[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

[wk057]

For those suggesting a lawsuit, I'll put it out there again:
1) There is no SAE standard for EV power ratings (it is still under development) and Tesla never claimed that number was an SAE number.
2) Tesla claimed that number was "motor power" (which per their meaning is referring to what the motors can output on a motor dyno, given that they show both numbers now). Outside of the caveat about gearing that I mentioned, where the actual combined motor peak number may be lower than 691hp because of gearing differences, I find it unlikely that the motors can't handle the output claimed.
3) Tesla appears to be following electric motor industry standards in rating their motor(s).

I'm not a lawyer, but I presume that "motor power" terminology there was added with input from lawyers and that Tesla's lawyers are probably well aware there is no standard yet for rating EV power. And that allows them to say they have not made a factually false statement. It then becomes a case of how misleading that statement is. Any plantiff trying to sue Tesla on false advertising would have to demonstrate that a significant portion of customers was misled in regards to this (not simply themselves or the judge/jury).

I do agree with wk057 that there is no advantage to Tesla for offering a free upgrade, given that is essentially admitting fault. Keep in mind even if they do so, they can still be sued for false advertising (esp. if as people speculate that the Ludicrous upgrade doesn't give 691hp either).

Overall, while I think the current motor HP advertising is stupid and misleading to people who don't know better, it's at least probably correct and there wouldn't be much for people to get at on it currently.

However, when the CEO says "in the P85D we've retained the larger motor with the smaller motor in the front which basically gives the car half a gain as much power" (which would be > 600 HP based on the P85 specs), and Tesla themselves combines the HP number on the site to show 691 HP as was the case for early buyers, that definitely implies that the car can output that combined power. Them removing that number, in my opinion, is already at least a partial admission on their part that this was at the very least misleading, but worse so was false entirely.

Edit: (Hit submit before I was done)

I think your points 1+2 don't really matter, honestly. Horsepower is itself well defined: a unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (745.7 watts). We don't need SAE here. As for the whole "motor power" thing, name another car company that does this. I'm buying a car, not an electric motor, so I want specs on the car when I buy a car.

For your point #3, if I buy an electric motor that is rated at X HP, I will be able to utilize it at X HP. I can not with the Model S that has this rating.

Again, the Model S is the product I'm buying, not an electric motor. So many of these points are moot.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Overall, while I think the current motor HP advertising is stupid and misleading to people who don't know better, it's at least probably correct and there wouldn't be much for people to get at on it currently.

However, when the CEO says "in the P85D we've retained the larger motor with the smaller motor in the front which basically gives the car half a gain as much power" (which would be > 600 HP based on the P85 specs), and Tesla themselves combines the HP number on the site to show 691 HP as was the case for early buyers, that definitely implies that the car can output that combined power. Them removing that number, in my opinion, is already at least a partial admission on their part that this was at the very least misleading, but worse so was false entirely.

Edit: (Hit submit before I was done)

I think your points 1+2 don't really matter, honestly. Horsepower is itself well defined: a unit of power equal to 550 foot-pounds per second (745.7 watts). We don't need SAE here.

For the purposes of this discussion we do. I believe sorka already pointed out the significance of the SAE standard for ICE cars. Without the SAE standard there was a lot of ways you can inflate your power numbers based on the testing conditions. The SAE standard for ICE cars specifies that the entire set of accessories and emissions equipment that goes with the car must be attached to the engine on the engine dyno and also sets strict testing conditions (temperature, pressure, humidity, etc). This is extremely relevant here given this is essentially an argument over whether battery limitations should be factored into power ratings vs. just rating the motor itself.

When SAE finalizes their EV rating standards, Tesla can probably no longer advertise the way they do now (unless they officially say they are going against convention). Given it's not done, anything is fair game in the EV market as there is no established standard.

As for the whole "motor power" thing, name another car company that does this. I'm buying a car, not an electric motor, so I want specs on the car when I buy a car.

I did already a while back:

I'll give you an example that was pointed out by someone ironically complaining about the P85D's power rating too.
The C-Max Energi's battery at max power in depletion mode can only output 68kW. The motor however is listed at 88kW.
UK Review Of Tesla Model S P85D
2015 Ford C-MAX | View Full Engine Specifications | Ford.com

Fisker did the same also.
They advertised two 150kW motors for 300kW (403 hp) combined.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/18/news/la-mo-autos-saturday-drive-fisker-karma
The car dynos at 230whp. It's pretty clear it never made anywhere near 403hp at the shaft or the wheels (that was only the "motor power" rating, even though Fisker didn't say that explicitly, unlike Tesla).
http://www.fiskerbuzz.com/forums/13-fisker-karma/4601-maximum-power-karma.html

For your point #3, if I buy an electric motor that is rated at X HP, I will be able to utilize it at X HP. I can not with the Model S that has this rating.

Again, the Model S is the product I'm buying, not an electric motor. So many of these points are moot.

#3 is relevant precisely because of things like the 90kWh battery (which is retrofit-able to 85kWh owners) and fuse upgrade. Knowing what the motor(s) is capable of lets you know the future potential of the car. Previously the only example of a battery upgrade was David Noland getting his 60kWh upgraded to 85kWh (which allowed him to take full advantage of the motor as rated with "motor power"). Now, Tesla seems to be wanting to make this a common thing (with Elon saying there are more battery upgrades coming in the next couple of years).

 

[wk057]

For the purposes of this discussion we do. I believe sorka already pointed out the significance of the SAE standard for ICE cars. Without the SAE standard there was a lot of ways you can inflate your power numbers based on the testing conditions. The SAE standard for ICE cars specifies that the entire set of accessories and emissions equipment that goes with the car must be attached to the engine on the engine dyno and also sets strict testing conditions (temperature, pressure, humidity, etc). This is extremely relevant here given this is essentially an argument over whether battery limitations should be factored into power ratings vs. just rating the motor itself.

When SAE finalizes their EV rating standards, Tesla can probably no longer advertise the way they do now (unless they officially say they are going against convention). Given it's not done, anything is fair game in the EV market as there is no established standard.


I did already a while back:


Fisker did the same also.
They advertised two 150kW motors for 300kW (403 hp) combined.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/18/news/la-mo-autos-saturday-drive-fisker-karma
The car dynos at 230whp. It's pretty clear it never made anywhere near 403hp at the shaft or the wheels (that was only the "motor power" rating, even though Fisker didn't say that explicitly, unlike Tesla).
http://www.fiskerbuzz.com/forums/13-fisker-karma/4601-maximum-power-karma.html



#3 is relevant precisely because of things like the 90kWh battery (which is retrofit-able to 85kWh owners) and fuse upgrade. Knowing what the motor(s) is capable of lets you know the future potential of the car. Previously the only example of a battery upgrade was David Noland getting his 60kWh upgraded to 85kWh (which allowed him to take full advantage of the motors as rated with "motor power"). Now, Tesla seems to be wanting to make this a common thing (with Elon saying there are more battery upgrades coming in the next couple of years).

I'm not saying an SAE standard wouldn't be nice, sure it would be. But since we don't have one common sense is going to need to prevail here.

The C-MAX example doesn't work. The page you link states SAE HP for the gas engine and combined gas+electric HP for the whole car. For the electric portion it clearly states the power output levels of the battery and the motor, so in no way would I consider this misleading whatsoever. If Tesla did the same that'd be great!

As for Fisker.... well, let's just throw this out there: no one really cares about Fisker anymore. I don't even think there is anyone left to complain to there even if someone wanted to... so I'm just going to say that no one really has any real idea how they get to their numbers.

If you're basing #3 on the fact that in July '15 we were told about a battery upgrade, then that's ridiculous. In no way was there a battery/fuse/etc option available or even on the horizon as far as something that a buyer would have to even think to consider when buying the P85D back in October 2014 as far as getting the advertised power output. If there were battery/motor combination options for the P85D that specifically stated the power output available for each at the time I bought my car then I'd agree with you that this would be fine. This thread wouldn't exist. That fact is the 691 HP number was provided by Tesla for the P85D. Not the P90D, not the S85 or the S60 or the S70... the P85D that I (and many others) ordered.

If this is something someone should take into account when buying a Model S, why do the other models show actual rating and not "motor power" ratings on the website?

As of this moment the site shows:

• S70 - 315 hp
• 70D - 328 hp
• S85 - 373 hp
• 85D - 417 hp
• P85D - 259 hp front, 503 hp rear motor power

I mean seriously, if they weren't hiding the true number for the P85D (which we all know they are... anyone who says otherwise is spewing total b*** s*** at this point) why doesn't it also just have a single "hp" number listed? The 70D and 85D use the same front and rear motors, yet they just have one number and a different number at that meaning it's the actual output. They have two motors, also, so why aren't they listed individually like the P85D? The term "motor power" is conveniently wrapped to the next line also on the P85D ratings (not that I'm saying that's intentional, but it does conveniently add to the misrepresentation).

It's also worth noting, against your reasoning that future battery upgrades matter, that selecting the 90 kWh option doesn't change any of these specs on the website at all even for the 85D/S85 which have single "hp" numbers listed.

Why is the P85D different? Because if they list the true number it's going to suck that's why. Everyone will know it, not just the few people in this thread, and people will be able to more easily recognize the scam and sue for bait and switch type false advertising... which is going to happen anyway whether you like it or not.

Edit: As for battery upgrades being a "common thing," I can't even get any information about the Ludicrous mode update or a 90kWh pack upgrade from any of three service centers I've spoken to about it. If it's going to be a common thing now you would think someone would have some information three weeks after the upgrade and pricing were publicly announced by the CEO... but some of them didn't even know that pricing for a P85D Ludicrous mode upgrade ($5k + labor) was announced!

 

[stopcrazypp]

The C-MAX example doesn't work. The page you link states SAE HP for the gas engine and combined gas+electric HP for the whole car. For the electric portion it clearly states the power output levels of the battery and the motor, so in no way would I consider this misleading whatsoever. If Tesla did the same that'd be great!

You asked for an example of advertising with "motor power". I gave it. That Ford also has an SAE HP power and battery power on that page, doesn't change the fact that they advertised a motor power number (and that it also misled some people in believing that the car can output 118hp in EV mode, example below).
http://gm-volt.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-76970.html

Tesla is doing the same thing as Ford now (advertising different power numbers). I merely demonstrated that "motor power" is not something Tesla made up or that they were the only people to use it.

If you're basing #3 on the fact that in July '15 we were told about a battery upgrade, then that's ridiculous. In no way was there a battery/fuse/etc option available or even on the horizon as far as something that a buyer would have to even think to consider when buying the P85D back in October 2014 as far as getting the advertised power output. If there were battery/motor combination options for the P85D that specifically stated the power output available for each at the time I bought my car then I'd agree with you that this would be fine. This thread wouldn't exist. That fact is the 691 HP number was provided by Tesla for the P85D. Not the P90D, not the S85 or the S60 or the S70... the P85D that I (and many others) ordered.

You are treating this as if only the P85D had an advertised motor power number. I already had numerous posts that showed this issue also affected the S60, S85, the S60D/S70D and the S85D. The only model that was specifically not affected at all was the P85 since it got replaced directly by the P85D. My comment applies in general terms to all those models affected.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...eement/page4?p=1076026&viewfull=1#post1076026

I should make it clear I am not talking about if its "fine" (you obviously are not happy with it no matter what Tesla's intentions were back then), but rather what Tesla may have been thinking of in terms of putting a "motor power" number in the first place. Even David Noland (who is typically very critical of Tesla) was able to see this, given his upgrade from 60kWh to 85kWh (which was a one time thing that Tesla did and not for any other customer). What I am saying is that the offer of a 90kWh upgrade to existing 85kWh owners and fuse upgrade is an example that they are open to doing so in more general terms (not just that one customer).

In a previous post, I already said Tesla should have put both numbers, but hindsight is 20/20.

And looking back, I actually did predict correctly that Tesla might have had an upgrade coming that would unlock the full motor potential:

If in the future a P100D comes out that can utilize the full power (assuming there is no further update coming that can release more power with the same 85kWh pack) such a pack upgrade may allow the car to do 515kW.

If this is something someone should take into account when buying a Model S, why do the other models show actual rating and not "motor power" ratings on the website?
...
Why is the P85D different? Because if they list the true number it's going to suck that's why. Everyone will know it, not just the few people in this thread, and people will be able to more easily recognize the scam and sue for bait and switch type false advertising... which is going to happen anyway whether you like it or not.

The main reason they don't put it for P85D is likely because of this thread specifically. I have no doubt Tesla had read this thread and that their decision to pull the original number (and also all the "motor power" numbers) was because of this thread. S60/S60D/S70D/S85D owners did not bring up the issue over "motor power" at all. As they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".

- - - Updated - - -

However, when the CEO says "in the P85D we've retained the larger motor with the smaller motor in the front which basically gives the car half a gain as much power" (which would be > 600 HP based on the P85 specs), and Tesla themselves combines the HP number on the site to show 691 HP as was the case for early buyers, that definitely implies that the car can output that combined power. Them removing that number, in my opinion, is already at least a partial admission on their part that this was at the very least misleading, but worse so was false entirely.

Sorry, I missed this. I think torque got mixed up with power. The written reference I found was here:
"The P85D combines the performance of the P85 rear motor with an additional 50 percent of torque available from our new front drive unit."
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/dual-motor-model-s-and-autopilot

 

[wk057]

You asked for an example of advertising with "motor power". I gave it. That Ford also has an SAE HP power and battery power on that page, doesn't change the fact that they advertised a motor power number (and that it also misled some people in believing that the car can output 118hp in EV mode, example below).
http://gm-volt.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-76970.html

Tesla is doing the same thing as Ford now (advertising different power numbers). I merely demonstrated that "motor power" is not something Tesla made up or that they were the only people to use it.


You are treating this as if only the P85D had an advertised motor power number. I already had numerous posts that showed this issue also affected the S60, S85, the S60D/S70D and the S85D. The only model that was specifically not affected at all was the P85 since it got replaced directly by the P85D. My comment applies in general terms to all those models affected.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...eement/page4?p=1076026&viewfull=1#post1076026

I should make it clear I am not talking about if its "fine" (you obviously are not happy with it no matter what Tesla's intentions were back then), but rather what Tesla may have been thinking of in terms of putting a "motor power" number in the first place. Even David Noland (who is typically very critical of Tesla) was able to see this, given his upgrade from 60kWh to 85kWh (which was a one time thing that Tesla did and not for any other customer). What I am saying is that the offer of a 90kWh upgrade to existing 85kWh owners and fuse upgrade is an example that they are open to doing so in more general terms (not just that one customer).

In a previous post, I already said Tesla should have put both numbers, but hindsight is 20/20.

And looking back, I actually did predict correctly that Tesla might have had an upgrade coming that would unlock the full motor potential:



The main reason they don't put it for P85D is likely because of this thread specifically. I have no doubt Tesla had read this thread and that their decision to pull the original number (and also all the "motor power" numbers) was because of this thread. S60/S60D/S70D/S85D owners did not bring up the issue over "motor power" at all. As they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".

- - - Updated - - -


Sorry, I missed this. I think torque got mixed up with power. The written reference I found was here:
"The P85D combines the performance of the P85 rear motor with an additional 50 percent of torque available from our new front drive unit."
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/dual-motor-model-s-and-autopilot

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

I think the combination of this issue (we only have not even 100 more horsepower than the P85), the range issue (P85D is not more efficient than the P85 as initially advertised), combined with the demo of working autopilot and then the 10 months (so far) of delays are enough to have me very skeptical of what Tesla's intentions were/are anymore.

 

[darthy001]

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

I think the combination of this issue (we only have not even 100 more horsepower than the P85), the range issue (P85D is not more efficient than the P85 as initially advertised), combined with the demo of working autopilot and then the 10 months (so far) of delays are enough to have me very skeptical of what Tesla's intentions were/are anymore.

you forgot the mythical missing update for perfomance at high speeds

 

[Sad]

you forgot the mythical missing update for perfomance at high speeds

Which is, in my opinion, the only item based on which a buyer could really have a claim against Tesla, coz' this was simply not accurate (and not open to technical interpretation) and written black on white in the Design Studio.

 

[dsm363]

P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"

What Tesla did was no doubt misleading but did they specifically ever state the 691hp was at the shaft or wheels? Did anyone who's upset ever ask prior to confirming their order since this was a vital piece of information for them? If you jumped to order one without waiting to find out critical information you needed I'm not sure what you can do. It's like the guy who posted last year about the car not having a CD player and who was extremely upset. Not quite the same thing but don't think he ever asked either.
The talk of lawyers on this seems over the top to me.

 

[darthy001]

What Tesla did was no doubt misleading but did they specifically ever state the 691hp was at the shaft or wheels? Did anyone who's upset ever ask prior to confirming their order since this was a vital piece of information for them? If you jumped to order one without waiting to find out critical information you needed I'm not sure what you can do. It's like the guy who posted last year about the car not having a CD player and who was extremely upset. Not quite the same thing but don't think he ever asked either.
The talk of lawyers on this seems over the top to me.

Several people have written here in this thread that they did ask and even some claim to have gotten both written and verbal replies confirming the infamous 691hp of course the just mentioned missing update was for many the perceived update that would unleash the remaining performance. Not to mention some people being told that democars was limited and that customer cars would perform better.

For me the missing update is the annoying part. 691 is just a number, but the update promised something that without a doubt has never been delivered, and adding to insult it is more or less being sold now for 5000USD as ludicrous-mode....

 

[sorka]

What Tesla did was no doubt misleading but did they specifically ever state the 691hp was at the shaft or wheels? Did anyone who's upset ever ask prior to confirming their order since this was a vital piece of information for them? If you jumped to order one without waiting to find out critical information you needed I'm not sure what you can do. It's like the guy who posted last year about the car not having a CD player and who was extremely upset. Not quite the same thing but don't think he ever asked either.
The talk of lawyers on this seems over the top to me.

It is standard for manufacturers to list hp at the motor shaft. I personally believe this is where the "motor power" term comes from so folks will know they meant at the motor and not the wheels. The way they're advertising it now is *still* a little misleading as folks might add up both numbers now and get value that isn't correct but at least they're not displaying a combined number any more which directly implies you could get that number which you can't. It would be nice if they advertised a total power output but they can't because they were and it was wrong and if they go back to doing it and put the real number there, then there will be hell to pay.

That said, at the shaft? Heck, I'd be happy if that number was at the battery (which would mean conversion loss by the time it hit the motor shaft) but the highest reading so far is 415K = 555 hp at the battery.

 

[ScepticMatt]

you forgot the mythical missing update for performance at high speeds

More power means better performance at high speeds (that and aero changes). So my guess is Tesla failed to reach their internal power output target without hardware upgrades.

 

[darthy001]

More power means better performance at high speeds (that and aero changes). So my guess is Tesla failed to reach their internal power output target without hardware upgrades.

I believe that is without a doubt the true story now.. But should Tesla then make customers pay for that upgrade!?

 

[Andyw2100]

you forgot the mythical missing update for perfomance at high speeds

The issue with that is that it affects a different group of P85D buyers, as that note wasn't on the website when the first P85D buyers placed our orders.

 

[darthy001]

The issue with that is that it affects a different group of P85D buyers, as that note wasn't on the website when the first P85D buyers placed our orders.

Responding to the wrong thread? My remarks was related to comments about Teslas intentions in regards of marketing and follow-up of that marketing...

 

[wk057]

Actually, the 691 HP question was definitely one I had brought up prior to signing on the dotted line. I specifically had a conversation along the lines of the P85 not being able to pull away at higher speeds, and the added horsepower would be able to take care of that.

lol, silly me for believing that.... and the black and white on the order page.... I suppose.

 

[SDRick]

While I do not believe Tesla handled this well from the beginning, I do not think they are overly exposed to a lawsuit. That said, I'm surprised there isn't a lawyer somewhere that would take advantage of the system.


They would negotiate a tidy sum for themselve and the Tesla owners will get a free hat or a discount on their next purchase. This reminds me of the suit against monitor manufacturers overstating the diagonal size of the screen.


Lawyers win everybody else pretty much loses.

 

[jdbob]

Ford did show 118hp for the electric motor in the early days. They later dropped that and now just specify the max battery drain in charge sustain and charge depletion modes. Here's a spec sheet I downloaded from Ford in February 2014: http://www.certsoft.com/CMax/2013_CMAX_Specs.pdf

 

[wk057]

Ford did show 118hp for the electric motor in the early days. They later dropped that and now just specify the max battery drain in charge sustain and charge depletion modes. Here's a spec sheet I downloaded from Ford in February 2014: http://www.certsoft.com/CMax/2013_CMAX_Specs.pdf

There is still enough information there to know they're specifically stating the specs of the electric motor, and they also state the sustained discharge rate of the battery as well as the combined horsepower. That's more than Tesla has ever done for the P85D.

 

[Andyw2100]

Responding to the wrong thread? My remarks was related to comments about Teslas intentions in regards of marketing and follow-up of that marketing...

No.

The note you are talking about appeared on the P85D order page, but not back in October and November 2014 when the first P85D buyers placed our orders. I believe that note appeared well after delivery of P85Ds began. So while some people may have ordered based on that note, and been disappointed, the earliest P85D buyers may also have been disappointed, but they didn't order based on the note.

Edit: I've been posting and reading from my phone today, but just understood what you meant.

I was commenting as if your comment was adding one more item to the list of things wk057 had listed that were all valid complaints the original P85D buyers would have over unfulfilled promises, but I now realize that's not what you were doing. You were just adding to a more general list.

 

[darthy001]

Edit: I've been posting and reading from my phone today, but just understood what you meant.

I was commenting as if your comment was adding one more item to the list of things wk057 had listed that were all valid complaints the original P85D buyers would have over unfulfilled promises, but I now realize that's not what you were doing. You were just adding to a more general list.

Thats what I was intending to do yes just adding an item to the list so that it doesnt get forgotten.. Especially since this item so clearly cannot be discarded by simple semantics like so many are trying to do with the similar seat-, HP-, range- and now also the autopilot-debates...