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

[marcad80]

amazing how eager Tesla is to please there customers.

you actually got them to report dual, constant torque electric motors as if they were a single, variable torque gas engine.

now we can really compare apples to oranges!

the only valid numbers now are the track times....

p.s. And we now look at how the reported power/weight numbers are off to the track times.... Hilarious

 

[lolachampcar]

I agree with P85DEE, I think you guys are premature in your victory lap. The outcome of any disputes will likely be more definitive. The motor hp numbers are still valid and, if other members are correct about European testing standards, required.

 

[WestCoastP85D]

So I am a Tesla fan like the rest of you... love the disruption... and love the culture, etc. However, dismissing this as a "communications" issue is far too forgiving. I guess I didn't believe the threads (and didn't sign the letter to Elon) because I didn't want to believe this to be true.

Tesla sales (and Musk himself) happily represented the P85D as a 691hp vehicle. They did it at the launch. They did it in the show room. They did it in the press. And they did it to my face while I was purchasing my car. This is not a 5%, 10% delta mistake -- we are talking about over 200 hp "error" in their favor. Some call that a lie.

Given the price paid for this car, it doesn't sit well with me at all. Even the roll-out "clarification" could be considered a deliberate omission. There was a $20K premium on this car.... I expect honest representation in any business dealing, and I cannot say I feel I got that -- and it happens to be the most expensive car I ever purchased. This is unsettling.

For the P85D, they also reduced the 0 to 60 mph time by 0,1 sec at some point and they increased motor power when Ludicrous mode was released. They also significantly improved the numbers for the 85D.

IMO the only real mistake they made was waiting so long to publish the motor shaft power figures. At some point in time they got scared of the potential negative reaction but we managed to make so much noise about the issue that there was no way they could keep holding on to the status quo. In a couple of weeks / months this will be behind us and Tesla is back on track being an innovator that does things the way things need to be done in today's world. (That's what I hope anyway.)

 

[jpet]

I agree with P85DEE, I think you guys are premature in your victory lap. The outcome of any disputes will likely be more definitive. The motor hp numbers are still valid and, if other members are correct about European testing standards, required.

True, but in the EC certificate those numbers are not added together and the maximum hourly output is only 66 kW.

 

[darthy001]

I agree with P85DEE, I think you guys are premature in your victory lap. The outcome of any disputes will likely be more definitive. The motor hp numbers are still valid and, if other members are correct about European testing standards, required.

For me Tesla has now done exactly what I wanted all along.

All information on the table at once.

Nothing hidden.

So out for a victory lap


Ref the legal issue on this side of the pond:

-In Denmark this must be the final blow without a doubt. Roll-out and now final confirmation of totalt hp-output all adds up to Tesla messing up. 33% hp-loss before drivetrain losses simplys is a big deal.

-In Norway I would say the same based on our extremely consumer-biased laws, but not as clearcut as in Denmark. The fact that the consumer authorities is indeed still going after this is telling by itself. I guesss its all up to Tesla. Take the financial hit and get happy customers or drag it out with even more negative press.

I am not on the list of official reporters in Norway to make that clear. But I am following with keen interest now that the main issues is put to rest once and for all.

If Tesla spins this in a good way I'll buy a load of stocks to compensate

 

[lolachampcar]

I am not up to speed on the details of the European requirements and will defer to my friends on the other side of the pond. Hopefully Tesla will settle the dispute with owners direct without going to court. Either way, the outcome should put the issue to bed.

 

[Super_Popular]

I am popping the popcorn now.....this should be a good show.

 

[jpet]

Tesla sales (and Musk himself) happily represented the P85D as a 691hp vehicle. They did it at the launch. They did it in the show room. They did it in the press. And they did it to my face while I was purchasing my car. This is not a 5%, 10% delta mistake -- we are talking about over 200 hp "error" in their favor. Some call that a lie.

Given the price paid for this car, it doesn't sit well with me at all. Even the roll-out "clarification" could be considered a deliberate omission. There was a $20K premium on this car.... I expect honest representation in any business dealing, and I cannot say I feel I got that -- and it happens to be the most expensive car I ever purchased. This is unsettling.

I agree and that's why I believe that Tesla still needs to make it right for us who bought the car based on the not-representative figures.
If we take a larger perspective though, I am happy that Tesla decided to do the right thing for their new customers.
Although I push the car to its limits from time to time (and get frustrated when doing so), 95% of the time I just drive it normally and enjoy every second of owning this engineering masterpiece.

 

[P85DEE]

They threw some of us a bone. And we're gnawing on it with a tenacity like there is no tomorrow.

Tesla has no intention of scrapping their prior marketing system of describing their car's power.

If Tesla had scrapped their prior method, then that would be an "admission" that they had deceived people. But they haven't discarded it, it's still right there, and they don't have to discard it because by all indication, it is an accepted method of describing power in multi motor EVs. Mercedes does the same thing.

The only thing they've done here, is added another "measurement", and with an asterisk, no less.

Tesla has basically thrown this out there, to assuage the loudest complainers and throw them off the scent. They have still left themselves and others, the same option of referring to their cars themselves, and allowing others to refer to their cars as having 691 motor power for the P85D and 762 Motor Power for the P90D Ludicrous.

Look at the 85D and the 70D. They both make the same "motor power". So anyone selling the car, anyone describing the two cars, anyone reviewing the two cars, can accurately state that they BOTH make the same "motor power".

The only thing that is changed is that in "addition" to stating the above, anyone describing the two cars can now say; "Well the Battery limited maximum motor shaft power for this one is this, and the Battery limited maximum motor shaft power for this one is this......but they both are rated at the same motor power".

And thus anyone describing the P90D, or the P85D, can STILL state that the "Motor Power" for the P85D is 691, and the "Motor Power for the P90D is 762". Same as they could before.

One does not, and when I say "one" I mean anyone, any magazine, etc., is not prevented from using that description that so many hollered was "inaccurate". It can still be used.

Until Tesla removes entirely the option to refer to their cars in this manner, well then nothing has changed. The only thing they've done here is added another measurement. With an asterisk.

And that means that utilizing either of the two "options" for referring to how much power a P85D or a P90D makes, whether you're using the "Motor Power" option in your description, or whether you're using the "Battery limited maximum motor shaft power" option to describe it........both are accurate.

Now, guess which of the two options you will see pounded home by the reviewers and Tesla themselves.

It's amazing how some of us are eating this up. Little to nothing has changed here folks. The only thing they've done is added another measurement, and with an asterisk to boot, and not discarded their prior method of measurement.

Well, I guess those who wanted it, got their asterisk. But the thing is, the "asterisk" is not at the 691 or the 762. The asterisk is on the 532, 436.

They gave you your asterisk.......but they decided to put it where they wanted to put it, and not where you wanted them to put it.

They didn't put the asterisk next to their number. They put the asterisk next to your number.

 

[wk057]

Hopefully Tesla will settle the dispute with owners direct without going to court. Either way, the outcome should put the issue to bed.

Keep in mind that in the past we know Tesla to have made deals with customers where part of that deal was either a request of non-disclosure or an actual NDA. So outside of court we may not hear anything.

 

[lolachampcar]

That would mean that some of our fellow forum members would go (very suspiciously) quiet from which we can draw our own conclusions. This will be especially true if they start posting L results from their previous D cars (hint hint).

 

[LargeHamCollider]

It hasn't been mentioned yet but max "shaft horsepower" is not the same as "battery horsepower" but should be within 2% of hp at the tires.

 

[mrElbe]

I am not concerned. I did not buy the P85D for the horsepower but I bought it for the all wheel drive.
I am all for Tesla advertising as Rolls Royce used to do:
Power: Adequate

 

[WarpedOne]

It already does that:
Power: Insane, Ludicrous.

HP is nonsense, it is acceleration that matter.

 

[jpet]

For me Tesla has now done exactly what I wanted all along.

All information on the table at once.

Nothing hidden.

I would still prefer if they would publish graphs. These would make clear that the car is much faster from 0 than an ICE with the same horsepower but also has reduced power at higher speed.

Another thing that is not in the open is under what conditions the car limits power. SoC is one such factor but there are other ones that are more important, e.g. how long can it sustain max battery output and how is this influenced by the amps one is using at any given speed. I would like to know if there is a difference in these factors between the 85 kWh battery and the 90 kWh battery plus between the Insane hardware and the Ludicrous hardware.

 

[WestCoastP85D]

Yes, of course. My problem is the "looking me in the eye" part where they said 691hp over and over again. I do not believe it was a communications error, rather an intentional representation around statistics core to purchasing a performance car. Feels intentional and i don't like it.

It already does that:
Power: Insane, Ludicrous.

HP is nonsense, it is acceleration that matter.

 

[electracity]

I wonder about a small claims suit? ($10,000 max in Calif)

So you have purchased your last Tesla?

 

[dsm363]

Yes, of course. My problem is the "looking me in the eye" part where they said 691hp over and over again. I do not believe it was a communications error, rather an intentional representation around statistics core to purchasing a performance car. Feels intentional and i don't like it.

Tesla seems to be a heavily engineering driven company. My guess is they went with an what they thought was an acceptable way to describe hp in a dual motor EV (EU regulation as guide) and marketing took the ball and ran with it. By the time they realized it was a big issue there were already threats made of legal action so they took their sweet time to figure how how they would handle it. Maybe they thought the Ludicrous upgrade was part of the solution but that didn't seem to work since it wasn't free and still didn't hit the combined motor hp number which people assumed was system power.

At least it's out there now and they can move forward and handle the people upset in whatever way they feel is best.

 

[thegruf]

Well having been pretty critical of Tesla regarding this issue, I do see this as progress.

What I am less clear about is whether this is part of a longer term strategy to progressively make available the numbers that should have been stated from the outset, or whether this has been prompted by advice from Tesla's legal team to close the gate quickly, in the light of recently announced litigation in some territories. It would appear to significantly strengthen the claims of those who feel they were misled though.

What is sad is that Tesla's reputation has been completely unecessarily damaged by shall we say marketing excesses.
This will leave a bad taste for a long time with many owners current and prospective, and a huge skepticism about future claims until they are proven by owners.

In these days of corporate scandals, one thing that Tesla could have done is maintained a reputation for openness and clarity as a differentiator to further support their laudable cause, it's not as though any of the models are short of performance anyway.

Furthermore the inconsistency of stated acceleration figures remains, with some using so called "rollout" and others not, leading to meaningless comparison between models. The figures stated in the model tables do not have asterisks next to them to indicate qualification, and it remains for the purchaser to chance read the information further down the page to realise they are not comparable. This remains a deceit imho and many prospective purchasers will be caught outa. Tesla would do well to correct this also.

And I am still puzzling over the recent P90D test reports from Motortrend as their claimed results are significantly at odds with owners experiences. This story has a lot more to run yet.

 

[Scott Ales]

Let me first state I am only one person with one opinion who is NOT trying to convince anyone else of anything. Just felt I needed to comment on the subject having bought a P85+ and recently ordered a 2016 Model S 90D and Model X.

Personally, I could care less about written specifications before or after I buy anything physical. I bought and will continue to buy Tesla's products for the actual driving experience. To me, it's a car, not a page or screen with data. I don't regret it now that someone is suggesting what I felt was not equal to what the data claimed. I became interested from the data but made my decision based on driving the car. If it was a measurable physical experience I would have passed after the test drive.

What day to day use issue does this pertain to? We all grew up driving sleds that had 0-60 mph times in the double digits. If anyone felt let down because their car was slower it could have been addressed the day they picked it up. When has anyone ever tested their new car with a stop watch before paying for it?

I guess I'm too easy going. There are too many more important issues in our world that deserve my time than calling out anyone for too little horsepower in my fastest sedan ever produced.

We're all entitled to our positions and opinions. I respect and appreciate them. It is after all, a forum.