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

[Canuck]

I think what a lot of this boils down to is a combination of two things.

One is what a reasonable person, with a reasonable amount of knowledge, who did a reasonable amount of research, would have thought he or she was receiving.

That's interesting. You've taken the "reasonable person" test that applies to defendants and applied it to plaintiffs. So, in other words, even if a person had no idea about the hp number, did not buy it based on that number, if a reasonable person would have "thought he was or she was receiving it" then the claim will be successful. I don't see it that way. In my view, it will go this way:

1. Did Tesla advertise a misleading number with regard to hp? If not, case dismissed, if yes, then:
2. Was there "reliance" by the plaintiff on that misleading number (based on facts and not "reasonable person" test). If not, case dismissed, if yes:
3. Does the contract govern so as to preclude any and all representations made prior to entering into the contract and/or does the parol evidence rule apply. If yes, case dismissed, if not:
4. Damages to be assessed.

Of course, court cases are much more complex than this, and I am only providing my personal view of a very boiled down and brief summary, but this how I see it. In North America at least, this seems like a very tough case.

I also think the Scandinavian situation won't turn out much different, at least if Tesla wants to be like Apple and force the issue through the Courts. The actual reality of the process in Scandinavian is quite different than what are what we are being told here by some of our Scandinavian fiends (with good but misinformed intentions I am certain). Perhaps for small disputes, their process works fine. But it seems large corporations have found out they have no teeth, to the point that even after making decisions the Scandinavian regulators try to mediate settlements or face litigation:

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 FairPlaydigital rights management (DRM) scheme.[SUP][241][/SUP]

 

[jpet]

When you had videos like this one comparing to a 691hp Lambo (this was from December 23, 2014). Can you blame them for making that comparison?

Yes because they made this claim long before any car was delivered in both Europe and the US. This is a chicken and egg issue. The Tesla Sales Advisor claim did not come after the Lambo video's. Those video's were made because there were claims that the P85D performed like a Lambo. It is very important to have the dates right in this matter.

 

[JonG]

That's interesting. You've taken the "reasonable person" test that applies to defendants and applied it to plaintiffs. So, in other words, even if a person had no idea about the hp number, did not buy it based on that number, if a reasonable person would have "thought he was or she was receiving it" then the claim will be successful. I don't see it that way. In my view, it will go this way:

1. Did Tesla advertise a misleading number with regard to hp? If not, case dismissed, if yes, then:
2. Was there "reliance" by the plaintiff on that misleading number (based on facts and not "reasonable person" test). If not, case dismissed, if yes:
3. Does the contract govern so as to preclude any and all representations made prior to entering into the contract and/or does the parol evidence rule apply. If yes, case dismissed, if not:
4. Damages to be assessed.

Of course, court cases are much more complex than this, and I am only providing my personal view of a very boiled down and brief summary, but this how I see it. In North America at least, this seems like a very tough case.

I also think the Scandinavian situation won't turn out much different, at least if Tesla wants to be like Apple and force the issue through the Courts. The actual reality of the process in Scandinavian is quite different than what are what we are being told here by some of our Scandinavian fiends (with good but misinformed intentions I am certain). Perhaps for small disputes, their process works fine. But it seems large corporations have found out they have no teeth, to the point that even after making decisions the Scandinavian regulators try to mediate settlements or face litigation:

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 FairPlaydigital rights management (DRM) scheme.[SUP][241][/SUP]

Are you a lawyer?

If not, and I guess you're not, please stop speculating.

 

[Canuck]

Are you a lawyer?

If not, and I guess you're not, please stop speculating.

Please don't tell people what they can and can't post. Posting speculation is fine. This a forum where people speculate on all sorts of things.

But to answer your question: yes. I've been a lawyer for over 20 years. However, what I post here are my own personal opinions and not legal opinions. As I've said before, I don't have the necessary facts required to provide a legal opinion nor would I ever do so on a public forum in any event.

 

[yak-55]

Back to an earlier part of the conversation, this really begs for a new metric. I understand it doesn't reduce easily to a sound byte, but Tesla marketing should take that as a challenge.
Here's how I would think about doing it: List 1) motor hp, 2) *HP, 3) torque, 4) new power metric (?kinetic energy produced up to 60 mph?). I'd pitch new power metric as the "magic" that makes the launch performance work. I'd write a blog and give heads up to all the rags... in it, I'd seek the comparative value of the new power metric for a bunch of competitive cars. Forgive me that I'm not an EE (and I didn't even sleep at Holiday Inn Express), but there's got to be some way to represent the "secret sauce". None of this fixes the water under the bridge, and I'm not suggesting it does.

No new metric is needed. What you seek is *torque* as delivered by the wheels to the road (ideally as a function of vehicle speed). This *fully* explains the launch performance. Unfortunately many (including Tesla) seem to want to obscure this with high peak hp ratings. Peak HP delivered (never mind an even higher theoretical rating) bears little relevance to the launch performance ... but it sells cars ...

 

[Hookmaker]

I don't mind you me telling that "I can't possibly have an opinion about what P85D owners think or don't think" because I don't own one. I bet I could buy more P85D's cash than you can but who cares? Your comment makes you look foolish not only for trying to act superior to me by owing one (which I take is your political correctness reference) but for your complete ignorance on how informed opinions are derived.

The most informed opinions on issues (not beliefs!) are based on objective and not subjective data. Owning one is subjective data.



The objective data currently available says it's less than 25% of P85D owners in Denmark. Sorry, but your informed opinion by owning ones doesn't correlate to the actual data currently available. We will have to wait for more data to see who is right but I reiterate my informed opinion that it is less than the majority of owners.



Now you're just being silly and making stuff up. If you can tell me for a "fact" then show me the data. If not, then it's just your opinion. And I know for a fact that you won't have any data to support what you claim to know as a fact.

You've said it yourself: Get objective. And you're questioning the facts? Are you closer to the lawyers that are running our case than I am? Why should I ever want to share my data with you, you have no interest because you are not an owner, simple as that. But since you're so loaded, be my guest - buy a dozen and feel the pain...;-)

 

[Canuck]

You've said it yourself: Get objective. And you're questioning the facts? Are you closer to the lawyers that are running our case than I am? Why should I ever want to share my data with you, you have no interest because you are not an owner, simple as that. But since you're so loaded, be my guest - buy a dozen and feel the pain...;-)

Nice story, and the ending gave me a laugh, but I don't buy any of it. There's no way in the world your lawyers have given you data that substantiates the allegation (not fact) that the majority of P85D owners in Denmark are involved. Also, by not telling me the data, you told me the data. In other words, the data comes from your lawyers signing up clients. Ha!

 

[rns-e]

So if you acknowledge Tesla never promised 691 hp at battery, shaft...etc than whatever they meant by hp motor power and that was simply your interpretation then that is progress. Tesla made it very clear in their blog post they never meant that so that is without question.

Tesla promised 691 hp, you and others say the promise was at the motors - fine. Show me a P85D on the road in the hands of an owner that produces 691 hp at the motors. If Tesla could give me that I would be glad.

We all know the motors do not produce 691 hp unless the are directly connected to the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.

Promising customers power that they can never experience (691 hp motor power) is not a promise, that is misleading. Yes, we get tremendous amounts of torque, which we love, but at no point do we get 691 hp motor power or any other form of 691 hp.

You can keep saying motor power this and motor power that, but not you or anybody will ever see the 691 hp motor power - they are not there.

The motors may be rated at a combined 691 hp max output as per some regulatory rule, but that rule does not say anything about the number must or shall be used when advertising the car. Tesla made the decision to do that, as per J.B. blogpost, because Tesla felt the number 691 hp motor power told the story they believed would sell the car the best way.

Some in here have been supportive of this assumption that 691 hp motor power tells a correct story about the P85D and at the same time again and again claiming HP does not mean anything, and the car is quick enough and it would not be any different if we had 691 hp at the motor shaft and and and.

Here we are - no 691 hp motor power or any 691 hp in sight, and people are still arguing 'motor power, motor power'.

The next poster that claims that we got 691 hp motor power, please provide the prof from a running P85D in form of graphs, pie charts, tables or what ever, just some kind of prof.

Selling a car as being able to produce 691 hp under conditions that customers can not replicate, means they could have sold the P85D as a 2,000 hp chassis power car, because the chassis can handle 2,000 hp if the battery and the motors supports it, which they don't - but hey, it is still a 2,000 hp chassis power car.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice story, and the ending gave me a laugh, but I don't buy any of it. There's no way in the world your lawyers have given you data that substantiates the allegation (not fact) that the majority of P85D owners in Denmark are involved. Also, by not telling me the data, you told me the data. In other words, the data comes from your lawyers signing up clients. Ha!

Ha? - If it is laughs we are looking for, it is going to be interesting to see who will have the last laugh. For the record it was 25% of Norwegian owners, not Danish owners, and that number is closer to 30% now. But I guess Tesla is just laughing with you, that 1/3 of the owners of their flagship model in their second biggest market, is looking to take legal actions against them. Personally I would not laugh, but we are obviously different here, and something tells me that some at Tesla does not find it laughable either.

 

[Canuck]

Ha? - If it is laughs we are looking for, it is going to be interesting to see who will have the last laugh. For the record it was 25% of Norwegian owners, not Danish owners, and that number is closer to 30% now. But I guess Tesla is just laughing with you, that 1/3 of the owners of their flagship model in their second biggest market, is looking to take legal actions against them. Personally I would not laugh, but we are obviously different here, and something tells me that some at Tesla does not find it laughable either.

Give it a break. Tesla is not in trouble. Sorry to break the news to you but this is a very minor issue. Tesla is much more concerned about this issue in Denmark affecting sales than the hp issue:

Tesla Sales in Denmark Could See 800% Tax Increase - TESLARATI.com

And no one is laughing at you -- not me or Tesla. I laughed at Hookmaker's joke to me, and the irony in him telling me his data without telling me. No one is laughing about this issue. You need to lighten up. Life's short and we will all be dead before you know it. If you can't have a laugh now and then, even when dealing with trouble, then you make life not worth living.

I'm taking a break from this thread for a while. It's getting too personal and sombre here.

(I can hear the applause now and people yelling "don't let the door hit you on the way out." :smile: )

 

[lolachampcar]

Many thanks to MarcG and Yo Mamma back to back P85D v P85DL

Ludicrous Upgrade Scheduling? - Page 15

Model	50-80 mph	60-85 mph
P85D Insane	3.4 seconds	3.3 seconds
P85D Ludicrous	2.9 seconds	2.7 seconds

 

[dsm363]

Tesla promised 691 hp, you and others say the promise was at the motors - fine. Show me a P85D on the road in the hands of an owner that produces 691 hp at the motors. If Tesla could give me that I would be glad.

We all know the motors do not produce 691 hp unless the are directly connected to the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.

Promising customers power that they can never experience (691 hp motor power) is not a promise, that is misleading. Yes, we get tremendous amounts of torque, which we love, but at no point do we get 691 hp motor power or any other form of 691 hp.

You can keep saying motor power this and motor power that, but not you or anybody will ever see the 691 hp motor power - they are not there.

The motors may be rated at a combined 691 hp max output as per some regulatory rule, but that rule does not say anything about the number must or shall be used when advertising the car. Tesla made the decision to do that, as per J.B. blogpost, because Tesla felt the number 691 hp motor power told the story they believed would sell the car the best way.

Some in here have been supportive of this assumption that 691 hp motor power tells a correct story about the P85D and at the same time again and again claiming HP does not mean anything, and the car is quick enough and it would not be any different if we had 691 hp at the motor shaft and and and.

Here we are - no 691 hp motor power or any 691 hp in sight, and people are still arguing 'motor power, motor power'.

The next poster that claims that we got 691 hp motor power, please provide the prof from a running P85D in form of graphs, pie charts, tables or what ever, just some kind of prof.

Selling a car as being able to produce 691 hp under conditions that customers can not replicate, means they could have sold the P85D as a 2,000 hp chassis power car, because the chassis can handle 2,000 hp if the battery and the motors supports it, which they don't - but hey, it is still a 2,000 hp chassis power car.

You are entirely correct. It very well may be misleading. The regulatory rule doesn't mandate adversing of any specific number either was as far as people have posted. If Tesla followed the regulatory rule to a T and didn't falsely advertise something the rule states then you might not have a case. You can argue they were misleading and you might win over there but not sure about in the US.

The same can go the other way. Please provide proof in the form of writing from Tesla that said the 691 hp motor power meant it was produced in the car and not following the regulatory rule that allows them to be separate from the car and to a different power source.

If they had advertised 2,000 hp chassis power car and I had never heard of that and it wasn't certified by SAE then I probably would have checked to see what they meant and gotten it in writing before buying. That's just me though. Everyone is different and assumes different levels of risk when buying something.

 

[gsxdsm]

Tesla promised 691 hp, you and others say the promise was at the motors - fine. Show me a P85D on the road in the hands of an owner that produces 691 hp at the motors. If Tesla could give me that I would be glad.

We all know the motors do not produce 691 hp unless the are directly connected to the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.

Promising customers power that they can never experience (691 hp motor power) is not a promise, that is misleading. Yes, we get tremendous amounts of torque, which we love, but at no point do we get 691 hp motor power or any other form of 691 hp.

You can keep saying motor power this and motor power that, but not you or anybody will ever see the 691 hp motor power - they are not there.

The motors may be rated at a combined 691 hp max output as per some regulatory rule, but that rule does not say anything about the number must or shall be used when advertising the car. Tesla made the decision to do that, as per J.B. blogpost, because Tesla felt the number 691 hp motor power told the story they believed would sell the car the best way.

Some in here have been supportive of this assumption that 691 hp motor power tells a correct story about the P85D and at the same time again and again claiming HP does not mean anything, and the car is quick enough and it would not be any different if we had 691 hp at the motor shaft and and and.

Here we are - no 691 hp motor power or any 691 hp in sight, and people are still arguing 'motor power, motor power'.

The next poster that claims that we got 691 hp motor power, please provide the prof from a running P85D in form of graphs, pie charts, tables or what ever, just some kind of prof.

Selling a car as being able to produce 691 hp under conditions that customers can not replicate, means they could have sold the P85D as a 2,000 hp chassis power car, because the chassis can handle 2,000 hp if the battery and the motors supports it, which they don't - but hey, it is still a 2,000 hp chassis power car.

The motors are rated at 691hp combined. That is what Tesla sold and that is what we received. Producing 691hp is irrelevant. The motors perform the way they do because they are rated at 691hp. If you took the same battery output and put a motor that was rated 100hp, the car would not perform the same way. Therefore, the motor rating of 691hp tells us a tremendous amount of information about the capability of the motor you are buying. Period.

 

[jpet]

The motors are rated at 691hp combined. That is what Tesla sold and that is what we received.

Very interesting. The Michelin PS2 tires on my P85D are rated at 300 km/h (186 mph). Maybe Tesla should advertise 186 mph in stead of 155 mph too?

 

[nikwest]

Very interesting. The Michelin PS2 tires on my P85D are rated at 300 km/h (186 mph). Maybe Tesla should advertise 186 mph in stead of 155 mph too?

Funny enough the P85D can only sustain 155mph for a short time while the S85D can do it for a much longer time.

 

[gsxdsm]

Very interesting. The Michelin PS2 tires on my P85D are rated at 300 km/h (186 mph). Maybe Tesla should advertise 186 mph in stead of 155 mph too?

If Tesla said 186 mph tire power, then yes they could advertise it. Why not?

When you go to buy new tires and see they say 186 mph, do you get angry and sue Michelin because your car couldn't get them up to 186 mph? Or do you understand that the fact that they are rated at 186 mph provides other benefits and capabilities that are useful at lower speeds. For example, a tired rated up to 186 mph might just perform a little better 0-60 than a tire rated up to say 80 mph.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Very interesting. The Michelin PS2 tires on my P85D are rated at 300 km/h (186 mph). Maybe Tesla should advertise 186 mph in stead of 155 mph too?

Not anywhere the same. The top speed metric of a car has no ambiguity as it is always measured system-wise. If they want to say "186mph tire top speed," nothing is stopping them either though.

This is different from HP which is never measured system-wise by automakers and has always been described in relation to the engine/motor (even the current battery-limited numbers are at the motor shaft, not at wheels). SAE net power in an ICE attempts to capture most of the upstream system, but it's not quite there (SAE certified is a lot better).

That remains me of another analogy someone attempted about giving the differential power, which also does not apply.

 

[chickensevil]

The motors are rated at 691hp combined. That is what Tesla sold and that is what we received. Producing 691hp is irrelevant. The motors perform the way they do because they are rated at 691hp. If you took the same battery output and put a motor that was rated 100hp, the car would not perform the same way. Therefore, the motor rating of 691hp tells us a tremendous amount of information about the capability of the motor you are buying. Period.

Actually to that end if you note there is a difference in performance between the 85D and the P85D, yet they both have the same battery... So I wonder what could possibly be the difference between the two cars... Hrmmm could it be the larger and more capable motor in the back?

Or look at the 85 vs the 85D and the performance difference. Maybe the two motors producing 259 HP vs one motor producing 382HP has something to do with it?

They all have the same batteries the only difference between the three cars is the drive units each capable of outputing more power over the other. The torque numbers also change with each car maybe because of those motors that everyone keeps complaining about...

 

[vgrinshpun]

This is plausible (but unsupported by data outside Tesla). And while an elegant and circuitous way to realize its the low speed torque that is "responsible" for the high 0-60 acceleration, we agree. The problem with talking about a peak HP RATING to infer something about low speed torque is that the peak rating ALSO implies something about the car's performance at high speed. This high speed behavior is never witnessed because the CAR never produces the RATED hp. This is misleading and invites false comparisons to other cars that do produce (something close) to their rated peak hp.

If Tesla wants to publish the huge torque figures produced by the car great. But that's not what they are doing. They are over-reaching with marketing to claim silly hp numbers for the car, and then hiding behind a European part specification to defend themselves. The wheels may be rated for 1000 hp, but it would be misleading to use that to suggest the P85D is comparable to a Veyron (or Maclaren).

Thank you for taking time to read through the post explaining basics of the power/torque characteristics of the Tesla drivetrain. Understanding these basics is an absolute must before anybody can attempt the comparison based on hp rating across drivetrains with vastly different technologies (EV vs. ICE). I have explained in detail why hp per lb of car weight is a legitimate metric to use for comparison between the ICE cars, but does not work in comparison between an EV and ICE car here.

According to the Second Newton's Law, for a given object (mass) the acceleration at any speed is defined by Force (linear motion)/ Torque (rotational motion). As can be seen from the explanation of the EV curves, which are addressed in detail here, the torque curve for an EV is not uniquely identified by the max hp rating. There is a trade-off between the low and high speed acceleration. As explained in the post referenced above, acceleration within the constant torque region of the curves is defined by the angle the power curve forms with the rpm(speed) axis, i.e. by torque rating of the motor. The steeper the curve, the faster the acceleration from the stand still. The problem, however, is that the steeper the slope of the power curve (i.e. the higher the motor torque rating), the lower the rpm coordinate of the inflection point between the constant torque and constant power portions of the curves. Since the torque produced by the motor declines proportionately to rpm (speed) in the constant horsepower region of the curves (note, there is no transmission to augment this), the lower rpm coordinate of the inflection point leads to lower torque at a given rpm past the inflection point (constant horsepower portion of the curves). Simply put, based on the above, for an EV drivetrain similar to Tesla's, a design with a higher (rated) torque, i.e. torque in the constant torque region of the curve, inevitably leads to the lower torque at a given (high) rpm (speed) beyond the inflection point, on the constant power portion of the curve.

The result of the above is that comparison that technically minded unhappy owners attempted to use to arrive at their conclusion about the high speed acceleration capabilities of P85D as compared with a hypothetical ICE car was not valid. Another problem, of course, that Tesla did not market P85D using the high speed acceleration capabilities to begin with.

So here you have it, the reason for the confusion is not entirely Tesla's fault, the fault lies with the new technology which is not analogous to the old one, with the resulting confusion at any attempt for drawing any expectations based on comparison across the differing technologies.

As for what Tesla should've done, any of the proposed solutions end up with it's own hefty baggage of deficiencies. As you can see from this and other horsepower related threads, it is very difficult to communicate technical concepts required to understand the issue to a wider audience, that might not necessary have technical background, especially when it is required to do not in an engineering classroom setting, but in a one page of a Web Site/marketing materials.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Am I the only one here that looks at the P85+ (my old car) and the P85D (the current one) and thinks-

Ok, they are drawing 25%-33% more power from the battery which explains some of the difference and
They are putting the power down via four versus two wheels with some most excellent traction/launch control enabling 1.6 sec 60 foot times.

I'm sure if you peek around under her skirt you can desect the hardware specs sufficiently to claim it is the bigger motor's ability to suck more current at very low rpms thus the motor rated horsepower is relevant. I can not and will not argue with that but it is meaningless when you consider where the performance gains actually come from and the idea that Tesla likely made no changes to the rear P drive unit thus it is likely exactly the same between the two cars, just provided with more current (battery, not motor based).

These rated HP numbers discussions are what I am referring to when I say people are going to extremes to explain how Tesla is technically correct in their combined motor hp statements. They may very well be but that is not why the PD is faster.

I do agree that Tesla was put in the awkward position of having to generate one liners for the press that truly represent how brilliant the PD actually is. I simply think 691 was not the right choice especially given hindsight and the current backlash. Then again, everything is obvious with the benefit of time.

There are few factual inaccuracies in the above.

First, P85D battery limiting hp is 463 vs. 417 for P85+. So the increase is only 11%, not the 25%-33% mentioned. This difference does not explain the improvement in 0 to 60 performance at all. This difference is just enough to compensate for the heavier drivetrain in P85D vs P85+ at higher speeds. The true and only reason for the improved low end acceleration of P85D is P85+ is the fact that P85D has about 50% higher combined motor rating than P85+. the direct result of this is that from a stand still P85D has about 50% higher torque as compared to P85+, which directly responsible for the 0.8 sec improvement in 0 to 60 acceleration.

It is indisputable fact that improvement in 0 to 60 acceleration of P85D over P85(+) is due to higher combined power rating of the motors, it is exactly why PD is faster.

As for the "extremes" that the discussion needs to be taken to explain the above, it is just a function of complicated technical background of this issue, and innovative approach Tesla took to wringing out unbelievable performance in spite of the limitation imposed by the battery's power output. Sorry, but one can not discuss this issue without understanding the technical background. Repeating ad nauseam argument about "fake hp" "not achievable anywhere in the car", as some (not you) do around these horsepower threads does not serve any purpose except preserving the righteousness of a seriously misguided and flawed argument.

 

[rns-e]

Give it a break. Tesla is not in trouble. Sorry to break the news to you but this is a very minor issue. Tesla is much more concerned about this issue in Denmark affecting sales than the hp issue:

Tesla Sales in Denmark Could See 800% Tax Increase - TESLARATI.com

And no one is laughing at you -- not me or Tesla. I laughed at Hookmaker's joke to me, and the irony in him telling me his data without telling me. No one is laughing about this issue. You need to lighten up. Life's short and we will all be dead before you know it. If you can't have a laugh now and then, even when dealing with trouble, then you make life not worth living.

I'm taking a break from this thread for a while. It's getting too personal and sombre here.

(I can hear the applause now and people yelling "don't let the door hit you on the way out." :smile: )

The tax issue is serious for all EV cars in Denmark, but that is in no way Teslas fault/responsibility, although Tesla, and especially the P85D, is main reason the majority voted for registration tax on EV cars. Registration tax on a 70 rwd will be very small, but it will be close to a 100% on the P85D in 2016 and increase to 150% over the following years.

That is down to bad lobbyist work from EV interest, while ICE lobbyist have succeeded with getting the registration tax on new cars down from 180% to 150% all after 25% vat. It basically just means that EV cars within the next few years gradually will compete on equal terms with all other cars, much similar to the US and a lot of other countries.

I understand you think the 691 case is a hick-up for Tesla, but if Tesla in some way (and I get that you think there is no way) is held responsible and are to compensate P85D owners, I believe it will prove to be very serious for a company like Tesla. Tesla should have limited the potential liability much much earlier, but they did not.

- - - Updated - - -

The same can go the other way. Please provide proof in the form of writing from Tesla that said the 691 hp motor power meant it was produced in the car and not following the regulatory rule that allows them to be separate from the car and to a different power source.

That would be implied since the motors are part of the car and can not be removed by the owners and used in any other setting without voiding the warranty and Tesla did not state that it was outside the car. Or else we are back at the 300 km/h tires and 2,000 hp chassis power