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

[smac]

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).

You are correct, but I would see this as an olive branch and sign of compromise, that would probably go far enough to head this off. There are two facts which were misleading, 0-60 and power (and it's easy to conflate the two). One of these has been addressed by the Ludicrous fuses. (or is that ludicrous fuses ) So personally I would see this as meeting half way. The only offer from Tesla right now involves owners paying more to achieve one of the benchmarks they thought they'd paid for already.

Of course it comes with other problems, i.e those who have paid for Ludicrous in the P90, feeling slighted.

At the end of the day, this is all a mess of Tesla's own making, and how they deal with it in a mature way is a barometer for the future.

 

[legislator]

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 realize that only 1/1000th of the Norwegian Tesla owners signed the complaint letter?

 

[rns-e]

You realize that only 1/1000th of the Norwegian Tesla owners signed the complaint letter?

I do I don't know what procentage of the P85D owners, but sure it is not many at this point.

I think there is about 1/10 of the Danish P85D owners. I'm not saying we are many, but lets see what the advisors will tell me. And if we are only a few P85D owners with a legitimate claim, then it will be that much cheaper for Tesla to fix it

 

[JER]

I do I don't know what procentage of the P85D owners, but sure it is not many at this point.

Yeah. I guess most either aren't aware or don't care to act. I can understand that; there are other things demanding attention, and other factors to consider.

Along those lines, I think this needs revising:

“We’re going to pretend this didn’t happen, and we’d like our customers to play along.”

That should be "We're going to pretend this didn't happen, and we'd like customers who noticed to play along."

My guess would be that the risk of an official admission enlarging that group was judged more damaging than ignoring current complaints. Kind of dirty, but rational if you have a viable strategy for containing the latter case.

As for what that strategy is, it might be that Tesla are confident of their defence. Discussion here seems to have established that the potential defences are dubious, but that doesn't mean they won't fly where it matters.

I really do get the sentiment though: It'd be great if this issue would disappear.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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.

I'm talking mainly about whether Ludicrous provides any value over what Tesla promised with the P85D. It does for 1/4 mile. You can't ignore all postives and only focus on the negatives.

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.

Tesla never promised a specific number in the footnotes (other than for 0-60) or even what qualifies as high speed. And they never promised an improvement in 1/4 mile there either.

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.

How Tesla defined "motor power" and arrived at the advertised numbers will definitely be relevant to a judge in a hypothetical lawsuit.
That's your opinion it is not worth mentioning, but David Noland did post an article in October 2014, immediately after Tesla switched to "motor power," explaining the possible rationale. His explanation was that it shows the upgrade path to the car (note it was not about the P85D, but rather S60 vs S85). It shows if you upgrade the pack (as David did from 60kWh to 85kWh, and Tesla is doing with Ludicrous update), that is the hypothetical number you can get. His specific example is he upgraded from a 60kWh to a 85kWh pack and with a firmware update he was able to get more power (same as a S85) out of the same motors.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal

 

[sorka]

That's your opinion it is not worth mentioning, but David Noland did post an article in October 2014, immediately after Tesla switched to "motor power," explaining the possible rationale. His explanation was that it shows the upgrade path to the car (note it was not about the P85D, but rather S60 vs S85). It shows if you upgrade the pack (as David did from 60kWh to 85kWh, and Tesla is doing with Ludicrous update), that is the hypothetical number you can get. His specific example is he upgraded from a 60kWh to a 85kWh pack and with a firmware update he was able to get more power (same as a S85) out of the same motors.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...ower-numbers-for-tesla-model-s-whats-the-deal

Yea, because Mazda could have avoided the entire mess by simply stating that the power they promised was only achievable with further upgrades. Mazda could have simply stated that with certain upgrades or higher boost, they could achieve the power they were promised.

Nobody is going to buy that "motor power" implied what could be achieved if those motors were fed the actual 691 hp. Tesla has not used this excuse and I'm sure they never will. Trying to tell a judge that they didn't really mean 691 hp would result in a lot more damage than simply being wrong. If they didn't mean that the car would come with the ability to generate that power as equipped then they damn well should have said so rather than leading consumers, review publications, and the world to believe that the P85D produces 691 hp as equipped from the factory when in fact it doesn't even come close.

At some point, the left hand realized the right hand was wrong or they realized they wouldn't be able to fix it with software alone and so they removed 691 from their specs.

 

[Torben_E]

For some reason I cant help saying that I love the term motor power that Tesla has introduced. That rules out that it is wheel power and also that it is battery power. It is just od that the battery kan only deliver 410-415 kW on a P85D.... so how comes that the motor power is defined as 515 kW on the car that i bought back in January ?

It is possible that I forgot to purchase the option with pedals for 4 passengers that all should then "pedal" 25 kW each.

 

[Stoneymonster]

For some reason I cant help saying that I love the term motor power that Tesla has introduced. That rules out that it is wheel power and also that it is battery power. It is just od that the battery kan only deliver 410-415 kW on a P85D.... so how comes that the motor power is defined as 515 kW on the car that i bought back in January ?

It is possible that I forgot to purchase the option with pedals for 4 passengers that all should then "pedal" 25 kW each.

You forgot to check the "Flintstones Option".

 

[stopcrazypp]

Yea, because Mazda could have avoided the entire mess by simply stating that the power they promised was only achievable with further upgrades. Mazda could have simply stated that with certain upgrades or higher boost, they could achieve the power they were promised.

I'm glad you responded first because I was going to respond to your other posts. Here's why the Mazda example doesn't apply. Mazda promised an SAE hp number. When tested under the SAE standard the RX8 doesn't achieve that number. Whereas Tesla simply promised a "motor power" number. There is no SAE power standard yet for BEVs and any advertising with the SAE standard would be voluntary (automakers are not required to advertise with SAE).

Nobody is going to buy that "motor power" implied what could be achieved if those motors were fed the actual 691 hp. Tesla has not used this excuse and I'm sure they never will. Trying to tell a judge that they didn't really mean 691 hp would result in a lot more damage than simply being wrong. If they didn't mean that the car would come with the ability to generate that power as equipped then they damn well should have said so rather than leading consumers, review publications, and the world to believe that the P85D produces 691 hp as equipped from the factory when in fact it doesn't even come close.

At some point, the left hand realized the right hand was wrong or they realized they wouldn't be able to fix it with software alone and so they removed 691 from their specs.

In a lawsuit, it won't be up to Tesla to use an "excuse". The facts are what matter. The judge will require Tesla to show documents on how they arrived at the "motor power" numbers and how they defined it internally.

Saying they are "wrong" would be the worst case scenario. That means they made a factually false statement (intentionally too if they knew it was wrong the moment they posted it), which is the worst situation. With the "motor power" explanation above, it would be a factually true statement. Then it becomes a case of surveying owners about whether that statement was misleading and also examining if Tesla used that statement with the intent to mislead.

Even David Noland was able to immediately notice this as an explanation of "motor power". I read that article when it came out and I also felt that is logically what motor power meant, given S60 and S85 was rated the same. It is the only logical explanation I have seen that matches "motor power" numbers posted so far for all models, not just P85D. Assuming it is a shaft power number measured with battery attached would not be consistent with S60 matching S85 numbers, given we know S60 REST numbers peak at 240kW (322hp) and "motor power" was advertised at 380hp.

With hindsight, I think what Tesla should have done back then was keep the old power numbers also and list "motor power" separately. They made the wrong decision to just list "motor power" only and with no explanation what it means.

On the whole update thing, while I believe Tesla intended to improve the performance of the P85D with a software update beyond what was launched (not just on 0-60, but also 60-100), I don't believe they intended to make it actually output 691hp under your definition.

 

[legislator]

Actually Tesla used to have a note that the horsepower was measured according to ECE R85, which seems to be the EV norm for stating hp (BMW uses it as well). It would be interesting to know why they removed it.

I agree with stopcrazypop. It would probably only be usable as an argument against Tesla if they had stated is as SAE or "power comparable to gasoline cars"

 

[Johan]

Now I've finally read this thread to the end (its current end).

First off let me applaude rns-e and Torben for their calm composed way of handling all the flak they've been taking.

I don't own a P85D, I didn't put down the extra money to get it. But I did put down the extra money to get a P85 as opposed to a standard 85 at the time I got my car. When that took place Tesla were conservative with their claimed 0-100 times, and everyone was happy when the P85 did even better than advertised.

I have 100% sympathy for those who put down the extra money for a P85D, at the time when it was the top model, and is not getting what they paid for in terms of performance. The Danish owners are absolutely correct in saying the there is one, and only one reason, to pay a large premium that existed between the S85D and the P85D: performance. And when you do give hard numbers these better be correct. I personally feel, and have always felt, that the 0-100/0-60 time is a more important metric than the actual horsepower number. It now turns out that in Europe Tesla have advertised and sold a car with a claimed 0-100 time (without a disclaimer mentioning roll-out i.e. that 0 only means "0") but they are now saying the number that was claimed turns out to be incorrect. This is false advertising, however you want to look at it. It is false even if it was a misunderstanding, a mistranslation or a miscommunication. It was likely not Tesla's intention to mislead anyone, I do believe it was "an honest mistanke" BUT the number is nevertheless false.

Tesla has a poor communications strategy. I think the reason Tesla is until now staying relatively quiet on this issue is they don't want focus on it in the press and they don't want a situation where they have to actively seek our all P85D buyers and compensate them. I think however they will try to make it right by those who do complain. In my personal view a good response to those who are now complaining would be:
"We are sorry that our initially advertised performance numbers for the P85D were slightly misleading in Europe. These have now been corrected on our website. Here are our two suggestions for a resolution:
1) If you as a buyer feel that the car we delivered to you is not what you paid for we will let you return the car and give you a refund, with a generously low deduction for mileage and age. [They can sell these as CPOs easily].
2) As you may know, with the introduction of the 90kWh battery we also introduced Lucirous mode, a hardware upgrade that can be retrofitted to your P85D. This upgrade would increase the performance of your P85D beyond that originally advertised. The Ludicrous mode upgrade for a P85D is normally $5000 + labour. As a sign of goodwill on our part and in an attempt to rectify our previous miscommunication we would like to offer you this upgrade at half price, $2500 including labour.[or another price, wherever their breakeven cost lies approximately]"

As an investor and Tesla enthusiats I'm very interested to see how this matter ends up being resolved, or not.

 

[JER]

You can't ignore all postives and only focus on the negatives.

Actually, that's kind of the point. x was promised, <x was delivered.

Also, as I have already explained, the positive you mention was already implied in the footnote - or at least implied to anyone who understands any physics.

The only way 1/4 mile could stay the same under the promised upgrade is if some other parameter was downgraded, and there'd be no reason to do so.

Tesla never ... [explained] what qualifies as high speed.

They don't have to, because physics does. I mentioned this already:

Power and mass together imply a level of high-speed acceleration can be achieved ("high" being anywhere past the transition from traction limited to power limited.)

Model S already has near-perfect traction control (as evidenced by accelerometer plots) and sufficient torque to induce wheelspin (we've seen burnout videos for older models with TC off); there's hardly anything an OTA powertrain upgrade could conceivably improve in the traction-limited regime.

An increase in available power is the only thing such an upgrade could be doing. Again, physics dictates that this would extend the traction-limited regime to a higher speed, and decrease decay of acceleration above this speed.

However, if you won't take my word for it, how about Elon Musk's word? (Taken from the July press conference.)

Up through about 30 miles per hour, the car is essentially traction limited...

Once you get to about 30 miles per hour, the limitation on acceleration becomes how much current you can safely extract from the battery pack. We currently limit that output to 1300A...

... with the advanced smart fuse and the Inconel contactor, we're able to raise that limit to 1500A, and so the car is able to continue accelerating at roughly the same rate as it did from 0-30 all the way up past 60 miles per hour.

How Tesla defined "motor power" and arrived at the advertised numbers will definitely be relevant to a judge in a hypothetical lawsuit.

Perhaps, if he is hoodwinked by a smart lawyer. However, what should be relevant to a judge is that Tesla promised "691HP" and the car does not ever deliver this. Not in any part of the powertrain, under any conditions or measuring scheme.

The known voltage and sag characteristics of the battery, along with the now-disclosed 1300A limit, show beyond all doubt the P85D was never a 691HP car.

 

[vgrinshpun]

To add to Stopcrazypp post above, the other two legitimate reasons to list motor horsepower is that in case of hard acceleration on spotty-slippery or loose surface one can still get a lot of power down to the road, given that P85D drivetrain response time is measured in milliseconds.

The second reason is that in case one motor is lost due to failure, the car will still be able to accelerate with gusto, and not be crippled to a limp mode.

 

[Torben_E]

You forgot to check the "Flintstones Option".

View attachment 93484

Love that one...

 

[vgrinshpun]

The known voltage and sag characteristics of the battery, along with the now-disclosed 1300A limit, show beyond all doubt the P85D was never a 691HP car.

That's right, they never stated that P85D was a 691hp car, they said that it was 691 motor hp car.

 

[JER]

That's right, they never stated that P85D was a 691hp car, they said that it was 691 motor hp car.

That qualifier was not in the earlier claims, and in any case is both misleading and irrelevant.

How would you fancy a 1000HP "motor power" electric supercar? (Note: Limited to battery output of 150HP.)

 

[Andyw2100]

That's right, they never stated that P85D was a 691hp car, they said that it was 691 motor hp car.

Enough already!

If this goes to court, Tesla gets BLOWN AWAY!

Do you really think any judge is going to give Tesla the benefit of the doubt that they weren't attempting to let people believe the car made 691 HP when they never corrected any of the stories in publications printing 691 HP, they tweeted links to some of these stories, and Elon Musk was on TV answering questions like "Does the car make 691 HP" and saying "Yes?" (See the Australian 60 minutes show.)

I don't want Tesla to get sued.

I don't think Tesla intentionally misled people.

But I am tired of hearing about how this "motor HP" vs "HP" distinction is going to be the be-all end-all protection in a lawsuit if it happens. If there is a lawsuit, Tesla will lose, and Tesla will lose bigtime in the court of public opinion, which is probably even more important.

Thankfully, Tesla has not come up with this ridiculous defense themselves. I expect they will not, because it's more ludicrous than trying to charge current P85D owners $7000 or so for the Ludicrous Mode upgrade to bring our cars closer to the power output they were supposed to be capable of when originally delivered.

 

[dsm363]

That qualifier was not in the earlier claims, and in any case is both misleading and irrelevant.

How would you fancy a 1000HP "motor power" electric supercar? (Note: Limited to battery output of 150HP.)

It may be misleading but it's not irrelevant

 

[JER]

It may be misleading but it's not irrelevant

Only insofar as it will determine the limits of front to rear torque vectoring. That would only be an issue to normal performance if the numbers were stupid.

 

[lklundin]

Did you drive it in the Model S? I'm guessing 9 hours driving + 4 hourly stops.

Apologies. I wrote "Also, on the same autobahn", which is naturally understood as "on the same route", but I should have written something like "Also, on the German autobahn", because I only drove the Model S on a stretch of the aforementioned, no-limit(*) autobahn, where I got 200km out of a complete discharge of the P85+ (returning to the starting point with a "charge now").

Exactly because of the autobahn, I am not surprised of reports that Tesla is not selling that well in Germany. Admittedly, the aforementioned sustained average speed of 180 km/h is rarely obtained, but an average of 150 km/h can quite often be sustained even in cars with a lower top speed, such as a standard Audi A4. And this makes a difference for distances where a Model S has to be (super)charged multiple times (by the guess of loco to about 75 km/h, i.e. only half the speed of a traditional diesel car).

By the same logic, I can also understand that Tesla sells well in Norway, where a lot of the roads are mountain roads with low speed limits and lots of curves where the Model S can really excel. (I am aware that the Norwegian government supports EVs with various attractive incentives, but I think that is only part of the explanation. You see f.ex. a lot of Teslas far from Oslo, far from the reserved bus-lanes that an EV may use). Basically (by this reasoning), any country that imposes a low speed limit implicitly supports Tesla, and I guess the USA qualifies there (along with Switzerland and their pesky 120 km/h limit, which is very expensive to forget about).

(*) The speed on the German autobahn is actually limited in several ways, including:
A) The law _recommends_ a maximum speed of 130 km/h, meaning that if you choose to drive faster than that and get involved in an accident, you _will_ get part of (if not all) the blame, because you chose to go against this recommendation.
B) The remaining relevant parts of the traffic laws still apply, so a driver needs to maintain proper distance (which becomes increasingly demanding because the brake length grows with the square of the speed), take into account driving conditions such as the weather, tires have to have sufficient speed-rating, etc.
C) Lots of autobahn stretches actually have specific speed limits due to a variety of reasons such as: poor maintenance state of the road surface, ongoing maintenance, noise consideration (around cities), the time of the day, precipitation or fog, low temperatures, high temperatures, a bridge with potential for side wind or (in winter) a steel construction that may freeze sooner than normal roads, dynamically set speed limits based on traffic density, oil spills, dropped goods, wrong-way driving, accidents, etc.