That Motor Trend 1 foot rollout

[stopcrazypp]

I can just see Clarkson making a joke of this: "The only thing Americans race is a straight line and they can't even measure that properly!"

But in all seriousness, press aside (which IMO is rather pointless when discussing manufacturer specs), are the 0-60 times in American car's official specs always with the 1 foot roll-out? If so, why does Tesla refer to Motor Trend in its specs - seems odd referring to a magazine...

Yes, this is generally true.
Scroll down a bit to the range section on the Bolt page and next to 238 miles per charge, you can see it say 0-60 in less than 6.5 seconds with no disclaimers.
2017 Bolt EV: All-Electric Vehicle | Chevrolet

However, if you dig, and you click on the "i" symbol next to LT or Premier in the order page, you will see:
"Accelerates from 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds1
1 Based on initial vehicle movement in GM testing."
bolt ev for Sale: 2017 bolt ev Pricing | Chevrolet

Tesla added the disclaimer (as did GM) likely because of people that might sue them (as did happen in Norway). And referring to the magazine testing gives them a nice explicit third party reference that people can easily look up (not a testing method Tesla just made up out of the blue).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Yes, this is generally true.
Scroll down a bit to the range section on the Bolt page and next to 238 miles per charge, you can see it say 0-60 in less than 6.5 seconds with no disclaimers.
2017 Bolt EV: All-Electric Vehicle | Chevrolet

However, if you dig, and you click on the "i" symbol next to LT or Premier in the order page, you will see:
"Accelerates from 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds1
1 Based on initial vehicle movement in GM testing."
bolt ev for Sale: 2017 bolt ev Pricing | Chevrolet

Tesla added the disclaimer (as did GM) likely because of people that might sue them (as did happen in Norway). And referring to the magazine testing gives them a nice explicit third party reference that people can easily look up (not a testing method Tesla just made up out of the blue).

Thank you for the GM reference. Personally if I were Tesla I'd leave the Motor Trend out (seems odd), but yes, I believe this is a tendency in the U.S. overall.

I believe in Norway they were sued for the HP misleading, though?

 

[whitex]

I believe in Norway they were sued for the HP misleading, though?

Claiming 691hp and delivering only 463hp is in a different league than 0-60 vs. 5-60. While other car manufacturers report 0-60 with 1ft rollout:
A) The other car manufacturers usually measure all the variants of the same model the same way. Tesla only reported the rollout number on P's while using actual 0-60 on non-P Model S - it was a deception technique designed to make the P appear faster, nothing to do with practicality of measurement since they were able to do that with the other cars.
B) The other car manufacturers NEVER overstate their hp by almost 50% - only Elon has the balls to do this. There is no measurement fudging that will yield 691hp. Tesla's explanation was total and complete BS (they claimed motors are capable but not the rest of the drivetrain, yet they advertised motor power as 503 read + 259 front, which adds up to 763, so the 691 was just pure lie pulled out of Elon's whatever to grab news headlines).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Claiming 691hp and delivering only 463hp is in a different league than 0-60 vs. 5-60. While other car manufacturers report 0-60 with 1ft rollout:
A) The other car manufacturers usually measure all the variants of the same model the same way. Tesla only reported the rollout number on P's while using actual 0-60 on non-P Model S - it was a deception technique designed to make the P appear faster, nothing to do with practicality of measurement since they were able to do that with the other cars.
B) The other car manufacturers NEVER overstate their hp by almost 50% - only Elon has the balls to do this. There is no measurement fudging that will yield 691hp. Tesla's explanation was total and complete BS (they claimed motors are capable but not the rest of the drivetrain, yet they advertised motor power as 503 read + 259 front, which adds up to 763, so the 691 was just pure lie pulled out of Elon's whatever to grab news headlines).

Agreed on all.

 

[lunitiks]

The norway suit concerned both issues

 

[snd92]

Settlement agreements only in Norway (132) and Denmark (~70)? Has Tesla admitted fault, like in have customers won a law suit regarding HP and 0-60/0-100?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Settlement agreements only in Norway (132) and Denmark (~70)? Has Tesla admitted fault, like in have customers won a law suit regarding HP and 0-60/0-100?

From when I was still following it, it was settled out of court. I don't believe it actually went through a whole suit.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla's explanation was total and complete BS (they claimed motors are capable but not the rest of the drivetrain, yet they advertised motor power as 503 read + 259 front, which adds up to 763, so the 691 was just pure lie pulled out of Elon's whatever to grab news headlines).

This is not true as far as I can tell. The 691 came from 221 hp front 470 hp rear (rear was same as old P85).
Tesla Model S P85D: Dual motors, AWD, 691 hp, 3.2 to 60

The upgraded numbers came later on as they had updates.

 

[vgrinshpun]

From when I was still following it, it was settled out of court. I don't believe it actually went through a whole suit.

Also worth mentioning that consumer protection agency investigating the claim did not bring any action against Tesla. The owners then proceeded to sue using privately hired lawyers. The suite did not go through, as parties settled out of court.

 

[vgrinshpun]

This is not true as far as I can tell. The 691 came from 221 hp front 470 hp rear (rear was same as old P85).
Tesla Model S P85D: Dual motors, AWD, 691 hp, 3.2 to 60

The upgraded numbers came later on as they had updates.

Yep, you beat me to it...

 

[D.E.]

That 5mph point is just a side point. The more important point is the first half.


Maybe you can get a lot of Europeans to agree with you (as they never use rollout in their numbers), but most Americans, especially if they have any familiarity with American performance cars, will just go "meh", as this is the way it has been done since forever (not just by Motor Trend, but also by Car & Driver and Road & Track).

0-60 with 1-foot rollout is also known as "Initial Vehicle Movement" (IVM) to 60. GM uses this term as does some official research papers (here's one from ANL):
"Figure 1 shows the Initial Vehicle Movement (IVM) time (the time at which the vehicle moves one foot) to the time at which the vehicle reaches 60 mph as a function of the vehicle specific power"
http://www.autonomie.net/docs/6 - Papers/Light duty/fuel_econom_sensitivity.pdf

You can write a letter to the editor to all three publications and complain if it really offends you.

If they want to publish and call it "IVM to 60" results, that's just fine with me.

Writing to them won't be productive. It'd be like writing to a thief and telling him he's stealing. He knows.

It should offend anyone who understands exactly what 0-60 MPH means and who thinks a 57 billion dollar car company and the man that runs it should be totally honest when selling someone $150,000 car.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If they want to publish and call it "IVM to 60" results, that's just fine with me.

Writing to them won't be productive. It'd be like writing to a thief and telling him he's stealing. He knows.

It should offend anyone who understands exactly what 0-60 MPH means and who thinks a 57 billion dollar car company and the man that runs it should be totally honest when selling someone $150,000 car.

Well if you aren't going to do anything to change it, then it's going to just be that way, which plenty of people are fine with BTW.

And to be clear, GM and Ford does exactly the same thing (not sure about Chrysler after they switched hands to European ownership), as does all the major car magazines.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Well if you aren't going to do anything to change it, then it's going to just be that way, which plenty of people are fine with BTW.

And to be clear, GM and Ford does exactly the same thing (not sure about Chrysler after they switched hands to European ownership), as does all the major car magazines.

And any car company that sells high performance vehicles will immediately put themselves at a disadvantage if it unilaterally quotes their acceleration numbers ignoring the convention followed by everybody else.

 

[whitex]

This is not true as far as I can tell. The 691 came from 221 hp front 470 hp rear (rear was same as old P85).
Tesla Model S P85D: Dual motors, AWD, 691 hp, 3.2 to 60

The upgraded numbers came later on as they had updates.

When I bought mine, it said 691hp (221hp front 470hp rear). Yep, front and back adds up to 691hp, makes sense, right? Then when Tesla finally came clean about the fact that 691hp was completely unanachievable, they stated that P85D had 463hp, 503hp rear 259hp front (see picture I attached earlier in this thread post #20). So, turns out 691hp was not actually the combined motor capability, as the motors were even more capable, then wtf was the 691hp number? Someone de-rated motor power that was already not nearly achievable, and if so, what was this de-rating based on - "overstating the power by 65% is wrong, but 50% is ok"? Maybe they the numbers were for some planned actual 85KWhr battery (since the one shipped was only 81KWhr, 77 usable, another Tesla lie which they never even tried to explain)?

PS> I'm basing my statements on what Tesla had on their website. Your link to R&T stated motor output power 691hp, which is not even close (my P85D would need 50% more power than it came with in order to hit it). Btw, Tesla knew they weren't making the hp, so they had a note on the Design Studio that an upgrade to unleash the full power is coming over OTA so that their sales people can keep claiming 691hp is coming (kind of like FSD today, except back then there were not as skilled in covering themselves legally by wording it like FSD that cleverly states no guarantees whatsoever - at least they learn).

 

[stopcrazypp]

When I bought mine, it said 691hp (221hp front 470hp rear). Yep, front and back adds up to 691hp, makes sense, right? Then when Tesla finally came clean about the fact that 691hp was completely unanachievable, they stated that P85D had 463hp, 503hp rear 259hp front (see picture I attached earlier in this thread post #20). So, turns out 691hp was not actually the combined motor capability, as the motors were even more capable, then wtf was the 691hp number? Someone de-rated motor power that was already not nearly achievable, and if so, what was this de-rating based on - "overstating the power by 65% is wrong, but 50% is ok"? Maybe they the numbers were for some planned actual 85KWhr battery (since the one shipped was only 81KWhr, 77 usable, another Tesla lie which they never even tried to explain)?

PS> I'm basing my statements on what Tesla had on their website. Your link to R&T stated motor output power 691hp, which is not even close (my P85D would need 50% more power than it came with in order to hit it). Btw, Tesla knew they weren't making the hp, so they had a note on the Design Studio that an upgrade to unleash the full power is coming over OTA so that their sales people can keep claiming 691hp is coming (kind of like FSD today, except back then there were not as skilled in covering themselves legally by wording it like FSD that cleverly states no guarantees whatsoever - at least they learn).

That's not how I remembered it. The R&T link I gave came from the launch of P85D. I linked it to quote this part:
"P85D: 691 hp—221 hp front, 470 hp rear (vs 470 hp)"

The 503hp rear 259hp front came after "Ludicrous" when they updated the motor firmware.

 

[whitex]

That's not how I remembered it. The R&T link I gave came from the launch of P85D. I linked it to quote this part:
"P85D: 691 hp—221 hp front, 470 hp rear (vs 470 hp)"

The 503hp rear 259hp front came after "Ludicrous" when they updated the motor firmware.

The constant changes is Tesla MO as far as not delivering. It's always "you must be on old firmware" or "new cars don't do that". Bottom line to me:
* Tesla promised 691hp, delivered 463hp
* Tesla spec said 85KWh battery, delivered 81, usable 77

Those are hard number Tesla had to know before the first car rolled off the production line, so to me they straight out deceived customers. It's not like BSM via parking sensors, which obviously was a complete brain-fart without any proof of concept, or other vapourware Tesla sold. The 2 examples above cannot be explained by Tesla's nativity (they obviously didn't possibly think the battery is going to grow extra capacity while in the field).

 

[snd92]

From when I was still following it, it was settled out of court. I don't believe it actually went through a whole suit.

I know this, that is why I asked if Tesla has ever admitted fault in court. (Hint: I am a P85D owner from Norway myself ) In the settlement agreement Tesla rejected customers' claims...

 

[stopcrazypp]

I know this, that is why I asked if Tesla has ever admitted fault in court. (Hint: I am a P85D owner from Norway myself ) In the settlement agreement Tesla rejected customers' claims...

The implication is that if it doesn't go to a suit Tesla likely didn't admit to the claims. It's rare that a company settles the claims while admitting fault (as that may open them to other liability from people who opted out of the settlement).

 

[stopcrazypp]

The constant changes is Tesla MO as far as not delivering. It's always "you must be on old firmware" or "new cars don't do that". Bottom line to me:
* Tesla promised 691hp, delivered 463hp
* Tesla spec said 85KWh battery, delivered 81, usable 77

Those are hard number Tesla had to know before the first car rolled off the production line, so to me they straight out deceived customers. It's not like BSM via parking sensors, which obviously was a complete brain-fart without any proof of concept, or other vapourware Tesla sold. The 2 examples above cannot be explained by Tesla's nativity (they obviously didn't possibly think the battery is going to grow extra capacity while in the field).

I don't want to open that can of worms again, but it comes down to interpretation of what "motor power" means. I always interpreted that to mean the power of the motors only (not car package as a whole):
[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

Others obviously interpreted differently.

 

[whitex]

I don't want to open that can of worms again, but it comes down to interpretation of what "motor power" means. I always interpreted that to mean the power of the motors only (not car package as a whole):
[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

Others obviously interpreted differently.

I don't want to argue, just really curious about your point of view on how exactly did you interpret the spec below as being met with an 81KWh battery (only 77KWh usable, but let's count the whole battery)? Are you in the camp that argues that 81 rounds up to 85, or that the battery casing is capable of 85KWh, or that it doesn't matter since 85's are no longer sold, or some other interpretation I have not yet heard? Note that I am not talking about the model number, I am specifically talking about Tesla saying the car has an 85KWh battery. I won't try to change your mind, just like knowing how people explain things like that.