Sep 30, 2015
stopcrazypp I suspect that is technically a customer service campaign (and a low priority one since going 130mph vs 155mph is extremely rare). Technical service bulletins (TSBs) are required to be published to NHTSA, but customer service campaigns are not and are only addressed when the owner brings it up as a problem (not proactively applied). This is common industry convention.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/chi-recall-tsb-or-customer-service-campaign-whats-the-difference-story.html�
Sep 30, 2015
AmpedRealtor Whatever it's called, it's completely wrong for Tesla not to notify owners that their cars cannot meet the top speed specifications. The rarity of anyone driving to 155 MPH is not the point.
Oh wait... is the top speed theoretical, too, like the horsepower? lol�
Sep 30, 2015
LetsGoFast Except we don't have to guess. Tesla provided details about the changes and have told us that they involve a fuse and a new contactor. Neither of which would be involved in testing under the EU regulations. If we accept Strubel's blog post at face value, the hp used is purely a measure of the output of the motor on a test bench and the only thing that could be changed that would affect that is the motor itself, which Elon assured us was not involved in the ludicrous upgrade. The only other possibility is that they knew there was already headroom in the motor test figure -- they could have claimed 800 or 900 or even 1,000 hp if they wanted to since the motor itself could output even more power if you weren't concerned about actually providing that power in the car or about the long term effect on the motor's health.
- - - Updated - - -
Neither the motor controller or inverter is being replaced in the ludicrous upgrade.�
Sep 30, 2015
stopcrazypp That's your opinion about the importance, but the industry convention appears to be that the hierarchy is focused on safety:
1) major safety issue (Recall, requires notification of owner)
2) common issues with some safety implications (TSBs, requires publishing to NHTSA)
3) issues rarely occurring or noticed and with little or no safety implications (Customer Service Campaigns).
- - - Updated - - -
You missed my point: the software is surely being upgraded with the ludicrous upgrade. That is enough to change the power out of the motors. Again, the only difference between the two versions is the software (besides from the battery), just like how the S85D's 188 hp motor power increase to 259 hp was purely from software.
This is not inconsistent with the European ECE R85 because it specifies using a "Standard-production equipment" "Speed variator and control device" (AKA motor controller), which would have whatever firmware version it had at the time of test. If Tesla updated the firmware afterwards, the motor power can be different (higher or lower depending on what changes they made).
- - - Updated - - -
At least for the UK registration V5C, the power number is supposed to be filled out with the maximum net power line from the EU certificate of conformance, not the continuous power rating. The EU certificate of conformance for the P85D as all three numbers listed (continuous, maximum, 30 minute).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/51922-Letter-To-Elon-Musk-Regarding-P85D-Horsepower-%C2%96-Discussion-Thread/page44?p=1167551&viewfull=1#post1167551
For some reason, for the P85 the V5C is filled out with a continuous number (this saved people a considerable amount of insurance costs). I haven't seen one for a P85D so it is unknown if this practice is continued. However, I'm not sure if it benefits owners to take this issue up. All it will do is increase insurance costs (and perhaps taxes if there are taxes based on this number).�
Sep 30, 2015
Dennis87 My insurance company list P85D as with 700 DIN HP (691 SAE) So I pay more than I have to since the car only make 550hp or 640hp with ludicrous.�
Sep 30, 2015
jasonjax Although I do so enjoy the salt ... isn't there enough of this in the other thread you people keep posting in?�
Sep 30, 2015
rjt65 Interesting to know the facts, but i just am enjoying the crap out of my beautiful car!!! (2 months on the road!)�
Sep 30, 2015
Gizmotoy A low, but humorous, blow. :biggrin:�
Sep 30, 2015
Andyw2100 I'm not sure how much of the "you know who you are" is directed at me, but I certainly have been vocal about this issue here, so I think it is safe to assume that I'm included in that group, so I'm going to respond.
If my goal had been to get this issue into the mainstream press I assure you I could have accomplished that goal a long time ago. As soon as I heard that the letter to Musk I was working on had been picked up outside TMC I slowed down my plans on that, resulting in the letter having fewer signatures than it otherwise would have, because I did what I could to keep the profile as low as possible from that point on. I didn't include pointers to the threads in any of the threads I had planned to, etc. I didn't comment on the article. I didn't post on the Tesla Forums. I basically just followed through on what I had started at that point.
It would have been very easy to send links from that "Learn Bonds" article to various journalists, including those that have a history of being anti-Tesla if the goal was to get the story into the main stream media. I did not do that, and it's pretty clear others here didn't either.
This issue didn't become more mainstream news until Tesla's blog post, which may or may not be a response to the letter.�
Sep 30, 2015
stopcrazypp Well, that would appear to be the correct way of accounting for HP according to the EU regulation. It was not supposed to be based on continuous power in the first place or a net power. Basing it on continuous only works for ICE cars because it is typically the same as the peak number or really close.�
Sep 30, 2015
whitex Or, maybe he didn't want to take a $30K+ loss for owning a car for less than a day? I doubt Tesla offers to take back P85D for a full refund.�
Sep 30, 2015
DoctorJJ Just to be clear, anyone who says the P85D doesn't perform as advertised is simply wrong. It performs better than advertised. It was said to be 0-60 in 3.2 and 1/4 mile in 11.8. It consistently tests 0-60 in 3.1 and 1/4 mile in 11.6. The 1 foot rollout is industry standard and has been forever, with every other car tested, ICE or whatever. Also, if you couldn't tell that it wasn't going to be as fast on the top end as it was on the bottom end, well, you aren't really a performance buff to begin with. It may not make the "advertised" power, and that certainly is a gripe, but don't confuse power made with performance realized. This car performs better than advertised. This may be semantics to some, but to me, there is a difference.�
Sep 30, 2015
Andyw2100 I think you must have meant "every other car tested except every other car ever made before by Tesla", right?�
Sep 30, 2015
wk057 12.6 in the 1/4 would be terrible. I'd be in for service immediately.
Fortunately Dragtimes has the P85D around 11.6 in the 1/4.
As for "HPgate", I'm done with that topic entirely. Too many headaches, too few lap dances. Plus somewhere along the lines I also realized that I wasn't haven't a good time with this topic....
�
Sep 30, 2015
SDRick Maybe I'm on the wrong planet, but what problem is solved?�
Sep 30, 2015
supratachophobia That would really chap my bumper. Especially if I drove a car that ranks higher than 5 stars on a nationally recognized safety test.�
Oct 1, 2015
Matias When you google P85D hp, controversy is at the first page now
�
Oct 1, 2015
LetsGoFast I mostly agree with you and have made more or less this point in one of the dozen threads on this subject, but I do have a small quibble. 1 foot rollout is an "American car industry standard" not a universal standard. Also, the key metric that demonstrates the car's weaker performance at the top end isn't so much the 11.6 quarter, but the trap speed of 115. The closest comparable car I've driven (Mercedes CLS63 AMG) has 577 hp and turns out a 1/4 of 11.7, getting just nipped by the P85D, but does it at a trap speed of 122.7 mph. The trap speed wasn't available when I bought the car, but I suspected it would be slowish. I'd still buy the car again today, no doubt at all. But Tesla should provide accurate specifications.�
Oct 1, 2015
jthompson Amen....and some Tesla owners need to get a life and realize what is important and what is not. Too many whiners and complainers on TMC for me�
Oct 1, 2015
ToddRLockwood Agreed. If the actual performance of the car was overstated, that would be a different story. Horsepower and torque comparisons between electric and gasoline cars are misleading because the drivetrains play a significant role in how those forces translate into performance. Even dyno comparisons have to be taken with a grain of salt because they don't take into account the mass of the vehicle. Reminds me of the audiophile world, where there's a tendency to rely on numbers instead of the sound.�
Oct 2, 2015
Dwu0212 It amazes me how you post with a straight face, all I see in your posts are excuses and many times, nonsense. Tesla advertised 691 hp motor power without any explaination or disclaimer, most people, including medias believed it will output 691hp, Even IF(a big if) ECE R85 explain Teslas claim of using combined motor power, the manual is not available to us until after purchase, many members had stated that and you just seem to ignore it�
Oct 2, 2015
yo mama I supposed I entered the transaction knowing about the 1 foot roll out assumption so it didn't bother me.�
Oct 2, 2015
AWDtsla It's an American car, they measure things in American ways, get over it. There is absolutely no controversy in the US over the 0-60, it is confirmed by multiple entities at this point. Given you paid half of what you'd pay for any other equivalent ICE car the amount of complaining from this area really comes off in a bad way. You're going to say "oh but that's not the point", but it doesn't change how it looks. Cringe-worthy.�
Oct 2, 2015
darthy001 If you knew that Dennis traded in a car that actually made the advertised times would that change things?
Getting what you paid for doesnt count either because EVs are subsidised in Norway? What BS is that?
To me your argument makes no sense and is cringe-worthy on its own.
In our country 0 actually means ZERO. Fine that you americans knew about this aspect, but that does not vindicate Tesla for _introducing_ use of roll-out without any warning on the P85D alone.
Strangely they didnt feel the need for roll-out on their previous Model S-versions, but I assume your are perfectly fine just ignoring that Tesla changed they way they advertised one particular model and kept the other ones, including the new 85D, with accelleration times not using roll-out?�
Oct 2, 2015
Dennis87 Example edmunds magazine and many other also think its cheating.
How We Test Cars and Trucks
When Tesla sells car to Norway or any European country they have to apply to the rules or the measure methods used in that county. Example Tesla had to equip the model S with Fog lights in the rear for Europe.
I did buy the car thinking it would have about the same time to 60 mph like my old car, but its a bit slower and the Tesla did cost over twice as much. Off course my old car was far from a new car, but I should be able to compare the car to other cars using the correct 0-60 or 0-100kph. Above 60 mph I did not expect the car to beat my old car since it did the 1/4 mile in 10.8 sec
�
Oct 2, 2015
AWDtsla Again, I've come to expect this. The non-performance models often get very mediocre ratings, and the performance models get timed out like they are in drag race. Just think that Subaru (not even a US manufacturer) had taken out a full-page advertisement with a 0-60 time for the WRX that was a full second+ faster than the no-launch/no-rollout time. All the Subaru fans loved it.
This is just confusing the horsepower issue.�
Oct 2, 2015
WarpedOne Absolutely. It would be interesting to know what rules in Norway made tesla publish what they did.
They for certain are different from those in USA, because in USA tesla said something different.
Pure translation is the simplest, they need to spent some additional energy to publish different specs.
Anyone from Norway here that knows anything about those Norwegian regulations?�
Oct 2, 2015
AmpedRealtor Your issue with those representations should be with the magazines, not Tesla.
For example, here is a "performance report" put out by Road & Track on the P85D. Note the "estimated" HP and torque graph. Everything on this sheet was put out by Road & Track, not Tesla. Check it out and see what you think...
Is it Tesla's fault that R&T is promoting 691 HP along with "estimated" HP and torque graphs in a document titled "Performance Report"?�
Oct 2, 2015
AWDtsla Example:
Advert claims 5.3 seconds
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 15.8 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 7.3 sec
Street start 7.3 seconds!!!�
Oct 2, 2015
yo mama @AWD - while I agree that (likely) all car advertisements take some creative licenses with numbers it's probably equally true that few people are buying a subaru primarily for its 0-60 time. So I understand the heightened level of scrutiny/frustration of P85D owners in this regard, because the 0-60 time was probably a huge motivation. I'm still happy but I can empathize with those that aren't.�
Oct 2, 2015
AWDtsla One big reason for me placing my order because the 5-60/street start/"whatever isn't a race launch" 0-60 times are basically superior to every other car out there including their supposed timed ratings. Every ICE car is busy revving or upshifting at this point, even the naturally aspirated high-throttle response engines like from BMW. So I don't see how we can be focusing on a .2 or .3 second difference for that contrived scenario anyway, translation/international differences be damned. The P90D has the most streetable power out of any car I know due to multiple factors like being electric, and thus being both instant and silent, and being AWD.
Edit - to be clear what I am saying is that all ICE cars need to add the time from throttle press to launch-RPMS-ready to their 0-60. Or compare 5-60 times, which means the car is in first gear, engaged, and idling.�
Oct 2, 2015
jpet What I understand from JB's blog post is that base option = without features that add weight to the car like e.g. the pano roof, 3rd row child seats, etc... It would be better if they would specify the exact configuration they use to test the car's performance so that owners that do not have that exact configuration understand that their performance will not match the advertised numbers. The same applies to range by the way. I knew I was going to get less range because of the pano roof and 21" staggered wheels.�
Oct 2, 2015
AmpedRealtor I'm not so sure about this. Most who bought the P85D probably did so based on the 0-60 acceleration, not based on 1/4 mile time. Some of the people who signed onto the P85D letter to Tesla do not even own the P85D. It seems like for some, this is a theoretical and hypothetical argument and not one that actually impacts their ownership experience. I get it that there may be a small, vocal minority that is claiming it bought specifically due to that number and that now they are owed something. I'm willing to wager that it is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total cars shipped. Tesla should offer a buyback to those owners, but I suspect very few will take Tesla up on such an offer. Why? Because at the end of the day, the number isn't really the deal-breaker they make it out to be in this and other threads.�
Oct 2, 2015
WarpedOne I'm not so sure about them understanding that.�
Oct 2, 2015
smac
I have a lot of sympathy for this view. Heck my S60 destroys stuff like M135i's from the lights, which in all reality should be off like a scalded rat leaving me in their wake.
However, and it's a big one, the P85 pulled the same trick often being much quicker than real exotica., but was reeled in in short order after 50mph. I can see why many P85 owners felt the car was not quite up there with RS7s of this world at this speed range.
Then the announcement came of a big hike in HP. Many thought this would settle the scores in the higher speed range, and on that basis traded in perfectly good P85s (which still smoke most things 0-60 in the real world) for P85D's and are now disappointed
Clearly the P90L goes a long way to "fixing" this perceived issue, and the videos of the P90D vs the P85D show this is what was really needed to sort higher speed performance, where the acceleration was mediocre (relatively speaking, it's still pretty good in absolute terms).
Ultimately I think Tesla always intended the P85D to be what the P90D is, but engineering challenges prevented them achieving their original goal. The fix (i.e. the new fuse) is prohibitively expensive to eat the cost for the benefit of good will, so we will just continue dancing round the issue for ever.�
Oct 2, 2015
scottm Moderator:
Can we please consolidate all the "P85D not enough horsepower" threads into one big thread (that stretches here to the moon maybe). Having it all in one spot would be a lot easier to navigate the rest of the forum. And those wanting to read all about it will have just one handy place to go.
Just an idea.�
Oct 2, 2015
WarpedOne +691�
Oct 2, 2015
eloder I'm not sure how a Subaru can be labelled as a car not primarily bought for its performance, but a 5000 pound 5+2 seater full-sized sedan can be sought after for its performance.
Oh wait, like horsepower measurements, EVs flip things on their head a bit because of the technological differences
Anyways, the 0-60 times are still accurate, it's just US-accurate. Nothing wrong with that because many magazines confirm the US-accurate number.
I can understand how European buyers wouldn't know that, because we've had zero good US cars before today to export to other countries, but like breaking the speed limit ignorance of the fact doesn't allow you to escape the consequences, nor is it Tesla's fault to advertise in industry standard measurements in the US and US media.�
Oct 2, 2015
smac What about on EU websites?�
Oct 2, 2015
yo mama That's the EU's fault for not adopting US standards. :ducks:�
Oct 2, 2015
smac It's the US's fault for trying to avoid paying taxes buy changing the size of a gallon�
Oct 2, 2015
Luclyluciano
Just because you are willing to fold up like a wet paper bag on the intentional misleading HP rating doesn't mean others will. Even your prized 0-60 rating is FALSE and PHONEY. It's not from ZERO!�
Oct 2, 2015
yo mama Hey, I thought Canadians were legally required to be polite? I'd rather not have to report you to Avril Lavigne.�
Oct 2, 2015
DoctorJJ I've been reading the automotive rags for years. They almost all use 1 foot roll out for 0-60 and have for years, Edmunds' comments notwithstanding. So all those times you seen for 911's, RS7's, Lambo's, Vette's, Ferrari's, Mustangs, Camaro's, etc. have all been measured the same way. I don't know why Tesla didn't use that standard before but they would be the anomaly in this case.�
Oct 2, 2015
Luclyluciano
Sorry, NO. The issue IS with Tesla. They are publishing PHONY HP ratings. A motors potential capability is not how cars are sold. An ICE may have a potential 1000 HPbut no manufacturer advertises this way.�
Oct 2, 2015
eloder They all do because it takes an extremely narrow set of circumstances to achieve rated hp on a dyno with other manufacturers.
Everyone who doesn't live near sea level (which is the vast majority of all consumers), for example, undergo this "falsity".
EVs have no standardized way to determine horsepower. If you look at motor KW output v. horsepower on other EV manufacturers, you'll see that each and every one will not correlate in the same manner.
Just like with the limitations of the ICE horsepower measurement, manufacturers are not responsible for consumer ignorance in not understanding how the technology works.
The 0-60 speed, however, is still 100% accurate with US standardized measurements. All US magazines that follow standard US measurements are in agreement.
What about them?
http://www.teslamotors.com/en_EU/models
"Zero to 100 kph in as little as 3.0 seconds"
That's not matching up to a 0-62ish time on a US test. It's still not as fast as the testing results you're looking for, but it's still a very realistic number to pull off on a P90DL. (Given what I read about Euro emissions testing procedures and methodology, I imagine Tesla has a huge amount of legal headroom in creating an ideal test--like other car manufacturers).
Anyways, bottom line is if you care about performance on a car, use an actual real-world measurement using a standard/scale/test that you find acceptable. Horsepower is as meaningless as hamsterpower, as someone mentioned, because a dozen factors impact 0-60 time. If you put 2000 horsepower on a car, but it weighed 40,000 pounds, that car isn't going to be fast at all. As with anything in life it's very important to understand units of measurement, and testing methodology.
Let's take another issue. How do you think US drivers felt about the Nissan Leaf, as Nissan was using Japanese test cycle numbers for their initial advertisements? There were a lot of angry Leaf buyers. It's not Nissan's fault that Japan's test scale is horribly inaccurate, and it's not Nissan's fault that some buyers didn't do the research, or were willing to be an early adopter on a relatively untested vehicle.
�
Oct 2, 2015
AmpedRealtor Road & Track published a completely faulty "estimated" acceleration and torque curve, so is that Tesla's fault too? That curve makes it look like they actually tested the car when they didn't. Can you tell me why other EV manufacturers also advertise motor power, yet that's okay for them but not Tesla?�
Oct 2, 2015
darthy001 Honest question as I dont know the answer: does any of those other manufacturers have battery limitations making the advertised motor power HP unreachable in the real world?
The EVs I know about, and I actually own a VW e-up! as well as a P85D, have no such limitations... I am fairly certain the same goes for the Leaf, I3 etc etc...�
Oct 2, 2015
scott jones A couple of points here: some continue to say horsepower claims by tesla dont matter but for many reasons it does.
and I won't repeat all of those.
The ONE no one can disagree on is the fact that car is listed at 700 hp by insurance companies and you pay for that.
Paying for a 700 hp car that only delivers 550 on the road is wrong. Would you want to pay taxes on a 5000 square-foot house thats only 3000 ft.�???
two: some here claim it is not teslas responsibility to correct media that said 691 hp versus 691 motor power.
Tesla can't have it both ways because they HAVE corrected media many times that have given negative reports that are incorrect.
they've even pointed out the ratio of car fires in teslas versus ice vehicles as they should and the media wasn't even wrong on that they just didn't include all the information. Do you see my point. You can't stand by and do nothing to correct positive misinformation while you are proactive in correcting negative misinformation.
also some of the attacks on Andy have been a bit much yet he's remained mature in his response.�
Oct 2, 2015
Andyw2100 That is a fantastic point about the horsepower as it relates to our insurance costs. In the many hundreds of posts I have read now on this issue (actually it could be in the thousands) I don't think I've seen anyone raise that issue before! That is really significant!
Thanks too for the personal support!�
Oct 2, 2015
stopcrazypp From what I see so far in the EU it depends on certificate of conformity (CoC) and for EVs that is supposed to be based on motor power as Tesla measures it (ECE R85), so ~700hp is actually the correct measure there.
I'm not sure how the US one is for EVs, but I know for ICE cars the certificate of origin uses some kind of formula that was based on displacement and bore/stroke ratio and is not the same as the advertised SAE numbers. This number is used for tax purposes in many states.
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c3-tech-performance/193617-h-p-sae-57-8-what-is-this-found-on-statement-of-origin-sheet.html
The Certificate of Origin for the Tesla P85D actually says 738 hp:
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/horsepower-listed-title-p85d
EU CoC says 350kW rear, 193 kW front. This would be 543 kW total. 543kW is 738 metric hp (728 british hp). So it seems they just took the European numbers and converted it to metric horsepower.�
Oct 2, 2015
Luclyluciano Who cares about the appeal to other auto makers. I bought a very expensive high performance Tesla based on intentionally advertised specs. To advertise the potential HP of a motor when there is no way it can deliver the rating is PHONY period. Perhaps an 550 HP ICE can hypothetically produce 1000 HP or some HP more than the actual true HP by adding a blower or other performance add ons but this but is not what I am buying or being sold on. This is what Tesla is doing with motor HP. The motor needs enhancements in order to deliver this rating and flat out cannot deliver without those enhancements.
This is intentionally flat out misleading. Many Magazines clearly took the intended advertised HP ratings and packaged it interesting ways and ran with it based on the specs Tesla provided.�
Oct 2, 2015
sorka +1 Although the motors themselves don't need any enhancements to deliver their maximum power at the motors shafts. They just need a power supply capable of delivering the power.�
Oct 2, 2015
Jallum.pa.us Exactly.
The way I see it, all the talk about the motors is really missing the point: the parts that aren't allowing the motors to reach their rated levels of output (and thereby preventing the car as a whole from reaching the spec'd performance, for however brief a time) are the 1300A fuse and contactors. My issue is with those two parts, and in a perfect world they'd be covered as defective (under spec'd) by the warranty, not sold to me at a hefty markup as an upgrade.
(I still love my car.)�
Oct 3, 2015
gavinwang I find your comments very reasonable. While expecting a totally free upgrade of the fuses and contactors, namely the "Ludicrous" upgrade, from Tesla is a bit unrealistic, I do believe we P85D owners should be given a much deeper discount for that upgrade. Stating the 691 "motor HP", perhaps considered legal, is not the best practice, and there is no deny it's misleading.�
Oct 3, 2015
WarpedOne Once again: where is the legal action?�
Oct 3, 2015
Jallum.pa.us Really? That's the only acceptable form of recourse? I'm not really that guy. More likely that I'll just never again be the first to buy one of their products. ("Fool me twice," and whatnot.)�
Oct 3, 2015
svp6 To me it is completely irrelevant if it is 100 or 1,000 HP. What counts it is how fast the car goes, and that is completely fulfilled by my P85D. I remember many years ago test-driving a V6 Camry that was advertised at 290 HP, yet it worked like an asthmatic horse compared to the 200HP Audi we ended up leasing.�
Oct 3, 2015
Jaff In Canada, this statement is totally incorrect.�
Oct 3, 2015
vgrinshpun You indeed bought very expensive high performance Tesla based on advertised specs. As is abundantly clear now car's performance and power match these specs. I am sympathetic with the fact that you misunderstood the specifications, but stating that this is "intentionally flat out misleading" is not supported by facts.
Let's get real here, the value of the Tesla performance upgrade (from 85D to P85D) is outstanding. Similar performance upgrade from Audi (from S7 to RS7) will cost you 30% more in US, and up to multiples of Tesla cost in other countries.�
Oct 3, 2015
gnxs I guess my drag racing background has me reacting the same way as you. I'm always surprised to see people not understanding why the P85D doesn't perform as they expect on the back 1/8th mile. Given it's weight and lack of a transmission, it performs at least as well as I expected over the course of an entire 1/4 mile.
If folks want to test themselves against high-powered ICE cars in roll races, they need to get another vehicle or at the very least get "Ludicrous".�
Oct 3, 2015
vgrinshpun Let's not split hairs here. I am sure that you aware that insurance cost is not proportional to any single factor, but rather complex combination of a lot of them. Hp is not on the top of the list as far as factors affecting insurance cost are concerned. The fact that MS is the car with the lowest probability of injury of any other car, minivan or SUV tested by US government is probably contributing to the cost much more than hp of the car.
The cost to insure MS, comparatively speaking, is surprisingly low. My 2+ years old P85+ costs approximately the same to insure as my 3+ years Acura MDX, although MS is a sport sedan costing trree times as much as MDX.�
Oct 3, 2015
Andyw2100 Are you suggesting we would not be paying any less if the HP reported to insurance companies was lower than what it is being reported as now?
If not, nothing else you wrote matters.
The bottom line is P85D owners are paying higher insurance rates than we should be because of the way Tesla reported the HP. Period!�
Oct 3, 2015
yo mama I don't know about you, but my State Farm guy told me it was all about replacement value. We discussed the 0-60 time because I was afraid of getting dinged for that. He pulled up and showed me his program and the only two fields that really mattered were "Model S" (there was only one choice - it didn't differentiate between 70 or 85 or P85D) and the total cost of the car. That's it. HP/MP didn't enter the equation, unless the program was somehow sophisticated enough to know that a more expensive car had more HP/MP, which I very much doubt.�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 Here in Norway there is a significant markup for the P85D vs the 85D/P85(+) for insurance purposes. And they do of course list the P85D as having 700hp.
My original qutoe was double that of a P85, but I got it down to about 30% markup over a P85 in the end.
That said the insurance premium doesnt really bother me as its minimal in the grand scheme of things. Thats why I havent brought it up in these discussions previously.�
Oct 3, 2015
Krugerrand Insurance company pricing criteria varies by country. It varies by state/province/region. Something to keep in mind when making all encompassing statements (on BOTH sides of the argument).�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 Correct. And clearly seen above here.
But to add that here in Norway at least _all_ the major companies list the car as having 700hp and pricing it like an ICE with 700hp. Believe me I checked before taking delivery�
Oct 3, 2015
perkiset Same for me, Allstate. They were only concerned about Model S and purchase/replacement value. Oh, heh, that and if my kids were still on the policy
So it may be possible that insurance companies (writ large) have generally assumed that a Tesla can be upwards of 700HP and set up rates for that, but in that case, both my 85D and my wife's forthcoming 70D are paying for that possibility as well. And in that case, irrespective of if it's 691 horsepower or 591 horsepower, I am paying more than I should for my cars, which have neither. Hence, I do not care because it is immaterial.
It seems that folks are starting to really pull arguments out of the weeds to continue to prop up the I've Been Mislead and I Didn't Get What I Paid For arguments. Hard argument over a 1' rollout? This is not a formula class racing machine, or even advertised as a car you should put on the track. It's a street vehicle FCOL. It accelerates as advertised. You'll not be able to tune the carbs and exhaust, get platinum sparks and a titanium shaft. It is what it is and does what they say.
I understand that there may be a few people here that really bought it because of "691." But since this is such rare air (an electric and horsepower ratings) I think it's disingenuous to assume that it'd actually be rateable as apples-to-apples against ICE. So there's a component of both caveat emptor and understand what you've bought that doesnt seem to be present in the arguments. So I still do not understand the clutching to a number, when the car performs as it was advertised.�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 And there is the reason I didnt want to bring up the insurance part before. Just another easy argument for the "you crybabies"-crowd...
That you actually mention the rollout and still claim it performs as advertised says it all, but that has been argued to death already anyway.
Tesla introducing rollout out of thin air on one model only cant possibly be seen as correct even if a number of 1/4-mile enthusiasts in the US understood this.
1/4-miling isnt a thing in many other countries just so you know. I had no clue what "trap speed" or any other terms was a year ago. Sadly now I do...�
Oct 3, 2015
Krugerrand Can you provide links to a few insurance companies in your country that list pricing for various HPs? Like Norwegian Insurance Co. 4 door sedan, 500HP = 400NOK/month, 700HP = 450NOK/month vs Norway Ins Co. 4 door sedan, 500HP = 376NOK/month vs 650 HP = 425NOK/month. Note all those figures are purely fictitious, I have no idea how much it costs you.�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 Yes and no, getting a quote/price requires entering your social security number....
So link yes, numbers not really�
Oct 3, 2015
Krugerrand Perkiset, you make valid points. The Model S (soon to add X) is so different and so new that insurance companies on their best day are having a difficult time pulling right stuff out of the right orifices to get right and proper premiums. I'm mostly familiar with insurance companies placing significant importance on safety/likelihood of injuries (therefore medical benefit payouts) as well as region populace (therefore likelihood of an accident in the first place), age/sex/experience of driver/traffic violations. As well a 'family' vehicle is likely to have a lower premium than a two-door sporty vehicle etc...�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 @krugerand
Largest company I believe is if.no and attached is the list of choices for a Model S
edit: Hehe, one of the other largest companies gjensidige.no actually lists the Model S as "call us, you cannot apply online"...�
Oct 3, 2015
Krugerrand No problem. Just curious how it works and what sort of price difference we're talking about between various HP numbers. Tx
Adding after seeing your latest post: That insurance company is on top of the S variants!�
Oct 3, 2015
vgrinshpun I was suggesting that you are splitting hairs and hp insurance cost impact, if any, is not significant, by a long shot. Please do not twist my words.
And yes, I agree with all the posts above - we are well beyond the point of reasonable conversation here...�
Oct 3, 2015
perkiset Let me be clear: I'm not yelling that people are crybabies. In fact, I have deep empathy for I Didnt Get What I Paid For. Which is why I've tried pretty hard to get beside that argument and see what it means. And that's where I get disconnected. Horsepower is not performance, and the car performs as advertised. So I am having a hard time wrapping my head around Legal Action and the kind of discomfort that's being shown here when I can't fathom how there's actually been a deception.
In my businesses, we can use both GAAP and income tax basis for our books, returns, demonstrations to share holders etc etc. With a flick of the wrist and the change of a depreciation method, I can change the net revenue from one of our largest businesses from 10MM to 0. Instantly. (OK ok, that's a bit bombastic) So the argument over a 1' rollout being accepted here but not there, and that as the basis of deception, just doesn't hold water because it's ALL spin. Just about everything is. So again: is this really about a vehicle that is not performing as expected? And be honest: Have you put it on a track and tested it under ideal conditions and, because of or lack of a 1' rollout you've demonstrated that you gain/lose .1sec? And this spectacularly esoteric difference is really enough for so many to be this pissed off about?
Perhaps so, I don't know. But I'd really like to hear an argument that makes sense out of what I just described, because I can't see it. And believe me, after a couple hundred pages here and elsewhere, I've certainly tried.�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 More or less all Norwegian companies list all known variants like this. HP is a major contributor to cost in Norway. Its the way the companies differentiate and assign "risk for accidents"..
One more example of the same attached here:
�
Oct 3, 2015
Andyw2100 Fair point.
I should modify my statement above then, to "The bottom line is at least some P85D owners are paying higher insurance rates than we should be because of the way Tesla reported the HP."�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 Fair point. Also the reason I didnt name you in my post
The rollout added time is more in the ballpark of 0.3-0.4seconds on the P85D when talking 0-100kph. And that is actually a noticable difference. Funnily enough Tesla is selling that exact difference for 7500USD plus sales tax here in Norway as we speak�
Oct 3, 2015
Krugerrand Okay, so a few questions for you: Do you think that's a fair way to price vehicle insurance in your country? Do you believe that having more HP equates to a higher probability of an accident? Is that in fact true from your reality/perspective? What is the next most important factor for your country's insurance companies when it comes to assigning premiums?�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 Oh noes I dont agree at all
In Norway horsepower has been seen as the "great evil" for many many years. Thus the insurance companies have jumped on the opportunity to add to pricing of cars with high HP-numbers..
The new thing with the Model S is that its the first time a car with a lot of HP is actually obtainable to a much broader spectrum of people. No salestax etc makes it a bargain. Strangely it also makes us blind to HP-numbers
Edit: yes I did see a 130000USD car as a bargain last year.. That is how expensive normal cars are here normally.�
Oct 3, 2015
vgrinshpun I think (speculation here) that the reason Norwegian insurance companies are so focused on hp might have something to do with the fact that in Norway hp is very significant factor in how vehicles are taxed, and the society as a whole is more tuned to the hp specifications than elsewhere. Another factor bringing the awareness to the hp spec is the fact that in Norway EVs (at least for now) are exempt from the rules which, in effect, assign huge tax premium to hp. As a result, as was mentioned by a Norwegian owner a while ago, the out of pocket cost of Model S is similar to Volkswagen Passat.�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 Correct on HP comments.
But not so correct on the Passat-comparison. A top specced Passat would be comparable in price to a RWD 70S wihtout any options today I believe. You can get a low spec Passat for way less than any Model S these days.
Exchange rates have made those old comparisons invalid. The Model S is becoming quite expensive here now due to the strong dollar and the weak norwegian krone.�
Oct 3, 2015
vgrinshpun Thanks for the clarification.
BTW, does top specced Passat has diesel engine by any chance?:wink:�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 Hahaha
Checked the prices now:
Passat stationwagon(no one buys a sedan here) starts at 356700NOK.
Tesla Model S RWD 70 starts at 548000NOK.�
Oct 3, 2015
idaten Looked at the Yahoo article by Zach Doell just now. Here's a guy that writes articles about cars presumably as his livelihood, and he stunningly seems not to understand the issue. Thinks that Tesla is still adding the numbers. Thinks that dyno-testing gets 550HP.
Why do so few people understand that the electrical power delivered is never more than 550HP (and that there's no storage mechanism farther along the way).
Zach does make a point that EV HP varies with temperature and state of charge. So do ICE, albeit not as dramatically, vary with temp/air density, humidity, and gas formulation. But being right in one area doesn't make the rest of the article correct.
I believe a bit more each day that TMC is disingenuous (lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness: calculating). It isn't wise to be on legal outcomes, but I certainly wouldn't want to be testifying on their behalf.
I don't know what I'd do other than try to be more honest. Its hopefully what we teach our children to do.
And, yes, I do love my P85D, but truly that is irrelevant to the ethics of the company.�
Oct 3, 2015
Krugerrand So, we're talking about some cultural differences that can/do affect how each perceives the seriousness/non-seriousness of the issue (and other issues) at hand. If we keep that in mind it might help discussions. For instance, Tesla is an American car company, doing things (naturally) the way it's done in America (1' rollout, anyone?). Sure, they'll try and cater somewhat to other markets (new backseats for Model S for Asian market) but they'll always be American first in thought and action, and they'll be prone to making rookie mistakes in non-American markets and may even at times not care to cater specifically to a non-American culture because Tesla (and Elon) have their own thoughts and ways of doing things. The reverse would/could be true for a European company doing business in America.
Norway has been an awesome market for Tesla for some obvious reasons. Thank you, Norway! It might, however, be time for Norway insurance companies to reconsider how they rate premiums on EVs, but then I think change is coming for the entire world and eventually everyone else will catch up.�
Oct 3, 2015
SW2Fiddler I would love to pay insurance premiums (and sales tax) based on the displacement of my S85's motor!
Not complaining about my premium for the S85 being lower than the Blazer she replaced, though...�
Oct 3, 2015
vgrinshpun It *is* true. Audi, for example, advertises their 0 to 60 acceleration in US the same way as they do in Germany - without the rollout.
Regarding the rollout issue, back in nineties there were three car magazines that tested McLaren F1, the car 0 to 60 mph acceleration of which Elon mentioned the P85D match during the "D" event.
The British magazine Autocar tested F1 at 3.2s, presumably without a rollout (equivalent to 2.9s with rollout). However, in tests by two american magazines, both with rollout, F1 was significantly slower. In August 1994 issue Car and Driver reported test time of 3.2s with rollout. In November 2012 article Road and Track reported that according to their 1997 test McLarn hit 3.4s with rollout.
So in three documented tests F1 0 to 60mph acceleration time was 2.9s, 3.2s, 3.4s (all with rollout or adjusted to be equivalent to a test with rollout). The bottom line is that Tesla claim that P85D, with 3.2s 0 to 60mph time matches performance of McLaren F1 is completely legitimate.
It is also obvious that Tesla switched to stating acceleration time with rollout for P85D because they chose "acceleration of family sedan equal to the acceleration of McLaren F1" as the major theme of their marketing, and the data from two US magazines quoted F1 acceleration with rollout. They chose the lowest number of the two as the basis for their marketing.�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 @vgrinsphun and had Tesla explained that I would have no beef about the 0-100kph claims... But they did not, and they still havent on the Norwegian site.. Info about roll-out only on US-site it seems�
Oct 3, 2015
Andyw2100 Tesla wouldn't have had to explain nearly that much for me to not have even the tiniest of an issue with the whole 1 foot roll out thing. All they would have had to do was include an asterisk or a note that said, "includes 1 foot roll out" and this would have been a complete and total non-issue.�
Oct 3, 2015
vgrinshpun My point is that there are different sorts of issues out there...
I would not argue, and, in fact, would agree with a lot of criticism of how Tesla handled some of the communications with regards to hp and acceleration metrics.
What I do not get is the amount of vitriol spilled in their face over this, claims that they schemed to defraud the customers who were manipulated into buying more expensive variants of the car and who "did not get what they paid for". The amazing thing is that these claims persist even after it became abundantly clear that they have no basis.
I wish people realize that reality is formed by the *combined* actions of everybody involved and act accordingly. I do not claim that Tesla communications on the subject were perfect, and I wish that we were not in the situation we are in, but in my view they are not the only ones who are responsible for where we are today.�
Oct 3, 2015
kennybobby Sometimes it's good to just let people vent and get it out of their system, instead of trying to cram it back down their throat that they are wrong and have no reason to feel the way they do.
There is really no need for most of attempts to defend TM so fiercely everytime someone lets off some steam. Just let it go and get on with your life...�
Oct 3, 2015
eloder I think a big reason behind at least a few people here (I know for certain, myself) that a lot of the "controversy" is contributing to incorrect FUD about EV technology in general. If my debates help educate at least one person on why Tesla and other EV makers have legitimate reasons for calculating HP the way they do, it will hopefully help future buyers make informed decisions and also know what to look for for future EVs.�
Oct 3, 2015
stopcrazypp That's a good point, but then a lot of times the urge is extremely strong. You basically have this happening:
�
Oct 3, 2015
AWDtsla It makes this site much less enjoyable to read. That's the kind of crap I expect to see on all the other boards. IMHO the posts should be deleted.�
Oct 3, 2015
Luclyluciano Horsepower IS a performance measurement rating of work done.
It IS most apparent at speed.
The PD does not perform as well as other vehicles with ~700 because is DOES NOT produce 691HP.
The motors are ONLY capable of the 691 HP rating with the necessary equipment which the the PD does NOT have.
I and many others PAID for the 691 HP as one of our buying decisions. We are disappointed with the performance at speed which is a result of the lack of advertised HP rating.
The 0 to 60 performance rating is not actually from ZERO, and Yes some, but not all American ratings use the 1 foot roll out but it is not from ZERO and should be a disclaimer.
Just curious....If you paid for the upgraded leather interior and did not get it would you not be upset? Would it be fair for me to say it is synthetic leather and you should not complain because it feels like leather to ME!? The 691 HP rating is just that...synthetic....it is not real....it does not exist on the P85D and I was sold on the fact that it does.
There are actual threads by Tesla owners that state the P85D is not worth the extra money because its performance is lacking over the standard S85D after 30 MPH. This is because HP is a performance rating that matters at speed. The P85D does not produce the represented HP.
To hang your hat and say its all OK because the dual motors hypothetically could produce 691 HP just NOT EVER with the current P85D is very lame and no different than any Auto maker advertising their ICE hypothetically was capable of 1000 HP just not with the the configuration which you bought (sucker.) You should have read between the lines. We never meant YOUR car would produce 1000 HP. Thanks for your money sucker. See how that works.
The P85D does not perform as advertised otherwise there would not be a problem.
So stop the misinformation.
Yes, i still like car for all the other positives it has. But I was sold on it producing 691 HP by websites and salespeople and it does not.
I wonder if the sales people are still hyping the artificial HP figures to unsuspecting buyers.�
Oct 3, 2015
brianman IMO you should never be a mod on TMC.�
Oct 3, 2015
Andyw2100 I am both amused and pleased at the fact that brianman left out the "H"!�
Oct 3, 2015
brianman Heh, didn't really put much thought into it. I never use IMHO, just IMO. Brevity, etc.�
Oct 3, 2015
DoctorJJ
It it does perform. Beyond what they advertised it would do.
I suppose I do feel somewhat sorry for those buyers who weren't astute enough to realize from the advertised numbers that it wouldn't do as well at speed as it does from a dig. I thought it was obvious, from the quoted performance numbers, from the very beginning.�
Oct 3, 2015
JonG All they needed to do was be consistent across all their cars. They don't seem to quote 85/90D 0-60 times with rollout and it seems to regularly beat the published times. Same with the power figures.
i don't agree but would be more willing to accept the motor power argument if tesla were consistent - but as they're not, it appears it's a deliberate attempt to mislead over the gap between their cars.�
Oct 3, 2015
darthy001 For me it has been about Tesla cleaning up their act. And while they are slowly getting there we have seen some setbacks on this front lately as well which is causing me to continue spending way to much time in these threads
Summed up:
- Tesla still havent included rollout explanation outside of the US-site. Strangely missing from the sites where its actually most needed.
- Tesla still doesnt list combined HP-numbers for their top of the line models. Still leaving a chance that unsuspecting new customers think adding the front + rear hp-numbers is correct.
- Tesla still has no reference to ECE R85 on the website, and have now even messed up the Norwegian owners manual so that numbers dont add up anywhere. This point is mostly theoretical as not many buyers would now what the standard means, but at least it would give buyers a _chance_ to educate themselves before commiting to a purchase.
- Tesla still hasnt acknowlaged the disappearance of the infamous OTA-update for high speed performance. Seeing that even ludicrous-mode seems to fail to add much ooomph here this point is actually getting less and less important for me, but still annoying that they conveniantly seem to have forgotten about the update now...
Lastly the recent acts from the nordic Tesla pr-rep has without any doubt what so ever been outrageous and deceiving. He outright LIED about many about both his customers actions and Teslas actions to numerous publications in both Norway and Denmark. This upsets me greatly, and a public dismisal of this ********** should be performed ASAP for Tesla Europe to remain at least some credibility. His actions are not worthy of a company like Tesla, and I really hope that no one in Tesla HQ knows about this because that would put them in the "we let this happen"-category.�
Oct 3, 2015
faughtz I have a P85D that was delivered in the 2014 4th quarter push.
Tesla Fashion Island in CA is continuing to state the P85D can deliver 691hp.
Perhaps not surprisingly, store personal seemed confused by my assertion that this is not true.
No recognition of the new caveats/terminology of motor power.
Also not surprisingly, the same employee emphatically states Ludicrous spec is 762hp.
Discussion of my VBOX results and weight / times calculations did not seem to mean much....
I like my P85D, it's just not as exceptional as claimed by Tesla, and I'm disappointed.�
Oct 4, 2015
Luclyluciano Since we arent as astute as you, why not tell us exactly how the PD actually DOES perform and where it performs BETTER than advertised, as you say. When our entire point is that it completely falls short of advertised performance. This will be interesting.�
Oct 4, 2015
lolachampcar It seems the two view points are-
XYZ advertised motor power should provide ABC ICE performance in a BeV
versus
Quoted 1/4 and 0-60 were such and such and the car beats these numbers as delivered
The above is a simplification and does not include the roll out issue (which seems to be European) but I think it captures the basic differing views. The first is a qualitative assessment and the second is quantitative. The first could be considered quantitative as well but that drifts off into the Clinton what the definition of is is and Tesla's approach to quoting power.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 More or less so yes, but if you turn it just a tiny bit around and actually include roll-out issue as well, relevant since we do have americans here unaware of this term, the only advertised number they do reach as advertised is the 1/4-mile... And that number was _not_ listed in the design studio when I ordered the car at least. All in all the numbers I saw in the design studio have so far not been met on any front. Close of course, but no cigar.�
Oct 4, 2015
smac Or the third view, which is Tesla should be above all this. They should not have opened themselves up for these debates in the first place
Under promise both quantitatively and qualitatively, and over deliver in both regards
First we have the P85D which fails qualitatively, and now it's looking like the "10 second" P90D may also fail quantitatively.
BTW Both are still fantastic cars. I just hate to see the brand muddied by all this when it seems so unnecessary, and at least some of the blame lies squarely at Tesla's feet.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 @smac and thats how simple it can be written as well
edit: seems like i cannot give more Rep-points for smac�
Oct 4, 2015
Luclyluciano lola; I respect your posts on mostly everything but I don't agree with you here. The advertised motor horsepower is the electrical motors capability provided the rest of the cars accessories are capable to extract this HP. The current configuration of the PD cannot extract this power from the motors so why would they advertise them knowing their salesforce would sell the car with this fantasy HP rating. You just posted in the thread on how the 1/4 mile time of the P90DL disappoints. This is because the HP is not there.
The rollout issue is derived from NHRA drag strips and largely used by American magazines & manufacturers. The rest of the world commonly consider the American advertised 0-60 times as cheating since they are actually 3-60 times.
The car's disappoints because the true ratings are exaggerated.
Yes it's is a high torque car with with instantaneous power and response. That is all. It is not a 700 HP producing beast. And neither is the Ludicrous mode. We are starting to see the obvious disappointments in the Ludicrous cars now.
I'm not shelling out the extra dough for ludicrous. I don't trust Teslsa's marketing & stats.�
Oct 4, 2015
jimmyjohn So many victims. I see you and feel your pain. So many victims.
Five lies that automotive enthusiasts tell themselves
Five lies that automotive enthusiasts tell themselves
1. Tenths Matter
4. Horsepower Is The Most Important Number
�
Oct 4, 2015
Luclyluciano P90DL 1/4 MILE RESULTS.....NOT AS ADVERTISED
Tesla Model S P90D Ludicrous 1/4 Mile Results | DragTimes.com Drag Racing, Fast Cars, Muscle Cars Blog�
Oct 4, 2015
DoctorJJ Advertised as 3.2 0-60. Consistently does it in 3.1, as verified by multiple magazines under various testing conditions. 1 foot rollout is the standard and has been for years.
Advertised as 1/4 mile in 11.8. Consistently does it at 11.6. Again verified by multiple magazines and even multiple owners on various tracks around the country.�
Oct 4, 2015
jimmyjohn +1
This is from a revered auto publication or some random person?
In the Tesla Model S P90D -- I bet I could achieve a 0-60mph in 5 seconds and a 1/4-mile in 16 seconds ---- thereby adding credibility(?) to your "NOT AS ADVERTISED" assertion.
Bogus.�
Oct 4, 2015
Krugerrand Have his actions been reported to his superior by all the customers who feel he's not done an adequate job?�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 Cant voich for the people he actually lied about, but personally I havent mentioned it I am afraid. I have more than enough on my plate trying to get Tesla to give me my seats to start a sidewar on top�
Oct 4, 2015
gnxs +2.�
Oct 4, 2015
vgrinshpun Allmost all of the Items listed above fall in the category of messed up communications which I strongly dislike as well, but at this point it is mud knee-deep. There is threat of legal action, which I know can't be won, and any lawyer would know that, but plenty of them will engage betting that Tesla would like to settle out of Court, especially if these lawyers demonstrate that it will be more costly for Tesla to go to court and win.
I am with Krugerrand on the issue of the the nordic Tesla representative (would be curious to have a link to the publications that you mentioned)
I would also caution against jumping to conclusions regarding the 1/4 mile times of cars with Ludicrous mode. I think we know by now what a good wild-goose chase feels like...�
Oct 4, 2015
Krugerrand Unless something has happened that you haven't shared of the situation, there's no need to be afraid. Your seats are listed on the bill, right? If so, you'll get them. Tesla is having issues with the seat supplier and appears to have had issues for a while. Just recently Elon spoke of that specifically for the Model X ramp. Seat and windshield suppliers are the ones that can delay the ramp of X. As you know, Tesla is producing more and more S's every quarter, combined with needing to catch up with the backlog, and now adding another vehicle to the line up...it's obvious the seat supplier is a weak link. It would seem prudent for Tesla to navigate to fix this weak link as soon as they can. With so many things on their plate, it would take time.
And that has nothing to do with a senior employee doing a bad job. You've made it sound as if this person intended the bad behavior, if so that can't be allowed to continue. Usually there's a way to provide feedback anonymously if you fear reprisal.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 Legal etc is not for me and never has been. Not enough money at stake to even consider that route for me, but both other Norwegians and Danes seem to be going all the pre-req steps for that these days after the respons finally came from Tesla a few weeks ago. The danes should have a slamdunk case. The Norwegians I'd say 50/50 depending on what type of legal councel takes the case.
Most of the publications that have gotten quotes from the Tesla pr-rep have already been linked to in several of these threads. They are of course all in Norwegian and Danish.
Ref the 1/4-mile and ludicrous I am now taking the advice from this forum and doing my due dilligence before sending any money Teslas way.. That means no upgrade for me
Will also point out that my clinton-joke a few posts back was not an attempt at implying you where lying or making up things. It was obviously just a poor attempt at internet humour
- - - Updated - - -
Ref the seats I am just so fed up about it that I am almost giving up, but I did actually get an sms saying they will check again tomorrow only a few hours ago(on a sunday)... And oh yes they are on "the bill"
Ref the pr-guy he repeated claims in at least 4-5 publications that the danes only came with complaints after the ludicrous-upgrade announcement, and that no one else had complained at all. If I remember correctly he also insinuated that it was all a ploy to get this free upgrade. He conveniently forgot to mention that they wrote several letters, emails and had discussions with local staff months prior to the ludicrous-upgrade being launched in july.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét