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

[Kalllagtunet]

The forbrukerobudet is not the same as forbrukerrådet!

Here you can find all you want to know first hand...

About forbrukerrådet:

Om oss : Forbrukerrådet

Vedtekter for Forbrukerrådet : Forbrukerrådet

Forbrukerrådets frivillige meklingstilbud : Forbrukerrådet

About forbrukerombudet:

Om Forbrukerombudet -

Saksgang hos Forbrukarombodet -

 

[Canuck]

Here you can find all you want to know first hand... The forbrukerobudet is not the same as forbrukerrådet!

About forbrukerrådet:

Om oss : Forbrukerrådet

Vedtekter for Forbrukerrådet : Forbrukerrådet

Forbrukerrådets frivillige meklingstilbud : Forbrukerrådet

About forbrukerombudet:

Om Forbrukerombudet -

Well that explains it.... lol...

Saying "The forbrukerobudet is not the same as forbrukerrådet!" only begs the question: Then why not proceed in the forbrukerrådet?

 

[Kalllagtunet]

Google translate is your friend!

Consumer Ombudsman (forbrukerombudet) not resolve disputes between consumers and businesses.

 

[wk057]

Well that explains it.... lol...

Sounds like you're going to need to learn Norwegian to continue the argument.

 

[Auzie]

I miss the old days when everything for me was black and white. Law school really polluted the engineering degree

I came to this thread thinking my European friends were nuts. How could you possibly complain about the performance of the P85D being sub-par? My car, as delivered, beat the advertised 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. You people are just nuts.

Then I listened.

I came to appreciate relying on Tesla's representations when buying the car for the first time. I came to believe that the roll out concept may not exist on the other side of the pond. Most importantly, I came to respect and trust the honesty exuded by some of those European posters. I have been equally embarrassed by other posters from the US that use intellect in an attempt to chase away opposing positions.

It is also clear to me that intelligence has nothing to do with empathy given some of the well thought out and well written arguments in this thread that completely ignore the concept that others do not see things through one set of eyes.

Lastly, it is more than clear that Tesla did one of their pricing slight of hands on the performance specs of the P85D. Point to all the justifications in the world but it is what it is. There is no way to see this from another angle like there is the roll out issue. Tesla simply played fast and loose with the facts to achieve a goal.

What this means to me is I have a little less trust for management which continues a slow erosion process (details on request). Tesla, in total, is still much better than any other car company IMO. Their overall approach to sales and customer service more than makes up for shenanigans in marketing and business. I just can not make it to WK's position just yet and still enjoy my interactions with the company and especially the local personnel.

Yep, gone are the days of black and white for me.

I agree with you that European customers genuinely believe that Tesla misled them.

I do not agree with your statement in bold (my bold). I can see the set up that led to this unfortunate outcome from a very different angle. You speak quite well about empathy in your post. Can you empathise with me and believe me when I say that I am able to see not just one, but more than one angle that could have led to the set up that contributed to customers feeling misled? I am not able to say with certainty where the truth lies, but I can make my evaluations based on experience and based on balance of probabilities and common sense.

I find it highly unlikely that Tesla intentionally and deliberately chose to misrepresent the car. That explanation is simple but it does not fit in a complex reality.

I find it more likely that Tesla did not pay sufficient attention to their pitch because their focus was most likely elsewhere, probably on the car itself, not on the message. They have not thought out or focused on how their pitch might come across to their audience and the potential consequences that might bring.

I find this latter scenario more likely simply because I see it play out daily, in various situations and with most people. It often plays out here, on these threads. People often say words that may confuse the other party. In most of these situations where confusion occurs and people care about clarity, people get a chance to clarify and to correct their message.

Unfortunately, Tesla could not clarify their pitch for various reasons, one of the obvious reasons being that clarification after the fact (purchase) rarely works, it only works upfront. I think Tomas pointed out up thread, clarification after threats of legal action usually backfires.

 

[bonnie]

I agree with you that European customers genuinely believe that Tesla misled them.

I do not agree with your statement in bold (my bold). I can see the set up that led to this unfortunate outcome from a very different angle. You speak quite well about empathy in your post. Can you empathise with me and believe me when I say that I am able to see not just one, but more than one angle that could have led to the set up that contributed to customers feeling misled? I am not able to say with certainty where the truth lies, but I can make my evaluations based on experience and based on balance of probabilities and common sense.

I find it highly unlikely that Tesla intentionally and deliberately chose to misrepresent the car. That explanation is simple but it does not fit in a complex reality.

I find it more likely that Tesla did not pay sufficient attention to their pitch because their focus was most likely elsewhere, probably on the car itself, not on the message. They have not thought out or focused on how their pitch might come across to their audience and the potential consequences that might bring.

I find this latter scenario more likely simply because I see it play out daily, in various situations and with most people. It often plays out here, on these threads. People often say words that may confuse the other party. In most of these situations where confusion occurs and people care about clarity, people get a chance to clarify and to correct their message.

Unfortunately, Tesla could not clarify their pitch for various reasons, one of the obvious reasons being that clarification after the fact (purchase) rarely works, it only works upfront. I think Tomas pointed out up thread, clarification after threats of legal action usually backfires.

Absolutely agree with you 100%. wk and I had an exchange earlier today, where he was sure that either I was wrong or Tesla was wrong - reality was he just was confused over Roadster models. Not a big deal. No one was operating with bad intent. Just a misunderstanding of some key basic info. I can absolutely see how a marketing team could misunderstand an unclear engineering comm (even though *cough* engineers are always good at that stuff ).

 

[Canuck]

Disputes get really bad when people imply improper motives, especially when there may be none. In my view, it's best to err on the side of caution, and give the benefit of any doubt (while still making your arguments forcefully) before going down that road. Taking the high road is always the better road.

In this dispute, whether the misrepresentation was innocent, negligent, grossly negligent, or intentional, doesn't change the fact that there was misrepresentation, at least according to the owners. And going to Tesla with the misrepresentation position only, rather than, in effect, calling them a "con artist" on this issue, is taking the high road, and also makes the complainant's position easier to support. In fact, there's no need to prove it was intentional to be entitled to damages. If someone rear ends me, I need the damage fixed. Whether he did it intentionally or not, doesn't change the fact that I need the damage fixed. And, unless I have some pretty damn good evidence that he did it intentionally I shouldn't be alleging he did.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[Andyw2100]

I get lots of entertainment reading Wk and Tesla marketing explaining themselves what they really mean by "not buying another product" versus "691 hp." :biggrin:

The difference, though, is that wk doesn't have a business relationship with most of us, and thus owes us nothing. Tesla, on the other hand, does have a business relationship with many of us.

 

[wk057]

Absolutely agree with you 100%. wk and I had an exchange earlier today, where he was sure that either I was wrong or Tesla was wrong - reality was he just was confused over Roadster models. Not a big deal. No one was operating with bad intent. Just a misunderstanding of some key basic info. I can absolutely see how a marketing team could misunderstand an unclear engineering comm (even though *cough* engineers are always good at that stuff ).

Hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Means I have the correct info from then on.

I can't say the same about many others here, however...

 

[Auzie]

The difference, though, is that wk doesn't have a business relationship with most of us, and thus owes us nothing. Tesla, on the other hand, does have a business relationship with many of us.

In this situation, Tesla buying back your car minus depreciation could be considered fair. Or maybe not.

In this particular situation, US customers had far more chance than European customers to evaluate the car prior to purchase.

US customer's failure to inform themselves is not Tesla's fault.

 

[Canuck]

Hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Means I have the correct info from then on.

I can't say the same about many others here, however...

Once I thought I was wrong but as it turned out I was mistaken.

 

[wk057]

Once I thought I was wrong but as it turned out I was mistaken.

Must have been a rough day. :scared:

 

[lolachampcar]

Auzie,
The difficulty I have with absolving Tesla of intent comes from two places. First, I watched the whole pricing debacle unfold where Tesla was so enthusiastic about getting the initially shown price of the car down that they included things like the cost of your time to pump gas. The result was the initial number you were presented with when configuring the car had only the slightest relation to the size of the check that you or your bank wrote when you bought the car. A polite description would be playing fast and loose with the facts to represent their product in the best possible light. Was there a rabbit hole path of facts that linked the number displayed and the amount of the check at closing? Yes. Was it an accurate way to represent the cost of the car???? A lot of people thought not and Tesla changed it. I see a lot of similarities in the P85D spec'ing and that creative way of showing MS' price.

Second, Tesla is nothing if not a highly capable engineering company. They know good and well what 691 hp is in a car and were fully aware that the system as a whole was simply not capable of delivering 691 hp. It was a conscious decision to utter those words by people that absolutely knew better. I can not bring myself to say they simply were not educated enough to know better. I can not give them full credit for the wonderful piece of hardware (and related support systems) they have designed then, in the same breath, say they did not know the car could not deliver the power number they choose to lead their advertising with.

I do want to reiterate that this is not as big a deal for me as it would have been for someone that took Tesla at their word and bought their first car from the company based on the 691 hp claim. I knew from my previous two Model S and an over all understanding of the trade off between battery longevity and peak power draw that it was highly unlikely my P85D would have high speed performance anywhere near a 700 hp ICE. The car Tesla delivered met the two measurable metrics that mattered to me. Actually, they beat the 1/4 mile and 0-60 times (and roll out is part of my basic understanding of US 0-60).

I'm still a fan and still have an X on order (actually got to see one in the flesh the other day... Much better looking than the pictures). On balance, there is no other company like Tesla.

and, of course, all this is just my opinion which does not matter a lick in the real world.

 

[bonnie]

Hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Means I have the correct info from then on.

I can't say the same about many others here, however...

But my point, of course, was that Auzie is absolutely right that there are other scenarios besides 'intentionally misled'.

 

[mindsweeper]

I agree with you that European customers genuinely believe that Tesla misled them.

Too many questions to answer them all but let me try to be on the point for some of them:

1. Forbrukerrådet ForbrukerrÃ¥det - Wikipedia is the body a consumer can direct a complaint if he or she gets nowhere by complaining to the one they bought a product from, this could be both companies and private persons. They will try to mediate a solution between the parties and it is VOLUNTARY to take part in this (but for a company it won't look good if you don't). Forbrukerrådet can not make a ruling, this is where:

2. Forbrukertvistutvalget Forbrukertvistutvalget - Wikipedia is where cases end up if any of the parties after phase 1 wants it. This is low court



and to comment on what I quoted, it's not only the consumers that were misled. Tesla also mislead the Norwegian Government when they told the Norwegian DMV that the P85D had 700 HP. Tesla have now informed the DMV (government agency) that this was incorrect and the car has 463 HP.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Too many questions to answer them all but let me try to be on the point for some of them:
85D
1. Forbrukerrådet ForbrukerrÃ¥det - Wikipedia is the body a consumer can direct a complaint if he or she gets nowhere by complaining to the one they bought a product from, this could be both companies and private persons. They will try to mediate a solution between the parties and it is VOLUNTARY to take part in this (but for a company it won't look good if you don't). Forbrukerrådet can not make a ruling, this is where:

2. Forbrukertvistutvalget Forbrukertvistutvalget - Wikipedia is where cases end up if any of the parties after phase 1 wants it. This is low court



and to comment on what I quoted, it's not only the consumers that were misled. Tesla also mislead the Norwegian Government when they told the Norwegian DMV that the P85D had 700 HP. Tesla have now informed the DMV (government agency) that this was incorrect and the car has 463 HP.

Tesla did not mislead Norwegian Government as it *followed* European Regulation ECE R85 to report power specifications of P85D. This regulation is adopted by all governments in Europe, including Norway, and Certificate of Conformity issued with every car (including yours) *must* list power specifications according to this European Regulation. How can you say that Tesla mislead the Norwegian Government when it followed the regulation adopted by the Government to report motor power of the P85D? This was discussed in detail on this and other related threads for the last three month. This was also addressed in JB Straubel's post on the subject, as well as Tesla letter that you most likely are in posession of. I've provided more background for you here. If you did not have a chance to review it, you should.

 

[dsm363]

Hey, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Means I have the correct info from then on.

I can't say the same about many others here, however...

There you go again casting doubts on the integrity of other TMC members. Really uncalled for.

 

[mindsweeper]

Tesla did not mislead Norwegian Government as it *followed* European Regulation ECE R85 to report power specifications of P85D. This regulation is adopted by all governments in Europe, including Norway, and Certificate of Conformity issued with every car (including yours) *must* list power specifications according to this European Regulation. How can you say that Tesla mislead the Norwegian Government when it followed the regulation adopted by the Government to report motor power of the P85D? This was discussed in detail on this and other related threads for the last three month. I've provided more background for you here. If you did not have a chance to review it, you should.

I have seen your post as you have made me aware of it many times now. However, if they didnt mislead the Government, then how come they had to update the Government and tell them that the P85D only has 463 HP? And why is this now resulting in all insurance companies in Norway compensating the owners for having paid too much in premium?

If you now look into the Autosys (Norwegian motor vechicle data base - used by amongst others insurance companies to determine vechicle risk etc) the P85D was originally stated to have 700HP, and that put it into a "high risk" class, resulting in most of us paying double what we now have to with the revised 463HP.

Tesla advertised and sold the P85D as a 700HP car, and they also told the Government that it is a 700HP car. Now, a car that is technically limited to only produce 463HP at max is not a 700HP car. Try it at the autobahn, a Skoda will overtake you when cruising at 200 km/h

 

[Kalllagtunet]

Tesla did not mislead Norwegian Government as it *followed* European Regulation ECE R85 to report power specifications of P85D. This regulation is adopted by all governments in Europe, including Norway, and Certificate of Conformity issued with every car (including yours) *must* list power specifications according to this European Regulation. How can you say that Tesla mislead the Norwegian Government when it followed the regulation adopted by the Government to report motor power of the P85D? This was discussed in detail on this and other related threads for the last three month. This was also addressed in JB Straubel's post on the subject, as well as Tesla letter that you most likely are in posession of. I've provided more background for you here. If you did not have a chance to review it, you should.

vgrinshpun please show us the 700 hp sertificate.... I will think Tesla is VERY interested in getting a copy cince they do not have one themselves.. .

 

[wk057]

There you go again casting doubts on the integrity of other TMC members. Really uncalled for.

There you go again, singling me out and trying to make it out like I'm doing something uncalled for like anything I mentioned isn't something that almost everyone in this thread has done at one point or another. Pick any page of this thread and you'll see some person state a "fact", someone else disprove said fact, and then the initial person sticking to fact X like it didn't just get get torn to shreds by a 500 lb gorilla for one reason or another. No one in particular singled out for this example, it's just how this thread and others like it have been since day one. We've got everything here, you name it. I think there's even some posts where some people deny that "one horsepower" isn't ~746 W because it doesn't fit their argument. I'm honestly just getting a kick out of the ongoing debate, for the most part, since at this point with Tesla's own admission of the actual horsepower numbers the whole thing is just laughable to me. If you look at my recent history with this topic you'll see I've given up arguing facts here, since it's pointless.

In any case, I didn't post to cast doubts on anyone's credibility, (IMO, the people who's credibility is actually in question do this on their own), yet you feel the need to single me out to try and make it look like I said something blasphemous. I consider that uncalled for.