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

[ERP]

Is it correct to assume that these are both accurate?

Hundreds of pages and months of posts have not been able to get an agreement on this question.

The recent discussion, that 691 motor power matters when only 463 hp is available, is incorrect. Look at it from the other side, if the front motor was upgraded to the 470 motor, giving the car a total of 940 motor power, it would not be any faster.

 

[sandpiper]

The first post of the thread includes a screen shot which indicates that my P85D has 463 "battery limited maximum motor shaft power".

And above that, I see 503 "motor power" in the front, and 259 "motor power" in the rear.

Is it correct to assume that these are both accurate?

Both of these are 100% accurate. And everybody agrees that the P85D does not (as a full car) ever output 691 HP at any point in the system. It's also agreed that the high torque means that it performs better than it would if the motors were only rated to a combined 463 HP.

The debate about the implications beyond those points closely resembles a bunch of monkeys flinging poo; lots of noise and mess but nothing resolved!

 

[brianman]

You're just as human as anyone else in here.

Or so you think...

Andy is actually a member of the pilot project of forum autopilot.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, you still don't really get my point. "horsepower" is not being used as "shorthand" for "motor horsepower". Let me put it another way:

"horsepower" or "hp" is simply a unit (as is kW). It makes absolutely no reference to how that number was arrived at.

"motor power" is a rating system, just like SAE J1995 gross power, SAE J1349 net power, SAE J2723 certified power, DIN, JIS, ECE R24, ECE R85, etc. This tells you how the number was arrived at.

While a spec sheet or manual may be expected to specify the rating system used (although many automakers don't even do that in their spec sheets), it is not necessary in all advertising and spoken interviews.

I'm not sure how people expect power to be tested, but it is all done with a motor or engine put on a test bench and with various accessories attached to it depending on the standard (if at all). They do not run a magical power probe on the output shaft of a car. Ultimately the engine or motor is still the primary test subject and depending on how the standard is specified, the numbers can vary drastically.

Supercharging currently maxes out at 120 kW at a supercharger.
Thus the Model S with an 85 kWh battery pack has a "battery absorption rate" of "160.9 horsepower".
Rather than calling it "battery absorption rate" let's just call it "battery horsepower".
Rather than calling it "battery horsepower" let's just call it "horsepower".

And now, we can simplify: the 85 kWh Model S (all variants!) has "160.9 horsepower".

Is it reasonable for people to use this phrase to describe the Model S?

I think not. But by your argument it seems any "named measure" that has a unit of "horsepower" can be used to simply describe the "vehicle's horsepower."

"horsepower" is not being used as "shorthand" for "battery absorption rate".

"horsepower" or "hp" is simply a unit (as is kW). It makes absolutely no reference to how that number was arrived at.

"battery absorption rate" is a rating system, from Tesla's website. Though it doesn't tell you how the number was arrived at.

While a spec sheet or manual may be expected to specify the rating system used, it is not necessary in any of the public facing documentation on Tesla's website.

I'm not sure how people expect power to be tested, but it is all done with a battery pack put on a test bench and with various accessories attached to it depending on the standard (if at all). They do not run a magical power probe on the output shaft of a car. Ultimately the battery pack is still the primary test subject and depending on how the standard is specified, the numbers can vary drastically.

How is my modified quoted "off the mark" compared to the original you offered?

Oh right, re: "vary drastically"... apparently my P85 Sig only has "120.7 horsepower" ("A" pack limited to 90 kW supercharging).

 

[sillydriver]

The debate about the implications beyond those points closely resembles a bunch of monkeys flinging poo

Love it. Someone get me a banana.:biggrin:

 

[Canuck]

Here in Scandinavia (both Denmark and Norway where the kettle now is almost at the boiling point) consumers are heavily protected, and I am also absolutely convinced, that should it ever come to that, any judge would simply pic the two simple numbers presented by Tesla then and now, subtract them from each other and slam down the hammer on the resulting difference. Case closed. Simple as that. It is not about standards, norms, roll out, bizarre calculations with watts and ohms, it's about how you market you product to a consumer that under no circumstances MUST know better.

Legal actions are never as simple as that. Not in Canada or the US at least, which follow the British common-law system. I think Norway follows the Scandinavian civil law tradition, which I have no idea about and therefore I can't comment on how it would resolve this dispute. Perhaps as simple as you claim but that would surprise me. Here, we allow for complex trials with often many lay witnesses, multiple expert witnesses on both sides, who are examined and cross-examined (bought and paid for by the party who retained them), then precedent case-law and relevant legislation is argued, and in the end one party always comes out as the ultimate winner: the lawyers.

When you say "consumers are heavily protected" in Scandinavia does that mean your government commences the action on behalf of wronged consumers? Or it is legislation that allows for civil penalties in actions brought by the consumer? Do those penalties go beyond compensation for actual losses and also invoke penalties that a consumer can resort to as opposed to government?

 

[brianman]

... in the end one party always comes out as the ultimate winner: the lawyers.

Is this globally true? I suspect so.

Perhaps we need a global initiative: 10% of lawyer profits fees go to "Earth human life compatibility".

 

[flathillll]

Well, that is exactly what Tesla did do. If they had not done it as you claim, they would not have shown any HP ratings, but only torque numbers and 0-60 mph. There is no legal requirement anywhere in the world that forced Tesla to use the 691 hp figure or any hp figure at all for that matter.

They wanted to tell a story that would make customers buy the P85D over the 85D and even trade in their P85 for the P85D, and they used the 691 hp to tell that story, when they could have told a better and more correct story just using torque and 0-60 mph.

when is the last time you have ever seen a torque figure on the cover a of car magazine? you do see it on the cover of diesel truck magazine but rarely on a car cover. maybe it is different in europe with all the diesel cars but here in USA HP sells

we have all been programmed to think in peak hp which occurs at 1 rpm point

this has no relevance to a dual motor EV where the peak hp pull from each motor is not aligned in time, as is the case with the p85d and p90d

most customers also have no idea that a 0.2s difference in 0-60 or whatever is actually a huge difference. people think linear

 

[sorka]

Originally Posted by Canuck
I bet the class action lawyers are sharpening their pencils but it is really an extremely small class. Unlike VW and other cases, there have been far fewer P85D vehicle sold in comparison, and I bet the vast majority of those owners won't want anything to do with it. Most are very pleased with their cars, and it's not like they are not getting the car they test drove (unlike VW or cases with defects). I bet this forum has probably heard from most of the people that would be part of a class action.



I never said most P85D owners visited this forum. How can you possibly take that out of what I said above? I said that this forum has probably heard from most of the people that would be part of the class action since most P85D owners won't want anything to do with it. Instead of asking your 11 colleagues if they have visited here, you should have asked them if they will be suing Tesla over the hp numbers. That was my point. Time will tell who is right.

This motor vehicle class action (if commenced) will be very different than most and Tesla is also very different than all auto manufacturers. Consider this: P85D owners who say they were mislead by Tesla can't just get their money back and then buy another without calling into serious question the legitimacy of the claim that they wouldn't have bought in the first place if they knew the true number. I predict for this reason Tesla will add the names to their list. Again, only time will tell who is right. No use arguing about it but it's interesting to put our positions down here so later we can see who is right. If I am proved to be wrong, it certainly won't be the first time.

You said:

I bet this forum has probably heard from most of the people that would be part of a class action.

*I* said most most P85D owners haven't visited this forum. I never said you said it.

My point is that if a firm decides to assemble a class and obtains the addresses of all registered P85D owners and sends them a letter soliciting them to be part of the class because their 691 hp car is really only 463. How many P85D owners are going to say no? My bet is most will join the class.

- - - Updated - - -

That is to do with the concept of power. Again an electric motor does not work like that! My view is people gets all the benefits of 691hp max output motor within legal speed limit, and I even think the insurance conmany should not charge the P85D with a penny less than any other 691hp ICE car.

Don't think that is the case? Give me one ICE car weights over two tones that can do 0-60 in 3.5 sec with just 463hp. So the P85D IMO is every bit of a 691hp car within legal speed.

If you mean that a typical ICE with its narrow power band would have to have 691 hp in order to achieve a 3.5 second 0-60 and that an EV with it's flat power curve and it's ability to generate more power at lower RPMS, i.e torque, doesn't need the same peak power as the EV to reach 60 in the same time, then I agree with you. It's about the amount of power put down under the curve on the way to 60, not peak power.

But at higher speeds, say above 50 MPH, that narrow power band ICE is now at or near it's peak power and it's multi speed transmission helps keep it there. The Telsa is also producing peak power at this. At this point it's still a matter of how much power it put down under the curve to say go from 50 to 70 MPH, but the ICE with X power is now able to keep up with the EV with X power. This is why a Mustang 5.0 with 435 hp will still out accelerate a P85D from a 60 MPH roll but the P85D will kill it at anything lower than 30 MPH.

- - - Updated - - -

HP and W are units of power and they don't care if power comes from 100 000 hamsters running in wheel, steam engine, ICE or electric motor. P85D does not produce 691 shaft hp, no matter how you spin the issue.

Or Fred Flinstone :tongue:

- - - Updated - - -

If it did, they would say it has 691 HP.
Because it does not, they said 691 HP combined motor power.

Straw man arguments all across the board.

Where can I buy that P85D that produces a combined 691 hp motor power? It's not the one that was delivered to me.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue is surely not trivially simple. The representation was not fraudulent.

Sure it is. The P85D makes 463 hp according to Tesla. The other 691 number they used to use is not obtainable in the vehicle they sold. If the motors were capable of 1000 hp each, would they have called it a 2000 hp motor car? No, because that would have just been stretching too far and the mags, pups, and even the uneducated consumer would have realized that was ridiculous, but according to you, it wouldn't have been fraudulent.

 

[darthy001]

The user manual had always referred to the power of the motors, not a combined number (even though the ECE R85 reference was added later). I can dig up the screenshot of the older version, but I believe it was pretty clear it was talking about individual motors.

Instead of writing it again I'll just quote and link to myself:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...in-U-S-media?p=1176778&viewfull=1#post1176778

I actually believe my original 6.2 manual said the numbers you quote here a few months ago, but now it clearly doesn't.... Main point is that even at this point in time Tesla isn't able to get this right... They mix the two motors and they now have new numbers even.

Are you still suprised that we as customers didn't get this back in October of 2014? Tesla still isn't able to provide proper documentation on such a simple level. Especially when seeing the next part of my post here:


I have dug up the owners manual that was on Mytesla when I ordered the car.. Thankfully I saved it as I downloaded it on my Ipad as something to pass the time with while waiting for my car to arrive.

*drumroll*

Guess what?

-NO REFERENCE TO ECE R85 what so ever.
-No reference to any form of KW-rating or HP-rating what so ever actually in the entire owners manual.


Still think I should have figured this out on my own?

 

[sorka]

I hope that you realize that motor hp *is* torque for the tesla drivetrains. Take motor hp, multiply by 5,252 and divide by the rpm for the motor hp rating, and you get the very close approximation of torque (neglecting the torque ramp-up from stand still to about 1/3 of a second that it takes to get traction in order and ramp up to max torque).

As an engineer, I would be comfortable with torque and acceleration as well, but the unhappy owners and others were complaining that they *do not* want to bring an engineer to shop for the cutting edge technology car. As is evident from the majority of posts in related threads, they also do not have much appetite to learn about said car, even when information is repeatedly presented to them. So I doubt that providing information that you suggested would have eliminated the confusion.

As far as you suggestion that Tesla presented what it did because it conspired to mislead go, I do not buy it, not for a second. This is not a remotely reasonable conclusion.

All torque means is how much power is produced at a specific RPM. The P85D produces a lot of torque which means it produces more power at lower RPMs than an ICE does. If you turn off insane mode, the amount of torque drops 40% but the peak power is the same which is why two P85Ds side by side with the same SOC both punching it from 50 MPH will accelerate the same even though one has insane on and the other doesn't.

 

[Canuck]

My point is that if a firm decides to assemble a class and obtains the addresses of all registered P85D owners and sends them a letter soliciting them to be part of the class because their 691 hp car is really only 463. How many P85D owners are going to say no? My bet is most will join the class.

Really? I think most owners are very happy with their car, find it extremely fast, and the last thing they want is to be associated with some sleazy law firm suing Tesla. I think that letter is going right in the garbage for the vast majority of owners. Not that many know hp ratings in the first place.

Again, however, only time will tell. But I do find it sad when someone would jump into a lawsuit over hp ratings if that never came into play when they bought car. A defect, or spewing more toxins, makes sense to me. Jumping on the bandwagon in this one is simply wrong in my view. Please don't misinterpret me though: Those who bought based on published hp numbers are in a whole different ball park to me and, in my opinion, should be compensated by way of refund of the vehicle.

(Then be placed on a list never being allowed to buy a Tesla again... )

 

[darthy001]

When you say "consumers are heavily protected" in Scandinavia does that mean your government commences the action on behalf of wronged consumers?

This is actually what is happening at the moment in Norway. The official government funded consumer council is handling the direct dialogue with Tesla on behalf of 80+ owners, and they will _if_ they feel the need further the case towards the "Forbrukertvistutvalget" which is the final step before going to court in such cases here. A ruling in the "Forbrukertvistutvalget" is binding unless Tesla or the owners appeal the ruling and thus forces the case to go to the courts.

If it goes that far most likely one of the national automotive organisations would fund the lawyers working for the consumer side. This has happened in the past in a case against Nissan much less obvious than this one which they did lose in the end after winning the first case.

 

[rns-e]

Legal actions are never as simple as that. Not in Canada or the US at least, which follow the British common-law system. I think Norway follows the Scandinavian civil law tradition, which I have no idea about and therefore I can't comment on how it would resolve this dispute. Perhaps as simple as you claim but that would surprise me. Here, we allow for complex trials with often many lay witnesses, multiple expert witnesses on both sides, who are examined and cross-examined (bought and paid for by the party who retained them), then precedent case-law and relevant legislation is argued, and in the end one party always comes out as the ultimate winner: the lawyers.

When you say "consumers are heavily protected" in Scandinavia does that mean your government commences the action on behalf of wronged consumers? Or it is legislation that allows for civil penalties in actions brought by the consumer? Do those penalties go beyond compensation for actual losses and also invoke penalties that a consumer can resort to as opposed to government?

It is very different in Denmark and again a some difference between Denmark and Norway. When talking about protective consumer laws in Denmark, they clearly says that you are not allowed to display factually correct data in a way that may mislead the consumer, even if those data are required by law. Furthermore you are obligated to disclose any relevant information, so the consumer can make an informed buying decision. Furthermore you are obligated to make sure that data presented in a supposedly comparable form are in fact directly comparable, so the consumer is not mislead.

These things are very clearly spelled out in the Danish consumer protective laws. Leaving out vital information i.e. the use of roll out and the battery power limit does seam as if they violate consumer protective laws in Denmark. It is definitely not full disclosure and that alone is very bad when you are a business selling to consumers.

On the whole expert thing, that is also very very different in Denmark. Experts need to be approved beforehand by both parties and the judge and question are asked in writing prior to the expects testimony. Trials in Denmark are very undramatic and very very far from what you see in movies.

 

[WestCoastP85D]

I hope it doesn't come to this. Tesla knows what happened here and they have the ball (for now.) I think another Elon letter is in order... I certainly paid an additional $20K more for my car (over 85D) under incorrect perceptions, based entirely on the enthusiastic "691 hp" narrative from Tesla sales and marketing.

Really? I think most owners are very happy with their car, find it extremely fast, and the last thing they want is to be associated with some sleazy law firm suing Tesla. I think that letter is going right in the garbage for the vast majority of owners. Not that many know hp ratings in the first place.

Again, however, only time will tell. But I do find it sad when someone would jump into a lawsuit over hp ratings if that never came into play when they bought car. A defect, or spewing more toxins, makes sense to me. Jumping on the bandwagon in this one is simply wrong in my view. Please don't misinterpret me though: Those who bought based on published hp numbers are in a whole different ball park to me and, in my opinion, should be compensated by way of refund of the vehicle.

(Then be placed on a list never being allowed to buy a Tesla again... )

 

[Canuck]

It sounds like we can learn a lesson from Denmark and Norway on how to handle consumer complaints, among a lot of other things.

 

[brianman]

some sleazy law firm suing Tesla.

Some would argue the "sleazy law firm" might be redundant, but I wouldn't. That aside...

Why does a law firm have to be sleazy to concur with an owner having a grievance with Tesla?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for sharing this, rns-e:

It is very different in Denmark and again a some difference between Denmark and Norway. When talking about protective consumer laws in Denmark, they clearly says that you are not allowed to display factually correct data in a way that may mislead the consumer, even if those data are required by law. Furthermore you are obligated to disclose any relevant information, so the consumer can make an informed buying decision. Furthermore you are obligated to make sure that data presented in a supposedly comparable form are in fact directly comparable, so the consumer is not mislead.

These things are very clearly spelled out in the Danish consumer protective laws. Leaving out vital information i.e. the use of roll out and the battery power limit does seam as if they violate consumer protective laws in Denmark. It is definitely not full disclosure and that alone is very bad when you are a business selling to consumers.

On the whole expert thing, that is also very very different in Denmark. Experts need to be approved beforehand by both parties and the judge and question are asked in writing prior to the expects testimony. Trials in Denmark are very undramatic and very very far from what you see in movies.

"Hmm" re: underlined.

 

[rns-e]

It sounds like we can learn a lesson from Denmark and Norway on how to handles consumer complaints, among a lot of other things.

Why Denmark isnt the utopian fantasy Bernie Sanders describes - The Washington Post

and we have a lot we can learn from the US and the rest of the world

 

[dsm363]

We could all learn a lot from each other. Don't think anyone has it all figured out.

 

[sorka]

The distinction was clearly made where it matters: when ordering the vehicle, on the vehicle specs on the website, and in the user manual. Tesla was very careful about that.

These are all the reasons why it was *NOT* made clear:

• Tesla stated "691 hp motor power" on their website in multiple places. It did not state anywhere that "hp motor power" meant something other than hp produced by motors. There was no asterisk next to the horsepower spec stating that this is not actual horsepower produced by the production vehicle.
• The only place ECE R85 was referenced was inside the owners manuals and even these didn't contain the that reference until after the P85D was already shipping. Are we to expect that prospective buyers doing their research are supposed find this reference first in the owners manual?
• The subsystems page in the manual lists individual motor powers and does not add the front and rear motors together. In fact, if you add up front and rear motors, you get 728 hp, not 691 hp.
• Publications for over a year now have been publicizing 691 hp, not "hp motor power". Why hasn't tesla corrected them and why are they all still quoting 691 hp when the car only makes 480 to 555 (at the battery) hp depending on state of charge?
• The sales people repeatedly stated the P85D makes "691 horsepower" without ever adding the term "motor power".
• Elon Musk himself has been quoted as saying the P85D has 691 hp and did not use the term motor power. He's also been quoted as saying the P85D has 50% more power than the P85.
• If they were going to list a combined horsepower number, they had an obligation to list the power that the P85D actually makes. They do for the other Model S trims. In addition, since the P85D is the only Model S to lose power as the SOC declines in it's normal daily driving range, they should have clarified that the 555 hp is only at 90% SOC or greater and that below that, power will decline as charge declines. This is not true on the other Model S variants until you get much deeper in to charge state.
• Ignoring repeated multiple letters and emails over MONTHS asking for clarification about the horsepower rating. We get responses for everything else we ask but those that inquired about this got nothing. If they were being so above board about this with nothing to hide, how come they refused to respond to the question of "why is my car only making 480 to 555 hp (at the battery depending on SOC) when it was advertised at 691 hp"?
• Just because they test according to R85 to arrive at motor power ratings doesn't mean they get to use that in place of actual horsepower specified. Nowhere in the regulation does it state you can substitute horsepower rating of the vehicle with motor power capability of the drivetrain (with a power source not supplied). These are two entirely separate things. One is the actual horsepower produced by the vehicle. The other is an irrelevant specification that can't be reached with the shipping battery. It's only possible value would be knowing your drivetrain could handle more power if a battery with more power became available in the future.

 

[Canuck]

Why does a law firm have to be sleazy to concur with an owner having a grievance with Tesla?

It doesn't. I was using that term as someone who bought a P85D, loves the power, the car, Tesla, his/her life, comes home, looks in the mail, see the class action letter and thinks "sleazy law firm, into the garbage it goes." That was the context I was using it in. So please don't sue me for libel who ever does the class action...

I'm also the last one to call all lawyers or law firms sleazy, and for a very good reason.