-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"
- Thread starter krisg81
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
I understand what you are saying and I'm sorry that you think it is vengeful thinking and anger that drives me in this case. As you would understand from my extensive communication TO and unfortunately NOT WITH Tesla, since they have chosen not to answer, I have shared all my concerns, findings and tests with them in order to give them a chance to explain where I may be wrong, or a chance to fix what is wrong. I do not see this as Tesla deliberately ignoring me as much a very bad business decision on their part.
I could just drop my complaint at this point solely based on the fact Tesla chooses not to answer or I can take it to the next step. Those are the two options Tesla leaves me with. So it is not vengeful thinking or anger when I choose to have advice on how strong the case is, it is just how Tesla has left me to believe they would like the case handled.
Just to clarify, I do not know and, therefore did not say what drives you. What I do know and posted is that focusing on the small part of the overall picture, you are cultivating your anger. This is just the psychology 101: it is almost involuntary you've set the goal that is not achievable, and frustration and anger are inevitable in response to this situation.
As far as vengeance goes, I thought I would post the definition - isn't it is exactly what you are seeking?
Attachments
Torque distribution matters for handling but not for how much power is put down to the ground. If the rear motor is making 500 hp and the front is making 0 hp, you're still going to get 500 hp(minus frictional losses from gearing and inertial losses from mass(but only during acceleration)) to the ground. The reason the system "can't really do that" is because there isn't enough input power to do "that". We're capped at 555 hp GROSS and can only go down from there as power is lost through converter conversion, motor conversion, frictional losses, and inertial losses(last one only applies during acceleration vs the power required to hold a speed against a constant load).
No - I seek a wrong righted or if that is not possible compensated. I do not want Tesla Punished or have a desire for revenge, so no, you are not right on this one.
A compensation for a thing not delivered has nothing to do with punishment or revenge. If I wanted additional compensation beyond the value of what was not delivered, that would be seeking punishment or revenge, but I am not doing that.
But this gives me clear understanding of how you perceive my motive and I can say 100% that you are wrong. You may choose to believe that or not, that I can not do anything about.
Thanks. I wasn't sure if it might have something to do with each motor being geared separately (if that matters). Assuming the motors can actually output the max hp Tesla claims at some point along the chain, is there a technical explanation why both motors couldn't provide 100% power at the same time at least for limited time?
Do not think that "motor conversion and converter conversion" are in play here. According to NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) standards motor hp is specified at the motor shaft. The motor input power is motor hp divided by motor efficiency. The inverter input power is motor input power divided by the efficiency of the inverter.
Tesla would be free to offer any remedy they deem appropriate, a full refund for return of the vehicle may seem aggressive but you would not be able to seek a 'small refund' as an alternative.
Put yourself in Tesla's shoes - your course of action (and I think the basis of which has merit), would be met with an army of lawyers and advisers who will instruct Tesla on the most cost effective resolution. It would for sure cost them more to offer any kind of refund that may be sought by every early P85D owner versus an offer for a full refund which we all know will have limited uptake.
You can have as many complaints as you wish, escalating it to the courts means you are guaranteed that you cannot control the outcome - not what a judge would do, nor how Tesla would respond. Not trying to dissuade you, just pointing out that you have to be clear about what your expectations are of a remedy if you pursue legal action. As I read the situation: the odds of you successfully getting a partial refund are stacked against you.
JER
Member
What matters is actual output, because that is what determines performance. If a multi-motor system can't ever run all motors at their rated output, it is misleading to quote that sum as the power output.
The fact that Tesla removed the 691HP claim and no longer mention it should tell you all you need to know about their confidence in defending it. P85D doesn't deliver 691HP measured at any point(s) in the powertrain, under any conditions.
We now have a fairly compelling body of evidence that the claim was made in good faith, and a plan was in place to meet it after delivery via OTA updates (much like the Autopilot updates). It was never delivered, and we now know why.
This issue has been dealt with in a variety of ways by manufacturers in the last:
1) The problem is corrected(i.e. Ford for example) and the promised horsepower is delivered. Owners still had to live with a car for x number of miles without the power delivered, so upgrading the power does not make the owners entirely whole.
2) Re-purchase (i.e. Mazda RX8).
3) Pro-rated refund on the Performance upgrade based on how much power was actually delivered over the base model vs what was promised.
For me, I'd pick #1, but without a battery that can draw higher than 456KW, that's not going to happen.
My next choice would be #2 and I'll tell you right now if Tesla offered to by back my P85D, I'd take that in a heartbeat without a second thought.
You are properly right on both counts - we will see how it goes. Maybe the advisors I'll talk will tell me not to pursue it. Maybe they will advise that both the Danish and Norwegian Car owners Association work together and represent P85D owners from Denmark and Norway in a combined action. I don't know and I would rather have settled it with Tesla directly, but as they do not want to talk about it ...
You're right that they can't correct this. I suggest you tweet Elon saying you're so unhappy about the situation that you want to return the car for a full refund. Monday morning a Tesla rep would probably contact you and make it happen.
It would not take many tweets like that before it would turn out to be a potential lethal problem for Tesla. That would be a story that would get more press than the 3.2s 0-60 mph Ferrari killer sedan. I would really not want that to happen.
Of course that's their prerogative, but if they said "We'll take the car back off you for what you've paid" they'd be wide open to everyone wanting to hand their cars back and avoid the depreciation hit and order a new car. They surely can't refuse all those owners?
I don't know how many P85D's were sold. But either way paying for fuses or buying back, once wind of this settlement to one owner gets out, everyone will want in and it will cost a fortune.
Being completely blunt, I think the shareholders defending the current position are well aware of this, and maybe why they keep coming up with excuses on the matter. If it were a non floated company, and I had share holding, I'd be desperate to go for damage limitation and just give people fuses, on balance it would be better. It won't go away, someone will go legal, and I think there's a strong case in the favor of owners.
Outside US, especially with strong EU rules on advertising, I think Tesla would stuggle to defend their position. If an EU owner gets recompense, it will just spill over to the US, and Tesla will be in a really weak position, even if they could defend the case stateside.
Maybe they will try to do NDA'd side deals, but the truth will out.
There weren't THAT many P85Ds sold before May - the most common models are the more basic ones. As for the press, Tesla would know how to spin it in their favour - Elon will just say he doesn't want anyone to be unhappy about their purchase. I believe in the US the MS comes with a 'happiness guarantee' on lease deals - return the car within 90 days if unhappy. The situation here is different but it would not be setting any kind of precedent and would not be 'lethal'.
No reason as far as I know. If the rear motor received x power from the battery and the front motor received y power from the battery at the same time, the power should be close to x + y (minus conversion losses to convert the power to kinetic energy and any electrical conversion losses from say EMF feedback).
In this case, the battery is the limiting factor. If the motor specs hold true, a battery that delivered 515KW should come close to 691 hp before conversion losses).
- - - Updated - - -
Yup, we're only using the input power as a cap. Obviously the power at the motor shaft will be less than the input power.
- - - Updated - - -
I have already sent them three letters on this and have gotten zero response.
You've made the determination that giving away Ludicrous fuses will somehow resolve the problem (it won't since it still won't deliver the advertised 691hp). Offering a refund is unlikely to cost a fortune since there weren't many thousands of P85Ds sold before May and very few buyers would take up the offer (especially if it meant Tesla weren't then willing to sell you another car ever or for a period of time).
- - - Updated - - -
What did you say/ask for in those letters if you don't mind sharing?
You’d think that if there were an innocent, coherent explanation of the facts, Tesla would promptly deliver it. Instead, silence. Silence itself can deliver a message, though. In the current context, I read it something like this:
“We’re going to pretend this didn’t happen, and we’d like our customers to play along.”
I can't deny the expediency of this for Tesla, and for anyone who unconditionally supports their (very important) mission. Were I in the position of owning a P85D, I’d probably go along with it. However, I wouldn’t be happy about it, even though the car itself is still delightful.
I also can't deny that those who aren't willing to go along with this are entitled to recompense, and should be expected to pursue it.
One thing that everyone should be able to agree on is that things would be far better without the involvement of any lawyers. (Well, everyone except lawyers - do they count? :wink
It's ironic that the last piece of the missing performance picture - the hardware changes and the limits they relaxed - came from Elon's announcement of Ludicrous Mode. I'd be loving that marketing if it weren't for the context. It certainly has a better ring than Almost Delivering Performance Claims Eleven Months Later and For Major Extra Cost Mode.
well said.
Similar threads
