with Tesla.

But you have to remember that EU or any member Government can not dictate any ruling, so if it goes to court it will be out of their hands. But again, it will be the omission of the Battery limit which is a violation of the marketing laws. It is actually quite simple.

- - - Updated - - -

The Norway case ruled it was valid to advertise using the horsepower numbers used to homologate the car.

In Norway, the law is that is is based 80/1269/EEC, of which the standard is a mix of ISO 1585 and ECE R85 according to Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_80/1269/EEC

While ISO 1585 is not applicable to the Tesla (as that is for ICE only), ECE R85 obviously is.

That is correct, but there was no omission of any limiter in that case, which there clearly is here. So the Nissan case will not stand, and it will definitely not have precedence in Denmark or anywhere else.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I agree that the best way to solve it is via dialog with Tesla.

But you have to remember that EU or any member Government can not dictate any ruling, so if it goes to court it will be out of their hands. But again, it will be the omission of the Battery limit which is a violation of the marketing laws. It is actually quite simple.

The omission of the battery limit is built into the ECE R85, which on a face of it was designed to provide consumers with uniform unambiguous specifications. I understand that in theory courts are independent, but my practical observation of the US Court system for quite some time does not allow for a comfortable feeling that it is so.

 

[Johan]

Having read Tesla's reply to the Norwegian Consumer Counsel (in Norwegian) I am sad to say it had a lot of statements in it but, for someone who has read up on the core of the dispute, was clearly written to obfuscate the issue rather than bring clarity.

Also the Consumer Counsel did not make a ruling or statement siding with either party - they simply stated that since there seems to be no wish from Tesla to admit fault or to enter in to negotiations with dissatisfied customers, the counsel cannot facilitate the process further (no jurisdiction/legal authority) and must leave the issue (at a gridlock).

And since we're talking expensive cars and quite a few customers I think this case will go to court (class action) and my (armchair) guess is Tesla will have a ruling go against them (for misleading marketing/advertising). Tesla having changed the way they now represent the different models is in fact, when you think about it in a very commonsensical way, very "incriminating". The big question is what the court will find to be reasonable compensation.

 

[rns-e]

The omission of the battery limit is built into the ECE R85, which on a face of it was designed to provide consumers with uniform unambiguous specifications. I understand that in theory courts are independent, but my practical observation of the US Court system for quite some time does not allow for a comfortable feeling that it is so.

If that is the case, my money is on the marketing laws, as they are fundamental for the trust between seller and buyer. If ECE allows omission of stating the true vehicle power, then buyers will not be able to know how much power they are actually buying - it will become a blackbox as the P85D has been for nearly a year - and no government want that and especially the EU. So my money is on the marketing laws.

 

[Auzie]

.................

Also the Consumer Counsel did not make a ruling or statement siding with either party - they simply stated that since there seems to be no wish from Tesla to admit fault or to enter in to negotiations with dissatisfied customers, the counsel cannot facilitate the process further (no jurisdiction/legal authority) and must leave the issue (at a gridlock).

..................

Have you had the opportunity to read the Council's reply? Direct links would be appreciated.

So far no one posted a link to the letter they received from the Council.

 

[vgrinshpun]

If that is the case, my money is on the marketing laws, as they are fundamental for the trust between seller and buyer. If ECE allows omission of stating the true vehicle power, then buyers will not be able to know how much power they are actually buying - it will become a blackbox as the P85D has been for nearly a year - and no government want that and especially the EU. So my money is on the marketing laws.

I think it was discussed here ad nauseam, that power in a way you are defining it is not a very accurate predictor of the characteristic of the car that you apparently were actually buying, and Tesla specifically marketing - performance. It would be interesting to watch how this will turn out - it would be a learning experience for everybody involved. My bet also that we could see some surprises, similar to the Norwegian Nissan case, coming from Tesla lawyers.

- - - Updated - - -

Having read Tesla's reply to the Norwegian Consumer Counsel (in Norwegian) I am sad to say it had a lot of statements in it but, for someone who has read up on the core of the dispute, was clearly written to obfuscate the issue rather than bring clarity.

Also the Consumer Counsel did not make a ruling or statement siding with either party - they simply stated that since there seems to be no wish from Tesla to admit fault or to enter in to negotiations with dissatisfied customers, the counsel cannot facilitate the process further (no jurisdiction/legal authority) and must leave the issue (at a gridlock).

And since we're talking expensive cars and quite a few customers I think this case will go to court (class action) and my (armchair) guess is Tesla will have a ruling go against them (for misleading marketing/advertising). Tesla having changed the way they now represent the different models is in fact, when you think about it in a very commonsensical way, very "incriminating". The big question is what the court will find to be reasonable compensation.

I think that the content of Tesla letter was in a way defined by the claims made by P85D owners. I think that they simply overreached in their claims. It would be much wiser if instead of showing dyno test results indicating that P85D does not meet power specifications the way owners interpret them, the claim laid out owners understanding how Tesla rated P85D but, at the same time, showing what their expectations were and why they are not satisfied.

As a disclaimer, all of the above is just my speculation based on how Tesla letter described the claims. It would be very interesting to read the actual claims that were selected by Tesla out of submitted 193 of them.

 

[Soolim]

It is more likely because Tesla engineering thinks that 700 motor hp better represent performance characteristics that Tesla marketing decided to use (0-60mph acceleration).

And simply stating the 0-60 mph of 3.1 seconds versus 4.2 seconds is not adequate data to illustrate acceleration performance?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree that the best way to solve it is via dialog with Tesla.

But you have to remember that EU or any member Government can not dictate any ruling, so if it goes to court it will be out of their hands. But again, it will be the omission of the Battery limit which is a violation of the marketing laws. It is actually quite simple.

- - - Updated - - -



That is correct, but there was no omission of any limiter in that case, which there clearly is here. So the Nissan case will not stand, and it will definitely not have precedence in Denmark or anywhere else.

Again, there is an omission of a limiter in the Nissan case: the load of the automatic transmission makes it so the actual power of the car is lower than for a manual transmission car. In fact the car in dispute (the X-Trail with automatic) tested in a field of 6 cars had the lowest power because of the extra load from the automatic transmission. The court noted that this fact was not reflected in the standard nor in any Nissan literature, but the court did not rule that against Nissan.

 

[vgrinshpun]

And simply stating the 0-60 mph of 3.1 seconds versus 4.2 seconds is not adequate data to illustrate acceleration performance?

In a way it is - for one type of acceleration. But in such case, what is the significance of horsepower ratings? Why there is so much controversy over which power rating is "real" and which is "fake"? I think it has something to do with the inertia and a way cars are being marketed for decades.

 

[Canuck]

This is interesting:

Untruthful horsepower ratings for electric air compressors cheating false advertising vacuum cleaners also

 

[vgrinshpun]

This is interesting:

Untruthful horsepower ratings for electric air compressors cheating false advertising vacuum cleaners also

I had quite a laugh reading it. Somebody has very poor understanding of the subject he felt an urge to write about. Saying about knowing just enough to be dangerous came to mind more than once while I was reading.

My absolute favorite was the phrase that author used to describe expertise of an agency that he dealt with: I don't imagine that anyone at such an agency would know a horsepower from a watt.

Followed elsewhere on the blog page with the following expert definition: A commonly used formula for converting watts into horsepower is 1000 watts equals 1 horsepower.

So, what was an interesting thing that attracted your attention?:wink:

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking about killing time researching stuff on the Nets, I just paged through the Danish Marketing Act linked by Rns-e and found the following interesting excerpts (highlighted):

 

[Soolim]

If that is the case, my money is on the marketing laws, as they are fundamental for the trust between seller and buyer. If ECE allows omission of stating the true vehicle power, then buyers will not be able to know how much power they are actually buying - it will become a blackbox as the P85D has been for nearly a year - and no government want that and especially the EU. So my money is on the marketing laws.

Maybe in the future ECE would mandate stating the hp at 90% charge, 80% charge and 50% charge for real life comparison of BEV? I don't know how Tesla is going to explain the omission of battery limited hp rating on P85D in the early days when the same data was given for 85D.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Maybe in the future ECE would mandate stating the hp at 90% charge, 80% charge and 50% charge for real life comparison of BEV? I don't know how Tesla is going to explain the omission of battery limited hp rating on P85D in the early days when the same data was given for 85D.

Let's make it clear again. The same data was NOT given for the 85D in the early days. All of the numbers listed were motor power numbers with nothing to do with the battery. It was very late in the game (in the April 2015 time frame after the 6.2 update for more motor power) that the 85D got battery limited numbers added.

See screenshot posted here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...P90L/page232?p=1267736&viewfull=1#post1267736

 

[chickensevil]

I had quite a laugh reading it. Somebody has very poor understanding of the subject he felt an urge to write about. Saying about knowing just enough to be dangerous came to mind more than once while I was reading.

My absolute favorite was the phrase that author used to describe expertise of an agency that he dealt with: I don't imagine that anyone at such an agency would know a horsepower from a watt.

Followed elsewhere on the blog page with the following expert definition: A commonly used formula for converting watts into horsepower is 1000 watts equals 1 horsepower.

So, what was an interesting thing that attracted your attention?:wink:

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking about killing time researching stuff on the Nets, I just paged through the Danish Marketing Act linked by Rns-e and found the following interesting excerpts (highlighted):

View attachment 103581

I'm confused, perhaps you can clarify what was wrong with the posting? His conversion of HP to KW is off, but not by enough to matter. My home outlets can only output 1.44KW which comes out to just under 2HP. So if this is only a 120V capable compressor then there should be no way to achieve the output described.

Even still this is different from Tesla since Tesla is claiming output of their motors themselves whereas the blog post is claiming that the output rating has been left out on purpose since they would have to list them as 2HP... At least according to the post.