Oct 4, 2015
Krugerrand You can't get blood from stone. If the seat supplier isn't able to make enough seats to cover current build rate AND backlog, there's not a lot Tesla can do but wait which is unfortunate for you and others waiting. And maybe there's a supplier of the seat supplier that is causing a problem? I'll keep my fingers crossed for you.
Is it possible that the pr-guy was not aware of letters, emails and all the rest when he made those statements? We know that sometimes Tesla's left hand doesn't know what Tesla's right hand is doing.�
Oct 4, 2015
lolachampcar I just got a PM of which this is but a small snippet "I find your reference to Clinton's affair offensive." I used the what is is reference to describe the creative way Tesla has used HP and in no way intended it to be directed at anyone on this forum.
This is the second time I have offended someone in a very short period of time.
Either I have turned into monster that is out for personal attacks or
Some members are so invested in their position that they read my posts in the worst possible light and are taking offense.
Either way, I do not want to continue this way so I'll check the unsubscribe button. I have no desire to be remotely involved in offending anyone, intentional or not.�
Oct 4, 2015
vgrinshpun I am far from sure about Danes having slam dunk case. It is clear that Tesla rated their P85D drivetrain according to ECE R85. It is also clear that there was (still is??) a translation error on Danish version of the Web Site. I am not familiar with Denmak's legal system, but in US, I believe, a customer would not be entitled to compensation based on error in the specifications on a Web page.
There is also an issue of the harm done to the Danish owners. I think it is going to be an uphill battle to demonstrate any material harm when Tesla's cost for the performance upgrade going from 85D to P85D is a bargain compared to what other manufacturers charge for similar upgrade. I have to dig out my posts on the subject, but about a month ago I had exchange with Danish owner and based on the exchanged information a move from 85D to P85D in Denmark costs more than two times less that what Audi charges for the similar performance upgrade going from S7 to RS7. In US Audi upgrade is 30% more expensive: $26K for Audi vs 20K for Tesla.
Like I said, I think that lawyers taking this case will know that it is not winnable, but nevertheless will pursue it in hopes of settling out of court because it would be cheaper for Tesla to go that route. The mud is knee-deep and possibly will get much deeper.�
Oct 4, 2015
tezzla I thought you were being patronizing to Andy in an earlier post, but I will accept that I just interpreted that message incorrectly; my bad.
However, the "the definition of is is" analogy is completely fine to use, it's not really about Clinton as it is about our legal system. Nobody should be offended by that reference.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 Consumer protection laws are very extensive in both Denmark and Norway, and that is why I am calling the Danish case a slamdunk. An official website used to sell merchandise(cars) is always binding here, and all of the burden of evidence is on the experienced party. In this case the experienced party is of course Tesla. When the website is the only way to buy the product it gets even worse. Dont forget that owners manual had no reference to ECE R85 at the time either. So the danes had no reason what so ever to doubt the numbers from Tesla.
Here, both countries, the reviews by newspapers etc would also actually weigh in in favor of the buyers way since Tesla didnt correct any of them for reporting 700hp. And they all did report it as 700hpThey will have an easy claim saying that all experts told them the same as Tesla.
What the outcome would be of a won case is a different matter that I have no real world clue about to be honest. Dont think there has ever been a case of such a big difference in advertised numbers and real world numbers before.
Ref Norway I dont have any proof that the website here said 700hp as well so thats why I say 50/50 here. If anyone was able to dig up a screenshot from last october with the info I remember it would be a slamdunk here as well. But right now any screenshots from that time has taken a trip to the bermuda triangle�
Oct 4, 2015
dsm363 So I imagine Tesla will just buy your cars back. You would be made whole and could buy whatever 700hp car you wanted. Don't see that happening here.�
Oct 4, 2015
vgrinshpun The thing is that ECE R85 is a standing regulation in Europe, and it is a pretty clear that Tesla rated their drive train according to ECE R85 which directs manufacturers to rate the drivetrain without accounting for the limitations of the battery. I have hard time to believe that consumer protection laws will penalize the company that rated their drivetrain according to European regulations.
This is materially different from what some other manufacturers did, i.e. listing specifications according to the existing standards that actual cars did not meet. Tesla listed specification according the ECE P85 regulation and their cars meet this specification.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 Heyheyhey, I am not suing anyone
I was just referring to those groups of owners who have started the first steps here that could worst case end up in court. I am not a part of any of those groups. And the first steps here involves the consumer authorities first.
- - - Updated - - -
That is where we disagree it seems. There are many examples of other carmakers listing the correct power the car can actually make, and _not_ what each engine/motor can do on their own added up as a total. Hybrids are the most relevant examples where total output. Lexus, VW(oh yes
Edit: add Bmw to list of those that doesnt just add numbers in a whim.
Edit2: Volvo seems to list it the way Tesla does it now. Each individual motor listed but no combineed value.�
Oct 4, 2015
Andyw2100 There are lots of things Tesla could do to ease Darthy's pain, and accommodate him for the fact that they didn't deliver his car with the seats that he ordered, and haven't been able to get them for the last seven months. I agree there may be nothing they can do to actually get the seats to Darthy sooner.
Does Darthy own a CHAdeMO adapter? If not, would he like one? Has Darthy prepaid for service or extended warranty? If not, are those things he'd be interested in?
There are many things Tesla could do, to at least partially rectify the situation for Darthy, and things they could have done for the many of us who were in similar situations.
Instead they are choosing and chose to do nothing.�
Oct 4, 2015
vgrinshpun Perhaps you are missing that in ECE R85 a drivetrain can contain multiple motors (see snapshot below).
This is another example of what I alluded to several times before. Tesla is innovative company that is on the cutting edge of technology. Interpreting and understanding specifications, especially for the technology that is very much in flex is not an easy task, especially for general public.
I have close to 30 years of experience in Electrical Engineering, including writing and interpreting specifications, involvement in disputes regarding the specifications and supplied electrical equipment, and a testimony in international arbitration case involving major international engineering companies. Even with this background I find it difficult at times to wade through all the available information to get to the essence of things. I could imagine that it is going to be exponentially harder for a person without related technical background to figure out this essence. So I am not surprised that Tesla is reluctant to put out a lot of technical information for the fear that people reading it will not have proper background to interpret it correctly. Once you add people and now seems lawyers who are just out to get Tesla, this situation becomes unmanageable - my knee-deep mud descriptor might be an understatement here.
�
Oct 4, 2015
eloder
It couldn't possibly be due to the 2.5 ton weight of the car. I mean, clearly Tesla performs much worse than... oh wait, what other sports cars are out there that weigh over 5000 pounds? You're telling me that sports cars typically weigh 3-3.5k pounds? Well, imagine that...
I think I found your next vehicle. Since it has over 1000 horsepower, it should be the fastest car you've ever driven:
Why do they owe you anything, past delivering you the seats once available? Until Tesla has a demand problem, there's little reason for them to bend over backwards to accommodate customers, even for their own mistakes. Tesla doesn't even have competition to worry about for the next few years at a minimum.
The company I work for is the same way. We won't fight for customers and we'll even say that publicly. And, in some cases, we'll even encourage it, because we're already ahead of our competitors, demanding customers almost always return after leaving us anyways, and because it's quite easy to replace a customer with another one.
I imagine Tesla will fix the communication and perceived issues such as this, but not until it's economically a good idea for them to do so. A company should not lose tons of money to a tiny minority of customers that expect more than what's realistic for reparation. Tesla is doing something--they're providing you the seats you ordered, once they're available. That doesn't mean they need to put $4000 in your pocket for something not fully under their control.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 We might be both missing something here, or something is being lost in translation
Of course you can argue that no other company has had a dual motor car for purchase, but Mercedes has at least had the SLS Electric with quad motors and they list max motor power as 552KW total in addition to listing battery max power as 600KW.... So the only relevant example I know of, and that being a european car as well, lists both motor power and battery power.
Btw, don't forget that in a lawsuit the 0-100kph claims would also factor in. That adds to my conclusion of a "slamdunk"-verdict here as the introduction of that for only one model without any warning will not shine a nice light on Tesla. Its a combination of all the advertising that adds heavily in the buyers favor in Denmark. At least in my opinion
For reference SLS Electric-numbers taken from here http://www.mercedes-amg.com/webspecial/sls_e-drive/eng.php and the same numbers are reflected on wikipedia as well for reference.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh my what nice customer handling that sounds like. And sorry for being such a demanding customer actually wanting the nextgen seats I paid extra for and waited an extra 1,5years to get.... I am even so demanding that I have waited 7 full months past delivery without complaining directly to Tesla. I haven't even demanded a spare key fob pocket.
Why they owe me? BECAUSE I F'IN PAID FOR IT.. To be honest the reply quoted here is the first post on this forum that has made me lose all respect for a person as quick as 1-2-3.
Mind telling me which company you do work for so that I can do my best to avoid it?�
Oct 4, 2015
vgrinshpun Just to clarify my reference to the ECE R85, for the purposes of this regulation there is a *single* drivetrain that can contain either one or multiple motors. So when they dexcribe testing of the *drivetrain* it includes in Tesla case two motors. So they did not add results of testing of two separate motors at all, because that is not how testing was prformed. They presented results of testing of their *drivetrain* done in accordance to ECE P85. This included both motors.
In addition to being evident from careful reading of ECE R85, it was also mentioned by JB in the Blog Post. So, as you can see, this is just another example of what I was talking about in my previous post: information is out there, but arriving at proper conclusion is not that easy...
�
Oct 4, 2015
stopcrazypp Some clarification about the Danish group letter. I believe they did not set out to focus on motor power. Actually their perspective seemed to be they were satisfied with the 0-100 kph numbers they got when the cars were delivered to them, but after some updates, the numbers got worse for them somehow. Then it extended to the power number issue. In terms of lawsuits, I think they have a better chance of winning the 0-100 claim than the power claim (which as you put, appears to follow a European regulation).
On the flip side, the US letter started out about the power numbers and the 0-60 was just tacked on to the complaint to bolster it. The 0-60 claim I don't think is an issue in the USA, as using rollout without any qualifiers is common. As for the claim other models didn't use rollout, it can be equally likely they underrated the other models while using the actual number for the P85D. This is totally legal even if somewhat misleading. It is not illegal to underrate a number; esp when it is done in comparison to your own product and not a competitors'. It's similar to how supermarkets advertise a regular price and "after savings" price, but sometimes they inflate the regular price higher so you actually get no savings.�
Oct 4, 2015
Johan Vlad, we need you back in the investors forum. Don't waste your time debating this issue any more. The divide on this forum that Tesla has created by their communication vacuum is the real issue. This is on Tesla. This forum is made up by their biggest fans, first customers, and the most knowledgeable owners - never has there been such ugly and persistent debate surrounding an issue before. It of course means there is no wrong or right, but that the answer must lie somewhere close to halfway between those two extremes. This area is something Tesla has created by their lack of communication.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 Might be getting closer
Only reason is that I don't think the standard matters in this case due to the way consumer law is constructed here in the northern parts of Europe. Had Tesla been consistent on all previous models including the PDs it would have been another ballgame. But since they chose to use a new way of reporting power at the exact time of introducing a new performance-model that for the first time didn't meet the motor power stats it will not look good for Tesla. Add the roll-out issues and it should be easy for a lawyer to argue that Tesla intentionally let the customers think that the car had 700hp and actually could go 0-100kph in 3.3seconds.
Sadly the only way we will find out who is right or wrong here is if someone actually sues Tesla... And it seems like we both don't really want that
- - - Updated - - -
I believe this is correct that they started out only focusing on the 0-100. They initially started investigating the 0-100kph issues and ended up "discovering" the HP-issues as a bi-effect. Not that it makes their case any worse by that fact as far as I can see.
I also think the 0-100claim is the best they have, but the HP-claim is also strongly founded due to the website lacking reference to any new(for Tesla) standard and the fact that they did not list motor power.
But as mentioned to vgrin: I think we wont get any closer debating this here now�
Oct 4, 2015
Johan Darthy: gjelder deg ogs��
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 hehe se mine to siste svar her.. Jeg pr�ver febrilsk � avslutte denne her n�
Edit: sorry to all non-Norwegians for a reply in Norwegian to a post in Norwegian�
Oct 4, 2015
vgrinshpun I, on another hand, is much more focused on the technical side of this whole story. I believe that I have proper background and experience to interpret the standard and how Tesla actually came up with their rating, and I want to share the results with the Forum. It seems to me that the conversation wherever it leads, as a minimum, should be based on proper understanding of how Tesla came up with their drivetrain hp ratings. Based on my analysis of the ECE R85 and issues associated with a rollout/no rollout acceleration specs, it is clear to me that Tesla did not set out to mislead nor did they lied, and this is really the focus of my posts. I am not really interested in debating their sloppiness in communications as at a varying degree I agree with majority of the criticism in that area.
This, BTW, reminds me that I have to respond to the latest post by Sorka :biggrin:
Spoiler alert: ECE R85 without any doubt excludes manufacturer's battery from the test set...�
Oct 4, 2015
dsm363 Sorry. Didn't mean to say you were. I was talking about the consumer group in your country which might force Tesla to do something if they side with the Danish argument.
And you should have your seats by now. 7 months is way too long.�
Oct 4, 2015
eloder
They already have a path of resolution (they will be delivered and installed as soon as possible). They can't just wiggle their nose and have the seats magically appear in mid-air.
I've been in the same situation, I was on order for a vehicle (another electric car) that was delayed a good 9 months from the original delivery date. I eventually cancelled, they refunded me my non-refundable deposit, and I left it at that. There was no way for that company to deliver that car to me faster because said car was held up on US EPA certification. It would not have been realistic for that company to have paid thousands of dollars to cover a rental car for me--their profit margin on that transaction wouldn't have come close to making up for it.
There are risks to being a consumer, and from everything I can see as a shareholder and a frequent visitor to these forums, Tesla does the whole customer service thing far better than any other car company I've seen. But realistically, if they compensated for things like time and inconvenience for next-gen seat delays for every customer, Tesla as a company would cease to exist. I used to work for a company that would bend over backwards for every customer, and that company eventually had to shut down and be bought out by a venture capitalist because we couldn't make money even though our customers liked us. Giving away hundreds of dollars of medical supplies for things like shipping/supplier mistakes, though, was not a feasible business model.
I don't want Tesla to fail, and I'm sure you don't either.�
Oct 4, 2015
Luclyluciano I already mentioned the FACT that 1 foot roll out is adopted mainly by many American publications and American Auto makers. America is not the only country Tesla is selling cars to and no it is not the standard all over the world. Much of the world actually consider it cheating in order to sell more cars. The TRUE worldwide 0-60 time is more like 3.5 seconds. The P85D was to replicate the original McLaren F1 performance and that car DID NOT use the drag strip 1 foot roll out method.
EDMUNDS QUOTE:
{On the other hand, the use of rollout with 0-60 times is inappropriate in our view. For one, 0-60-mph acceleration is not a drag-racing convention. More important, it's called ZERO to 60 mph, not 3 or 4 mph to 60 mph, which is what you get when you apply rollout. While it is tempting to use rollout in order to make 0-60 acceleration look more impressive by 0.3 second, thereby hyping both the car's performance and the apparent skill of the test driver, we think it's cheating.
Nevertheless, some car magazines and some automobile manufacturers use rollout anyway � and fail to tell their customers. We've decided against this practice. We publish real 0-60 times instead. But in order to illuminate this issue and ensure we do justice to every car's real performance, we've begun publishing a clearly marked "with rollout" 0-60 time alongside the primary no-rollout 0-60 time so readers can see the effects of this bogus practice.}
Secondly, if the car actually produced the implied HP, the 30-60 + performance would not be so lacklustre and weak. For those of us who understand & value HP it is important to us for at speed acceleration which to us is just as important as ZERO to 60.
�
Oct 4, 2015
dsm363 Your comment about the McLaren F1 may not be accurate. It's been discussed before.�
Oct 4, 2015
Krugerrand I don't believe he's in any pain. He has a car with perfectly functioning seats that allow him to use his car while he waits for the back ordered seats.
darthy001 are you suffering in any way by not having those next gen seats in your car, other than you'd like to wrap the whole thing up?�
Oct 4, 2015
AmpedRealtor Other manufacturers advertise motor horsepower just like Tesla, except in the cases of the other manufacturers the batteries are not the limiting factor.
- - - Updated - - -
Excellent points!
- - - Updated - - -
Andy, this is the one aspect of this whole situation where I can agree 100% that owners are suffering a financial hit due to the way Tesla advertises and specifies the vehicle. This is a totally legitimate concern that rises above the noise, in my opinion, and may give owners some leverage.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm not as willing to excuse the media. They have a journalistic standard to uphold. Hypothetically, if Tesla is guilty of anything then so is the media that simply echoed statements without taking those statements to task. What Road & Track did with the information was more than just "packaged it interesting ways", they added a fake curve and made it look like they tested the car. I would say Road & Track is much more guilty of misrepresentation than Tesla, at least in terms of the "performance report" that I uploaded upthread. I don't think it's possible to excuse the media while holding Tesla responsible. Where is Consumer Reports in all of this, didn't they test the claims either?
I can see both sides to this, but right now am wondering how none of the auto magazines or even CR took the time to test the car to see if it meets the manufacturer's specs?�
Oct 4, 2015
Krugerrand It's not actually Tesla's fault that some Scandinavian insurance companies don't know how to properly set dual motor BEV premiums correctly. Those insurance companies are trying to use ICE guidelines and rules to price EVs. Not only that, it could be argued that basing insurance premiums on horsepower isn't the right or best way to set premiums. Indeed, darthy001 doesn't agree with it. So, that's on them (ins cos.), not Tesla. Tesla is doing all it can to educate the entire world. At some point everyone else has to take on some of the responsibility for educating themselves; insurance companies, media, politicians, customers and the like.�
Oct 4, 2015
AmpedRealtor Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. When the P85D was announced and you read the HP specification AT THAT TIME, did you believe the HP specification to be what the car actually delivered? Your citing of a specification by which Tesla rated the motors was not known by you until AFTER this controversy erupted. My question to you is what did you believe when the car was first introduced? Did you know back then that Tesla was specifying motor power independent of the car's ability to deliver that power?
Answer honestly.�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 For the first 4months actually "yes" since I really disliked the "old" seats. Yes in quotes since its hard to justify the word suffering in this day and age in regards to seats in a car...
I actually cancelled my original, # in the 1400s, reservation for a model s partially based on the seats. Thats why I even asked in advance if the nextgen seats would be delivered with the car ans was told yes before transferring the money...
But now that I at least have the front seats in place its not any suffering other than the daily annoyance of looking at the rear seats
That was my main point. Since then I've seen one relevant example in the Mercedes SLS Electric with 4motors and listing both motor power and battery power.. Kicker there is that the battery power is actually higher than total motor power there as well�
Oct 4, 2015
Krugerrand Yeah, I'm not going to define disliking some seats in a car a form of suffering (pain). Andy specifically used the word 'pain'. That would be defined more along the lies of suffering due to the seats being unable to be adjusted or so unsuitable for your body that it's causing you crippling pain to sit in them and drive the car. Or suffering would be if there were no seats in your car at all and therefore you couldn't use it. In the latter case Tesla should give the customer a loaner.
So right now you're not in any pain and you're not suffering, you're irritated when you look at those back seats and they aren't the ones you ordered and paid for. I'm sure Tesla is just as irritated with the supplier for being unable to fulfill orders for their customers. Indeed, I'd imagine Elon would go camp on their doorstep if he thought that would fix the situation.�
Oct 4, 2015
stopcrazypp I don't believe anyone said listing a battery power number can't be done without any miracles (thought that number will always come with caveuts, like SOC and sag). The main point was whether listing the motor power was done (in a way where you add up the power of the individual motors) and it seems to be commonly done. It just happens the bottleneck of the P85D was at the battery. I think that is what people are failing to see.
I have pointed out many times, that the motor power rating system was applied equally to ALL models when it came out in October 2014 and continued on until March/April 2015.
This is different from a claim others have made that the automakers are only allowed to advertise the lesser of the two (meaning a system number).�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 @stopcrazyppl my attempt at a joke there was aimed only at Tesla as they refuse to list the battery power
But I seem to be really off my game in terms of jokes today�
Oct 4, 2015
Andyw2100 You're really going to pretend you thought I meant physical pain in the first quote above? You're not that shallow or uneducated. I believe you were completely capable of reading the rest of the sentence, and the rest of the post, that continued beyond "pain", to understand from the context that I was not using the physical definition of pain. None of the solutions I proposed would ease physical pain.
But you knew that. And this was just another, and I must say, more pathetic attempt to denigrate me. I don't understand why you're putting in this much effort.�
Oct 4, 2015
Krugerrand I pretended no such thing. I addressed 'pain' and I addressed 'suffering' of another kind - that being an inability to use the car, which reasonably would require compensation by Tesla.
That's a bit caustic, but I'll ignore it and simply suggest (again) that we agree to disagree. In this case we disagree about whether darthy has sustained any sort of pain or suffering that requires repayment/compensation from Tesla at this point.�
Oct 4, 2015
Andyw2100
You'll understand my confusion, then, since you had written:
�
Oct 4, 2015
DoctorJJ Tesla is made in America and its primary audience is the USA, judged and tested by American magazines. Edmunds is in the minority in their opinion about 0-60. Pretty much ANY published 0-60 from any other cars (besides earlier Tesla specs) has been with a 1 foot rollout. Audi RS7, Corvette, GTR, etc, etc. Every spec you've read for the past 20 years has been with a 1 foot roll out, whether you knew it or not. Two of the three publications I have seen where the F1 was actually tested, was with a 1 foot roll out to achieve the 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. There is more evidence to the fact that the F1 0-60 was in 3.2 with a rollout than there is to it being without. Just because you assumed otherwise, doesn't mean it to be FACT, as you claim.�
Oct 4, 2015
Laserbrain If Tesla is just following the ECE 85 standard, why is the standard changing from car to car?
If Tesla is just following a weird american standard (which BTW violates everything every American learned at school about physics), why is the standard changing from car to car?
Sorry. There are no excuses for Tesla's conduct. It is pathetic.�
Oct 4, 2015
eloder
Some insurance companies will also charge you more money if your car is red instead of blue.
I have yet to see a single car dealer or manufacturer advertise or warn me on this fact, despite it being true. (Statistically, red cars have more ticket frequency than other cars as police tend to stop them more often).
There are insurance companies out there that will scam you. There are several that have no idea whatsoever about what EV tech is. When quoting insurance for my Leaf, I had quotes ranging from similarly priced to my old car, all the way up to premiums that were 6 times higher for the same coverage.
However, it sounds like some individuals in this thread need some insight about how insurance works or why some cars are higher than others. A proper insurance company will base your premiums upon actual repair costs, claim frequency, and other actuarial data. The fact that horsepower and insurance premiums are correlated has to do with the fact that people tend to be more reckless and more frequently get into accidents with high-powered cars, not that it has more horsepower. A P85D is indeed faster than a 85D. It doubt it is immune between the correlation of car performance and accidents. A slow $50k car will always have a lower insurance premium, on average, than a fast $50k car.
You are not being charged based off of the horsepower, you're being charged for the higher performance that results in higher actual real-world costs for the insurance company, in addition to higher cost of repair on the car, less absolute depreciation, and more.
Please consult the actuaries at your insurance company as to how they internally determine the value of an insurance premium.
Because some--a minority--of media outlets decide to use different tests. They're not forced to obey one test or another, but it is culturally customary that America uses a 1 foot rollout on 0-60 tests.�
Oct 4, 2015
vgrinshpun This was addressed many times, by many people. If you chose to ignore any and all explanations, repeating them one more time will not help.�
Oct 4, 2015
Nigel Tufnel The witness is instructed to answer the question as posed.�
Oct 4, 2015
eloder
Who says the first two cars were tested with a different rollout standard? The angry mob that makes up the horsepower conspiracy theorists?
From the real-world tests I've seen of the 70D and 85D, there's the same variance in those tests found with a P90DL (which points to thinks like wheels, road condition, passenger weight, other options are causing the variance). If you're using non-performance 19" tires on the 70D and 85D, those tests seem to match up with what Tesla has provided with assuming a one foot rollout was used (one foot rollouts, by the way, make a more drastic difference the faster a car is--the limiting effect of traction from a standing rest to moving is a much larger percentage of a fast car's rollout time, than a slow car's rollout time).
No manufacturer out there specifies the exact details of their test, but inevitably their test can always be replicated by at least a few test magazines under the right conditions. As one might note, the website doesn't state that you need performance 21" tires to reach the provided number. You don't know how light the driver was, what weather conditions it was done in, the tires' PSI, what other options are on the car, and other factors.
No different than another econo-EV (smart ED) I've followed, where some users document 0-60 times a good 15-25% faster than what the manufacturer provided and multiple magazines were off by 1-2 seconds on their tests. In that case the manufacturer (based in Europe) most definitely used a non-US method for a rollout and likely LRR wheels as well. No one accused Daimler of lying about their tests, but instead people realized that there was a reason why some people saw 10 seconds 0-60, and why some people could hit 7.8 seconds 0-60.
Tesla engineers don't just design these tests and times, then sit back and say "LOL, we fooled yet another person on TMC! Let's high-five over our unabashed trickery and roll over the piles of money given to us by these foolish consumers who thought they were buying a high-performance car!"�
Oct 4, 2015
darthy001 @eloder Tesla does list the P85D/P90D as the only two cars using rollout in the bottom foot note in the US design studio. So who is the conspiracy theorist now?�
Oct 4, 2015
JonG At least you're open about being a tesla investor because your posts introduce spurious noise to deflect the point and paint tesla in a best light you possibly car. I'm afraid I think you are showing bias, unsurprising as you have a vested interest in the company.
The cars should be tested the same way. I think we can agree that should be the case.
There were doubts about the P85D and ludicrous times, doubts which never existed and still don't in other models. it then transpired they quoted a different standard, one that wasn't even an official standard but one from a magazine.
A 85D regularly gets timed significantly faster than its quoted spec (sub 4 seconds) irrespective of wheels or any of the other variables you've introduced. This indicates to me that the quoted spec is without rollout or worse they've published a slower more conservative time to exaggerate the difference.
They don't publicise the combined deliverable power on a P85/90D - they do for their other cars, and it's NOT the sum of the motor power. So why not for the P cars? And don't say 'it's difficult' because the same difficulty is there in the other cars.�
Oct 4, 2015
stopcrazypp Tesla still has motor power on this page. I believe this has been pointed out many times to you already but you continue to ignore it.
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options
As for why they continue to leave out the system power number for P85D, I already addressed that point multiple times across many threads. The obvious reason is it would upset the P85D owners complaining, whereas for the other models no one complained.
I should point out for probably the 10th time that the only number they advertised was "motor power" from the span between October 2014 (with dual motor launch) to March/April 2015. They did not set out with different numbering standards for different models. It only evolved to that way because of the complaints from P85D owners starting with this thread in March 2015:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/44691-P85D-691HP-should-have-an-asterisk-*-next-to-it-Up-to-691HP
We don't know if the numbers for the others are with or without rollout. It can equally be underestimating of those numbers. Others have also addressed the point why it makes sense for P85D vs other models. The P85D is Tesla's performance model that is frequently benchmarked against other performance cars by magazines here. The 3.1 second number was arrived at by Motor Trend, and Tesla chose to go with that number for advertising. Whereas for the other models most car magazines didn't even test at all.
- - - Updated - - -
I already addressed pretty much exactly the same question a long while back on this thread. There is no technical difficulty but rather customer satisfaction difficultly. All quoting a lower number right now will do is drive P85D owners complaining about it up the wall. Tesla has to first get them to understand the "motor power" rating they used previously.
For the other models no one complained about using motor power so they don't have the same constraint.
Edit: I found the post, it was actually asked by Laserbrain.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/51922-Letter-To-Elon-Musk-Regarding-P85D-Horsepower-%C2%96-Discussion-Thread/page45?p=1167860&viewfull=1#post1167860�
Oct 4, 2015
JonG Customers will only complain if it's significantly different to expectation. You post 'I've already explained that' in response to our complaints as if you've solved the issue, when all you are really doing is speculating on the bad publicity if they admit we are correct.
The performance figures for the 85D are easily bettered. While we have no comment from Tesla, this in itself says something about those numbers.�
Oct 4, 2015
stopcrazypp It gets really old when the same question gets ask multiple times and the answers are completely ignored and the question repeated again.�
Oct 5, 2015
Jallum.pa.us It's pretty straightforward, really.
At the announcement (and really, for months past the delivery of the first cars), nobody knew about how they arrived at their motor power numbers -- there was no indication as to which standard or testing methodology might be in play. With an electric motor, one of the wonderful things about the rated numbers is that they tend to be very reproducible, provided you feed the motor the right amperage (and can keep the voltage high enough to meet spec). From what was known about the chemistry, configuration and other characteristics of the battery, and given that the limitations of the fuse were not public at the time, it's very possible that that a reasonable person could believe that the appropriate amount of power would be delivered by the battery delivered with the car, even if only for a brief time. It was easy to believe that the car would realize these amazing numbers -- every model tesla had sold to date had done so or better, right?
Now, in the ~year since the product announcement, a couple of important facts have dribbled out into the public:
- Motor testing parameters (indicating that the battery is not used during testing.)
- Various parts of the battery are limited to ~1300A, at all times.
Had this information been at / near the announcement, I would have been a fool to believe that the stated HP numbers were achievable in the real world. It would have been obvious it's just marketing-fluffery that the company has not gone to any length to correct. As it stands, I was made to be foolish -- quite a different thing.
I love my car. It's a wonderful machine. It does not do some of the things that I was led to believe that it would. This is naturally upsetting, but it's not the end of the world. I would appreciate it if those that have derided the owners that share my view of this as "conspiracy theorists" that are "out to get tesla" would take it down a notch.�
Oct 5, 2015
Wolfke That's also my point of view. It's a wonderful car and I love it. I think they made an honest mistake but as a customer I want an honest explenation and perhaps some suggestions what they can do to fix it.�
Oct 5, 2015
Luclyluciano
+1.....
It's safe to say many would not not have bought the P85D if it were advertised as 550 HP. Tesla knew the true HP. We did not. They also knows HP sells. We were sold.�
Oct 5, 2015
DillyBop this is the nature of things.
i am not concerned�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun Except that it is not true:
Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications - Page 34�
Oct 5, 2015
cynix The article and forum posts you're referring to are not written by Tesla, and not on the ordering page/spec sheet. You can't expect every potential customer to know where to find such unofficial information before ordering.�
Oct 5, 2015
Matias And even if there was one blog which questioned Tesla's hp-rating, at the same time there were thousands of articles all over the place saying car has 691 hp.�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun Nobody is saying that they were written by Tesla. Can we stop propping the myth that "nobody new"?�
Oct 5, 2015
cynix If the information didn't come from Tesla, then you didn't "know", you were just speculating. In fact you said it yourself: "Here is my TMC post just hours before the event speculating that�". It looks like your educated guess turned out to be correct � congratulations.
Potential customers had no way of knowing for sure, and that's the point Jallum was trying to make.�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun The information in the article was clearly coming from Tesla. No speculation there, plenty specific. You should just stop propping yet another myth: "nobody knew"�
Oct 5, 2015
Krugerrand No, I don't understand your confusion since I also wrote: Or suffering would be if there were no seats in your car at all and therefore you couldn't use it. In the latter case Tesla should give the customer a loaner.
�
Oct 5, 2015
cynix Again, how is a potential customer supposed to know that he must read the Green Car Reports article before making a purchase on Tesla's website? And why should he? I don't care if David Nolan really knew (I'm not the one claiming "nobody knew", so let's just say he did know), because it's completely irrelevant to people ordering the car.�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun Why we are having such a hard time with reality? The article did not "question" Tesla - they explained the new rating plain and simple. Sorry, but it looks like another bubble just burst...�
Oct 5, 2015
Dennis87 So I should know the content of that blog post when I did order my car in October last year? And where in that blog post is the proof?
I have contacted Unece that have the ECE R85 standard, Type Approval standards and some testing laboratories. So we can get an answer and stop speculating how it should be tested and how the power figures can be published.�
Oct 5, 2015
yak-55 Yep, me too. Shame on me to expect performance commensurate with the promoted 691hp. Some we apparently more skeptical/careful. Some even knew the number would have no bearing on the cars performance. Good for them. Hope they have their money in their pockets. I thought I was buying a high horsepower wonder car. It turns out to be a wonder car with extreme low end torque and outstanding traction control. The ultimate launch control - providing a neat parlor trick launch at just over 1g. Nice, but hardly performance comparable (in the larger sense) to the famous FI.�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun And I don't care how, if or what any customers knew - because it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether there were any malicious intent from Tesla to defraud customers by manipulating them into buying performance upgrade and not giving them what they paid for. This is what this and some other threads where prominently displaying as a foregone conclusion for months. It is evident that none of these foregone conclusions have any basis. And this is the reason I started to post on the related threads about one month ago.
I never claimed that communications from Tesla were what they should've been and have no intention of debating this as it is obvious.
- - - Updated - - -
Do not put words in my mouth. I said nothing of this sort. For quite some time there was point made that "nobody knew", all the while other members of TMC were posting link to the David Nolan article...
I think that it is time to stop propping this myth - because it is just not true.�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 You know what might not be irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was any malicious intent? The fact that Tesla knew the issue needed clarification, according to the David Nolan "Green Car Reports" article you've been referencing, and that Tesla was even working on information for the website to explain it, but then --DID NOT EXPLAIN IT!-- I'm pretty sure that well may become relevant!
Here's the quote from the article, and a link to the article:
"The company is already working on an update to the website to explain this distinction between net power and "motor power."
Puzzling New Power Numbers For Tesla Model S: What's the Deal?
The above was written in October 2014. The only explanation Tesla ever published was the JB Straubel blog post, published about two weeks ago, almost a year (and how many thousands of P85D sales?) later.
I'm sure you'll still say "There's no evidence whatsoever that Tesla did anything to intentionally mislead anyone.", as you have been saying for a while.
I think the above is "some evidence."�
Oct 5, 2015
Mr X 0-60 in 3 seconds and people are complaining about the horsepower number...�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 Pretty much.�
Oct 5, 2015
30seconds Maybe someone can help me understand the roll-out issue. I am assuming that the timer doesn't start until the car is actually in motion for a foot vs. exactly when for a non roll out time? Would it be first detected motion?
Anyways I do find the 0-60 conversation a bit odd since in all the ICE cars you have to enter into launch mode which really is pretty ridiculous and basically a work around designed to goose the specs. I have it in one of my cars and have used it exactly once to see what is was like. Fun, but basically completely unusable.�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 Really? From a moderator?�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 I am also a member here. Didn't write 'mod note' before it.�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 Fair enough.
But you also have enough information to know that the issue is a lot more complicated than that.�
Oct 5, 2015
AmpedRealtor It's not at all safe to say that. You have no idea. Have you polled all P85D owners? Of course not. You are proffering nothing more than an opinion that is steeped in your position.
- - - Updated - - -
I asked you this yesterday and you have not responded to me. Can you please answer this question:
�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun I answered the question in another thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/53877-Tesla-blog-post-AWD-Motor-Power-and-Torque-Specifications?p=1180707&viewfull=1#post1180707�
Oct 5, 2015
gavinwang Can we put this all to rest now? I see people argue about different regulations, different practices to test 0-60 and even different cultures across the Atlantic, all over the 30 plus pages here. Hello, isn't it just a very simple fact that TM had intentionally or unintentionally misled would-be customers on the HP rating? What percentage of average P85D customers would have suspected the stated 691 HP is actually not comparable to a figure found on a normal ICE? I work in finance, if a financial product or deal is marketed to customers with this sort of ambiguity, much less deliberate misrepresentation, you can be assured of a big fine or even jail time. TM can most likely get away with this on technicality, but what matters is majority of people did get misled as a result (of negligence, poor judgement or even malicious marketing hyperbole), so it should own up to this deficit on best practice and make up to P85D owners in some way. I call on P85D owners to make a collective plea to TM on this matter.�
Oct 5, 2015
perkiset Disagree. "The majority" of peoole, IMHO, did not purchase Tesla for a number - they purchased it because it's ridiculously fast, sexy and electric (I did, and got 100% of my money's worth). Why is it not clear to everyone? Because marketing. Like every other company out there. "Mislead" and "Jailtime" and "Get away with it" and "Misrepresentation" are all fundamentally damaging to the Tesla brand and it's equally annoying to those of us that would rather not see Tesla disparaged as an outlier. It's unfairly hard on the stock and hard on the brand.
Therefore, debate rages on.�
Oct 5, 2015
AmpedRealtor And for a customer who has no knowledge of electric propulsion and did not read your speculative post at TMC, how would that customer have reached the same conclusion simply by reading the information offered by Tesla?
So you're saying a potential customer would need to read a specific article in Green Car Reports in order to decode the specifications offered by Tesla. Who does that?
What you seem to be saying is that regardless of what Tesla specifies for its cars, it's up to the consumer to figure that out. You're saying there is no expectation of Tesla adhering to a common understanding that what they represent as HP is what the vehicle can actually produce, and it's up to the consumer to figure this out on their own. Therefore, a consumer must visit the forums and read speculative articles written by other owners as well as blog posts in order to understand the truth behind Tesla's numbers. This is a completely wrong and twisted view, in my humble opinion.
I should not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that when a manufacturer states an HP rating for their car or motor, that car or motor combination can achieve the specified rating. If the car cannot achieve the rating, then why even rate it? It's a completely useless, hypothetical number. That's like saying the car can go 0-60 in 1.5 seconds, only to find out that's because the motor was rated and tested in orbit at zero gravity. Where is the reality in these numbers? How are those numbers supposed to help a consumer when the car never makes those numbers?�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun I just answered your question. The summary is that myth that "nobody knew" propagated on several threads here for quite some time is just not true. That is all. Please do not put words in my mouth.�
Oct 5, 2015
stopcrazypp I don't think he is saying every potential customer has to read that article or that there is no one that was genuinely misled. Just that it is completely false that there was nobody that understood motor power to mean what Straubel is saying it means in the recent blog post. As for how many percentage of customers, it's impossible to say without a full survey. You are making the assumption that a large majority of customers made that assumption and also putting out your opinion that the number is a useless number when it is used in an established standard.
While perhaps in the ICE world it is not necessarily that common to have separate power ratings based on motors, it is quite common in the EV world. And the numbers are not completely useless numbers as they take into account the current and thermal limits of the motors and motor controllers. It lets you know if you upgrade your battery pack in the future, what kind of limits you can expect from the motors.
I believe somewhere in another thread others also pointed out that even for a car with the same battery limits, having dual motors with twice that limit still has a performance advantage as it allows you to put power down in situations that a dual motor car with the same as the battery limit can't.
This incorrect analogy illustrates the contention. Everyone knew at launch what the 0-60, 1/4 mile, and top speed of the car was. Those are the actual performance measures of the car. The peak HP number is just a number. It doesn't really tell you the performance unless you knew the power/torque curve, curb weight, and had the knowledge of how to calculate using those numbers. While some on this forum are expert enough to do that, I don't think it is a stretch to say many consumers don't know how to do that.�
Oct 5, 2015
AmpedRealtor I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm simply trying to understand your position that customers should have known that the "motor power" spec was theoretical and not achievable. Pointing to threads at TMC and an obscure blog/article on a web site does not cut it. That's not how consumers shop. In fact, the vast majority of Model S owners don't even participate in TMC or other online forums.
The question being asked here and in other threads is whether it's right for Tesla to advertise in this manner. You are defending Tesla by saying their specifications are in line with ECE whatever, but that is not consumer friendly. While I can see both sides to a point and I tend to excuse a lot of missteps by Tesla, I also thought that the 691 HP specification advertised by Tesla was ACHIEVABLE. I remember thinking wow, they went from 417 HP in my P85 to 691 HP. It was an impressive jump.
I remember posting a comment in a thread asking why the S60 and S85, both of which have different 0-60 times, were advertised as having the same HP. This was prior to the D launch. At that time, Tesla did not say "motor power", Tesla simply said HP. At least one person replied to me by saying that was a motor specification, not the actual HP produced by the car. This was before the P85D was launched. Some knew, some didn't.
The question I'm asking: Is this how we want Tesla to operate, by giving out specifications that are not achievable?
- - - Updated - - -
I'm making a sweeping and unsupported generalization, but my gut tells me that most people who saw the 691 HP figure assumed that was achievable on that vehicle under ideal conditions. But now we find out nope, it's not ever going to be achieved because the battery lacks the necessary output. That's not consumer friendly and sets up the argument that Teslas cannot achieve the HP output it claims. One of the things that attracted me to this brand in 2013 was the fact that Tesla's specifications were easily beaten by those who tested their cars. Tesla's specifications were on the conservative side. This showed me that Tesla was a different type of car company, one whom I could trust to give me an accurate picture of what I was buying.�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 People assumed it but it ended up being wrong. Assumed is the key word here. Tesla had a major part to play in that but the car delivers on the promised performance metrics. If it didn't then by all means raise the pitchforks.�
Oct 5, 2015
Jallum.pa.us Hey, bud. I really appreciate your passion on this issue. I do. That said, it's not really fair to fault people for not seeing your post (or the article), or for after reading it, not taking it as the gospel. I would hope that you would appreciate that to the vast majority of the people in the world, the suppositions of some random people on the internet, buried in a forum or posted in an article would not add up to the same thing as an official clarification from the company itself. To provide a clarification of my own: When I say "nobody knew", my meaning -- which I took, mistakenly I guess, to be commonly understood -- was that "nobody knew from official sources." I apologize for any confusion caused.
At the time, in the article, and many other folks, yourself included, did speculate about the batteries not being able to produce the power necessary to drive the motors to their rated values. This much is true. In the fullness of time this speculation turned out to be mostly correct. The basis of the supposition was that the batteries would be limited due to a cap on the discharge rate (~5C), and it turns out that it was actually the fuses and contactors -- the cells themselves are actually capable of the higher discharge rates required to produce the necessary power (which is why my old battery can be upgraded.) I point this out not to "count coup", but to illustrate that while the information you were providing turned out to be largely accurate in the effect, it was less than accurate in the particulars.
Tesla is a great company, and this communication problem amounts to an unforced-error. That it was almost completely avoidable makes it only more lamentable. The car is plenty impressive when explained in plain english. As a customer, I would hope that they take steps to correct their communication, and display some goodwill towards the early purchasers that were rightly confused. I'll add that as a long shareholder, this feeling is only underscored. I love my car.�
Oct 5, 2015
Luclyluciano @amped....
quote...(It's not at all safe to say that. You have no idea. Have you polled all P85D owners? Of course not. You are proffering nothing more than an opinion that is steeped in your position.). unquote
now you are being silly. Are you disputing that HP sells? Do you think I made this up? Did you even dish out the extra $$$$$ for a PD like I did?
�
Oct 5, 2015
DoctorJJ I just laugh at the owners who are too proud to admit that they weren't smart enough to realize exactly what performance they were getting. The performance numbers were there for all the world to see from the very beginning. Just because you guys decided to use 691hp and a typical ICE hp/weight ratio performance metric, doesn't mean that it in any way should apply to the car you bought.�
Oct 5, 2015
jasonjax And thus this conversation should end. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict it doesn't.�
Oct 5, 2015
DoctorJJ +1!!!�
Oct 5, 2015
Jaff I know many folks who bought the P85D for AWD, my family included...I know a couple of folks who bought the P85D for upgraded performance over the P85...I know no one who bought a P85D because it was 691 HP...
�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 How about the people that bought the P85D for many reasons, and would like it to meet or exceed their expectations (based on communications from Tesla) on all of them and not just most of them?�
Oct 5, 2015
Jaff They should adjust their attitudes, shifting the remainder of the "many reasons" they bought the cart to the forefront, and enjoy driving their amazing car.
�
Oct 5, 2015
yo mama I have listened to you. I have heard you. As a fellow P85D owner you and I are in the same boat, so to speak. So at this point my only question is - what measure of satisfaction are you realistically looking for?�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 I honestly don't know.
I am still hoping and trusting that Tesla will eventually come around, want to make things right, and attempt to do so. Until recently I thought free Ludicrous upgrades would get the cars close enough that most people would be happy with that, but now it looks like the Ludicrous upgrades may fall well short of what they promised. So I'm back to saying I honestly don't know.�
Oct 5, 2015
yo mama Hmmm. I say this because as I recall (for my Tesla, which is leased) I had a 90 day "happiness" guarantee that let me return the car, though I would have lost a portion of my initial deposit. Thus, if the HP/MP issue (or any issue, really) is some kind of really gigantic problem for a new owner then it seems to me Tesla has offered something of a reasonable exit strategy via the "happiness" guarantee. I feel less empathy for dissatisfied owners who choose to keep their vehicle in light of this option.�
Oct 5, 2015
darthy001 If I recall correctly it only applies to leased cars and only in the US.�
Oct 5, 2015
AmpedRealtor As you can see from my above posts, I see both sides of this issue. While I can understand Tesla's rating only the motors, I also understand the consumer confusion that it caused as a result. However, I don't think it's fair to say that "many would not not have bought the P85D if it were advertised as 550 HP". How many is "many"? We really don't know how many people would not have bought this car. In fact, many who are complaining about the HP issue are also saying that they would not want to give up their cars.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman Let me simplify:
"Some people (I would argue the majority) assumed that they could trust Tesla. Now a lot of those people don't."
Put in this context, it doesn't matter if you can or can't justify the numbers they put on the website. This is a fact that Tesla brought on themselves. I hope Tesla finds a way to address it going forward, otherwise I fear they won't last as a company.
- - - Updated - - -
Hopefully constructive feedback: Counterproductive post which says more about you than the people you're mocking.�
Oct 5, 2015
yo mama Fair enough. I honestly didn't who could avail themselves of the happiness guarantee, but it does seem like a rational remedy for dissatisfied purchasers. Query if it could be extended to all new buyers.�
Oct 5, 2015
jimmyjohn Is there a collective agreement on how the 'victims' would like Tesla to respond?
In other words, if the 'victims' had their way, Tesla would ______________________________ (pay money, free cars, free trip to mars).�
Oct 5, 2015
S'toon They say it's important to them because they only bought the car so they could brag to people how much HP it has.
Rich people problems.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman Counterproductive and incorrect post.�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 That's correct as I understand it as well.�
Oct 5, 2015
S'toon So, what you're saying, is you don't know what it is you're looking for, what you're seeking to be satisfied with the car, but you want Tesla to fix whatever you don't know?
I think the best solution is for you to sell your car and buy a unicorn.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman Counterproductive, and condescending.
He's saying he doesn't have a good option in mind, but is hopeful that Tesla will come up with some options -- and he's keeping an open mind. That's a totally reasonable position, so I'm unclear on why you're mocking it.�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 I hope so as well but the info is out there and affects a few thousand buyers at most. Actually it seems many could care less about the actual number. When they floor or their friends are shocked by the acceleration they are happy. Others need it to drive exactly like an ICE with the started 691 hp motor power. This isn't a universal 'everyone is upset with Telsa over the P85Ds performance' issue.�
Oct 5, 2015
S'toon Someone is saying they're not satisfied, they don't know why they're not satisfied, and don't know what it'll take to satisfy them but demand to be satisfied. Now, how does that sound reasonable?�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman Where do you get this from? I don't think ANYONE is asking for these. I do see it thrown out as a strawman counterargument though; I have no idea why.
- - - Updated - - -
I disagree.
Firstly, a "few thousand buyers" is not a trivial amount for a company with < 100,000 cars delivered.
Secondly, it affects shareholders and the brand pretty significantly IMO. That's a far bigger issue going forward.
- - - Updated - - -
(a) Correct.
(b) Incorrect.
(c) Incomplete -- the point is that they are not sure what Tesla would be willing to offer. I can think of a lot of things that would satisfy Andy that Tesla simply wouldn't go for.
(d) Demand? Overstating, IMO.
(e) When you have a mixed understanding of the situation, it makes it difficult to understand why it's reasonable I guess.�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 I know exactly why I'm not satisfied: The P85D I purchased doesn't meet all the specifications it was supposed to.
I know one thing that would definitely satisfy me: get my P85D and everyone else's that cares about this to the point they're supposed to be. The problem is it's pretty clear Tesla just won't be able to do that.
So I am keeping an open mind with respect to what else, less than what they actually should have done in the first place, Tesla could do to satisfy me.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman I think it's worse than that Andy -- I don't Tesla can do it (at < $20,000 per vehicle) in 2015. My understanding is that P90D (with Ludicrous) doesn't even meet the expectations set for the P85D at the D event. If their best offering doesn't meet the criteria, the odds of a retrofit doing it anytime soon is essentially zero.�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 Right. That's what I meant when I said they wouldn't be able to do it.
If Tesla could wave a magic wand, and give the cars the power they were supposed to have, I'd be satisfied. That's the somewhat ridiculous, hypothetical, just to satisfy S'toon's question. When I was in the realm of the realistic, and said I honestly didn't know what I wanted, I was accused of not being able to state what it would take.�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 Because the people are saying that it better produce 691 hp before losses at the shaft at least and doesn't perform like a car that has 691 hp at higher speeds. Not sure how you missed that.�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 Other than the hp number it meets all the performance metrics they talked about. It doesn't perform like a car with 691hp at higher speeds because it doesn't produce that power but 0-60 and 1/4 mile time it does meet what they talked about.�
Oct 5, 2015
SDRick I may be going out on a limb here but you don't come across as having much experience or exposure to high-performance automobiles.
I did not realize that accuracy and company integrity is only for the rich.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman What does that have to do with an ICE?
That's like saying "people expect 4 wheels" meaning "people want an ICE".
- - - Updated - - -
That's a weird phrasing, but I get your point. In engineering, you can do a lot of things that are "magical" if you ignore at least one of the requirements. As an example, I can drive more "Model S" miles in a day than you might think possible -- if you aren't clear to include the requirement that I cant' use multiple vehicles, or swap batteries, or tow it or ....�
Oct 5, 2015
dsm363 Because that's what people are comparing it to. Are they comparing it to another '691hp' EV I am unaware of?
There are numbers like hp and torque that imply a certain level of performance assuming you know everything else about the car, the driver, how that power is applied to the road...etc and then there are actual performance numbers like 0-60 time, 0-100, 1/4 mile time...etc which is what the actual car does outside the black box. Does the P85D miss any of the performance numbers Tesla talked about at launch? (Those being 0-60 and 1/4 mile time I believe). Yes, with a one foot rollout.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman Dual Motor Model S and Autopilot | Tesla Motors
Should we start arguing what the word "combines" means? Or "additional 50 percent"?
The definition that "works" for Tesla's implementation is "has each of them, and sometimes uses one or the other" which -- for me -- would warrant avoiding using the word "combine" if I was writing the blog post.�
Oct 5, 2015
supratachophobia See, this is what really confused me. It's one thing if they want to ignore the problem to make it go away, but by advertising the unattainable 730HP on the P90DL, they are just perpetuating the lie in an attempt to give validity to the previous misleading claim.
Just list the maximum HP the car can achieve with it's hardware and allow them to not subtract drivetrain losses. Real simple, it's what every other car in history has done, and it's as truthful as one can get given environmental factors that change.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman It wouldn't be contradictory and it would be a huge step forward for everyone for J.B. to follow-up with another post with peak vehicle horsepower coupled with charts showing the horsepower curve for "typical traction" (on CA highways next to Elon's house during 70F sunshine or whatever).
As it stands, you're right -- they're doubling down on "problematic" data presentation.�
Oct 5, 2015
DoctorJJ It's a figure of speech. I don't actually laugh at anyone. I'm not sure how you being condescending to me, regarding your concerns about my post being condescending, is constructive feedback however.�
Oct 5, 2015
brianman I've never heard this figure of speech before. Perhaps it's regional.�
Oct 5, 2015
vgrinshpun They are not ignoring the "problem" they are providing rating of their drive train according to the international Regulation ECE R85. This regulation directs manufacturers to rate EV drive train using combined rating of the motors without considering limitation of the battery. So according to ECE R85 P85D drivetrain is rated 259 (front)+503(rear) =762 motor hp
- - - Updated - - -
From the letter P85D owners wrote to Elon Musk:
�The missing horsepower is quite noticeable at highway passing speeds. For example, from 70-90 mph, the P85D should perform like a car with a power to weight ratio of one HP for every seven pounds. Instead it performs like a car with one HP for every nine pounds. The result of this is that from 70-90 mph the P85D is easily outperformed by an Audi RS7 with a power to weight ratio of only one HP for every eight pound."�
Oct 5, 2015
stopcrazypp That's the major thing. There is no collective agreement on how Tesla should respond. You could tell from the discussion on Andy's letter. There was really no "solution" presented that would satisfy everyone.�
Oct 5, 2015
sorka You can safely put me in that camp. Had I known what I know now before I placed my order, I'd be driving around in an 85D instead.
- - - Updated - - -
You made a very good educated guess on the maximum discharge rate of the 85 battery. I spent many hours reading and researching. Had I come across your post, I probably wouldn't have paid much attention to it at that point.
The problem with the article that you posted is that the author was guessing that the new numbers only take into account the capacity of the motor without the limitation of the battery on the single motor cars. The problem with that guess is that the P85 actually makes 472 hp even though it was previously rated at 416 hp.
But none of this matters. You're post and that one article doesn't constitute an official Tesla disclaimer on how horsepower is specified.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree. If you look at it that way. Maybe somebody knew. You made an educated guess and it was correct. I think the other respondents are assuming you were implying that it was readily available and widely known so that consumers could make informed decisions based on trustworthy published data. But you clearly didn't mean or imply that
- - - Updated - - -
Don't hold your breath. I sent them several emails over two weeks ago and I've heard nothing back yet.
- - - Updated - - -
Some but most of the others are complaining about passing power. The P85D performs and accelerates at freeways speeds exactly as fast as it should for the power it actually has which is 480 to 555 hp depending on state of charge. I think most were expecting 691 hp though.�
Oct 5, 2015
Andyw2100 How does the quote you just used from the letter show support for dsm363's statement (that you also quoted) that we "need it to drive exactly like an ICE?"
All I was doing with those lines from the letter was giving an example of where the missing horsepower was felt.�
Oct 5, 2015
sorka That's right. The wider power power band of the electric motor affording superior low end torque produces a better 0-60 time than any other 5000 lb ICE car that has 555 hp. After both the EV and ICE reach their PEAK power, their performance given equal power to weight ratios is comparable. The P85D accelerates from 50-70 exactly as fast as a 5000 lb car with 480 to 555 hp, depending on state of charge, should.
Performance characteristics aside, I wish I'd been smart enough to know that "691 hp" or "691 hp motor power" wasn't achievable. And when I first test drove a P85D and it was limited to 80 MPH. I mentioned to the sales guy that it didn't feel like a 700 hp car when punching it from 60 MPH. He explained to me that the speed limiter cuts power progressively long before 80 MPH so there isn't violent cut off in power. Had it not been speed limited, I would have immediately known that something wasn't adding up. However, given how fast it was from 0-60 and the fact that I wasn't considering the monster torque as the real reason for the low speed acceleration, I took his word at face value and believed it.
- - - Updated - - -
Did Tesla advertise a combined 762 hp somewhere(you mean that and not 730, right)?
- - - Updated - - -
Says who? What regulation requires EV manufacturers in the US to list combined motor capability instead of the actual horsepower produced. I have no issue if Tesla wants to run the their drivetrain through R85 certification for a European listing requirement but this does not direct them to list combined motor capability in place of actual horsepower. And if this was the case, how is it they didn't specify R85 or an asterisk next to where they listed "691 hp motor power" with the further disclaimer that this is not the actual power produced by the vehicle? Why is it they only listed ECE R85 in the manual and even then not in the manual when P85Ds first started shipping?�
Oct 5, 2015
AWDtsla I am in the know now and you can guess my decision.
Can you summarize what actions you'd like Tesla to take?�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét