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

[sorka]

"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.

The ordering page said "691 hp ​motor power".

 

[Andyw2100]

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... :wink: )

I don't understand why you believe this should be such an "all or nothing" situation. I don't know of too many, if any P85D owners who have said, "Because the car doesn't make 691 HP I don't want it." We can be generally pleased with our cars, but still unsatisfied about having been mislead with respect to the amount of power they were going to be able to make.

In my case, as I've said before, the actual HP numbers didn't mean very much, as I was new to sports cars, and had no background in them. What struck a chord with me was the "half again as much power" comment from Musk. I knew how happy people were with the Model S he was referring to as the base, and how powerful it was, so the thought that my car would be 50% more powerful than that sounded really impressive. I think some sort of compensation is in order for the fact that it isn't. That doesn't mean I want to give up my car, and get all my money back.

 

[Canuck]

[/COLOR]

I don't understand why you believe this should be such an "all or nothing" situation. I don't know of too many, if any P85D owners who have said, "Because the car doesn't make 691 HP I don't want it." We can be generally pleased with our cars, but still unsatisfied about having been mislead with respect to the amount of power they were going to be able to make.

In my case, as I've said before, the actual HP numbers didn't mean very much, as I was new to sports cars, and had no background in them. What struck a chord with me was the "half again as much power" comment from Musk. I knew how happy people were with the Model S he was referring to as the base, and how powerful it was, so the thought that my car would be 50% more powerful than that sounded really impressive. I think some sort of compensation is in order for the fact that it isn't. That doesn't mean I want to give up my car, and get all my money back.

Because otherwise it sounds like just a money grab to me. Tort law requires the defendant to place the plaintiff in the same position had the tort not occurred. It generally does not allow for betterment. For some to get a P85D for $20k less than others is not a fair resolution, in my opinion.

My position, however, doesn't seem fair when it comes to those who upgraded from a P85+ to P85D based primarily on the HP number. I think those people should be given the option of full refund or the difference of their money back, plus taxes and other provable losses, and a CPO P85+ with similar miles and options.

 

[Andyw2100]

Because otherwise it sounds like just a money grab to me. Tort law requires the defendant to place the plaintiff in the same position had the tort not occurred. It generally does not allow for betterment. For some to get a P85D for $20k less than others is not a fair resolution, in my opinion.

My position, however, doesn't seem fair when it comes to those who upgraded from a P85+ to P85D based primarily on the HP number. I think those people should be given the option of full refund or the difference of their money back, plus taxes and other provable losses, and a CPO P85+ with similar miles and options.

Those of us in the position I'm in would be perfectly happy to accept a battery pack capable of actually producing the 691 HP if Tesla were capable of providing it. I'm guessing that based on what you wrote above, if Tesla announced tomorrow a 110 kW pack that would be capable of allowing the car to produce 691 HP, you would not believe that it would be appropriate for Tesla to replace our packs with those because we'd be getting the benefit of "betterment" in the form of increased range, right?

It seems to me that common sense would dictate that if the only remedy that is capable of undoing the injury available to the injured party has a side benefit of betterment, then the injured party should be allowed to benefit from this betterment, since it is the best option. In my example, Tesla winds up resolving the problem, and supplying some extra range in the process. That would seem to leave the customers closer to what the goal of purchasing the car was than forcing them to return the cars. Since it was Tesla that was culpable, a solution along those lines would seem appropriate, from a common sense standpoint, but of course I am not a lawyer.

 

[P85DEE]

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.

...

I can say beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such a letter would end up in my shredder along with the rest of my daily junk mail.

I'm not interested in a $36.00 check at the cost of trampling over Tesla.

 

[sorka]

I can say beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such a letter would end up in my shredder along with the rest of my daily junk mail.

I'm not interested in a $36.00 check at the cost of trampling over Tesla.

$36 check? Where do you get that from?

 

[Stoneymonster]

$36 check? Where do you get that from?

I'm guessing experience with class action lawsuits

 

[brianman]

Those of us in the position I'm in would be perfectly happy to accept a battery pack capable of actually producing the 691 HP if Tesla were capable of providing it. I'm guessing that based on what you wrote above, if Tesla announced tomorrow a 110 kW pack that would be capable of allowing the car to produce 691 HP, you would not believe that it would be appropriate for Tesla to replace our packs with those because we'd be getting the benefit of "betterment" in the form of increased range, right?

It seems to me that common sense would dictate that if the only remedy that is capable of undoing the injury available to the injured party has a side benefit of betterment, then the injured party should be allowed to benefit from this betterment, since it is the best option. In my example, Tesla winds up resolving the problem, and supplying some extra range in the process. That would seem to leave the customers closer to what the goal of purchasing the car was than forcing them to return the cars. Since it was Tesla that was culpable, a solution along those lines would seem appropriate, from a common sense standpoint, but of course I am not a lawyer.

Or just software limit the 110kWh pack to equivalent range to the degraded back being replaced. I suspect Andy would be fine with that option too.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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."


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).

I'm not really buying your analogy. I don't think anyone was ever confused when Elon said the car has "691hp" that he was referring to motor output (not battery input from a supercharger as in your example). If Elon said the car was a "120kW car", I think people can figure (even in countries where kW is used to specify engine/motor output), that the number is not talking about the motor output.

Also for this line, you don't just get to replace "motor or engine" with "battery pack" and still have a coherent argument. In all the vehicle power standards I listed, the follow comment applies. It does not apply when you replace "battery pack" into it.
"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."

Of course if you want to go to extreme analogies, nothing stops you from saying a car is a "50kW car," for example for a CHAdeMO based car. In fact, I have used such phrasing before in another thread just recently (before you made your comment, in case you think I made it up)!

That is only fine if the automakers are willing pay twice as much to support 50kW EVs, meaning for example if such an adapter would cost $5000 for a 100kW EV, it would cost $10000 for a 50kW EV. I see no good reason why the automaker doesn't just make the EV capable of 100kW instead (which is what Tesla has been saying would be required to be done to use the network).

 

[dsm363]

Those of us in the position I'm in would be perfectly happy to accept a battery pack capable of actually producing the 691 HP if Tesla were capable of providing it. I'm guessing that based on what you wrote above, if Tesla announced tomorrow a 110 kW pack that would be capable of allowing the car to produce 691 HP, you would not believe that it would be appropriate for Tesla to replace our packs with those because we'd be getting the benefit of "betterment" in the form of increased range, right?

It seems to me that common sense would dictate that if the only remedy that is capable of undoing the injury available to the injured party has a side benefit of betterment, then the injured party should be allowed to benefit from this betterment, since it is the best option. In my example, Tesla winds up resolving the problem, and supplying some extra range in the process. That would seem to leave the customers closer to what the goal of purchasing the car was than forcing them to return the cars. Since it was Tesla that was culpable, a solution along those lines would seem appropriate, from a common sense standpoint, but of course I am not a lawyer.

It would be far cheaper for Tesla to buy the car back and sell it again than offer someone a 110kWh new battery pack and then have to deal with a used 85kWh pack they can't sell.

 

[Canuck]

I'm guessing that based on what you wrote above, if Tesla announced tomorrow a 110 kW pack that would be capable of allowing the car to produce 691 HP, you would not believe that it would be appropriate for Tesla to replace our packs with those because we'd be getting the benefit of "betterment" in the form of increased range, right?

You should get the 110 kW battery -- but only for those, like you, who bought based on the published hp number. How that can be determined is another thing. The increased range betterment is outweighed, in my opinion, by you getting what you thought you had paid for in the first place. Range can be software reduced but that seems petty.

 

[Brit4864]

I don't know of too many, if any P85D owners who have said, "Because the car doesn't make 691 HP I don't want it." We can be generally pleased with our cars, but still unsatisfied about having been mislead with respect to the amount of power they were going to be able to make.

That describes my feeling perfectly.

 

[JBrown4390]

You should get the 110 kW battery -- but only for those, like you, who bought based on the published hp number. How that can be determined is another thing. The increased range betterment is outweighed, in my opinion, by you getting what you thought you had paid for in the first place. Range can be software reduced but that seems petty.

That would perfect as the range on a P85D is not what was advertised either this would correct both issues.

 

[P85DEE]

I'm guessing experience with class action lawsuits

You got it.

And I was being generous in the estimate.

 

[Andyw2100]

It would be far cheaper for Tesla to buy the car back and sell it again than offer someone a 110kWh new battery pack and then have to deal with a used 85kWh pack they can't sell.

But it shouldn't be up to Tesla! That's my point!

Tesla was in the wrong, by failing to meet the original specs. If this were to go to court, and they were to lose, they should not get to decide how to settle things the way that works out the best for them. Things should be settled such that the customers come out as close as possible to what they were to have in the first place, and if they have to wind up with more, then so be it. If Tesla had delivered properly in the first place, they wouldn't be in that situation.

Telling customers, "Yeah, Tesla messed up, so the only option is you give your car back and get your money back" is not an appropriate solution.

 

[Canuck]

Telling customers, "Yeah, Tesla messed up, so the only option is you give your car back and get your money back" is not an appropriate solution.

That's where you lose me and I raise my eyebrows about intentions. To say, I want to keep my car and be compensated doesn't sit well with me at all. If you could get the exact specs you paid for, fine, but we know they can't do that. So the only other is a total refund or nothing. If you don't want a refund, then you have basically said: I would make the purchase again knowing what I know now. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Andyw2100]

That's where you lose me and I raise my eyebrows about intentions. To say, I want to keep my car and be compensated doesn't sit well with me at all. If you could get the exact specs you paid for, fine, but we know they can't do that. So the only other is a total refund or nothing. If you don't want a refund, then you have basically said: I would make the purchase again knowing what I know now. At least that's how I see it.

I would be perfectly happy with a car that really made 691 HP.

But if Tesla isn't going to be able to provide that then yes, I would like to keep my car, and in some way be compensated for the fact that the car delivered was less than the car advertised.

I don't think there is anything disingenuous about that. I'm generally very happy with the car. I'm just not happy about the fact that I didn't get everything I thought I was paying for.

Now if there were two options--get the horsepower as originally advertised, or get $x amount of money back, you could conceivably question the motives of anyone who chose $x amount of money back.

But I don't see why you would question the motives of someone wanting to keep the car who has repeatedly said they are basically happy with the car.

 

[dsm363]

That would perfect as the range on a P85D is not what was advertised either this would correct both issues.

How was the range not as advertised?

 

[dsm363]

But it shouldn't be up to Tesla! That's my point!

Tesla was in the wrong, by failing to meet the original specs. If this were to go to court, and they were to lose, they should not get to decide how to settle things the way that works out the best for them. Things should be settled such that the customers come out as close as possible to what they were to have in the first place, and if they have to wind up with more, then so be it. If Tesla had delivered properly in the first place, they wouldn't be in that situation.

Telling customers, "Yeah, Tesla messed up, so the only option is you give your car back and get your money back" is not an appropriate solution.

It is an appropriate solution. You would be made whole like the whole thing never happened. You could then swear off Tesla forever since they wronged you so greatly or buy the new 110kWh version now that you are better informed about motor power and that Tesla is advertising some sort of system power now.

If Telsa had advertised 691 hp with no motor power term thrown in there it would be a slam dunk case for you but that's not what happened. Sure what they did was misleading or confusing and they seem to have acknowledged that.

How would giving you every cent you spent on the car back not 'make it right'? You would have driven one of the best sedans on the road around for a year plus and not spent a dime. It would be up to you then if you wanted to buy a new Tesla or not with the proper knowledge this time.

 

[dsm363]

That's where you lose me and I raise my eyebrows about intentions. To say, I want to keep my car and be compensated doesn't sit well with me at all. If you could get the exact specs you paid for, fine, but we know they can't do that. So the only other is a total refund or nothing. If you don't want a refund, then you have basically said: I would make the purchase again knowing what I know now. At least that's how I see it.

Exactly. Being this upset about a number but turning down a full refund on a product that was used for well over a year is beyond confusing.