Oct 5, 2015
JonG For me, be open, honest and consistent across their models.
Even this EC whatever spec argument seems false as they don't seem to use that standardfor the 85D. I've not seen a defence from anyone on the different measurement standards used by tesla across their range.�
Oct 5, 2015
darthy001 I will try to end my "contribution" to these threads by stating one fact:
There is only one slightly comparable car on the market today. The Mercedes SLS Electric. A european car from a european company adhering to the european standards. It has 4/four motors and more power than the P85D. And it goes like a bat out of hell at high speeds.
Mercedes lists it with BOTH combined motor power AND battery power. <- it can be done!
Tesla has never listed the battery power for the P85D or the P90DL.
Does anyone not see why Tesla has deliberatly chosen _not_ to list battery power?
For me this says it all. Tesla could easily have cleared this up in the same manner as other manufacturers list power in multimotor EVs. But they _chose_ not to.....�
Oct 5, 2015
AWDtsla Maybe because they don't know what it will be. It seems they have a pipeline of software undergoing validating. I think they fully expected to be able to raise the power of the P85D higher but ran into unexpected limitations. If the 85D software had not been updated, sorka would have lost his point. The base 85D specs, and the previous version of software were quite a bit slower than the car is today. In the balance the 85D upgrade summation of happiness of 85D customers (appears) to be less than the summation of unhappiness of P85D owners.
The out of the box solution seems to be to downgrade the drivetrain software on the 85D so P85D owners don't feel so bad.
edit - and no, I don't prefer that they went to a traditional car company style of "innovation" which means a new engine every 5-8 years, with barely changed specs.�
Oct 5, 2015
darthy001 Of course Tesla has 100% control of what battery power their cars can deliver in the state they sell them in.�
Oct 5, 2015
AWDtsla That's actually and obviously not how it works at Tesla. The output of the powertrain is driven almost entirely by the drive software. Software is always being updated, they are a silicon valley company. It comes with good and bad.
I'm not arguing about HP, I'm arguing your point of view on Tesla. Have you ever heard the phrase "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"? Well, if you're working on the bleeding edge, then everybody is relatively stupid because no one knows what's going to happen.
That said, I think Tesla should try and refrain from releasing future specs, or at least show the shipping software specs along with the expected specs via update.�
Oct 5, 2015
stopcrazypp I think Straubel already addressed why he feels putting out a battery power number is not an ideal comparative measure. For example the 600kW number put out by Mercedes. At what SOC, temperature, battery age is that number measured? Unlike with a motor/inverter, the battery power number changes drastically based on those variables.
- - - Updated - - -
I speculated about that too. People are upset about how close the 85D is to the P85D and the 85D only did that with a software update. When it came out, the gap was far larger between the two.�
Oct 5, 2015
WarpedOne Along with expected specs?
you missed the screaming abot autopilot?
it is not about features, it is abot people. Some will be happy, the others will not. No matter what.�
Oct 5, 2015
cynix I'm sure people would have accepted a peak number.�
Oct 5, 2015
stopcrazypp I know you cross posted the same comment across many threads, but I'll respond here (I believe a similar question was also asked by another). Yes, Tesla could have technically advertised both motor and battery power, they could have advertised both the motor and system power number (as they are doing now with other models), or with only the system power (as they did previously with single motor versions). However, that is with 20/20 hindsight and before all the "691hp" complaining started.
The scenario is completely different today. Straubel gives a technical explanation about why he dislikes the battery power rating. My theory presented previously (it was not about battery power, but why the refuse to post a system power number for the P85D), was that all it will do is rile up the P85D complainers. Another theory I have seen is the threat of lawsuits means the lawyers will not let them freely put a lower number for the P85D/P90D. No matter what the reason, the situation is different today than it was a year ago.�
Oct 5, 2015
perkiset OK I'm reading back through this thread because, again, I am completely baffled as to how the 691 crew can be so put off. I keep thinking I'm missing something, but no.
I'm now really excited because I want to hear what 691 HP feels like. Clearly, I have no idea because I only know what a Model S feels like when I stomp it and have to back off at 100 on a freeway onramp.
That's what this has degenerated to. The car doesn't "feel like that" at 30-60 MPH. The only comp is ICE. So you folks that are all about I Was Mislead are telling us that, because it doesn't feel like an ICE at 700HP it was a deception. I was a lot more open to the argument but it's moved into the ridiculous zone and I am being moved away from reasonable debate because the opposing argument is more and more brittle and thin.
+1, DSM, as has been mentioned a boatload of times, it does what it says it would do. Just about anything else is horriblizing.�
Oct 6, 2015
AWDtsla The car has a power gauge built in. How can it possibly be deception when it's telling you in realtime?�
Oct 6, 2015
stopcrazypp Even for this whole motor power issue, the acceptance levels have a very wide variance, so I'm pretty sure it is not going to be that simple. The definition of "peak" is going to vary a lot from what people may find acceptable.
For battery cells and packs in other applications, the power ratings are typically continuous ratings (worthless in this case). There are pulse ratings, but how short a pulse would be acceptable?
Here's an example of how it can vary drastically:
Safe pulse discharge ratings: 95A < 0.5 sec, 65A < 1 sec, 40A < 5 sec, 30A < 6 sec
http://batterybro.com/products/samsung-inr18650-25r
What about temperature (how high a temperature can manufacturer specify)? What battery age range can they use (I know for capacity there is a rapid drop after the first couple of cycles, similarly battery resistance grows with age).
As it pertains to the P85D specifically, I'm pretty sure Tesla can push the pack more than they are doing now at the cost of contactors and fuses failing more quickly. Would such a rating be acceptable?�
Oct 6, 2015
WarpedOne There is nothing real time in that power gauge. Averaging over ~half a second interval.�
Oct 6, 2015
Auzie Bold mine. This unfortunate outcome is imho expected and likely given the set up that preceded it. People misunderstood/misinterpreted few things about a new technology car, invested a lot of money without making fully informed decision on their purchase, got disappointed as their expectations were not met, took vocal public intellectual positions on the issue, even published a letter... that is a lot of investment in terms of money, time, emotional energy = quite high stakes for many people. It is difficult to reverse out of such a deep position.
Had similar discussion on car hp happened before people made their purchase decisions, the outcome would have been different.
Some people blame Tesla for their disappointment but imho for the wrong reasons. Tesla is perhaps guilty of not doing more to avoid the set up that led to this outcome. It is quite understandable why Tesla was not more proactive in customer education, they were too busy developing new drive train technologies.
Most businesses that I was/am involved with put a lot of time/money/resources in customer education, be it practical classes, short educational videos on various technology topics, searchable product knowledge libraries, etc etc. Failing to do that, a business is setting the scene for many more threads like this one. For sure Tesla will get on top of this, it is much easier than making awesome cars.
My 2 cents on specs
When buying a car, I would like to see the spec for each component with disclaimers on component test conditions
A system output might be too dependent on external conditions and on various components state. I'd be happy with the disclaimer to similar effect and perhaps with the statement: Please test drive the car to experience the system performance prior to making a purchase decision.
Then customers can compete in who can get the most out of the same specced cars and brag about their numbers, rather than chase Tesla stated numbers. Such approach might lead to abandoning single numbers marketing. Instead of claiming 'Our car can achieve xyz ...' Tesla might be better off to let the customers do the talking about the system performance. No one ever doubts customers numbers or accuses customers of cheating/misleading.�
Oct 6, 2015
cynix I just want a number that's measured in the same way as the 70, 70D, 85, and 85D numbers on their website. Similarly, I want a 0-60 time that's measured in the same way as those other variants.�
Oct 6, 2015
JonG Exactly - they seem capable of saying a 70D with 2x 259bhp motors can only produce 328bhp - so why is it not possible to do that with the P85D?�
Oct 6, 2015
gavinwang With all due respect, if you don't even admit Tesla's choice of words was misleading, I think you are in the camp of irrational fanboys, not being able to discern the most basic facts. I love TM, my car and own stocks, so I have as much propensity to be an advocate for them as you do, but fact is fact. If you read my post carefully, you can see I didn't say majority of people based their purchase decision on the 691 number, but it is just fair to say it contributed to that decision making, at the least for lots of P85D customers. Even if many of them never cared about the HP rating and its ramification for at speed performance, it doesn't fully absolve TM from its negligence for not making reasonable effort to avoid customer misunderstanding. Is this about a fair statement in your eyes? Like I said, technically and legally TM probably is safe from any customer accusation, but it was NOT the right thing to do.�
Oct 6, 2015
Luclyluciano I definitely bought the car because I was let to believe 691 HP.
i definitely bought the car because I was led to believe that I costs $7 to fully charge my battery in my region at my rates.
i definitely would NOT have bought the car had I been told the true specs.
This all does not mean that I do not like the car or that I want to turn it in. It just means I was deliberately mislead. This is I am not happy about. The end does not justify the means.
tesla definitely knows the true HP OUTPUT and they know their system cannot produce this. Advertising motor power when the system cannot produce this HP rating is useless and I don't see any other purpose other than to deliberately mislead. I think most children can understand this. That's why I don't understand adults who don't get it.�
Oct 6, 2015
gavinwang can't agree more�
Oct 6, 2015
perkiset I was directly disputing the notion that the majority of people have been mislead. I think this is a wild generalization, since the majority of people do not even purchase the P, much less ludicrous. So there may well be (as Lucky points out) a group of people that feel mislead, But certainly not the majority of purchasers, IMHO. I honestly could not care less if the number is 691, 1 or 1000, and I'll bet if you polled ALL purchasers (not just the ones with an interest in being vocal here) I think you'd find the same. It is meaningless because I love how it feels to drive the car. I test drove it twice and borrowed a friends for about 30 minutes of real-world driving and it was done. There was no salesman involved for me, as there hasn't been for my last several cars (I work with a broker who gets a fixed rate, regardless of what we purchase). I may also not be in the majority, but I'll bet that I'm closer.�
Oct 6, 2015
sorka Well, unless you're splitting pixels, it looks at first like it's saying 480 KW but the gauge is so compressed that each pixel at that scale is multiples if 10KW increments. And then there's the double tick with the lighter one on the left and darker one on the right above each number. There's no making sense of it. You have to pull that number from REST otherwise what you're looking at on the dash could be plus or minus 30KW around the 480 mark.
- - - Updated - - -
+1�
Oct 6, 2015
ERP FTFY�
Oct 6, 2015
dsm363 You have no evidence you were 'deliberately' misled. Again, Tesla went with the only regulation in the world I believe addressing EV motor ratings. Sure, I see how it is misleading. Don't think really anyone disputes that but 'lying' and 'deliberately' misleading seem a little much.�
Oct 6, 2015
gavinwang Obviously I was referring to the majority of P85D customers in my post, who, caring or not but as long as they saw the number, could well have been led to believe what it would mean in normal circumstances. Non P85D customers are not relevant to this debate after all, and if you bought a 85D instead of P85D, I certainly understand why you "could not care less'.�
Oct 6, 2015
Stoneymonster As has been said 1000 times before, because legal action was mentioned. They will *never* publish this number to cover their butts.�
Oct 6, 2015
gavinwang I'm taking a more moderate presumption here and wouldn't claim it was TM's intentional act, no crime here. But it was misleading and TM didn't take the high road.�
Oct 6, 2015
dsm363 I agree with that. It was misleading and wish they would have corrected it but the level of anger and threats of legal action likely stopped any effort they may have done to correct the number.�
Oct 6, 2015
AmpedRealtor Easy... qualify the battery power rating by those factors - temperature, SOC, battery age. It's not unlike ICE manufacturers specifying horsepower at a specific RPM. Not difficult.�
Oct 6, 2015
dsm363 How many combinations would they have to list? 1-100%SOC, -30 to 120F in 1 degree increments, battery age by month....etc. I'm not even sure Tesla has that information.�
Oct 6, 2015
AmpedRealtor Well, if Mercedes can do it so can Tesla.�
Oct 6, 2015
stopcrazypp There was one that Straubel didn't mention: pulse time. That can mean a drastic change in the rated number (1.5x-4.75x the continuous number). However, from a marketing standpoint how many asterisks does it require? None of the other automakers that advertise such a number have specified the conditions, so Tesla would be at a distinct disadvantage if they do.
What is far better is if the industry establishes a common standard (like the SAE standard being worked on right now). Tesla went with the EU ECE R85 standard and so far has been crucified for it by many here.
- - - Updated - - -
Except they didn't. Mercedes does not specify the conditions they got that 600kW number. Given the lower 0-60 performance numbers of the car, there is some doubt if their claim is even achievable in the car.�
Oct 6, 2015
vgrinshpun There is fundamental problem with listing maximum battery power rating. One can specify ambient temperature, state of charge and age of the battery, and arrive at a number, call it Z. The thing that many people casually discussing this do not grasp is that it will not be possible to reach this rating in a real life conditions in a car at the time when motors reach speed at which they can use that much power.
Unlike any components in an ICE car the electrical output of the battery is based not only on factors I listed above, but also on the battery load profile *before* the time of the test. This is a key distinction between all power producing components in EV - battery, PEM, motor vs. internal combustion engine. The output of typical ICE does not depend on its load profile prior to measurement. For an EV, on another hand, since output of all power components - battery, PEMs, motors - is limited mostly by heat, the power output at any given moment will depend on the load profile *prior* to testing.
This is fundamental distinction which is not well understood by casual observers, and, really, is at the core of all misunderstandings. Like I said in another thread, square peg will not fit in the round hole.�
Oct 6, 2015
AmpedRealtor I want to say that this is a good opportunity for Tesla to establish an understandable and consumer-friendly standard for its industry, but doing so would require updating the numbers to something lower, publishing another blog post, and then dealing with the customer fallout. I just don't see an elegant way for Tesla to address this issue without upsetting P85D owners. I feel that by perpetuating the current "motor power" rating, Tesla is going to continue angering new customers into the future. That could turn into quite a snowball.
- - - Updated - - -
Then why can't Tesla? Someone said Mercedes lists a motor power number. Great! Someone said that number should ideally be qualified. Great! Whatever the case may be, there are other options available to Tesla. My point is that if Mercedes can advertise battery power, so can Tesla. Qualify it or don't qualify it, but wouldn't the additional information be welcome and an improvement?�
Oct 6, 2015
vgrinshpun There is no way Mercedes SLS electric can put 750hp to the motor shafts. It has 60kWh battery which will not be able to output the specified "potential" power of 600kW (this is 10C rate!) at the time it's 4 motors can use it. Merc SLS electric has exactly the same "problem" as P85D. If Andyw2100 or Sorka bought the SLS and took it to the dyno they would feel cheated in the same way they feel cheated with P85D.
In fact they would be upset even more, because on paper battery output of the SLS is higher than the combined motor rating, and yet, it would not be possible to get even close to 750hp on the motor shafts.�
Oct 6, 2015
AWDtsla I'm looking for this data, and I'm not seeing this on the US version of the website that it's serving me. All I see is 552kW/751hp, 0-62 in 3.9s, from a battery this 60kWh @ 400 volts. A couple magazine "reviews" quote the motor number.
They simply don't have the cells to output ANYTHING close to 552kW, forget about 600kW from the battery, and for a sum of $550,000. LOL. Is this car not even vapor? I don't see any for sale or any owner reviews. Might as well compare the horsepower of a unicorn.
- - - Updated - - -
We're not splitting pixels, we're splitting hairs. Unless you're trying to find the Higgs Boson with it, it's close enough. The car tells you how much power you're getting the second you step on the accelerator.�
Oct 6, 2015
AmpedRealtor What's wrong with Tesla updating its specs to the following:
This way, they can tell both stories. There will be some blowback from existing P85D owners, but isn't it better to deal with a small number today than a larger number tomorrow?
- 691 HP combined motor power (550 HP peak output)
- 0-60 in 3.2s (3.6s w/o 1-foot roll out)
�
Oct 6, 2015
vgrinshpun They rate battery as having "potential" output of 600kW. The car is not vaporware and based on professionals driven it on track is absolutely thrill to drive, but group of P85D owners that wrote letter to Elon Musk would feel that they did not get what they paid for (at $500K price tag, I suspect that they would feel much worth). There is no problem with either SLS nor P85D. The problem is that one can't fit square peg into the round hole.�
Oct 6, 2015
darthy001 I know of one very famous owner here in Norway so the car is definately not vaporware. I've also seen it driven, by his wife, past me on my way to work several times the last year.
The stats are linked in another thread as well. Just google the name of the car and its on the official page from Mercedes.
Of course now the usual supsects are saying that Mercedes are listing incorrect numbers. What a bomb
The car has done a 7:56 on the Ring(almost a minute faster than a P85D), and cost more than 500000USD. I find it interesting that people laught at the range of the car while saying its not possible the draws unusually high power/discharge numbers. I would have thought is possible that Mercedes actually have some knowhow here. They even list experience derived from Formula 1/KERS and similar being utilised in the car on the same website.
But of course the numbers cant be true....�
Oct 6, 2015
AWDtsla Forget about true, I don't even see them listed on mercedes website as you claim.
Prove it. Get a dyno plot, or a video of the quarter mile time. Basically anything resembling hard evidence. The ONLY thing I could find is a top gear test video, in which the electric was basically right in front of the normal sls, which runs a 11.7 quarter. Petrol vs Electric - Mercedes SLS AMG Battle - Top Gear - Series 20 - BBC - YouTube . So a 3700lbs AWD car with 740+HP does a quarter mile in ~11.6, ~11.5?
We're still mad about Tesla now?�
Oct 6, 2015
thegruf well put me in a Red Dwarf reality bubble.
five million posts on the subject (Tesla figures) and somebody states the flippin' obvious at last.
Well done that man. If you weren't the other side of the planet I'd buy you a beer
... not entirely sure Tesla will take you up on that suggestion immediately, though they may continue to shuffle in the right direction as fast as they dare without getting sued lol.�
Oct 6, 2015
darthy001 Prove what? Search my posts from today and there is both link and screenshot. I am on an ipad, and wont bother reposting it again.
The whole point was that Mercedes lists both numbers and not the numbers themselves. But that is obviously to hard to swallow. So instead of focusing on that point its "the numbers cant be correct"-time.... To be honest I dont give a flying **** if the car reach those numbers or not. I dont have 500000USD lying around to pay for a toy car either.
I give up.�
Oct 6, 2015
vgrinshpun Merc. lists both numbers, but the battery rating, which they list at "potentially" 600kW would require rate of discharge of 10C (10xcapacity). This is theoretical rating that the battery can't sustain for more than a fraction of the second, under ideal conditions, *without any prior loading*. Trust me, however fantastic this car is, it can't put 750hp to the shafts of the motors. Just do a little research and you will see yourself.
It has the same "problem" as P85D.�
Oct 6, 2015
darthy001 Sidestepping the point once again. I dont care if it provides 100hp real world. Why? I haven purchased one and I am not in the market for one, and I never will be either.
Point was that the only car in the world that can almost be compared to a P85/90D in terms of perfromance and multiple motors is indeed adveertised with numbers for motor power and battery power. And the car is european and must follow ECE R85. But suddenly that doesnt really matter.�
Oct 6, 2015
brianman It's simple. List the numbers as they are today -- in customer hands with widely distributed firmware. If it improves in the future, just update the numbers to reflect that as you unlock more from the vehicle.\
Using "future optimistic" numbers, or using the lack of availability of them, as an excuse not to provide the current behavior is illogical IMO.
- - - Updated - - -
Straw man argument. Nobody wants this.
- - - Updated - - -
On this we agree. So again, darthy's question: Why don't they list the "battery horsepower" of the current P*D lineup?�
Oct 6, 2015
vgrinshpun I am not sure you've really took time to follow what I was saying. It is advertised with two numbers, and it is absolutely fantastic car, but these two numbers are not representative of the actual power that the car can put out at the shafts of it's motors, in exactly the same way it is not representative for P85d.
The reason for that is *not* that Mercedes or Tesla want to be evasive or misleading. The reason is that there is fundamental difference between the power producing components in an EV and internal combustion engine.
Just look through my today's posts and you'll understand.�
Oct 6, 2015
brianman Indeed. A peak number with a curve across SOCs within a specified temperature range would be lovely.
- - - Updated - - -
If this is the rationale, it's shortsighted. Some posters here have suggested that the "horsepower-upset P85D crowd" is "small". If that's truly the case, then it's far more important to risk upsetting them in exchange for building and retaining customer trust through openness and transparency about the real specs of the vehicle.�
Oct 6, 2015
flathillll Totally disagree. Telsa EV's and all EV's have severe shortcomings. This HP controversy is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to performance vs SOC/battery-age/duration/etc. It is better they not be advertised as when you actually buy one you will find those shortcomings unimportant (unless you wanted a track car)
Tesla must show their strengths, not show their weaknesses
Long-term this will all be settled on the track
(BUT ONLY WHEN ANOTHER PURE EV COMPETITOR IN THE SAME CLASS EXISTS FOR A FAIR RACE)�
Oct 6, 2015
stopcrazypp I will respond to that with the response I gave previously to a similar question:
My guess is Tesla will not update the numbers to something similar until the physical motor is changed on the P85D/P90DL or until there is another standard they can use (like the SAE standard under development). They have already removed the combined power number a long while back in order to lessen possible confusion and Straubel already posted a blog explaining the motor power numbers. Educating customers (including the existing P85D owners) on how to interpret those numbers is probably better than just putting a lower number.
- - - Updated - - -
Part of that is first clarifying what motor power means, like with Straubel's blog post. Also, removing any reference to a combined number also helped. However, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The number may be small, but they are loud about it. I think Tesla does want to do something about it (my guess is the Ludicrous discount was the first step) but they are testing the waters. Anything that will upset people further is not a good idea.�
Oct 6, 2015
JonG You can say something as many times as you want but it won't make it true. Any expert witness in a law court and tesla would need to prove something else. Are you really saying removing ambiguity would result in a court case? That makes no sense unless the truth is shockingly bad.�
Oct 6, 2015
dsm363 Right now Tesla has the EU regulation to point to how they came up with the number. If they revise them then the people complaining about this issue will point to that as evidence Tesla is admitting fault and they were right all along.�
Oct 6, 2015
JonG So I repeat - how come they can come up with a number for the 70D which is MUCH less than the sum of the motors?
Any self respecting company with nothing to hide would be consistent.
The defenders of tesla are flipping between 'it's a standard' that doesn't wash because of the inconsistent way they treat other cars in their range or its to protect against a law suit which is the same as saying 'you're right, it's nowhere near 761 bhp, but we dare not let on'
ps it's nearly happy birthday to auto pilot that's not yet come out�
Oct 6, 2015
vgrinshpun This was addressed in detail in JB Straubel's Blog on the subject. Why don't you take (another?) look?�
Oct 6, 2015
JonG You'd have to spell it out because I can't see it. He says there is some confusion with the 70d and 85d but the reality is the 70D is limited by the battery in the same way the P85D is (in the absence of any other explanation) given everything else is the same as the 85D.�
Oct 6, 2015
smsprague Perfect!�
Oct 6, 2015
supratachophobia That's the most reasonable idea I've seen yet....�
Oct 6, 2015
sorka Wrong. I've watched the REST go from 325 to 410 and it literally moves by 1 pixel at that scale. At lower power levels where the logarithmic side of the scale is expanded, you can tell 29KW from 30KW, but at the higher end, you can't tell 350KW to 400KW. The needle is in pretty much the same spot.
- - - Updated - - -
+1. That would have made it crystal.
But I think we all know why they didn't do that from the beginning.�
Oct 6, 2015
Soolim Well done, I would even go one step further and state the battery condition at which 550HP peak output could be realized.�
Oct 6, 2015
SDRick I like it. Simple and to the point. Unfortunate this wasn't stated from the get go. Very curious, suspicious and problematic if not adopted going forward.�
Oct 6, 2015
stopcrazypp I think you missed the point. It's not that they can't come up with a system power number. I have posted many times that there is no technical reason. We already pretty much know such a number will be in the 500hp range. The main difference between the P85D and all the other models is that although Tesla used "motor power" with them also, there was no one that complained about it for those models or implied they would start a lawsuit over it. Thus they can safely publish a lower number with no worries about upsetting anyone or being hit with a lawsuit over it. I have pointed out many times that the same phenomenon appears on the S60/S70 and S70D equally, but no one seems to care.
That is not the case with the P85D. There are multiple threads here hundreds of pages long discussing the motor power of that specific model. There have been talk about legal action. If Tesla posts say 500 hp (keeping the 259 hp motor power front and 503 hp motor power rear numbers to be consistent), the people complaining will interpret that as lowering the numbers (meaning the car went from 691 hp to 500 hp) rather than posting a number that measures a different thing. And that can be a trigger point for a lawsuit. There are still plenty here that refuse to accept "motor power" as a valid rating (and that Tesla's rating was factually true) and they will interpret any lower number Tesla publishes as "admitting" fault.
I think it is pretty safe to say any change that they make to the advertising of power numbers for the P85D is going to be put under a microscope and examined, so why would it be a surprise to you for Tesla to be cautious about that?
Unless there is another logical trigger point to change things (like SAE finally releasing their standard or if Tesla changes the physical motors of their line up) I don't really see them posting a lower number for the P85D.�
Oct 6, 2015
yak-55 Brilliant.
They could even add ... *BTW, this car has some impressive technology not available anywhere else. You'll be amazed what we get out of 550hp, come drive one and see for yourself.
Changes the entire dynamic in the conversation. They can talk about all the advantages of the electric drive train instead of trying to defend a nonsensical standard that while perhaps technically correct is irrelevant in the real world.�
Oct 6, 2015
eloder
Same way a customer knows that ICE horsepower is only accurate for a small narrow torque band at sea level and that the 0-60 times in the US are assuming a 1 foot rollout.
Same way a customer knows that a gas car needs gas in order to propel itself.
Same way a customer knows that cell phone service doesn't work well in basements.
Same way a customer knows how much money a computer costs yearly in electricity costs.
Same way a customer knows that when endangered eagles nest in cell phone towers, that cell site will be shut down and your service will be impacted temporarily. (No, I'm not even kidding about this).
None of these facts are mentioned with *any* business in the US. If you wanted to know absolutely everything about every product ever produced, you'd have to read a several thousand page document for even buying something like a cell phone.
Please tell me how this situation is any different than any of the above situations.
Why don't you get all of the other car manufacturers to properly advertise their 0-60 times without rollout, then, or their horsepower at various torque bands and altitudes? Why does a car dealer in Colorado get to advertise the same horsepower and 0-60 times the same as someone in southern Florida when the Florida car will perform a good bit better?
This is an electric car witch hunt, fueled by ignorance over how both ICE and EVs work in general. Nothing more, nothing less. I feel like I'm in the comments section of the Wall Street Journal...�
Oct 6, 2015
Andyw2100 I'll tell you how it is different.
Tesla recognized that the way they'd be presenting the number would be confusing to their potential customers. They started work on an explanation for the website that would clear up that confusion. We don't know exactly when Tesla started working on that explanation, but by the time David Noland wrote his article on October 17, 2014 they were already working on it.
Tesla chose to stop working on the explanation. There was nothing official published by Tesla until the JB Straubel blog post a couple of weeks ago, almost a year later.
That makes this situation very different from the ones you listed.�
Oct 6, 2015
SDRick
I am not sure if I get the gist of your post and your examples are somewhat obtuse, nonsensical, and are poor analogy's or not relevant.
The suggestion given below are basic metrics and are certainly more transparent than what we have so far. So let's ask again...
"What's wrong with Tesla updating its specs to the following":
- 691 HP combined motor power (550 HP peak output)
- 0-60 in 3.2s (3.6s w/o 1-foot roll out)
�
Oct 6, 2015
Krugerrand I believe his point is along the lines of: buyer beware and do due diligence if something specific is important to you, you learn about life, stuff, and new things by living it and them, and sometimes poo happens and it's usually not the end of the world.�
Oct 6, 2015
eloder So you're saying the only reason that the Tesla situation is different, is that Tesla is the only example from the above which was kind enough to post a response to customers who were ignorant about a specific aspect of their product? Somehow Tesla trying to educate those who don't have knowledge on the subject somehow makes them the bad people?
That doesn't even change anything. The cell phone companies still won't disclose which cell sites can or will be affected by seasonal changes in signal strength. Retailers still aren't listing the annual electricity costs of a computer. Gas car companies still advertise assuming 0-60 with 1 foot rollouts and hp levels at peak torque levels at sea level only.
Welcome to being a consumer. Educating yourself is a responsibility of being a consumer past what is legally required (which it is not in this case and is standard practice among all US automotive producers/advertisements). If you don't do your research, then there's no excuse for being subject to the consequences. It's no different than why Amazon and other retailers have "Ask a question about this product!" sections. It's no different than how you'll see so many people on TMC ask questions about the car before actually buying it. This literally impacts each and every single product you can possibly buy as a consumer, from fast food to furniture, to all technology to paper clips.
It's not Tesla's responsibility to draft a 2300 page document detailing every tiny little detail on their vehicles. Why stop at being forced to post methodology testing for 0-60? Why not reveal full methodology for metallurgical production of the aluminum on the body? Why not reveal the source code used for the autopilot simulations to exactly quantify how the TACC system works in all situations?
I get it, you're unhappy about the car for some reason. Before I bought my own EV, I had thought that it supported bluetooth media audio--I was wrong. Is it Nissan's fault I bought the wrong trim level? Nope. It's my fault for not asking / assuming / not doing my research that bluetooth calling didn't implicate the existence of bluetooth audio support.
It seems an easier solution--the solution used by every single business out there in the world--is that the most common and important aspects of a product or service are covered, and if more information is required then you simply ask.
It's just the risk and responsibility of the consumer.
Why are they obtuse, nonsensical, or a poor analogy? Are they poor because you, personally, already know the answer to those questions? Are they poor because--like the cell phone example--it does not apply to you personally?
I can assure you each and every fact is true, including the fact that endangered eagle nesting can indeed cause rural cell phone customers to completely lose cell service at their home over the period of a few months. You might scoff at that as pointless, but this very specific situation was once a part of my professional work-life and it negatively impacted thousands of customers annually, all of whom continued to pay full price for their degraded service.
There's nothing wrong with them updating to these specs; however, they will lose a competitive advantage as all other performance automakers in the US will not specify the conditions of peak horsepower, nor the fact that 0-60 times include a rollout.
It's no different than how every cell phone provider nowadays is advertising service, but leaves out device/equipment costs. The carriers who initially continued to advertise with equipment costs included, all of a sudden seemed much more expensive than those who legally advertised service costs separately. Thus, all cell phone carriers in the US now advertise without including equipment costs. This is all public information--feel free to look up historical data on subscription retention v. when the advertising campaigns changed for the four major US carriers. It's a competitive disadvantage for Telsa to include those disclosures, because customers will think Tesla's cars are slower than they actually are (because competitors' cars would still have the older, faster numbers). If you're unhappy with it then write a letter to your lawmaker in Washington D.C. to change it.�
Oct 6, 2015
Andyw2100 I'm saying the difference is that Tesla realized people were likely to be misled by the numbers they were posting, planned to explain them to prevent that, and then decided not to, allowing the customers to be misled.
As others have pointed out, there was no reasonable way someone could have read the Tesla 691 Motor HP figure and thought it meant anything other than 691 HP at the motors.
If this goes to court I expect that will be the easiest part of the case to prove. It may be more difficult to prove intent on Tesla's part, but now that we know they started working on this explanation and stopped, I think it just became a whole lot easier.
What is 100% clear is that a whole lot of customers trust Tesla a whole lot less than they used to.�
Oct 6, 2015
Dwu0212 So bring a lawyer and engineer every time I want to purchase from Tesla, ok. What happen to doing honest business? I'm tired of hearing all these excuses, another company is doing that so its ok tesla does it too...really?�
Oct 6, 2015
Andyw2100 Bring one before, or you might have to bring one later. Perhaps they could work that into a motto.�
Oct 6, 2015
Canuck The main thing wrong with it is that Tesla never asked for opinions on updating its specs. So it's an exercise in futility.
Tesla provided an explanation for how it arrived at its specs. The fact that some people do not like the explanation, and are irritated by it, does not make it wrong. I also find it odd to tell a company to sell itself short just to satisfy a relatively small, but vocal, group. Sorry but capitalism rarely caters to minorities. It caters to the market as a whole, which in Tesla's case is doing just fine, without the opinions being offered here.�
Oct 6, 2015
Dwu0212 Dont forget to bring an English professor, Tesla have their own defination of language when it comes to timeframe, lol�
Oct 6, 2015
Andyw2100 Until they get sued.�
Oct 6, 2015
AWDtsla That's how logarithmic gauges work. And all gauges need some sort of low pass filter in order to be readable, whether FIR filters or moving averages, and they all add latency. The point still stands. The car tells you how much power it's making, at some point in the powertrain.�
Oct 6, 2015
eloder Name me a large, successful business that doesn't follow industry marketing standards or industry practices and sees no negative impact.
What Tesla is doing is no different than how the smart electric drive is able to advertise itself as cost $12,500, despite having a base MSRP of $25,000.
Regarding bringing a lawyer and an engineer, that's just a fact of every day life. Every EV maker out there advertises the $7500 tax credit right on the front page, and usually in the biggest font. I guarantee most people would need to consult the IRS or a tax preparation service to find the answer to that question (most do not qualify for the full $7500). Every food you consume can potentially have deleterious long-term health effects, especially for weight levels and diabetes risk--there's usually a huge health difference between those that stick to a nutritionist-approved diet, versus those that simply stick to nutrition labels to determine what to eat.
Why single out Tesla, specifically? Just because they're a new company doesn't mean they're subject to the same regulatory environment for the 100+ year ICE history. Write to your lawmaker if you find this distressing, and while you're at it please have lawmakers include scientific journals on the health effects of food in your grocery store, force customers to learn IRS tax code related to EV credits, and force customers to understand how an EVSE install works too.�
Oct 6, 2015
Canuck You think a lawsuit will change things? Litigation doesn't work that way. Anyone can sue over anything. Tesla will file a response based on its published explanation if it is sued and nothing will change. Tesla won't be running scared simply by being sued, and change its specs, as you seem to think. That's just wishful thinking on your part.
If you had posted "Until they get a judgment against them" then I'd say good luck on that one. It won't happen. Tesla will win it easily, likely on a Summary Trial basis. There's a very broad spectrum when it comes to advertising specs and provided you come anywhere within the spectrum, the case will be doomed for failure. Remember, it's not the government suing over false advertising, but purchasers saying they were mislead. Look up "caveat emptor" (buyer beware). It's a principle of law that makes these types of cases very difficult to win.
You're not aware of the reality of today's litigious world if you think the filing of a lawsuit will change anything. And the risk of costs, not only your own but paying Tesla's costs if (or rather when) you lose, means a lawsuit is unlikely to change things. The vast majority of lawsuits filed never see a courtroom, mostly due to the prohibitive costs involved in pursuing cases to trial.�
Oct 6, 2015
Andyw2100 If Tesla gets sued in some sort of major class action suit over this, it will be all over the news. Tesla will be hurt whether they defend the suit successfully or not.
They put themselves in this situation, and there was no reason for it.�
Oct 6, 2015
AWDtsla Who exactly is *most*? If you can afford a Tesla and don't have an AGI high enough to get the credit, then you really don't need it. How are you going to get money back from the government if you don't actually earn any income on the books?
As far as car models the only well-known car that can't get to 7500 is the i8, and no one is buying those. BOTH your cars qualify for $7500.
Qualified Vehicles Acquired after 12-31-2009
The amount of EV FUD here is too damn high.�
Oct 6, 2015
Dwu0212 Actually there is a huge difference. Tesla does the same thing as other EV company on their pricing, they even subtract gas saving from their price, I'm ok with that, you know why? Because they actually EXPLAIN it. Would you be ok with it if they did not explain their pricing and charge you full price when you go pick up the car?
You know what's funny? I did not know about tax credit for EV before I start purchasing Tesla, it's my first look into EV world, but I didn't need to ask IRS or tax professional to understand it, you know why? Because Tesla is happy to put that right in our face on the ordering page. So tesla is willing to explaining stuff that will benefit them but not explaining hp motor power, not explaining use of rollout on one model and not all others, that's shady.
i don't think we are singling out Tesla because it's a new company, it's because we BOUGHT a tesla, not leaf, not volt not Chevy, not future Tesla owner, we are tesla owner and we didn't get what we paid for.�
Oct 6, 2015
Nigel Tufnel I wish I could be more smug and pompous in my posting...then I could sound like I'm always right and ridicule others in the process.
Probably I should've gone to law school.�
Oct 6, 2015
Canuck It won't be all over the news. Of course, it will be carried by the major news outlets but not as headline news and most people won't care enough about it to even take note of it. Those who do will likely roll their eyes at the facts (since both sides will be presented) and the comments sections will likely be filled with Tesla supporters bashing the spoiled entitlement litigants, and the usual Tesla bashers we see in every Tesla news story. Just another lawsuit we see everyday and nothing coming even remotely near VW -- that's all over the news. This one won't be, if it even makes it to a lawsuit.
In the end nothing much will come of it.
All businesses know you can't please everyone. If it wasn't this issue, it would be something else. We have multiple threads here about people threatening to sue Tesla over various issues. I remember when auto pilot came out and I missed it, people tried to get me on the "let's sue" bandwagon. Life's too short for that and it's such a spectacular car, and company, that I wouldn't for a moment entertain it.
Oh, and I don't need to be told about the different between getting what I paid for and this issue. I know there is a difference. But I also know if I was part of this issue, you wouldn't get me near the bandwagon.�
Oct 6, 2015
Krugerrand There are plenty of people who feel Tesla IS doing honest business, but none of us are so na�ve as to believe there aren't many, many businesses that are not doing honest business. And we all know that it's buyer beware, regardless of anything else we know. In a perfect world we wouldn't give it a second thought. This isn't a perfect world, though.
What happened to being responsible for our own actions? That works both ways. Many people hire mechanics to look over used vehicles before deciding which one to buy to make sure they aren't getting duped/getting a good deal/etc... Many people hire experts/professionals to help them with evaluations/consultations/etc... before making purchases for all sorts of products and services. We call friends and family asking them for suggestions for restaurants, healthcare practitioners, hotels, and so on.
It just seems logical and sensible to me that if you're buying a new technology AND a feature of that technology is REALLY, REALLY important to you, that you would investigate the crap out of it to make sure you understood the technology and the feature that held such importance to you. Yep, would be great if the company spelled it out in great and exhaustive detail because that would make the consumer's job a piece of cake, but we don't always get that.�
Oct 6, 2015
Canuck "smug and pompous".... ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
( I didn't want to let you down so I had to answer. But what really hurt was the part about me "sounding" like I am always right. I am always right! )�
Oct 6, 2015
Nigel Tufnel Sometimes I feel that being right just isn't enough, the other guy needs to look foolish in the process.
�
Oct 6, 2015
Canuck Have you been speaking to my wife or are you just channeling her?
Fair comment though. I'll work on being nicer in my replies. I know that's a bad trait of mine. Good for my business. Bad for forum posts.�
Oct 6, 2015
Nigel Tufnel I was channeling my ex-wives.
:wink:�
Oct 6, 2015
Canuck Ha! That's really funny. If I keep it up, I'll have one too.�
Oct 6, 2015
imherkimer Is it on? Are you on board for this class action suit? Is it showtime?
There must be lawyers working late in offices, shuffling papers right at this moment, getting ready to file, already salivating.
Perfect opportunity! Time to punish, to make em pay in every way! Demand real satisfaction!
Time for some smart, ambitious lawyers to make bank while setting up some real financial damage for those scoundrels at Tesla!
I am sure these lawyers will be grateful to you!
Maybe get a settlement without even having to face a judge. Nice work, when you can get it, right? Payday!
I mean, just look at all the terrible damage that has been done!
We bought the car for those numbers dammit, and they just don't add up the way they should. It's devastating!
Performance, safety, all of that is fine, but those horsepower numbers..... oh the humanity!
There must be scores, even legions of wounded egos limping around.
Most people just don't have any idea how deeply painful it is when you can't get those numbers to the wheels in the way you were led to believe you could, all because of means of measurement, or battery limitation, or some other poppy-cock!
There must be permanent disabilities involved! Therapists stretched to the limit!
"Um," someone could say, "maybe you could have returned the car, immediately, and said 'these numbers just aren't good enough for me.' Probably negotiate a refund. Or maybe sell the car to some other sucker who doesn't care about HP numbers."
No way! Let's face it, there's no satisfaction in that! Right? So I hear ya! Punishment is what we crave! Financial losses! We'll have all of Tesla's enemies cheering us on! That in itself surely offers a good dose of ego healing. Humiliation and financial damage for Tesla. I'm sure that's the only way to compensate us for the deep, irreparable harm done by having to settle for a mere 450 or 550, when we should have the full 691 that we paid for!�
Oct 6, 2015
WarpedOne +691�
Oct 7, 2015
SDRick
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.�
Oct 7, 2015
sorka Well, that's true but not with enough accuracy to narrow to see the difference between 500 and 550 hp visually or even 475 to 555 unless you're looking real close and don't need any optical correction at all and even then it's barely a few pixels. But that's easily solvable by using the REST API and getting the exact power level.
- - - Updated - - -
Wow! Just flat out wrong. Most Model S owners who can afford to buy a model S in the first place do qualify. The only requirement is that you have $7500 in tax liability. Period. There are no exclusions or income limits. It's one of the most straight forward tax credits there is.
Now if you don't have $7500 in tax liability because you're writing off assets or losses in that year, then sure, but this is not most of the people.�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano I am curious did you buy the P85D?
Are you saying the end justifies the means & Tesla, the salespeople and the media should continue to promote the 691 HP & 762 HP for Ludicrous regardless of what the buyers believe or understand and regardless of what the real truth is?
Can someone explain to me if the motors are rated at 691 HP motor power, how is it that with Ludicrous they are now rated at 762 HP? Did they change the motors along with the fuse? How does changing the fuse and software increase the capability of the motors to be 762 HP motor power when they are the same motor rating. I'm so confused. Where is this 762 HP RATING coming from when they cannot even output 691 HP?�
Oct 7, 2015
Canuck He was using sarcasm to put the issue in dispute in perspective. Also, while different people (or "camps") have different versions of "what the real truth is", Tesla provided its version here:
Tesla All Wheel Drive (Dual Motor) Power and Torque Specifications | Tesla Motors Canada
Just because you don't believe or accept Tesla's version, doesn't make their version any less true, in the same way your version of the truth is not any less true just because others don't believe you. As pointed out, there is only one arbitrator of the truth and that's the court of competent jurisdiction (subject to appeals) -- but only of the truth within its jurisdiction. Often, courts from different jurisdictions come to different findings based on the same facts (see Apple vs. Samsung for example). So telling someone "what the real truth is" assumes that you are telling the real truth. I'm quite certain there's no agreement on that issue.�
Oct 7, 2015
cynix I don't think anyone is disputing that Tesla's numbers conform to ECE R85 (or at least one interpretation of it). What we're arguing is that they didn't make this fact very clear, and that they should have shown the total system hp in addition to the ECE R85 hp.�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano Can you explain how the 762 motor HP for the Ludicrous upgrade is derived when the motors were originally rated for only 691 motor HP. Or do we need a court system to decipher that as well? [sarcasm]�
Oct 7, 2015
Stoneymonster The same sort of change happened with other D series cars earlier in the year (85D went from 188 motor power to 2xx something). It could simply be a restatement due to higher confidence. We'll never know probably.�
Oct 7, 2015
brianman That was one of my theories as well.
While we're talking about motors, I'm a little confused. Perhaps someone can clarify.
Model S | Tesla Motors
70D: 259 + 259
85D: 259 + 259
P85D: 259 + 503
70: 382
85: 382
Model X | Tesla Motors
P90D: 259 + 503
90D: 259 + 259
259, 382, 503 - Three motors in the current Model S and Model X lineup? I somehow didn't notice when the 382 came along. I had thought that the 60, 85, P85, P85D, and P90D all had the same rear motor (just different generations/evolutions/ages of it). I had thought they had different drive units in the P variants due to different inverters and/or cabling. But the phrasing on the web site suggests 3 unique motors -- otherwise it should be "drive unit motor power" rather than just "motor power", correct?�
Oct 7, 2015
Stoneymonster Well there were always a P and non-P rear motor, right? So the 382 is the non-P rear and the 503 is the P (also upstated from 4xx originally).�
Oct 7, 2015
eloder
Not true. I wouldn't come close because to getting the full $7500 tax credit because the standard deduction is by far more valuable for me than itemizing on an average tax year. If I used my stock and long-term savings, bought a Tesla, and itemized my deductions, I would get approximately $4000 at most from the $7500 tax credit.
And that's assuming, of course, that I'm not doing anything weird with my stocks for that year as that could make things even worse.
I chuckled
The funny part is that you're thinking the $7500 credit thing is not a big deal because you did your research and know how it works. If people did their research on the horsepower and 0-60 times for EVs or even just any car ever produced in the last few decades, they also would not be blindsided by these facts.
Whether the $7500 credit does or does not apply is indeed very complex and is far from being based solely on income.�
Oct 7, 2015
brianman Elaborating on what I thought I already said...
My recollection was/is that the (original) P85 and 85 drive units were different but they had the same motor inside the drive unit. The "secret sauce" of Perf was inverter, electronics, cabling -- not motor.�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano
But it I thought the P85D is rated at 691 motor power. That is the max HP they are capable of is it not?�
Oct 7, 2015
Stoneymonster Huh, ok. I seem to recall something about different windings on the P motor back in the early days. Shrug.�
Oct 7, 2015
brianman I think that was Roadster. And TEG will probably chime in to remind me that it was a myth or something.�
Oct 7, 2015
dsm363 Really. You know the answer to that and how Tesla came to that number.�
Oct 7, 2015
Stoneymonster We are discussing the motor power ratings of individual motors, yes.
- - - Updated - - -
Here's an old post claiming they are different: Motor-battery combo performance differences S60, S85, and P85. Later posts say they are not. I think you are right and they are not different. Does that mean the motor power figure includes the inverter?
The first post in that thread is interesting too, directly talks about thoeretical motor capabilities (motor power) and actual.�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano All how does changing the fuse and the software change the actual max rating on the motors from the 691 original motor HP?
lets not complicate the conversation by bringing in lower HP cars motor HP ratings. The P85D and the P90DL have the same motors and inverter.�
Oct 7, 2015
brianman @dsm (Since he's clearly reading this thread...)
As I understand it, one of the arguments is "People should have done the research so that they understand what they're buying, etc." I think it's abundantly clear that (1) there is room for confusion about what the P85D and P90D products offer, (2) there are a lot of now informed people on this subject, (3) if Tesla doesn't update/add-to the wording there will be more buyers confused going forward, and (4) that could be improved but it is possible Tesla won't take action.
Starting a new thread is probably a bad idea. Putting it in this thread is probably a bad idea. So, how about this proposal:
How do you feel about a Wiki page that captures "what we think we know" about the Model S w/r/t this 691hp drama? What I'm thinking is something that lays it all out there. I'd love to be able to point to 1 page that is readable by non-experts and educates them on the subject quickly and correctly.
I'm thinking a format that starts with:
(1) What Tesla publicly stated
(2) (Maybe) What Tesla previously publicly stated
(3) Links to threads that have research (I'm talking the REST data, vbox, charts, etc.)
(4) "Curated" text that captures our collective current understanding
By "curated" I mean we could pick a handful of people to act as a committee to write the language.
I think it would be a good first step in putting this topic to bed, or at least finding common ground and focusing future discussion.�
Oct 7, 2015
Stoneymonster We aren't complicating anything, we're having a side conversation.�
Oct 7, 2015
brianman I'm not certain we know this for the most recent P85D vehicles. It's completely possible (and perhaps likely) that when they first announced P90D they already had P85D drive units coming off the line that were better/different than previous P85D drive units.
I'm not trying to suggest that people should start tracking VINs and such. I'm just saying that we don't know for certain one way or another, so we probably shouldn't start with that assumption.
- - - Updated - - -
Read post 13.
Motor-battery combo performance differences S60, S85, and P85 - Page 2
Hah, it's like I read his post before I posted earlier. (But I didn't...no really... well, at least not in 2015.)�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano No I do not. That is why I am asking. If they have the same motors and inverters between the P85D and the P90DL where does the extra 70 +motor HP come from. I thought 691 HP was the MAX motor Hp rating for the motors. That's why they were advertised.�
Oct 7, 2015
Stoneymonster Yup, just got there�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano What are you talking about? I have a P85D with an advertised 691 HP motor rating which the battery/fuse system cannot satisfy. So I upgrade the fuse & software for $10k and suddenly I have 761 HP motor power with all the same motor hardware ? How is that possible?�
Oct 7, 2015
brianman That's not what I was saying. I lost track of when P90D was launched, but let's say May.
I was suggesting that a May P85D drive unit pair might have P90D specs (762) while an April P85D drive unit pair has P85D specs (691). Tesla has done stuff like this before -- both for features (Supercharging, Autopilot sensors, etc.) and spendy hardware ("40/60" had 60 kWh batteries that were software limited to 40 usable).
Furthermore, they might do like chip manufacturers do -- build P90D (762) drive units exclusively, test them, and software limit (691) the "weak ones".
There's all kinds of "it's not that simple" stuff that comes into play when you're trying to minimize costs, optimize throughput, maximize profit margins, etc.�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano That cannot be possible. The current P85D is still Advertised as 691 HP motor Power. It doesn't actually produce that 691 HP. It is not limited to the 691 HP power. It is limited to 550 HP.�
Oct 7, 2015
brianman I think we define "possible" differently.�
Oct 7, 2015
stopcrazypp "Motor power," like the ECE R85, includes the motor controller and inverters. This would be similar to how crate motors are sold with ECUs attached. When you keep that in mind the numbers are pretty straightforward.
- - - Updated - - -
Simple: they have different software. The 70D/85D motors went from 188hp "motor power" to 259 hp "motor power" just with a software update.
The number more accurately is the power of the motors inclusive of the motor controllers and inverters. That is how ECE R85 measures things. That means any software updates on the motor controller will change the motor power rating.�
Oct 7, 2015
Luclyluciano
What do you mean? Spell it out.
Where does this extra 70 HP motor power come from when the motor hardware Is identical to the P85D and it is rated at 691 max Hp motor power all the while putting out 550 HP.
If the upgrades produce an extra 70 Hp then the P90DL should be advertised as 550 HP + 70 HP=620 Hp with still the rated 691 HP MOTOR POWER.�
Oct 7, 2015
stopcrazypp He's saying the motor hardware may not be identical between a P85D from back when they were advertising the 691 hp number and a P90DL or P85D rolling out of the factory now.
Like with the battery pack (which has gone through many revisions), it would be no surprise for Tesla to make continual changes to the motor (I believe from the motor noise issue threads they have different motor part numbers for a while already).
However, as I put it, the simpler explanation is because like ECE R85, the "motor power" includes the motor controller/inverter.�
Oct 7, 2015
AWDtsla It's like I'm reading the same thing over, and over, and over. Double check the timestamps. Yes new posts... hmmm�
Oct 7, 2015
sorka You clearly don't understand how this tax credit works. This is not a deduction. You get to take the credit regardless of whether you itemized or took the standard deduction as long as you have *any* tax liability after that. If you have more than $7500 after your deductions, you get to take the entire amount otherwise it's whatever you have left under $7500.
- - - Updated - - -
But apparently you didn't.�
Oct 8, 2015
Soolim Are you sure of that ECE R85 definition for "motor power" including the drive controller?�
Oct 8, 2015
Luclyluciano
I understand and prrfectly how some of you are saying that PERHAPS the motors are different, perhaps the software is brings out more HP from the motors but let's get a few things straight.
The P85D motor is RATED at MAXIMUM 691 HP motor power. It's a rating similar to the rating of a lightbulb. This is supposedly how they rate electrical motors. This rating is like a maximum output CAPABILITY and LIMITATION rating of the physical motors themselves, provided the the rest of the system could feed this motor. But the system cannot. And therefore the actual motor OUTPUT is only 550 HP. Thus the controversy.
My car is equipped & Advertised with this motor CAPABILITY/LIMITATION.
Tesla says they will change my fuse and software and VOILA my motor now magically has a maximum capability/limitation rating of 762 HP motor power in my P85DL yet it really does not actually produce this output, it's probably more around 600 actual HP.
My point is the motor's physical maximum CAPABILITY/LIMITATIONS have not changed at all and this is how they rate these electrical motors. It's CAPABILITY & LIMITS remain the same and are constrained by the rest of the system. So how does my P85D motor change its rating to 762 HP motor power by changing a couple of items in the system.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét