Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications

[AnxietyRanger]

Obviously you're referring to me.

You might want to read what I wrote again. I defended no one, nor did I agree with anyone. What I asked for was for response to be made without putting other people down. And of course, you knew that.

Overall I refer to you and the moderator that commented on the matter, which now seems to be a deleted message?

I guess my problem is, I would have expected people to react more strongly to the objectionable thing flathillll expressed, which IMO made concentrating on the details of the response seem pointless in comparison. Chastising wk057 for his style of objecting, when the cause for objecting was great, IMO sends a wrong message. I would have expected a stern response to flathillll instead, who was suggesting we support Tesla in providing false specs to the market.

I get it that you disagree, but once again these are the kind of things that make me have the views that I have about TMC. It leaves open the feeling that if flathillll would have expressed something negative about Tesla, no such support would have materialized. I have seen far worse replies to comments on Tesla go unchecked, if those comments being replied to have been negative of Tesla. flathillll here was defending Tesla and was defended from implied mockery, even though he made an absolutely outrageous comment. If there is no such causality, then fine, but just FYI what it looks like.

 

[qwk]

Wk got banned for those posts? This forum's moderation is getting out of control.....

 

[sorka]

you are still missing the point. It would be more misleading/confusing for Tesla to advertise battery hp for the average customer. Many would not understand why they are paying so much more money for the same battery hp. Motor hp represents value better than battery hp. Also note long-term the battery hp will be increased. In 8 years the new pack may come with higher capacity and be able to output more hp and your car will be faster with the same motors. You are not likely going to upgrade your motors but it is simple to swap out the battery.

Not more confusing but I agree it would be better to advertise the maximum power that both motors output together at the same time rather than the power at the battery before conversions losses occur. I think the point is that many of us would have been happy *EVEN IF* they'd specified power upstream rather than at the motor shafts given the conversion losses are so small. As it stands, they advertised a number that is 136 hp less than reality at 90% SOC and over 200 hp less than 691 hp at 40% SOC. How is this less misleading than taking the 550 hp output by the battery. At the motor shafts, that 550 hp is less but not that much less but is WAY less than the 691 they were claiming at the motor shafts before....which they no longer do...and oh by the way, the P85D is the only Model S that they don't specify horsepower for now.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you are. Many P85D owners do not understand why they paid so much more money for car hp (i.e. power that actually gets used to propel the car) which is not that much higher than the P85. Those are average customers equating hp with power at the wheels + some loss along the way, not some virtual figure not representative of the performance of the car. They ended up paying 20-30K more for a faster 0-30 mph realized thanks to higher engine torque (and thus higher power, but below the battery threshold given the low rpm, so achievable), and not much more than that.

+1 on that.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Not more confusing but I agree it would be better to advertise the maximum power that both motors output together at the same time rather than the power at the battery before conversions losses occur. I think the point is that many of us would have been happy *EVEN IF* they'd specified power upstream rather than at the motor shafts given the conversion losses are so small. As it stands, they advertised a number that is 136 hp less than reality at 90% SOC and over 200 hp less than 691 hp at 40% SOC. How is this less misleading than taking the 550 hp output by the battery. At the motor shafts, that 550 hp is less but not that much less but is WAY less than the 691 they were claiming at the motor shafts before....which they no longer do...and oh by the way, the P85D is the only Model S that they don't specify horsepower for now.

Just to be clear: Are you supporting flathillll's position that if Tesla were to equip Model S with a total of 1000 hp motors, but due to battery constraints the car could actually output only 550 hp... it would be OK for Tesla to advertise 1000 hp? Because some future battery upgrade to the car might allow making use of it?

 

[sorka]

Yes. 'Motor power' is what they advertised. Did anyone upset bother to get a definition in writing before they bought since this was so important?

In an ideal world all manufacturers would be forced to only advertise hp at the wheels in the actual car. I'd love this. We all know there is this arms race to have the more impressive states. Sure it's sad Tesla decided to play this game but anyone who has ever bought any car before should have known this is possible. Especially if such lofty hp numbers come out with no independent verification on a new dual motor EV.

Agreed, in an ideal world, manufacturers should advertise power that the wheels. But the current standard in the automotive industry is to advertise power at the drive shaft. When unsuspecting little'ol consumer like me comes along and sees 691 hp advertised, I assume that the car will actually make that power and that it isn't the sum of two different numbers that don't ever occur at the same time at any point.

So yes, I agree, i was fooled and taken for a ride and I feel like and idiot for assuming that horsepower number advertised actually meant that the car would make that horsepower somewhere. Tesla has already admitted that this is not the case so it's time for everyone to move on.

 

[Andyw2100]

For everyone arguing that Tesla chose to use "motor power" since no standard exists, etc., etc., how do you explain Elon Musk's statement at the D launch event in which he stated that the P85D would have "about half again as much power" as the P85? (My other post on this, with the video, are upthread.)

Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications - Page 6

That statement has now proven to be completely untrue. (I am stopping short of calling it a lie because in spite of everything, I still want to believe that Elon Musk did not intentionally lie to us when he made that statement, and that he must have thought the car would really be capable of producing about 50% more power than the P85.) There is really no arguing over what "about half again as much power" means.

I have said many times that I've never been a "car guy." The P85D was my first venture into this world. I watched that D launch video frequently before placing my order. To be honest, I don't know that "691 HP" meant very much to me as a means to evaluating what to expect from the car I was purchasing. But I do know that hearing that it was going to be about 50% more powerful than the P85, and knowing what I already knew (and then learned) about the P85 and what people thought of it, 50% more powerful that that sounded really impressive to me.

 

[sorka]

Just to be clear: Are you supporting flathillll's position that if Tesla were to equip Model S with a total of 1000 hp motors, but due to battery constraints the car could actually output only 550 hp... it would be OK for Tesla to advertise 1000 hp? Because some future battery upgrade to the car might allow making use of it?

Um, definitely not I think you misread my comment or something. I was stating that it is not less confusing to the consumer to advertise hp by adding up motor capabilities when those motors can't output the advertised horsepower from the battery supplied. It's not only more confusing, as this mess of threads has proven, but it's dishonest and misleading. Tesla should have specified the true and correct hp at the motor shafts. If that was specified at 90% SOC with the supplied battery, there should have been an additional disclaimer that the power would decrease as the battery charge decreases. That said, I personally would have been fine with the overinflated hp number that would have resulted by specifying hp at the battery source rather than at the motor shafts after conversion losses.

 

[smac]

Wk got banned for those posts? This forum's moderation is getting out of control.....

I thought that was a joke, then saw he was indeed banned :S

What on earth did I miss? For one of the most technically knowledgeable person outside of the employ of Tesla to be banned from what is the leading COMMUNITY forum , is massively disappointing.

 

[EnergyMax]

I thought that was a joke, then saw he was indeed banned :S

What on earth did I miss? For one of the most technically knowledgeable person outside of the employ of Tesla to be banned from what is the leading COMMUNITY forum , is massively disappointing.

I've been following this topic. Wk has been right on, and articulate. I don't expect him to have limitless patience in making his clear, yet sometimes necessarily tedious arguments. He should not be banned.

 

[qwk]

For everyone arguing that Tesla chose to use "motor power" since no standard exists, etc., etc., how do you explain Elon Musk's statement at the D launch event in which he stated that the P85D would have "about half again as much power" as the P85? (My other post on this, with the video, are upthread.)

Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications - Page 6

That statement has now proven to be completely untrue. (I am stopping short of calling it a lie because in spite of everything, I still want to believe that Elon Musk did not intentionally lie to us when he made that statement, and that he must have thought the car would really be capable of producing about 50% more power than the P85.) There is really no arguing over what "about half again as much power" means.

Nobody is going to be able to defend that. That's why the defenders pick bits and pieces of the whole picture and pretend the other things don't exist. Otherwise there would be nothing to disagree over.

 

[darthy001]

Wk got banned for those posts? This forum's moderation is getting out of control.....

If this is true and because of the posts now in snippiness it is utterly ridiculous....

Not that anyone likely would care, but if that is indeed true I give up on this community as of now. Friggin cult....

 

[bonnie]

Overall I refer to you and the moderator that commented on the matter, which now seems to be a deleted message?

I guess my problem is, I would have expected people to react more strongly to the objectionable thing flathillll expressed, which IMO made concentrating on the details of the response seem pointless in comparison. Chastising wk057 for his style of objecting, when the cause for objecting was great, IMO sends a wrong message. I would have expected a stern response to flathillll instead, who was suggesting we support Tesla in providing false specs to the market.

I get it that you disagree, but once again these are the kind of things that make me have the views that I have about TMC. It leaves open the feeling that if flathillll would have expressed something negative about Tesla, no such support would have materialized. I have seen far worse replies to comments on Tesla go unchecked, if those comments being replied to have been negative of Tesla. flathillll here was defending Tesla and was defended from implied mockery, even though he made an absolutely outrageous comment. If there is no such causality, then fine, but just FYI what it looks like.

I'm disappointed. Just recently you made a heartfelt plea to the community to assume good intent and see posts through that filter. I wish you could have applied that to my post that was clearly just asking for civil behavior, nothing more. Sorry that you continue to cast what I post in the most negative possible light, though I'm a bit gobsmacked that you even tried to twist my request into a defense of anyone or anything.

In any case, once again, done engaging. Just not worth having words twisted upside down. People can read what I wrote and see there was nothing confusing about it, nothing defending or supporting anyone - other than asking the forum tone not be brought down with unnecessary snarkiness.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Um, definitely not I think you misread my comment or something. I was stating that it is not less confusing to the consumer to advertise hp by adding up motor capabilities when those motors can't output the advertised horsepower from the battery supplied. It's not only more confusing, as this mess of threads has proven, but it's dishonest and misleading. Tesla should have specified the true and correct hp at the motor shafts. If that was specified at 90% SOC with the supplied battery, there should have been an additional disclaimer that the power would decrease as the battery charge decreases. That said, I personally would have been fine with the overinflated hp number that would have resulted by specifying hp at the battery source rather than at the motor shafts after conversion losses.

OK, that I can agree with.

 

[patrick42h]

I thought that was a joke, then saw he was indeed banned :S

What on earth did I miss? For one of the most technically knowledgeable person outside of the employ of Tesla to be banned from what is the leading COMMUNITY forum , is massively disappointing.

From what I could tell, he got into it with Bonnie and dsm363 over on the Snippiness thread and dsm363 banned him.

 

[Sad]

Whoever banned wk057, please undo this ridiculous move ASAP, there were no (public at least) out of line messages, he's actually been, together with sorka and others, extremely patient in deconstructing the recurring, uneducated and/or downright obfuscating (;-) ) attempts at defending Tesla's misleading marketing strategies. I couldn't continue doing it after 2 or 3 attempts, whether it's now or back in October when people were ridiculing my skepticism about the 691 hp motor power being actually delivered... Depressing, since I, like others, am a big fan of Tesla's products and service. Tesla's communication, on the other hand..

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I'm disappointed. Just recently you made a heartfelt plea to the community to assume good intent and see posts through that filter. I wish you could have applied that to my post that was clearly just asking for civil behavior, nothing more. Sorry that you continue to cast what I post in the most negative possible light, though I'm a bit gobsmacked that you even tried to twist my request into a defense of anyone or anything.

In any case, once again, done engaging. Just not worth having words twisted upside down. People can read what I wrote and see there was nothing confusing about it, nothing defending or supporting anyone - other than asking the forum tone not be brought down with unnecessary snarkiness.

I actually did read it with the best intentions. Had I read it with worst intentions, my response would have been dramatically different. I don't think you would personally support providing misleading advertising for Tesla, at all. But I do think perhaps your sympathies often are with people positive of Tesla and thought maybe this misguided this instance a bit.

I never received any responses to my "plea", or pretty much anything I wrote to an extent got response, so I really didn't get any sense that or how I was being heard. If anything, that particular conversation encouraged me to use this as an example of what my concern with some TMC reactions has been As I said, If there is no such causality [in this case], then fine, but just FYI what it looks like.

For whatever reason, this thread took the turn that the guy that was arguing passionately that Tesla shouldn't falsely advertise (wk057), was somehow overrun while the person making the argument that Tesla should inflatedly advertise HP (flathillll), got support. That just looks wrong on so many levels.

So, if and when I assume it was just an innocent incident, just FYI how it can appear to the outside. I am perfectly willing to believe I may have become sensitive to the issue as well, because I have felt it happen before.

In any case, I think most of us can agree Tesla should advertise HP as reasonably accurate as possible. Just as we would want Volkswagen to advertise their NOx reasonably accurately.

 

[bonnie]

From what I could tell, he got into it with Bonnie and dsm363 over on the Snippiness thread and dsm363 banned him.

Bans don't happen because of one incident ... and moderators cannot ban people, only site administrators can make that call. And we didn't 'get into it', I had (what I thought) was a polite disagreement.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So yes, I agree, i was fooled and taken for a ride and I feel like and idiot for assuming that horsepower number advertised actually meant that the car would make that horsepower somewhere. Tesla has already admitted that this is not the case so it's time for everyone to move on.

You don't expect Tesla to fix the matter somehow for those who purchased with this old information?

 

[PatD]

You don't expect Tesla to fix the matter somehow for those who purchased with this old information?

Not for free.

I read the 691 HP number the day I ordered my car. I also saw it the day I test drove my first P85D. I don't care what the number is - that car was FAST! But - how many of us spent an hour or so in the car and were just giddy with taking off from a stop light? I didn't spend enough time on highways with the car. Very disappointed with the performance of the P85D at 30+ (Or so) MPH. THAT should be fixed. The car does NOT react like it has 691 HP. Or 555 HP. Pick a number. The car is disappointing at 30+ MPH and I wish I had spent more time driving it on highways before I purchased.

Not much I can do now, other than wait to see if the L upgrade on a P85D makes a big difference. Even at that, I will have a hard time spending $5k+ to make the car what I THOUGHT I was getting.

If car companies gave cars out for a few days to test drive, I think we'd be in a different place, personally. I imagine I'm not the only person with this experience.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Not for free.

I read the 691 HP number the day I ordered my car. I also saw it the day I test drove my first P85D. I don't care what the number is - that car was FAST! But - how many of us spent an hour or so in the car and were just giddy with taking off from a stop light? I didn't spend enough time on highways with the car. Very disappointed with the performance of the P85D at 30+ (Or so) MPH. THAT should be fixed. The car does NOT react like it has 691 HP. Or 555 HP. Pick a number. The car is disappointing at 30+ MPH and I wish I had spent more time driving it on highways before I purchased.

Not much I can do now, other than wait to see if the L upgrade on a P85D makes a big difference. Even at that, I will have a hard time spending $5k+ to make the car what I THOUGHT I was getting.

If car companies gave cars out for a few days to test drive, I think we'd be in a different place, personally. I imagine I'm not the only person with this experience.

Do you mean you don't think Tesla will fix this for free - or that you don't think they even should fix this for free? Anyway, the kind of things you list performance experience-wise can apply to many cars. EVs behave different to ICEs too. Some of that is merely stuff for car reviews and test drives as you say.

But I guess what I'm mostly concerned with is that if Tesla says 691 HP, that should at least be relatively close to what a reasonable dyno or other common measurement setup could and would pick up. I mean, we can even factor in some accept of losses in there, but 555 vs. 691 probably is a bit too much.

The car being personally disappointing is different from objective specs not matching measurable reality. Former is not nice but OK, latter is not OK as evidenced by the Volkswagen case for example.