Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications

[vgrinshpun]

I hadn't read that article until just now. Do you really think what may have turned out to be the correct explanation being published in one relatively obscure article should have been able to mitigate the confusion caused by all the publicity over the 691 HP figure? I don't.

What I do think however, is that you left out one really significant excerpt from that article. This one:

"The company is already working on an update to the website to explain this distinction between net power and "motor power."

So...what happened with respect to that update, written about in October 2014 as being "already being worked on?" Did it become the JB Straubel blog post, published a couple of weeks ago, almost a full year later? Or did Tesla just decide it wasn't in their best interests to actually provide that information?

I think in your zeal to defend Tesla, you just led us straight to another smoking gun.

Really?? Wow, just wow!

As I mentioned more than one time I am not interested to debate the obvious: Tesla communications missteps are a common knowledge.

What I demonstrated beyond any doubt, is that Tesla did not lie, did not mislead and did not short changed anybody.

Now, no matter how you are going to complain I will repeat one more time: do your home work and take a deep breath and a walk before posting. I did not leave anything out of this article. Did you even read my post? Here is what I wrote:

...but even reported that company is working on an update to the website to explain the "motor power" term. Looking at the article now, it appears that David Nolan had a contact inside Tesla because otherwise he would not know that company is working on the update to the website explaining term "motor power

The only zeal I have is to share what I know about the issue with the Forum.

I will let others decide what is the zeal which drives you.

 

[Andyw2100]

Really?? Wow, just wow!

As I mentioned more than one time I am not interested to debate the obvious: Tesla communications missteps are a common knowledge.

What I demonstrated beyond any doubt, is that Tesla did not lie, did not mislead and did not short changed anybody.

Now, no matter how you are going to complain I will repeat one more time: do your home work and take a deep breath and a walk before posting. I did not leave anything out of this article. Did you even read my post? Here is what I wrote:

...but even reported that company is working on an update to the website to explain the "motor power" term. Looking at the article now, it appears that David Nolan had a contact inside Tesla because otherwise he would not know that company is working on the update to the website explaining term "motor power

The only zeal I have is to share what I know about the issue with the Forum.

I will let others decide what is the zeal which drives you.

You wrote: "Here is the pertinent excerpts from the article"

You then listed these three excerpts:

Previously, the horsepower number referred to the maximum power that the motor-inverter-battery combination could produce.

It corresponded to the way horsepower is traditionally measured in cars, and accurately reflected the performance of the various models.

The new horsepower number, however, is simply a measure of the maximum power that the motor itself is capable of producing. It does not take into account any limitations imposed by the particular battery and inverter that power that motor in a specific vehicle.

You did not list the excerpt that I did, though you did make reference to that. (I never said you left it out. I said you didn't include it as one of your excerpts, meaning something you wanted to call attention to.)

My point is that the line you did not include among your excerpts--the one I think is very significant--"The company is already working on an update to the website to explain this distinction between net power and "motor power." indicates that Tesla knew the issue needed clarification.

And then they didn't bother to clarify the point for almost a year!

That goes a little beyond lousy communication.

 

[cynix]

Now I have queston for you: does any of this apply to an EV drivetrain? Are there limitations of exhaust, emission control system and belt driven auxiliaries? So why do you think any of the SAE analogy is pertinent to the EV?

The point is that both SAE Gross and ECE R85 removes certain limitations that exist in a retail vehicle. Obviously the exact limitations are different between and ICE and an EV, but the fact remains that both ratings are not achievable in the cars that you and I can actually purchase, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the car's performance. Even the ICE industry (which tends to be portrayed as dinosaurs around here) realised this some 40 years ago and switched to a better standard that actually tests what is being sold. Why can't the EV industry realise the same?

 

[stopcrazypp]

My point is that the line you did not include among your excerpts--the one I think is very significant--"The company is already working on an update to the website to explain this distinction between net power and "motor power." indicates that Tesla knew the issue needed clarification.

And then they didn't bother to clarify the point for almost a year!

That goes a little beyond lousy communication.

At the time it appears that no one really cared about it so perhaps it was thrown on the back burner. The issue was not brought up in these forums until in March 2015.

As for the time frame, looking at the time frame of other things (like autopilot) taking almost a year is not unusual in "Tesla time". It's a frequent criticism of Tesla.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that both SAE Gross and ECE R85 removes certain limitations that exist in a retail vehicle. Obviously the exact limitations are different between and ICE and an EV, but the fact remains that both ratings are not achievable in the cars that you and I can actually purchase, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the car's performance. Even the ICE industry (which tends to be portrayed as dinosaurs around here) realised this some 40 years ago and switched to a better standard that actually tests what is being sold. Why can't the EV industry realise the same?

I believe Straubel's argument at least is that knowing the motor power does make some sense in the dual motor case (which is why they introduced it with the dual motor models). Whereas the SAE gross really doesn't give you much insight into anything that SAE net wouldn't (even though as you point out both follow a philosophy of a number that is not achievable in the car). I think eventually the EV industry will also make it more common to quote battery power numbers too (having both independently no matter which one is higher).

 

[smac]

The point is that both SAE Gross and ECE R85 removes certain limitations that exist in a retail vehicle. Obviously the exact limitations are different between and ICE and an EV, but the fact remains that both ratings are not achievable in the cars that you and I can actually purchase, and is therefore a misrepresentation of the car's performance. Even the ICE industry (which tends to be portrayed as dinosaurs around here) realised this some 40 years ago and switched to a better standard that actually tests what is being sold. Why can't the EV industry realise the same?

It's worth pointing out that ECE R85 is also used for testing ICEs too. The problem appears to be in EV's that the testing has a significant loophole, in that the available power source is greater than that in the car. On the ICE side there are lots of requirements in the testing around the exact type of fuel being used.

IMHO the best thing for the ECE test would to simply add in a requirement for the tests to be carried out using a power supply that is capped at the highest discharge rate of the batteries fitted to the car.

 

[ViperDoc]

Some people, if they realized they were short-changed a dollar, wouldn't bother to go back to get the dollar back, because they'd figure it wasn't worth their time. I'd go back, and not just because I want my dollar back, but out of principle. I --HATE-- the idea of being taken advantage of--of getting less than what I paid for. That's what this is about for me. I feel like Tesla messed up, and Tesla needs to make this right.

Just curious—if you go back to get your dollar out of principle, is this a one-sided "principle"? When you notice that the error in making change was in your favor or you see the waitstaff left an item you ordered for your meal off your bill, do you always give the extra change back/point out the error or not?

 

[Matias]

So a year ago Tesla felt, that hp issue needs clarification, but they did nothing. I think this plays against them.

 

[vip gts]

So a year ago Tesla felt, that hp issue needs clarification, but they did nothing. I think this plays against them.

They knew it was confusing a year ago but kept selling P85D's?
Not good!

 

[vgrinshpun]

So a year ago Tesla felt, that hp issue needs clarification, but they did nothing. I think this plays against them.

So a year ago the information that Tesla changed the way they reported power was readily available after all.

I read somewhere that nobody knew and understood this at the time. Oh, wait...

I also read that Tesla kept this information secret. Oh, wait... what?? David Nolan did not have any trouble to get comments from Tesla about upcoming blog?

Yea, Tesla engineering did nothing for a year! Oh, wait... what?? They had some other things on their plate?? What that would be? Power wall, power pack, launching new business, working on Ludocrous, finishing Model X, expanding plans for Gigafactory, accelerating deployment of supercharging network, working on the autopilot, new battery pack...

Let's go on another wild goose chase!

- - - Updated - - -

They knew it was confusing a year ago but kept selling P85D's?
Not good!

Are you serious? They should've stopped selling P85D?

 

[hpham007]

Are you serious? They should've stopped selling P85D?

Yes, because that's what responsible companies do. Ford suspended shipments of the SVT Mustang and fixed the existing cars for free when they were caught fudging their hp numbers. The didn't ship the mis-advertised cars for an entire year while they sorted out the mess.

 

[Andyw2100]

I also read that Tesla kept this information secret. Oh, wait... what?? David Nolan did not have any trouble to get comments from Tesla about upcoming blog?

Yea, Tesla engineering did nothing for a year! Oh, wait... what?? They had some other things on their plate?? What that would be? Power wall, power pack, launching new business, working on Ludocrous, finishing Model X, expanding plans for Gigafactory, accelerating deployment of supercharging network, working on the autopilot, new battery pack...

Let's go on another wild goose chase!

You can't honestly be suggesting that the other projects Tesla was working on prevented them from completing a write-up that would explain the horsepower / motor power issue. If Tesla knew this would be an issue that would confuse consumers, and it is now apparent that they did, that information should have been available on the website at the time the P85D was first offered for sale.

Tesla can't reasonably say, "Sorry. We were too busy with other things to have someone take an hour to write something up that would clear up confusion over how much power our newest model, highest performing car was going to produce. Our bad."

That's just not going to fly.

 

[dsm363]

You can't honestly be suggesting that the other projects Tesla was working on prevented them from completing a write-up that would explain the horsepower / motor power issue. If Tesla knew this would be an issue that would confuse consumers, and it is now apparent that they did, that information should have been available on the website at the time the P85D was first offered for sale.

Tesla can't reasonably say, "Sorry. We were too busy with other things to have someone take an hour to write something up that would clear up confusion over how much power our newest model, highest performing car was going to produce. Our bad."

That's just not going to fly.

That's just a plausible explanation as they set out to lie to their customers. I find it increasingly difficult to imagine a scenario where they can make you and everyone else happy at this point. They won't be giving out money or free upgrades. I'm sure we can agree on that. They explained how they got the number but that isn't enough. It may be misleading but they didn't make up the number at least.

 

[Andyw2100]

That's just a plausible explanation as they set out to lie to their customers.

Actually it's not. It's not nearly as plausible.

And I haven't suggested that Tesla "set out to lie to their customers."

But what does seem as least possible now, based on the evidence, is that Tesla realized customers would be confused, knew what they could do to attempt to clear up that confusion, and then for some reason--possibly because they realized doing so would have a negative impact on sales--decided not to move forward with providing the information that would clear up the confusion.

Which is more plausible? The above, or the idea that Tesla really wanted to publish the information, but was just too busy to do it?

 

[dsm363]

Actually it's not. It's not nearly as plausible.

And I haven't suggested that Tesla "set out to lie to their customers."

But what does seem as least possible now, based on the evidence, is that Tesla realized customers would be confused, knew what they could do to attempt to clear up that confusion, and then for some reason--possibly because they realized doing so would have a negative impact on sales--decided not to move forward with providing the information that would clear up the confusion.

Which is more plausible? The above, or the idea that Tesla really wanted to publish the information, but was just too busy to do it?

Well considering the X was very late to come to market it was all hands on deck. Not to mention all the Autopilot issues and delays. Yes, it's entirely possible Tesla thought it just wasn't that important. You're implying they lied basically. Once they knew it would confuse people they deliberately withheld useful information to increase sales. I'd consider that a form of lying.

 

[Discoducky]

Yes, because that's what responsible companies do. Ford suspended shipments of the SVT Mustang and fixed the existing cars for free when they were caught fudging their hp numbers. The didn't ship the mis-advertised cars for an entire year while they sorted out the mess.

I looked but couldn't find this on the intertubes, could someone with better interweb search skills help me out please? Wiki doesn't seem to know which is surprising if they stopped shipping for a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVT_Cobra

 

[Andyw2100]

Well considering the X was very late to come to market it was all hands on deck. Not to mention all the Autopilot issues and delays. Yes, it's entirely possible Tesla thought it just wasn't that important. You're implying they lied basically. Once they knew it would confuse people they deliberately withheld useful information to increase sales. I'd consider that a form of lying.

We're talking about a trivial amount of work--writing something up for the website--that would potentially clear up a confusing issue for thousands of potential customers. If Tesla "thought it wasn't important" I seriously question their judgment. If there wind up being costly ramifications to their decision not to allocate the resources to that task, so be it.

 

[dsm363]

We're talking about a trivial amount of work--writing something up for the website--that would potentially clear up a confusing issue for thousands of potential customers. If Tesla "thought it wasn't important" I seriously question their judgment. If there wind up being costly ramifications to their decision not to allocate the resources to that task, so be it.

They are a public company and everything they say is micro-analyzed. There is no such thing as throwing up a blog post over a weekend. It might not have really hit them how much confusion and issues it was causing until this thread started in March. Then there were legal implications to what they said on top of it. It's not that simple as you make it out to be.

 

[JonG]

We're talking about a trivial amount of work--writing something up for the website--that would potentially clear up a confusing issue for thousands of potential customers. If Tesla "thought it wasn't important" I seriously question their judgment. If there wind up being costly ramifications to their decision not to allocate the resources to that task, so be it.

I suspect this table

0-60/30-50/50-70 comparitive times for 70D/85D/P85D

if even half true is part of teslas problem. The real world figures for the 85/90D are not that far from the P cars and certainly a lot closer than you'd believe from their web site.

I need to be careful for what i wish as I'd hate them to slow the 85/90D down to the original performance.

 

[hpham007]

I looked but couldn't find this on the intertubes, could someone with better interweb search skills help me out please? Wiki doesn't seem to know which is surprising if they stopped shipping for a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVT_Cobra

Google Ford horsepower lawsuit. If you Google horsepower lawsuit, you will get many results of companies getting into trouble for lying about their hp rating including lots of lawn care companies. If companies making lawnmowers get punished for misstating their hp, its hard to imagine Tesla coming away from this unscathed.

 

[Andyw2100]

Just curious—if you go back to get your dollar out of principle, is this a one-sided "principle"? When you notice that the error in making change was in your favor or you see the waitstaff left an item you ordered for your meal off your bill, do you always give the extra change back/point out the error or not?

No, it's not a one-sided principle at all.

If I receive the wrong change, I correct the error. I recall one time in particular when I received $10 too much back in change, pointed out the error and handed the money back, and was being treated by the cashier as if she was doing me some sort of favor. She didn't even thank me for catching the error, so at the point it became clear we were completely through, and she wasn't going to, I was a little obnoxious and said loudly, "You're welcome." I think she finally understood, at that point, that I had given her $10 back due to her mistake, and that it wasn't, somehow, the other way around.

Restaurants are a hair more complicated, but I am comfortable in my ethics here as well. I don't believe I've ever been the beneficiary of an entree being left off a bill, and were that to happen, I believe I would point out the mistake. What does happen with some regularity is that something for which there could be an up charge remains uncharged, or some small add-on is not charged. In these situations it is my belief that the establishment probably gives the waitstaff the discretion to do this for customers they like, repeat customers, etc., possibly in an attempt to get larger gratuities for the waitperson. When something like this happens I always do leave a larger tip than I would have otherwise.

I'll give two examples of this, just to clarify what I'm talking about. I often order chocolate chip pancakes, and will ask for them with "a lot of chips." In some places they just provide a lot of chips, in some places they charge extra for extra chips, and in some places it depends on the waiter or waitress whether there is a charge or not. Another example is gnocchi instead of whatever the standard pastas that would come with chicken parmigiana would be. I will often ask for Gnocchi instead of, say, spaghetti. Often I'm told "there may be an upcharge of $3.00" or something like that. If the bill comes, and there is no upcharge on the bill I don't point it out, but instead increase the tip.