Just to clarify, he did not return the car because he was unhappy with the performance, he experienced a breakdown of his newly delivered (2 days) car.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications
- Thread starter dsm363
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Just to clarify, he did not return the car because he was unhappy with the performance, he experienced a breakdown of his newly delivered (2 days) car.
As far as customers are concerned, the numbers are effectively fake because they're not achieveable in the car they bought.
I think the Regulation is pretty useless for rating electric cars, because it produces a rating that's similar to SAE Gross, which has been abandoned by the industry almost 40 years ago because it does not produce a meaningful number. I can't think of a good reason for using such an outdated testing methodology.
Last edited:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I don't believe any of the members of this group have made any such threats over the horsepower issue. As one of the more vocal members of the group you just made that accusation against, I'd ask you to link to some of these threats or retract your statement and apologize.
- - - Updated - - -
He also didn't return the car under any sort of happiness guarantee, which is only valid for people who lease. Osama had bought two P85Ds. He worked something out with Tesla, but said he would not provide the details of the arrangement, out of respect for Tesla.
This is so typical - posting before doing the homework. I'd ask you retract *your* statement and apologize.
P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 140
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
This is the post you linked to:
It was made three weeks ago, and is not a threat to sue the company. I point out that it was made three weeks ago because you are using these phantom threats of lawsuits that you still have not linked to as the reason behind Tesla not listing the P85D power output on the website. But Tesla has been listing the information the same way on their website for months. So clearly the post you provided a link to, which is not a threat of a lawsuit, is not the cause.
So again--please back up your original statement that threats (more than one) of lawsuits are the reason that Tesla is not providing the information on the website. If you can't, I would appreciate a retraction and an apology.
Thank you.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
That's not a threat of a lawsuit? Sure sounds like it to me. He's getting advice on "the strength of the case." "Case" = lawsuit. If he is advised that the case has adequate strength, what is the obvious next step?
If someone said to me: "I'll be finding out if I have a case against you" I'd take that as a threat of legal action. I don't know any other way the target of the accusation could take it. Sure, I'd hope he'd find out he has a weak case and doesn't sue me, but the threat of a lawsuit is still there. That seems obvious.
If someone said to me: "I'll be finding out if I have a case against you" I'd take that as a threat of legal action. I don't know any other way the target of the accusation could take it. Sure, I'd hope he'd find out he has a weak case and doesn't sue me, but the threat of a lawsuit is still there. That seems obvious.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Again, even if that could be seen as a threat of a suit:
a) it is one, and vgrinshpun referenced several, and
b) that post is three weeks old. It clearly is not the reason Tesla hasn't been posting the numbers for months. vgrinshpun's claim, that I am disputing, is that Tesla isn't posting the numbers because of threats of lawsuits from this group.
In order to support the original claim, vgrinshpun would have to find at least two threats of lawsuits several months old.
Failing that do you agree the statement should be retracted, and an apology offered?
Tesla changed the way they list HP around 3 weeks ago, and I posted about it here. They added total output for all models except the P85D. You are just plain wrong saying that they list information the same way on their website "for months". So once again - good job doing your homework before posting.
Most importantly, your whole line of reasoning is just wrong. If you think that Tesla attorneys, that are invariably following quite a few threads dealing with "missing horsepower", would advise Tesla to exercise caution *only* if somebody explictly threaten legal action in these threads, you clearly do not understand what is going on around you and what you are an active part of.
If you think that your repeated posts about how you were motivated to write the Letter in order to prevent other people from suing Tesla, while going on and on discussing claims against Tesla which do not have basis did not raise all sorts of red flags in Tesla legal department and did not cause them to advise caution on releasing any information related to these claims, I have nothing to add here.
And yes, the person whose post I linked was absolutely exploring his options regarding the lawsuit, here is another link.
I would appreciate you start doing you homework before posting.
Last edited:
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I don't like demanding apologies or asking people to retract statements. It's best just to make your make positions known and debate the issues. In real life, apologies are important when we have wronged someone, especially those close to us. Stating something online that my be wrong is going to happen over and over here. Best to just state your position and move on. The readers can draw their own conclusions.
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
It used to be that each manufacturer published their own power numbers. Some, such as Rolls Royce never claimed a specific output, but simply stated that their power output was adaquate or sufficient.
Every manufacturer measured power output in their own way, with some underrating and others overrating due to their own marketing desires. GM was especially noted for underrating their horsepower outputs to permit higher powered cars to obtain lower insurance premiums at the same time provide pavement scorching performance.
It was only when the Government stepped in, was every manufacturer given specific guidelines as how to test internal combustion engines and publish official power outputs. Even then some still (but less egrigiously) still over or under rated their outputs.
Even now, it is expected that some engines will be stronger than others, even if coming down the same assembly line. Just as in fuel economy...your mileage (or output) may vary.
Tesla may have tested their motors and added up their outputs, and that number may have been accurate, but the battery was unable to give them enough juice to total that claim, but the performance they provided were certainly as claimed.
Every manufacturer measured power output in their own way, with some underrating and others overrating due to their own marketing desires. GM was especially noted for underrating their horsepower outputs to permit higher powered cars to obtain lower insurance premiums at the same time provide pavement scorching performance.
It was only when the Government stepped in, was every manufacturer given specific guidelines as how to test internal combustion engines and publish official power outputs. Even then some still (but less egrigiously) still over or under rated their outputs.
Even now, it is expected that some engines will be stronger than others, even if coming down the same assembly line. Just as in fuel economy...your mileage (or output) may vary.
Tesla may have tested their motors and added up their outputs, and that number may have been accurate, but the battery was unable to give them enough juice to total that claim, but the performance they provided were certainly as claimed.
You are, of course, right. I was just taken aback by Andyw2100 demand and responded in kind. I agree with you that I shouldn't have.
As we are deep in discussion regarding the carrying capacity and flight times of African vs European Swallows I thought that this may be somewhat interesting.
Tesla Model S P90D Ludicrous Mode 0-60 MPH in 2.85 seconds and 0-100 MPH in 7.7 seconds Test Results - YouTube
Tesla Model S P90D Ludicrous Mode 0-60 MPH in 2.85 seconds and 0-100 MPH in 7.7 seconds Test Results - YouTube
Last edited by a moderator:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
You were "taken aback" and view as a "demand" the following perfectly polite request that I made?
I have to believe that your only reason for posting the above, referring to my polite request as a demand, would be an attempt to denigrate me. There was no "demand" and no reason for you to be "taken aback."
I also do not appreciate the condescending tone you have, for some time now, been using towards me. I had been attempting to ignore it, but your "Do your homework" post made ignoring it impossible. I would politely but firmly ask that you not take that kind of tone when addressing me. I have not been condescending towards you. Your condescension is uncalled for, and misplaced.
To address the points you made in your post that preceded the one above:
Your original point that I was challenging was that Tesla wasn't listing the HP for the P85D because of law suits threatened by people upset about the missing HP. My point was that Tesla hadn't been showing the P85D's horsepower on the website for months. Changing the information for the other models doesn't affect that.
I never said that nor did I come close to saying that. I'm sure a concern about getting sued is EXACTLY why Tesla is taking many actions they are taking and not taking many actions they are not taking. (Look--we agree on something.) But you are changing the history of what we're disagreeing about. You claimed, in the post I asked you politely to support with evidence, that the reason Tesla wasn't showing the P85D's horsepower was that people were threatening to sue. That's very different than now saying that lawyers are reading the threads, and are afraid people will sue.
So to reiterate my position as to why your original claim--not one you may be trying to move to now, but your original position--is not accurate:
--Tesla has not been showing the P85D's horsepower on their website for months
--No one (as far as I know) had posted that they were planning on suing Tesla over this months ago, before Tesla removed the HP claim from their website
--Therefore it could not have been
that caused Tesla to remove the P85D's HP from their website.
Agree with vgrinshpun. Without referring to specific owners and specific quotes, we need look no further than the comments section of Tesla's own blog page to see the vitriol and anger spewed by Model S owners who were not pleased with JB's blog post. Imagine the types of things that were said to Tesla by some owners away from the public eye? Of course Tesla has to protect itself legally. Some of the people commenting on the blog are clearly insane.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I agree that Tesla is trying to protect itself from legal action.
I disagree, and take issue with the assertion that it is a direct result of threats made by posters here. Tesla has been attempting to protect themselves for months, as evidenced by the removal of the HP figures from the P85D numbers. I don't believe there were any threats of suits on the HP issue made here months ago.
I have no problem with vgrinshpun saying Tesla is trying to protect itself from lawsuits. My issue lies with the blame for that being attributed to posters here.
Drove the P90DL. Probably only hit 100 or so briefly a few times. Car is just stupid fast, pointed in any direction, and all you need is a right foot. Hit traction control a view times too, extremely quick to modulate power, most people wouldn't even notice. Floor it on the highway and you leave traffic behind like they're not even moving. I didn't even bother doing a ludicrous launch from a full stop. This from having driven several 400+ horsepower cars regularly, ones that weight 1500-2000lbs less. Maybe it doesn't keep up with your buddy's LP640 after 120mph, but I mean, whatever....
I am not even sure now what you were challenging, but whatever it was, it was **not** the point I was making. It appears that you completely missed my point. My post was in response to the question asked by Dennis87. His question was why Tesla added total car hp, in addition to listing motor hp, for 70D and 85D, but did not do the same for P85D. The post is here for everybody to see. Here is specific wording I was responding to:
This addition of total car hp for 70D and 80D **only**, but pointedly not for P85D, happened around three weeks ago, and I provided my own contemporaneous post about it.
So my response was as follows (note that I am *not* the first person making this obvious observation):
Your contention that I am "changing the story" is just totally wrong. My story did not change. You just totally missed the point made in my original post. As mentioned above my original post was in response to the question of why Tesla added total car output hp only for 70D and 85D, but not for P85D, an event that happened about three weeks ago.
At this point I am totally OK with just acknowledging that we are not going to agree on anything here. There is more than enough information posted about this and anybody reading it can come to their own conclusion.
Of course it`s smart to remove false advertising to avoid lawsuits. The problem is that this does not help for those who bought the car when the numbers were not correct (in Norway 3,4 sec 0-100, 700hp peak).
Removing numbers, adjusting explanations, introducing new ways to measure the cars is a solution to avoid lawsuits from new owners. But it does not help one bit to avoid lawsuits from old owners.
Last edited:
Does this mean we can close this thread? 
The tone of TMC has changed a bit over the past few months. Some of the change I think was caused by Tesla, and the various issues that we have been debating here. There are clearly many strong and differing opinions, and that's fine. But in debating, in my humble opinion, we seem to have lost a bit of decorum and respect for each other, and as a result, TMC hasn't been as enjoyable for me and I'm guessing many others.
I know, I could just ignore these threads. That's a fair argument. But it's hard to do when you're searching for all new posts, plus I do have an interest in the topics. But the bickering, especially against each other, has become really tiring.
Tesla is going to launch their third car today. It's an amazing accomplishment for a company that was hours away from bankruptcy and still has many up hill battles to overcome. Perhaps we can take this opportunity to sit back for a moment and reflect on this, and come back to the forum a bit more relaxed? Let's not lose this great community.
My .02.
Andrew
The tone of TMC has changed a bit over the past few months. Some of the change I think was caused by Tesla, and the various issues that we have been debating here. There are clearly many strong and differing opinions, and that's fine. But in debating, in my humble opinion, we seem to have lost a bit of decorum and respect for each other, and as a result, TMC hasn't been as enjoyable for me and I'm guessing many others.
I know, I could just ignore these threads. That's a fair argument. But it's hard to do when you're searching for all new posts, plus I do have an interest in the topics. But the bickering, especially against each other, has become really tiring.
Tesla is going to launch their third car today. It's an amazing accomplishment for a company that was hours away from bankruptcy and still has many up hill battles to overcome. Perhaps we can take this opportunity to sit back for a moment and reflect on this, and come back to the forum a bit more relaxed? Let's not lose this great community.
My .02.
Andrew
Similar threads
- Marketplace listing
- Question