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

[stopcrazypp]

shpun 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.. .

Here's a copy from January 21, 2015:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...etter/page18?p=1112637&viewfull=1#post1112637

The 463 hp number has no regulatory basis as far as I know (you will not find it in any CoC as it does not follow any established standard).

I know Tesla previously filled in the continuous power 69kW for the P85 in the UK, but that doesn't mean that necessarily matches what is legally required (but does save people on insurance premiums). Although it could have to do with P85 only having the continuous number listed on the CoC (don't have link to copy, but there was a thread about this).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...hread/page44?p=1167551&viewfull=1#post1167551
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...icate-of-Conformity-(CoC)?p=449866#post449866

The UK requires Tesla to fill in "Max Net Power" according to the CoC.

Question 19:Max Net Power (kW)
When completed: Mandatory – if the information is available on the CoC it must always be completed. Minimum of 1, maximum of 3 numeric characters. No decimal places, round up or down to the nearest whole number.

Given the line only allows 3 numeric characters, it seems reasonable to add the two "maximum net power" numbers to get the max. As discussed elsewhere, there is nothing technically wrong with this approach if the gearing is the same (and the standard doesn't require a stock battery connected so battery limits don't have to be considered). With gearing accounted for, it might be slightly less than the direct sum, but not that big a gap.

Don't know if Norway has similar laws about where the power number should be sourced. There is probably a document that shows how the vehicle registration number should be filled in and that should note what is the proper number to use.

 

[wk057]

Given the line only allows 3 characters, it seems reasonable to add the two "maximum net power" numbers to get the max.

What if the car had 1342 HP? (Edit: Or better yet, four 340 "HP motor power" motors)

 

[mindsweeper]

Don't know if Norway has similar laws about where the power number should be sourced. There is probably a document that shows how the vehicle registration number should be filled in and that should note what is the proper number to use.

Actually, my P85D is registerred with 69kW. That's what the vechicle registration says. Same for all P85D's in Norway

 

[stopcrazypp]

What if the car had 1342 HP? (Edit: Or better yet, four 340 "HP motor power" motors)

Not sure. I think the DMV doesn't expect any car to exceed 999kW.

 

[wk057]

Not sure. I think the DMV doesn't expect any car to exceed 999kW.

Then perhaps they expect the actual output horsepower? Just saying...

 

[stopcrazypp]

Actually, my P85D is registerred with 69kW. That's what the vechicle registration says. Same for all P85D's in Norway

That corresponds to the continuous number then from the CoC "27.2 Maximum hourly output: 66kW", although it should be 66kW (69kW is the P85 number). So it seems obviously your insurance system and vehicle registration system uses two different standards.

- - - Updated - - -

Then perhaps they expect the actual output horsepower? Just saying...

They clearly say the number must come from the CoC, so Tesla can't just use the 463 hp number which actually does not follow any standard nor is it listed in any regulatory document.

Anyways doesn't particularly matter in the character count as you can have a car exceed 999kW "actual output horsepower" and run into the same problem, but I guess the DMV found that unlikely. So far the most powerful car is the Veryon SS and that maxes out at 880kW.

My main point is the field is not designed to list two numbers, and this same issue might show up in any registration system.

 

[Kalllagtunet]

Here's a copy from January 21, 2015:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...etter/page18?p=1112637&viewfull=1#post1112637

The 463 hp number has no regulatory basis as far as I know (you will not find it in any CoC as it does not follow any established standard).

I know Tesla previously filled in the continuous power 69kW for the P85 in the UK, but that doesn't mean that necessarily matches what is legally required (but does save people on insurance premiums). Although it could have to do with P85 only having the continuous number listed on the CoC (don't have link to copy, but there was a thread about this).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...hread/page44?p=1167551&viewfull=1#post1167551
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...icate-of-Conformity-(CoC)?p=449866#post449866

The UK requires Tesla to fill in "Max Net Power" according to the CoC.


Given the line only allows 3 numeric characters, it seems reasonable to add the two "maximum net power" numbers to get the max. As discussed elsewhere, there is nothing technically wrong with this approach if the gearing is the same (and the standard doesn't require a stock battery connected so battery limits don't have to be considered). With gearing accounted for, it might be slightly less than the direct sum, but not that big a gap.

Don't know if Norway has similar laws about where the power number should be sourced. There is probably a document that shows how the vehicle registration number should be filled in and that should note what is the proper number to use.

I can not see the 700 ish number anyplace in spec snip you provided. I can not see it in the sertificates Tesla provided in the norwegian HP gate case...But if you can find an official sertificate stating 700 hp please post it!

- - -

 

[wk057]

I can not see the 700 ish number anyplace in spec snip you provided. I can not see it in the sertificates Tesla provided in the norwegian HP gate case...But if you can find an official sertificate stating 700 please post it!

If you add up the two max net power numbers it comes out to ~727 HP... so... yeah, I'm confused.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If you add up the two max net power numbers it comes out to ~727 HP... so... yeah, I'm confused.

I touched on this before in explaining a post about numbers listed in the manual.

Long story short:
The difference in numbers are from front motors with post-6.2 motor controller software installed.
259hp / 193kW front motor + 470 hp / 350kW rear motor = 729 hp / 543 kW.

Notice 259 hp is the same number as for 85D front/rear motors post 6.2 update.

 

[Kalllagtunet]

I touched on this before in explaining a post about numbers listed in the manual.

Long story short:
The difference in numbers are from front motors with post-6.2 motor controller software installed.
259hp / 193kW front motor + 470 hp / 350kW rear motor = 729 hp / 543 kW.

But tesla and you still not have a external sertification of a COMBINED number summing up to 700 ish. The actual EU sertificates that Tesla provided as evidence have been posted here.

 

[stopcrazypp]

But tesla and you still not have a external sertification of a COMBINED number summing up to 700 ish. The actual EU sertificates that Tesla provided as evidence have been posted here.

That will be for the court to decide if Tesla's approach (adding the numbers) was reasonable given the ECE R85 standard that the numbers in the certificate came from and considering the situation.

Let's consider a couple cases:
1) The battery has enough power and the gearing of peak power is the same between the motors: no concern with adding the numbers.
2) The battery doesn't have enough power and gearing of peak power is the same between the motors: legitimacy of adding numbers depends on if the battery is factored into the standard.
3) The battery has enough power and the gearing of peak power is different between the motors: legitimacy of adding numbers depend on if the peak power points of the two motors match up given the gearing
4) The battery doesn't have enough power and gearing of peak power is different between the motors: legitimacy of adding numbers depends on both if the battery is factored into the standard, and if the peak power points of the two motors match up given the gearing

I think the gearing point is kind of moot given Tesla used a lower number in advertisement (691hp vs 729hp) which most likely would account for any gearing difference.

The battery point obviously is the one everyone is concerned about. My reading of the ECE R85 standard says that the battery limitations (primarily the current limit is the issue at hand) are not factored in.

The reason why motors are not tested together is likely because it is impractical to do so (the motor dyno would have to be configured to strap two motors together and factor in gearing).

 

[Kalllagtunet]

That will be for the court to decide if Tesla's approach (adding the numbers) was reasonable given the ECE R85 standard that the numbers in the certificate came and considering the situation.

Let's consider a couple cases:
1) The battery has enough power and the gearing is the same between the motors: no concern with adding the numbers.
2) The battery doesn't have enough power and gearing is the same between the motors: legitimacy of adding numbers depends on if the battery is factored into the standard.
3) The battery has enough power and the gearing is different between the motors: legitimacy of adding numbers depend on if the peak power points of the two motors match up given the gearing
4) The battery doesn't have enough power and gearing is different between the motors: legitimacy of adding numbers depends on both if the battery is factored into the standard, and if the peak power points of the two motors match up given the gearing

Yep it will.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yep it will.

Right, but my opinion is that having looked that the ECE R85 standard, I think the court will rule in favor of Tesla in this case, since the standard as it is written does not factor in battery limitations. It only requires specifying a DC voltage, but does not require using a factory equipped DC voltage source (AKA battery in this case; in an FCV it might be a fuel cell+battery/ultra-capacitor).

Someone else touched on the reason why this has not been amended. Supposedly it is automakers that are aware of fuel cell power limitations and refuse to amend the standard to factor in the voltage source limitations as that would affect how they advertise their FCVs. Don't know how true that is, but kind of a side point (all that matters is how the standard was when Tesla certified their motors under it).

 

[vgrinshpun]

Regarding the discussion on whether Tesla has approved ECE R85 rating for a car with the combined (arithmetic sum of front and rear motor rating) or for a car with front and rear motors rated separately, and whether the second approved rating (as evidenced by certificates attached to Tesla letter) implies that the first (combined) rating can be considered as a legitimate approved rating as well, it seems that the issue is clear cut.

JB Straubel in his Blog indicated that both single and combined motor shaft hp rating are an approved way of rating the car according to the ECE R85. The direct quote from the Blog:

The motor shaft horsepower, when operating alone, is a more consistent rating. In fact, it is only this (single or combined) motor shaft horsepower rating that is legally required to be posted in the European Union.

Since the company is the one that worked with European authorities (Danish to be precise) to test P85D motors, JB Straubel, as a Chief Technical Officer, has a first hand knowledge of the requirements of this regulation. Based on this I believe there is little doubt that the fact that Tesla has approved certificates for front and rear motor power ratings means that the combined rating of the motors, as was presented on their web page, is an approved rating according to ECE R85 as well.

As far as the discussion about slightly different rpms at the maximum front and rear motor rating, it is immaterial because it is within speed tolerance band defined in ECE R85, which is according to paragraph 5.4 (p.9) "Interpretation of the Results" is +/-2%, for a total band of 4% . The quote is included below.

Since the difference between the rpm at maximum power rating for front and rear motor is within this tolerance band (the difference between rpm for front and rear motor is 150, or about 2.5%), the whole discussion about legitimacy of adding the front and rear motor power rating is moot. Adding the front and rear motor rating yields the same result as measuring the combined output of dual motor drivetrain. The numbers are as follows:

 

[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.
.....................

I agree that Tesla crossed the line a little bit with gas savings and cost of personal gas pumping time factored in the car cost. However, I do not see the slightest intent to mislead there, just misplaced and inappropriate calculations, regardless of the accuracy or a lack of accuracy of these calculations. Maybe a bit patronizing, annoying, but not misleading.

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.

Agree with you that Tesla team certainly understands the difference between car hp and motor hp. That does not necessarily mean that they deliberately set to mislead with their pitch. Quite contrary, the fact that they understand this difference full well makes the scenario of deliberate misrepresentation highly unlikely. How would that scenario unfold, so many people at Tesla decided to conspire and consciously publicly lie about their product? I find that highly unlikely.

It makes much more sense that they fell into a (self-created) trap with this motor/car hp communication issue. My speculation is that they did not think of car hp when mentioning motor hp. A messenger is likely to emphasize the information that he/she considers relevant when delivering the message. In this case, motor hp mattered and was mentioned, car hp not so much. Car hp is just one of the many parameters that define the car performance.

If there is a misunderstanding or omitted information that comes to light after the purchase, clarification is likely to make matters worse after the event. With expensive products, it is difficult to undo the purchase process that was based on the misunderstanding, regardless of who is at fault, if anyone is. For that reason, some businesses offer cooling off period, say 3-5 days or a week.

 

[vgrinshpun]

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 thatthe 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.

How can the maximum rating arrived at according to the Government regulated and required testing be possibly considered as misleading the Government? The Government, particularly car registration authorities *require* that car be tested according to ECE R85. So no, Tesla did not mislead Government using this rating.

The issue of insurance is a separate one. I am not sure about the system in Norway, are insurance companies private entities or Government entities? Regardless the answer, it is Insurance companies that must perform proper actuarial accounting to arrive at the decision of which rating to use: continuous (69kW), 30 minutes, or the maximum power rating (the one Tesla used on their web site). This does not have any bearing on the conclusion about "misleading" the Government. Some insurance in other countries for example (Estonia), used the continuous (69kW) rating to assign the premium, resulting in very low insurance rates.

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

Regarding the acceleration capabilities of EV drivetrain at high speeds, unfortunately you should adjust your expectations. Regardless of the limitation imposed by the battery, an EV with drivetrain similar to Tesla will have higher performance from standstill, but lower performance at high speeds (say 100mph) compared to an ICE car. There will always be a trade-off between the acceleration from the stand still (or low rolling speed) and high speed.

 

[brianman]

Here's a copy from January 21, 2015...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I thought K asked for a single line stating 700hp (even in kW units if you prefer) but it seems what you posted shows separate numbers that you're combining. Tesla didn't do that on that page. Or did I misunderstand?

- - - Updated - - -

... Given the line only allows 3 numeric characters, it seems reasonable to add the two "maximum net power" numbers to get the max. ...

It seems a picture of that is what K was asking for. Not an assumption of what such an image might look like.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I thought K asked for a single line stating 700hp (even in kW units if you prefer) but it seems what you posted shows separate numbers that you're combining. Tesla didn't do that on that page. Or did I misunderstand?

- - - Updated - - -


It seems a picture of that is what K was asking for. Not an assumption of what such an image might look like.

I addressed that point here already. It is not unreasonable to add the two numbers for this particular standard (gearing aside) because this standard doesn't factor in the battery.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...P90L/page232?p=1267096&viewfull=1#post1267096

The reason the numbers are separate are likely because they were tested separately. I looked back on Tesla's answer and the 350kW rear drive unit was a test done on May 16, 2013 (likely for P85 given the date), 193kW front drive unit done on December 5, 2014 (date explains why the software may be newer than launch).

However, the UK registration certificate calls for a single "max net power" number, even though the CoC doesn't. I don't find it unreasonable to add in this case. Unfortunately I was not able to find a screenshot of the UK registration for a P85D.

The one thing that is clear to me however is that the 463 hp number has absolutely no role in this and does not legally fit in that line. There appears to be no standard where that number would be arrived at, but rather something Tesla did internally (perhaps that is also why it is a foot note instead of a primary number on the website).

 

[cynix]

How would that scenario unfold, so many people at Tesla decided to conspire and consciously publicly lie about their product? I find that highly unlikely.

Why would it require "so many people to conspire"? Not saying anyone at Tesla actually did this, of course, but it could easily be a single manager/exec telling their subordinates to put a particular number on their website.

 

[Auzie]

Why would it require "so many people to conspire"? Not saying anyone at Tesla actually did this, of course, but it could easily be a single manager/exec telling their subordinates to put a particular number on their website.

There is nothing wrong or incorrect with motor hp numbers on the website. Whoever decided to publish motor hp number did nothing misleading or wrong. A motor on an ev car is the main component of the car. The motor specification determines the car performance, therefore it is a relevant information that customers need to be informed about.

The misunderstanding came about because some customers incorrectly misinterpreted motor hp number to be something that it was not.