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

[Andyw2100]

Why exactly is Tesla getting singled out in this? Which car manufacturer lets you have the options and top of the line model with value for money? Is it Audi? Where going from a V8 to a V10 adds $50,000 to the price of an R8? Yeah that sounds like it. Maybe it's BMW charging $1250 for 3 pieces of fake carbon fiber trim? Oh Tesla only charger $1000 for that.

Tesla is singled out because a) we bought Teslas, and b) the other car manufacturers seem to be delivering what they say they are going to deliver.

I expect if the Audi buyers who paid $50,000 to go from a V8 to a V10 actually got a V9, they'd be asking questions too.

It's like everyone is a newb...

Yeah, that's not insulting at all.

 

[rns-e]

If there wasn't so much whining about trivial and irrelevant things you might be able to focus on a real issue.

The price is what Tesla is asking for it. This is what the free market allows. If someone is makes a decision that it isn't worth the money, they are free not to buy it.

edit - and as a shareholder I fully support high margin options. They allow offering a vehicle for a lower price for those who want while still achieving a higher net margin.

I agree, and that is why I bought the more expensive car, I made the decision that the extra performance was worth the extra $24k. However que the quote below:

This is precisely the point and why a subset of Tesla buyers have a legitimate beef. If someone made their decision to buy a $24,000 upgrade based on "facts" and these advertised facts were in error, it is too late to be "free not to buy it".

I would hope this has nothing to do with what "the free market allows" but rather the integrity of the company and the reliability and accuracy of advertised specifications.

So in short AWDtsla - if Tesla had just delivered on the specs they claimed when up-selling me I would not be - to use your flattering words - whining about this trivial and irrelevant thing.

Did you miss rns-e post? He has pre-April car.

That is correct. However, as I understand it, the performance suspension is only different air shocks, or? Again not $24k extra in material. Neither is the red P and red D or red brake callipers.

Tesla found a way to make existing technology go fast, really fast. And sell that at a premium - good on them. I applaud that, really do. But then Tesla better also deliver, because the premium they are charging is the highest markup they have in the whole line up.

They are extending the life of the old P85 motor into the P85D, P90D, X P90D, using the old motor in the new top of the range products which is economically very good. It is all upside for them, which is why I don't think it is to much to get what you paid for.

 

[smac]

Well, pretty elaborate story, but analogy just does not hold. As I've posted before, there are additional nuts and bolts and labor to put them in, and R&D that goes with them, etc. which differentiate P85D from, say, 85D, so one missing cake is just not the case here. The car has all the parts, it is just that representation of what it can do does not meet the expectation. So we are down to whether 12 cakes taste as promised argument - the one clearly open to the various interpretations...

You will love my analogy of when I went to the hardware store.... I'm saving that one up though

 

[rns-e]

Who decides what is relevant to me or these owners? You? And when a logical question goes unanswered, as per these owners' requests, sure, the "whining" starts.

Btw, I guess Tesla thought .1 sec was pretty relevant, which is why they did an OTA to lower the 0-60 time. They also thought .2 sec was relevant when they just went to the trouble of adding space-age materials for the new contactors and fuse in Ludicrous.

To your last point, people aren't complaining about the price - otherwise they wouldn't have paid - just what they were told they were getting for that price.

Agree - Tesla has a very clear understanding of the value of 0.1s - it has given them a lot of free advertising. They are getting better at this than Apple

 

[smac]

I'd like to apologize in advance. It appears (judging by the rep points) I have single handedly caused some sort of Tesla owners cake binge...

Remember guys if you eat too much cake your 0-60 performance will go down too

 

[sorka]

I'd like to apologize in advance. It appears (judging by the rep points) I have single handedly caused some sort of Tesla owners cake binge...

Remember guys if you eat too much cake your 0-60 performance will go down too

It's my birthday today and my wife is in the kitchen making a cake right now. I'm going to go to some before and after vbox runs just to see :wink:

 

[JER]

It's my birthday today and my wife is in the kitchen making a cake right now. I'm going to go to some before and after vbox runs just to see :wink:

1-slice Swiss rollout. I approve.

 

[smac]

It's my birthday today and my wife is in the kitchen making a cake right now. I'm going to go to some before and after vbox runs just to see :wink:

Many happy returns!

Would it be mean of me to say I hope Elon sends you a fuse as a present

 

[jpet]

Many happy returns!

Would it be mean of me to say I hope Elon sends you a fuse as a present

The fuse might come in a box with a note stating that the 2 Inconel contactors are 5K extra + labor.

 

[JER]

I hope Elon sends you a fuse as a present

An exploding fuse, no less. That would be the most interesting birthday present I've ever heard of...

 

[smac]

An exploding fuse, no less. That would be the most interesting birthday present I've ever heard of...

Is it like one of those joke store candles you can't blow out

 

[vgrinshpun]

That is correct. However, as I understand it, the performance suspension is only different air shocks, or? Again not $24k extra in material. Neither is the red P and red D or red brake callipers.

Tesla found a way to make existing technology go fast, really fast. And sell that at a premium - good on them. I applaud that, really do. But then Tesla better also deliver, because the premium they are charging is the highest markup they have in the whole line up.

They are extending the life of the old P85 motor into the P85D, P90D, X P90D, using the old motor in the new top of the range products which is economically very good. It is all upside for them, which is why I don't think it is to much to get what you paid for.

It is my understanding that pre-April P85D suspension was based on P85+ (a car I happily own for more than two years and 42K miles), so it includes stiffer bushings and other improved suspension components.

but I think we are getting in the woods here. My point is that additional money you paid for the P85D over 85D include real difference in components and very significant improvement in performance. Getting into the argument (in the court of law) about somebody's perception that this improvement in performance should've cost less money is a loosing proposition, IMO.

I suggest you look at pricing difference and additional performance one would get switching from Audi S7 to Audi RS7. In fact, with these variants the bump in performance is less than in P85D vs 85D, for slightly more money ($26K in U.S.)

If you go deeper in the details, it looks like S7 and RS7 use the same base V8, with improved output in RS7, and, interestingly enough, RS7 uses a lesser variant of transmission because the dual clutch transmission used in S7 can't handle the power ptoduced in RS7.

All in all an increase in performance at these levels in not a trivial matter, and comes at a hefty premium - this is just a fact of life. The money charged by Tesla is not out of line of what other companies are charging for similar bump in performance.

 

[LetsGoFast]

0-60 times with rollout should not be anywhere other than the US site, maybe not even there.

I note that the Ford Mustang is also being advertised in Europe with 0-62 times that include rollout. They also do not have a note indicating that they use rollout. As far as I can tell the Corvette website doesn't bother to put 0-60 times on their website, probably because they sell like 10 of 'em over there.

Nissan uses rollout in their 0-60 times in the US as well. I'm not sufficiently motivated to search their european sites, but I'd surprised if they didn't use it there. IMO, any legal claim predicated on the 0-60 time is going to be a lot weaker than one about the horsepower claim.

FWIW, serious go-fast enthusiasts pretty much think 0-60 numbers are total crap anyhow. 5-60 (which is always much slower than 0-60) and quarter mile trap speed are much more informative numbers.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's influenced by factors across the whole performance envelope, including power fade approaching top speed; this is not relevant to the two disputed metrics of 0-60 and power. I cautioned against precisely this confusion above.

Quarter mile not disputed. Also, irrelevant.

Quarter mile is hugely relevant. It was a metric they promised specifically and with a lot of clarity. The Ludicrous update improves that metric and that is what provides extra value.

I've been trying to avoid the whole 0-60 and power discussion as I feel they have been discussed to death already in this thread, but I guess to address your point it's not possible to avoid it.

On the 0-60 issue, they used a customary convention that is commonly used in the USA. I know for certain they will not have legal trouble here. When they translated the numbers for the EU market they didn't account for that cultural difference. When taken to the face of a judge in the EU, I can't comment on how it will be perceived (I'm guessing Tesla will survey convention in the industry; if other automakers do the same then the case is different). I guess we will see.

On the "motor power" issue, Tesla advertised 691 hp "motor power". People have apparently interpreted that to mean either wheel hp or shaft hp. Tesla however clearly means something different. Comparing S60/S70 vs S85 and S60D/S70D vs S85D numbers makes this very apparent. The cars that use the same motor/inverter combination have exactly the same "motor power" numbers regardless of battery differences. This has remained consistent even when the numbers are tweaked (for example when S85 was tweaked from 380hp to 382hp, the S60/S70 variant also went from 380hp to 382hp; same with the dual motor versions). That eliminates the idea that "motor power" represents wheel or shaft hp, as both of those take into account battery limitations.

So I think when the judge takes it to discovery in a hypothetical lawsuit, they will find it is not a factually false claim (not something Tesla pulled out of thin air) and that Tesla did not intentionally mislead (irregardless of the software update situation). Whether it is a misleading claim would probably depend on surveys of owners on this matter.

I guess this may be because people have different view points, but some have said Tesla's best approach is to provide more clarity. However, given this is immediately used against them to start a lawsuit, I think it should be pretty clear why Tesla has been hesitant to do this. I have been saying all along that is what is holding up Tesla's immediate response. They have to think carefully on how to best respond in a way that is a win for everyone involved.

I have a feeling they thought Ludicrous was that answer, but apparently it isn't (for some people; I know there are plenty that are happy to get Ludicrous at a discount over a new buyer).

 

[JER]

Quarter mile is hugely relevant.

Again: The disputed figures are 0-60 and power, not quarter mile time. It's not relevant whether Tesla underpromised anything; only overpromised claims are actionable.

The PEM firmware upgrade required to meet the disputed figures - the one planned and promised in the footnote - would have improved quarter mile too. That's because Ludicrous is the same PEM firmware update that was promised - and required to meet the original claims - only with the hardware changes needed to prevent things melting.

Discussions of how to define "power" are also irrelevant, as the only one that matters to the performance of the car is actual output. No other number is worth mentioning.

 

[sorka]

People have apparently interpreted that to mean either wheel hp or shaft hp. Tesla however clearly means something different.

Please show me one instance where someone thought this meant wheel hp. Motor shaft hp? Yes, because that's the standard point in drive trains that manufacturers rate power so people like myself thought they just meant power at the motor shaft with the "motor power" term. Why would we assume anything else when this is the standard place you specify your power rating? You have no evidence that they meant anything else. Tesla has not made any statements clarifying this. Rather than put up the true horsepower like the other models (except maybe the S60 so let's please not argue about that again), they've simply removed the combined horsepower altogether but still specify it for the other Model S variants. Obviously they can't state the true P85D horsepower at this point because that would be an admission of guilt and things would move much faster after that than slowly drag along like they are now.

Now you may have gotten confused when I've said that that S85 dynos 375 at the wheels when Tesla only claimed 372 hp. All I meant by that is that Tesla, like on most of the other Model S's, understated the horsepower and that the S85 in fact makes quite bit more than 373, or 380, or 382 hp. It's not a big deal that they make small changes to the S85 power spec as they're probably making small changes to the actual power too.

 

[dsm363]

Please show me one instance where someone thought this meant wheel hp. Motor shaft hp? Yes, because that's the standard point in drive trains that manufacturers rate power so people like myself thought they just meant power at the motor shaft with the "motor power" term. Why would we assume anything else when this is the standard place you specify your power rating? You have no evidence that they meant anything else. Tesla has not made any statements clarifying this. Rather than put up the true horsepower like the other models (except maybe the S60 so let's please not argue about that again), they've simply removed the combined horsepower altogether but still specify it for the other Model S variants. Obviously they can't state the true P85D horsepower at this point because that would be an admission of guilt and things would move much faster after that than slowly drag along like they are now.

Now you may have gotten confused when I've said that that S85 dynos 375 at the wheels when Tesla only claimed 372 hp. All I meant by that is that Tesla, like on most of the other Model S's, understated the horsepower and that the S85 in fact makes quite bit more than 373, or 380, or 382 hp. It's not a big deal that they make small changes to the S85 power spec as they're probably making small changes to the actual power too.

What is the SAE standard for measuring hp for an electric motor? I thought there wasn't one yet. If there isn't then you were assuming something as well.

 

[Andyw2100]

What is the SAE standard for measuring hp for an electric motor? I thought there wasn't one yet. If there isn't then you were assuming something as well.

I think all we have to assume is that the SAE standard isn't going to be "take the actual HP at the motor shaft, and add 150 to it to come up with the official number." Failing that, we're safe, since it is our contention that P85D makes 691 HP no where.

 

[sorka]

What is the SAE standard for measuring hp for an electric motor? I thought there wasn't one yet. If there isn't then you were assuming something as well.

Actually, I think most of use would be ok with it making 691 hp at the battery (515kW) at this point. This is GROSS power before any standard is applied to restrict how power is made. Currently we're starting with (415KW) 557 hp at 100% SOC GROSS before any conversion losses...before the inverter and before it's turned into kenetic energy at the motor shafts. When a new standard is developed it's likely to have a large impact on what EV manufactures can claim. With ICE cars, J1349 uses atmospheric correction(not needed for electric motors) and prior to 2004 an assumption of 85% mechanical efficiency(moving to actual measurement of accessory loss after 2004 which is why many cars had a specified drop in hp claims without actually dropping in hp after 2004).

With EVs, expect to see new standards that level the playing field. For instance, ECE R85 in Europe doesn't allow more than 5% drop in voltage from the battery during the test so you can only pull as much current from the battery that doesn't exceed a 5% voltage drop. It also requires running the electric drivetrain at 80% maximum load for 3 minutes just prior to doing the hp measurement. Expect to see other restrictions like what SOC is used when measuring maximum horsepower. Is 100% fair when the car won't spend most of it's time anywhere near that? With gasoline engines you don't have to worry about losing power as your fuel level goes down. With the P85D, by the time you hit 50%, right in the middle of my normal driving range, you're already down 50hp.


Without a new standard, Tesla is sort of free to do what manufacturers did prior to phasing in NET SAE horsepower measurements standards in 1972. Prior to this, manufacturers measured gross power without accessories and with whatever intake and exhaust gave that engine the most power. Those engines of course would not produce that power once installed in the production vehicles with different intakes, exhausts, and parasitic losses from accessories. If Tesla had to use ECE R85, for example, they would not be able to claim anywhere near 555 hp for the P85D.

(I'm literally at the point of copying and pasting previous answers to the same previous questions)

 

[JER]

Yep, yep. Arguing whether an advertised power figure should be expected at the wheels, motor shaft(s) or battery is of no consequence when none of them meet the specification.

All arguments about how to define "motor power" in a multi-motor system are also just obfuscating the core issue, because the number of motors has nothing to do with total output of the system.