teslamotorclub: Tesla may be forced to compensate owners of P85D in Norway part 1

Just a heads up - more than 20 owners have filed a formal complaint against Tesla in Norway, because they feel misled about the car's performance. This is right now the top story in the biggest newspaper in the country.

The complaints are taken seriously, and In my opinion, this does not look good for Tesla. Norway have very strong consumer rights. It looks like this will end up in court, and to be honest, I think Tesla will lose, and forced to offer some kind of compensation, or let the buyers return their cars. 631 P85D cars have been sold in Norway, so all of these will be affected of the outcome.

I am a owner of P85D and TSLA. So I'm very conflicted. I feel misled, and would definitively not buy P85D had I known what I know today. On the other end, I don't want Tesla to suffer too bad for this...
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

Just a heads up - more than 20 owners have filed a formal complaint against Tesla in Norway, because they feel misled about the car's performance. This is right now the top story in the biggest newspaper in the country.
Click to expand...

Picture, or it did not happen
Thank's in advance!

BTW what about selling your Model S and selling your shares if you are that conflicted?
You should not be forced to own these things, is Norway a free country?
�

what do you mean they misled car's performance ? and why would they do that ?
�

This is the nonsense about the marketing bhp and the way the 0-60 time was measured.

Hopefully the authorities will also look at other misleading marketing statements in the industry, including 0-60 times of ICE and quoted MPG/ CO2 while they are at it.
�

^and ^^ there are dozens of threads about that in TMC. Let's not start here all over again. Here are couple of those threads:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/44691-P85D-691HP-should-have-an-asterisk-*-next-to-it-Up-to-691HP

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/51923-Letter-To-Elon-Musk-Regarding-P85D-Horsepower-%C2%96-Signature-Thread-Only-Please
�

Tesla should buy back all twenty something P85D at full price and register them in Denmark. And sell them at their leisure.
�

vortexz said: ?

what do you mean they misled car's performance ? and why would they do that ?
Click to expand...

See links Matias posted. But in short:

1. Marketed with 700hp, while it's real performance is around 500hp.
2. 0-100kmh listed using 1-foot rollout, unlike 0-100kmh listings for previous models, making P85D seem even faster than P85.
3. When marketing a car with 700HP, you would expect it to perform much better than the P85 with its 420HP. Truth is, 0-100 is only ~0.7s faster to 100kmh, and above 100kmh the performance is almost identical.

Keep in mind, those who purchased the P versions of Model S, did it BECAUSE of performance - nothing else. If there where minor differences in performance for purchasers of the regular models, the case wouldn't be as strong.

But let's not discuss that here. This discussion is for speculation about the outcome of this case, and the possible damages Tesla will suffer.
�

Finally.
Looking forward to seeing the case being thrown out of court.

What then? EU court of human rights?
�

WarpedOne said: ?

Finally.
Looking forward to seeing the case being thrown out of court.

What then? EU court of human rights?
Click to expand...

Be carefull, these folks might even try that

Don't these people realize that their behaviour looks a bit childish?
�

WarpedOne said: ?

Finally.
Looking forward to seeing the case being thrown out of court.

What then? EU court of human rights?
Click to expand...

Be carefull, they might even try this

Don't these folks realize that they look a bit childish to the public?

BTW I only found press mentions like these:
Tesla P85D Voted Coolest Car In Norway
Norwegian Drivers Set New Tesla Model S Distance Record: 450 Miles (Video)
Demand For Dual-Motor Tesla Model S In Norway Soars
Tesla Motors Inc To Heat Up Norwegian EV Market; Here�s Why
Did not find any press mention on the first page of any of these norwegian newspapers:
Aftenposten, found a small report here;
http://www.dagbladet.no/
http://www.dagsavisen.no/
http://www.vg.no/, small report, again not on first page
Can you please provide the newspaper that is reporting on first page about this issue?
Thank's in advance!
�

The article is postet in VG Norways most read online and offline newspaper. link here
I agree this might be a silly case but this in addition to lousy service in Norway is not promising for Model X sales.

Cobos
�

These owners that are taking Tesla to court should really get their priorities straight.

Plus, they should begin by appreciating how good they have it in Norway, compared say to Germany. Massive EV subsidies, tax breaks, free toll roads, and the like. Nothing like that over here. All we get is at most a few hundred Euros in road tax over a ten year period, plus the possibility for towns to let EVs use the bus lanes or free parking spaces (which incidentally almost now town council is currently planning to do/offer). Most of us over here couldn't even afford a P85D.

And anyway, 500 hp, 700 hp? Plus 0.7 seconds faster acceleration? What difference does it make in everyday driving? Norway afaik has very strict speed limits on most of their roads, no limit-free Autobahns either. So really, these owners should get on with life and be happy with the great performance car they have.

First world problems indeed, especially taking into account the current refugee crisis situation we have in Europe, with literally millions of displaced and practically homeless people, individuals, families, kids, babies. That is a problem worth thinking about. Even in our rural area, new refugee camps are popping up in every town. School sport arenas are re-purposed, as are barracks, empty business buildings etc. Basically every usable empty building that is available - and it is still by far not enough. The whole situation is beginning to put a huge strain on society, in many countries all over Europe. I think our US forum members might not even be able to imagine the true scope of this immense crisis and the effects it is having currently.

Honestly, as much as I understand being unhappy about carmakers' actions sometimes (we have a VW diesel after all - the Dieselgate version that is!), I still know how to set things in perspective.
�

AustinPowers said: ?

These owners that are taking Tesla to court should really get their priorities straight.

Plus, they should begin by appreciating how good they have it in Norway, compared say to Germany. Massive EV subsidies, tax breaks, free toll roads, and the like. Nothing like that over here. All we get is at most a few hundred Euros in road tax over a ten year period, plus the possibility for towns to let EVs use the bus lanes or free parking spaces (which incidentally almost now town council is currently planning to do/offer). Most of us over here couldn't even afford a P85D.

And anyway, 500 hp, 700 hp? Plus 0.7 seconds faster acceleration? What difference does it make in everyday driving? Norway afaik has very strict speed limits on most of their roads, no limit-free Autobahns either. So really, these owners should get on with life and be happy with the great performance car they have.

First world problems indeed, especially taking into account the current refugee crisis situation we have in Europe, with literally millions of displaced and practically homeless people, individuals, families, kids, babies. That is a problem worth thinking about. Even in our rural area, new refugee camps are popping up in every town. School sport arenas are re-purposed, as are barracks, empty business buildings etc. Basically every usable empty building that is available - and it is still by far not enough. The whole situation is beginning to put a huge strain on society, in many countries all over Europe. I think our US forum members might not even be able to imagine the true scope of this immense crisis and the effects it is having currently.

Honestly, as much as I understand being unhappy about carmakers' actions sometimes (we have a VW diesel after all - the Dieselgate version that is!), I still know how to set things in perspective.
Click to expand...

Exactly this^.
This is obviously getting very very ridiculous folks.
�

I completely support the move.
If those people feel they are victims of false advertising, going to court is the right way.

That is how issue can be resolved. They have to list their complaints/demands and tesla gets opportunity to explain their actions. And a third party then decides what is the matter. If there was something really wrong tesla did, they should be compensated. No matter the subsidies in other countries, no matter the actual 0-60 time.

If there was something really wrong, they should be compensated. But if the court decides there was not, they should pay all the legal fees and be ordered to somehow compensate Tesla for the smearing of their brand.

This is the way, not open letters, not forum complaining, not media ****-storm.
�

Of course it's a first world problem. The whole car is a first world problem. It's worth more than millions of people will earn in their whole lifetime. What is ridiculous is to bring up a unrelated refugee crisis.

But that doesn't matter. In the end of the day those people brought a performance version of the car for a higher price which now turns out to not perform much better. I mean wasn't the difference like $20k?

Honestly, as much as I understand being unhappy about carmakers' actions sometimes (we have a VW diesel after all - the Dieselgate version that is!), I still know how to set things in perspective.
Click to expand...

If your BMW 330Cd performed like a 318d you would also complain...

And anyway, 500 hp, 700 hp? Plus 0.7 seconds faster acceleration? What difference does it make in everyday driving?
Click to expand...

Then why does Tesla even sell it?
�

Cobos said: ?

The article is postet in VG Norways most read online and offline newspaper. link here
I agree this might be a silly case but this in addition to lousy service in Norway is not promising for Model X sales.

Cobos
Click to expand...

I always thought you guys were all like Bjorn. haha I kid. On a more serious note, I'm struggling with this... because the question is, what is the remedy? At what point would these owners be happy. The car is capable of doing this with certain conditions. I've read the thread and it seems that they are more taken aback by industry standard testing methodology. This is again a case where Tesla gets unfair extra scrutiny. To be completely fair, saying combined 700hp may not have been right, but then again I'd say it because it's too annoying to say 250 hp in the front 470 in the rear because it's simpler. Most ICE cars state xx hp at the crank, but you expect over 20% power loss due to drive train. Not even factoring things like atmospheric pressure, grade of fuel, etc. but I don't see any articles about this.

At the end of the day the P85D is putting out comparable performance to high HP gas vehicle performance cars... If these specific owners feel like they were lied to and are so angry. I say Tesla should buy them back. Soon enough the owners will see that they are far worse without it.
�

Even if Tesla has to compensate people in Norway, it won't amount to much. I think we're at most talking about a free retrofit of Ludicrous. If we're talking about 500 cars, that adds up to something like $2 million. I think this estimate could be on the high side, given that they changed the language on the site at some point.

And that is *if* they need to compensate anyone. Personally, I never got the impression from the site that the 700 hp was achievable under any circumstances, and with/without rollout seems like a very minor thing. Both are accepted standards of measuring the acceleration, and Tesla never claimed the figure was without rollout. All in all, I think Tesla has a good case, but it may of course go in the buyer's favour.
�

Yggdrasill said: ?

Even if Tesla has to compensate people in Norway, it won't amount to much. I think we're at most talking about a free retrofit of Ludicrous. If we're talking about 500 cars, that adds up to something like $2 million. I think this estimate could be on the high side, given that they changed the language on the site at some point.

And that is *if* they need to compensate anyone. Personally, I never got the impression from the site that the 700 hp was achievable under any circumstances, and with/without rollout seems like a very minor thing. Both are accepted standards of measuring the acceleration, and Tesla never claimed the figures was without rollout. All in all, I think Tesla has a good case, but it may of course go in the buyer's favour.
Click to expand...

If it is a court order with strong consumer protection, a buyback is the only valid option. Ludicrous does not make 700 hp either (under the definition the people expected, not talking about Tesla's rating system). If it's a settlement like I have seen with ICE cars, then they might get far less than a Ludicrous retrofit (most automakers give a couple hundred dollar service coupon and that's it).

I think the Denmark group would have the strongest case as their translation was incorrect for the hp part. The Norway translation was correct.
�

These poor, poor, misled people. Buying cars they test drove, felt the acceleration of, and then brought home.

How awful must it feel for them to be able to afford a P85D, only to know that some numbers on a graph somewhere mean something.

I tell you, every time I punch the go pedal in my boring old S85, it ticks me off to no end just how some numbers something or other. I mean, I test drove a Model S a few times, and got exactly what I was expecting when I gave them money, and they gave me a car, but dammit, those numbers man! 'cmon Tesla... didn't you know the important of what were we talking about again?
�

ev-enthusiast said: ?

Don't these folks realize that they look a bit childish to the public?
...
Forsiden - VG, small report, again not on first page
Can you please provide the newspaper that is reporting on first page about this issue?
Thank's in advance!
Click to expand...

Nothing childish here.
FYI, websites are not static. This morning, this case was the BIG TOP article, with a smaller article about TSLA share falling next to it. Right now, there's a new article pretty high up:
Google Translate

BTW, Forsiden - VG is the website with most readers in Norway, by far (excl. Facebook/Google). So this is not just a simple article in a car magazine or something like that.

AustinPowers said: ?

What difference does it make in everyday driving?
Click to expand...

You are missing the point so badly that I'm not sure it's worth replying, but I'll give it a go.
I'll give it another try to make you guys understand, using an analogy.

You want to buy a ridiculously fast car. Bugatti Veyron is advertised with top speed of 400 kmh. Perfect. You could save a ton of money and buy a BMW M5 - but heck, you wanted the fastest car. Car is delivered and is ridiculously fast, but it just won't go faster than 300 kmh. Still fastest car you ever driven, and you won't ever need to drive that fast on a road. But if you knew it only could do 300 - couldn't you have bought the M5 instead?
You contact Bugatti, asking why it won't do 400 kmh? Their explanation: "That's normal, it won't do 400kmh on a straight regular tarmac road, our testing was done in a slight downhill, on a special kind of surface. Deal with it.". (Then later they release a new version of Bugatti that does actually does 400kmh on a normal road...)

No matter how much you love Tesla (which I do as well), I just can understand how you can think "this is not an issue, just enjoy your car". If it was the regular Model S, a slight performance loss could possibly be accepted since performance was not the main reason for purchase. This is about the performance version of Model S - people paid $20 000 extra ONLY for the extra performance Tesla promised. You can't just accept it and say "Oh well, the car is pretty good anyway" when you paid a premium for a noticable extra performance, and they don't deliver it.

Tesla messed up in this case. They even admitted it, by making changes to the websites (correcting HP claims, and informing about 1 foot rollout).

Yggdrasill said: ?

Even if Tesla has to compensate people in Norway, it won't amount to much. I think we're at most talking about a free retrofit of Ludicrous. If we're talking about 500 cars, that adds up to something like $2 million.
Click to expand...

I don't think the problem here is Norway. How would owners in the rest of the world feel if norwegians got their upgrade for free? They would be forced to give it to everyone asking. And as far as I understand, this is not a simple upgrade, but a very time consuming and thus costly upgrade.

Yggdrasill said: ?

And that is *if* they need to compensate anyone. Personally, I never got the impression from the site that the 700 hp was achievable under any circumstances, and with/without rollout seems like a very minor thing. Both are accepted standards of measuring the acceleration, and Tesla never claimed the figure was without rollout.
Click to expand...

I took the 700hp with a grain of salt yes, but that's because I was already aware that electric motors are different. You can't expect normal people to be completely aware of how this works. But I still did not doubt that it would be much faster than P85: It's got WAY more power so it's going to be WAY faster, not only during the first 100kmh.

The with/without rollout is not a minor thing in my opinion. Yes, it's an accapted standard, but it's absolutely not OK to use this standard for one model, and a different standard for another model. It's pretty obvious that they chose the 1 feet rollout timing to make it look even faster than the other versions. At the time there weren't even anything mentioning this, so the 0-100kmh times were undoubtably misleading.

SabrToothSqrl said: ?

These poor, poor, misled people. Buying cars they test drove, felt the acceleration of, and then brought home.
Click to expand...

FYI, the car was not available for test drive. I guess 90% of the cars were delivered before it was available for test drive. But you are still missing the point here.
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

The with/without rollout is not a minor thing in my opinion. Yes, it's an accapted standard, but it's absolutely not OK to use this standard for one model, and a different standard for another model. It's pretty obvious that they chose the 1 feet rollout timing to make it look even faster than the other versions. At the time there weren't even anything mentioning this, so the 0-100kmh times were undoubtably misleading.
Click to expand...

Legally I'm not sure that is true. The core issue I would imagine is if it is legal to use roll-out numbers in Norway. I don't believe there is any law that would disallow a manufacturer from underrating their own vehicles, which Tesla can certainly claim they are doing with the non-P85D (as they never claimed those numbers were without roll-out either).

Comparative advertising laws at least in the US apply to comparing to competitors, but I don't believe they apply when comparing products within one manufacturer (legal standing is an issue too, as some of the false advertising laws require the competitor to bring suit, not the consumer, and there must be proof that the competitor was damaged from such advertising).
�

It boggles my mind that, after reading discussions on this forum, people believe it's a shoo-in for owners if it were taken to court.
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

Nothing childish here.
FYI, websites are not static. This morning, this case was the BIG TOP article, with a smaller article about TSLA share falling next to it. Right now, there's a new article pretty high up:
Google Translate

BTW, Forsiden - VG is the website with most readers in Norway, by far (excl. Facebook/Google). So this is not just a simple article in a car magazine or something like that.

You are missing the point so badly that I'm not sure it's worth replying, but I'll give it a go.
I'll give it another try to make you guys understand, using an analogy.

You want to buy a ridiculously fast car. Bugatti Veyron is advertised with top speed of 400 kmh. Perfect. You could save a ton of money and buy a BMW M5 - but heck, you wanted the fastest car. Car is delivered and is ridiculously fast, but it just won't go faster than 300 kmh. Still fastest car you ever driven, and you won't ever need to drive that fast on a road. But if you knew it only could do 300 - couldn't you have bought the M5 instead?
You contact Bugatti, asking why it won't do 400 kmh? Their explanation: "That's normal, it won't do 400kmh on a straight regular tarmac road, our testing was done in a slight downhill, on a special kind of surface. Deal with it.". (Then later they release a new version of Bugatti that does actually does 400kmh on a normal road...)

No matter how much you love Tesla (which I do as well), I just can understand how you can think "this is not an issue, just enjoy your car". If it was the regular Model S, a slight performance loss could possibly be accepted since performance was not the main reason for purchase. This is about the performance version of Model S - people paid $20 000 extra ONLY for the extra performance Tesla promised. You can't just accept it and say "Oh well, the car is pretty good anyway" when you paid a premium for a noticable extra performance, and they don't deliver it.

Tesla messed up in this case. They even admitted it, by making changes to the websites (correcting HP claims, and informing about 1 foot rollout).

I don't think the problem here is Norway. How would owners in the rest of the world feel if norwegians got their upgrade for free? They would be forced to give it to everyone asking. And as far as I understand, this is not a simple upgrade, but a very time consuming and thus costly upgrade.

I took the 700hp with a grain of salt yes, but that's because I was already aware that electric motors are different. You can't expect normal people to be completely aware of how this works. But I still did not doubt that it would be much faster than P85: It's got WAY more power so it's going to be WAY faster, not only during the first 100kmh.

The with/without rollout is not a minor thing in my opinion. Yes, it's an accapted standard, but it's absolutely not OK to use this standard for one model, and a different standard for another model. It's pretty obvious that they chose the 1 feet rollout timing to make it look even faster than the other versions. At the time there weren't even anything mentioning this, so the 0-100kmh times were undoubtably misleading.

FYI, the car was not available for test drive. I guess 90% of the cars were delivered before it was available for test drive. But you are still missing the point here.
Click to expand...

Your Bugatti example uses a performance metric (top speed). Did the P85D not meet the 0-60 or 1/4 mile times that were advertised?
�

Good. Take it to court. Tired of reading all the people on here complaning about this nonsense but don't take any action. Put up or shut up.
�

Spidy said: ?

Of course it's a first world problem. The whole car is a first world problem.
Click to expand...

agreed. it is not like this is being discussed on the UN/warchild/WHO etc.. website. Its a website dedicated to Tesla.
�

dsm363 said: ?

Your Bugatti example uses a performance metric (top speed). Did the P85D not meet the 0-60 or 1/4 mile times that were advertised?
Click to expand...

I'm a lowly S60 owner so I do not know, but after what I've read it does not meet the claimed specification. I dare say this is partly a US vs Europe issue. No car is ever measured with a rollout in Europe, or at least not from manufacturers.
Norwegian consumer law says that any product that has a significant deficiency means the producer can demand to try to repair. If that doesn't work or repair the problem you can demand damages and in this case that might be upto the cost difference between a P85D and a 85D. As a last resort is buyback. My very non-legal knowledge would seem that if the P85D only produce about 550hp that is a significant deficiency. After a possible Ludicrous upgrade I would guess the difference is not significant any longer.

As was mentioned above the main issue is you paid about $20k extra for higher performance and as it turns out the performance is hardly greater than the base model. Hence the $20k upgrade was not delivered as promised. Is the P85D fast enough sure, but that is not actually the issue. If you promise something you have to deliver, and since these cars were ordered without a testdrive available the law goes generally against the professional party, i.e. the company.

Do I want Tesla to suffer from this surely not, but as a general customer in Norway and investor I'm not very happy about how Tesla has been handling this issue. An acknowledgement of the issue would have gone a long way to appease most P85D owners I think.

Cobos
�

Tesla engineering: genius
Tesla marketing: terrible

I feel like the great achievements by Tesla engineering team have been shadowed constantly by the blunders of the marketing team.

Example 1: hp numbers
There was no need to advertise hp numbers the car can't achieve. Why do this? Surely Tesla doesn't want customers taking legal action for false advertisement. This can't be the right outcome for Tesla. Then why not be more careful with the advertised claims? If they advertised 550 hp instead 691 it would have no effect on sales. Nobody was buying the car based on hp numbers. But when they advertise unrealistic numbers, people feel cheated. It creates a bad experience.

Example 2: Infinite mile battery warranty
Infinite mileage battery warranty looked great on paper but once people realized it doesn't include degradation, it all looked like Tesla is trying to trick buyers. This is similar to insurance companies advertising one thing but then hiding all the important details in fine print. The surprise and reaction factor here is memorable. At first people think it looks amazing. Then they think it is terrible. People don't forget these bad surprises.

Example 3: Price after gas savings instead actual price
The misleading pricing on order page created a lot of bad press. Why do this? Why advertise an $85,000 car (S85D base price) at $67,500 only for people to discover the actual price a few minutes later and feel disappointed? Source

Example 4: Selling autopilot before ready
The same happened with autopilot. Why even advertise autopilot 1 year before it was ready? If Tesla wanted to create media attention they should have kept quiet about it until last week. If Tesla came out and said, "Hey, those cars that you have been buying for the last year have something called autopilot and we are activating it today" it would have been the biggest surprise ever in automotive history and it would be incredibly impressive.

Example 5: P85D range numbers
Why advertise higher numbers like 285 miles on the website and then deliver a car with a window sticker that says 242 (source)?

There are lots of other things like that.

Supercharge times are overly optimistic.

Tesla's range calculator is not realistic.

Actual range is not displayed on order page.

Tesla uses the overly optimistic European NEDC ratings in Asia-Pasific. The advertised number is 510 km when the actual range is 350 km.

�

AustinPowers said: ?

These owners that are taking Tesla to court should really get their priorities straight.

Plus, they should begin by appreciating how good they have it in Norway, compared say to Germany. Massive EV subsidies, tax breaks, free toll roads, and the like. Nothing like that over here. All we get is at most a few hundred Euros in road tax over a ten year period, plus the possibility for towns to let EVs use the bus lanes or free parking spaces (which incidentally almost now town council is currently planning to do/offer). Most of us over here couldn't even afford a P85D.

And anyway, 500 hp, 700 hp? Plus 0.7 seconds faster acceleration? What difference does it make in everyday driving? Norway afaik has very strict speed limits on most of their roads, no limit-free Autobahns either. So really, these owners should get on with life and be happy with the great performance car they have.

First world problems indeed, especially taking into account the current refugee crisis situation we have in Europe, with literally millions of displaced and practically homeless people, individuals, families, kids, babies. That is a problem worth thinking about. Even in our rural area, new refugee camps are popping up in every town. School sport arenas are re-purposed, as are barracks, empty business buildings etc. Basically every usable empty building that is available - and it is still by far not enough. The whole situation is beginning to put a huge strain on society, in many countries all over Europe. I think our US forum members might not even be able to imagine the true scope of this immense crisis and the effects it is having currently.

Honestly, as much as I understand being unhappy about carmakers' actions sometimes (we have a VW diesel after all - the Dieselgate version that is!), I still know how to set things in perspective.
Click to expand...

So true.

Or they could just pick up a higher horsepower Hellcat, and still lose in every race because amazingly enough, the Tesla only loses races on a dyno and not on the actual road until you get into very, very high mph levels.

Tesla should buy back all their cars. They'll end up buying new Teslas again after they realize how inferior higher horsepower cars really are in that price range. I think this lawsuit is negligible because A) Tesla owners have far higher owner satisfaction than any car out there, B) They out-perform every other car in the price range and horsepower range in the most common performance races/situations/measurements (especially in Norway which as mentioned, has no autobahn equivalent), and C) Norway's incentives on perhaps the best winterized car out there that can also transport people easily and smoke supercars at the drag strip.

I feel like the great achievements by Tesla engineering team have been shadowed constantly by the blunders of the marketing team.
Click to expand...

Apple's advertising exaggerates far more than anything Tesla puts out, yet Apple's advertising is praised for making even the most mundane improvements seem special and amazing.

And Apple is more profitable than just about every other business in the world.

Tesla's marketing is just heavily based on Apple advertising--oversimplication and overpraised, but it gets results.
�

0-60 in 3.1 seconds and people are complaining about an electric converted HP number that might not be exactly accurate compared to gasoline cars HP numbers but the car still does 0-60 in a mind boggling 3.1 seconds ? ROFL

im done
�

I suspect everything that can be said on this already has been said, but to this point:

"If they advertised 550 hp instead 691 it would have no effect on sales."

I disagree. A non insubstantial percentage of the people who bought the P85Ds early on were trading in existing P85s. Some people took a pretty significant hit to make the trade.

People are fundamentally irrational, so it's hard to say, but if Tesla had said "it's 500 hp" instead of "it's 691 hp," I can imagine some of those folks would have been much less eager to take that hit.

But putting that aside, ask this quesiton: If Tesla thought there would be no impact on sales, why did they start quoting 691 hp instead of the system power that they had used for every car to that point?
�

JST said: ?

I suspect everything that can be said on this already has been said, but to this point:

"If they advertised 550 hp instead 691 it would have no effect on sales."

I disagree. A non insubstantial percentage of the people who bought the P85Ds early on were trading in existing P85s. Some people took a pretty significant hit to make the trade.

People are fundamentally irrational, so it's hard to say, but if Tesla had said "it's 500 hp" instead of "it's 691 hp," I can imagine some of those folks would have been much less eager to take that hit.

But putting that aside, ask this quesiton: If Tesla thought there would be no impact on sales, why did they start quoting 691 hp instead of the system power that they had used for every car to that point?
Click to expand...

I believe Straubel's post already touched on this. They felt that the battery number (and by extension system number, as it applies to versions where the battery is the bottleneck) is not as good a representation of the performance of the car as the motor number is. I don't believe Tesla ever claimed they thought that the switch would have no impact on sales. And comparatively keep in mind that they switched all models to the motor number at the time, not just the P85D or only the dual motor models.
�

stopcrazypp said: ?

I believe Straubel's post already touched on this. They felt that the battery number (and by extension system number, as it applies to versions where the battery is the bottleneck) is not as good a representation of the performance of the car as the motor number is. I don't believe Tesla ever claimed they thought that the switch would have no impact on sales. And comparatively keep in mind that they switched all models to the motor number at the time, not just the P85D or only the dual motor models.
Click to expand...

I saw that in his blog post. But it's just self-evidently false, and the fact that they switched all of the cars to "motor power" proves it. If "motor power" is a better representation of the car's performance than system power, why don't S60s and S85s perform exactly the same? In fact, why aren't S60s faster, because they are lighter?

The answer is clear: "motor power" doesn't actually represent what the car can do, because it's a theoretical number that has no relationship to the actual cars. The claim that "motor power" is more representative of what the car can do than system power has some tissue thin logic when applied to comparisons with ICE cars, but it makes no sense when comparing one Model S to another--which is precisely what P85 owners were doing in late 2014 when considering whether to buy a P85D.

I have no dog whatsoever in the P85D fight, but the "motor power" thing really rubs me the wrong way. Literally any other company pulling the same stunt would be excoriated, and rightfully so. Imagine this exchange:

"Oh, well, yes, the 460 cubic inch V8 only makes 150 hp with a two barrel carb and a catalytic converter. But if you put a Holley double-pumper on it and some long-tube headers, it would make 400, easy. So we rated it as 400 hp."

"Do you sell the car with a Holley double pumper and long-tube headers?"

"No."

"When you sell the car, what kind of carb does it have?"

"2 barrel"

"And how much power does it make?"

"150."

"So why do you say it makes 400?"

"Well, the power that a V8 produces just feels a lot more immediate because it has so much more torque. So we feel like customers used to 4 cylinder engines might be confused by the 150 hp number."

"But, to be clear, this V8, in this car, can never actually produce 400 hp."

"Right."
�

JST said: ?

I saw that in his blog post. But it's just self-evidently false, and the fact that they switched all of the cars to "motor power" proves it. If "motor power" is a better representation of the car's performance than system power, why don't S60s and S85s perform exactly the same? In fact, why aren't S60s faster, because they are lighter?

The answer is clear: "motor power" doesn't actually represent what the car can do, because it's a theoretical number that has no relationship to the actual cars. The claim that "motor power" is more representative of what the car can do than system power has some tissue thin logic when applied to comparisons with ICE cars, but it makes no sense when comparing one Model S to another--which is precisely what P85 owners were doing in late 2014 when considering whether to buy a P85D.

I have no dog whatsoever in the P85D fight, but the "motor power" thing really rubs me the wrong way. Literally any other company pulling the same stunt would be excoriated, and rightfully so. Imagine this exchange:
Click to expand...

It doesn't work particularly well with single motor vs single motor (Straubel talks about it in context with dual motors), which is why I supposed they didn't introduce it when their lineup was all single motor. With the dual motor however, it is possible to max out each motor and just having just a battery or system number doesn't really show that being possible (advantages of dual vs single motor even when having the "same" power). They could have illustrated their point by having the individual motor power numbers and a combined system number (as they are doing now for non-P85D models), but that is with hindsight. Back then however, adding the numbers may have seemed natural (it'll be interesting to see which team made that decision: engineering or marketing).
�

eloder said: ?

Or they could just pick up a higher horsepower Hellcat, and still lose in every race because amazingly enough, the Tesla only loses races on a dyno and not on the actual road until you get into very, very high mph levels.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Tesla loses on racetrack track to lots of cars, including fairly low-level BMW and definitely to Hellcats. The issue is thermal throttling due to drive unit/battery overheating after the first lap.

Tesla is only competitive in short drag racings.
�

stopcrazypp said: ?

It doesn't work particularly well with single motor vs single motor (Straubel talks about it in context with dual motors), which is why I supposed they didn't introduce it when their lineup was all single motor. With the dual motor however, it is possible to max out each motor and just having just a battery or system number doesn't really show that being possible (advantages of dual vs single motor even when having the "same" power). They could have illustrated their point by having the individual motor power numbers and a combined system number (as they are doing now for non-P85D models), but that is with hindsight. Back then however, adding the numbers may have seemed natural (it'll be interesting to see which team made that decision: engineering or marketing).
Click to expand...

I don't buy it for dual motor cars, either. The maximum hp the car has is limited by the battery (in the P85D). The fact that sometimes the car can make 200 hp up front and sometimes it can make 400 hp in the rear is kind of interesting, but how is that different from an ICE car running an AWD system that can reapportion drive torque? I don't say, "well, my Focus RS can sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the left rear wheel and sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the right rear wheel, and therefore it makes 200 percent of the power."

That's just...wrong.

Now, I get that there are gearing advantages (at least that's what everyone presumes) from the dual motor setup, and of course electric motors have a much different area under the torque curve than ICE engines do, which give them a big advantage (though, of course, some of that is lost with the lack of gearing, particularly as speeds increase). But the solution is to explain why electric motors are better, not make up a number that has no basis in reality and start advertising the hell out of it.
�

Cyberax said: ?

Are you kidding? Tesla loses on racetrack track to lots of cars, including fairly low-level BMW and definitely to Hellcats. The issue is thermal throttling due to drive unit/battery overheating after the first lap.

Tesla is only competitive in short drag racings.
Click to expand...

Actually I believe Motor Trend where the P85D (Insane Mode)(Not Ludicrous) beat the Hellcat in a 1/4 mile Motor Trend's HellCat VS P85D
�

Having gone from a P85+ to a P85D (without driving the D first), I can assure you there is a $20K difference between the cars. Argue the quoted horsepower numbers all you want and argue that you were taken advantage of because you thought the D's battery was going to source 50%ish more power than the +'s battery. I will not fight you on those points. But, saying there was no value going from + to D is simply wrong.
�

All I want to know is if Norwegian courts are efficient, then I'll know when I won't be seeing any more new threads on this topic. Please, please tell me they won't drag it on for years.

And to the OP: chickens haven't hatched yet.
�

JST said: ?

I don't buy it for dual motor cars, either. The maximum hp the car has is limited by the battery (in the P85D). The fact that sometimes the car can make 200 hp up front and sometimes it can make 400 hp in the rear is kind of interesting, but how is that different from an ICE car running an AWD system that can reapportion drive torque? I don't say, "well, my Focus RS can sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the left rear wheel and sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the right rear wheel, and therefore it makes 200 percent of the power."

That's just...wrong.

Now, I get that there are gearing advantages (at least that's what everyone presumes) from the dual motor setup, and of course electric motors have a much different area under the torque curve than ICE engines do, which give them a big advantage (though, of course, some of that is lost with the lack of gearing, particularly as speeds increase). But the solution is to explain why electric motors are better, not make up a number that has no basis in reality and start advertising the hell out of it.
Click to expand...

The difference with the EV is that you actually have two different individual motors, not just one motor through a differential. Also keep in mind Tesla, at least from their message so far, never meant to imply "can sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the (front) wheel(s) and sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the (rear) wheel(s), and therefore it makes 200 percent of the power" (phrase edited to match Tesla context). That is what people upset interpreted it as, but I don't believe Tesla meant "motor power" to mean that (personally I never interpreted it that way).

What the combined motor power number represents technically is given a powerful enough battery, that is what the combined power the motor/inverter combo is capable of. In other words, it is a component based rating (a departure from the system based rating they were using previously). That might not be true of the differential case in your example (the differential may not necessarily be able to handle 200% of the power split in a 50/50 split).

The other more subtle point Straubel's post implies is comparing dual motor to dual motor. It is possible for a dual motor car with the same battery limit but higher motor limits to perform better because they can put more power down on a specific set of wheels.
�

Cyberax said: ?

Are you kidding? Tesla loses on racetrack track to lots of cars, including fairly low-level BMW and definitely to Hellcats. The issue is thermal throttling due to drive unit/battery overheating after the first lap.

Tesla is only competitive in short drag racings.
Click to expand...

It's also a 2.5 ton 4 door 5+2 seater family sedan. Why would you buy a 2.5 ton 4 door 5+2 seater family sedan if you're doing NASCAR-style races?

Zero effect on stock price, let these silly lawsuits come. Tesla will either lose and get free publicity, and those win the lawsuit will still buy Teslas anyways because they outperform any and every car in their price range, or Tesla will win and get free publicity, and the losers will still buy Teslas because they outperform any and every car in their price range. The publicity will just highlight the fact that there's a 2.5 ton 4 door 5+2 seater family sedan that can out-accelerate a Hellcat.
�

stopcrazypp said: ?

The difference with the EV is that you actually have two different individual motors, not just one motor through a differential. Also keep in mind Tesla, at least from their message so far, never meant to imply "can sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the (front) wheel(s) and sometimes channel 100 percent of the power to the (rear) wheel(s), and therefore it makes 200 percent of the power" (phrase edited to match Tesla context). That is what people upset interpreted it as, but I don't believe Tesla meant "motor power" to mean that (personally I never interpreted it that way).
Click to expand...

Yes, you have two motors, but it's really a distinction without a difference. The question is "how much stored energy can I convert to motive energy at any given time?" That's the car's maximum power. Whether that's limited by the battery, the motor, the inverter, the carb, the fuel pump, the heads, the total swept area of the cylinders...it doesn't really matter.

In the case of the P85D, the bottleneck is the battery. That "motor power" tells you essentially the same thing as the torque split in an active differential. To use round numbers, if the battery can provide enough power to make 500 hp, the front motor can make 200, and the back motor can make 400, that's no different than saying "I have a 500 hp ICE engine with a differential that can put a maximum of 80 percent of the power to the rear."

What the combined motor power number represents technically is given a powerful enough battery, that is what the combined power the motor/inverter combo is capable of. In other words, it is a component based rating (a departure from the system based rating they were using previously). That might not be true of the differential case in your example (the differential may not necessarily be able to handle 200% of the power split in a 50/50 split).
Click to expand...

But I think this nicely illustrates my point. If I said "I have an AWD car that has a differential rated to provide 200 percent more power than the engine can deliver," no one would care. I mean, I suppose people would view that as a sign of overall robustness, but it's certainly not the number you'd put in ads. Can you imagine ad copy like this:

AUDI S4, 660 hp*

*660 hp is the differential rating

Followed by a blog post a year later that explained that "differential rating" means the amount of power the differential could theoretical transfer if it were hooked to an engine of unlimited power.

I mean, people would laugh. They would jeer.

The other more subtle point Straubel's post implies is comparing dual motor to dual motor. It is possible for a dual motor car with the same battery limit but higher motor limits to perform better because they can put more power down on a specific set of wheels.
Click to expand...

Yes...but the same is true of any AWD system that can actively distribute torque.
�

*cheers on Norway*
�

JST said: ?

Yes, you have two motors, but it's really a distinction without a difference. The question is "how much stored energy can I convert to motive energy at any given time?" That's the car's maximum power. Whether that's limited by the battery, the motor, the inverter, the carb, the fuel pump, the heads, the total swept area of the cylinders...it doesn't really matter.

In the case of the P85D, the bottleneck is the battery. That "motor power" tells you essentially the same thing as the torque split in an active differential. To use round numbers, if the battery can provide enough power to make 500 hp, the front motor can make 200, and the back motor can make 400, that's no different than saying "I have a 500 hp ICE engine with a differential that can put a maximum of 80 percent of the power to the rear."

But I think this nicely illustrates my point. If I said "I have an AWD car that has a differential rated to provide 200 percent more power than the engine can deliver," no one would care. I mean, I suppose people would view that as a sign of overall robustness, but it's certainly not the number you'd put in ads. Can you imagine ad copy like this:

AUDI S4, 660 hp*

*660 hp is the differential rating

Followed by a blog post a year later that explained that "differential rating" means the amount of power the differential could theoretical transfer if it were hooked to an engine of unlimited power.

I mean, people would laugh. They would jeer.

Yes...but the same is true of any AWD system that can actively distribute torque.
Click to expand...

This analogy is flawed.

The power is proportional to the product of torque and rotational speed. Or, in another words, torque is proportional to the power divided by rotational speed, and is constant in the lower band of rpm (approximately 0 to 30+ miles per hour for Model S). Since acceleration time is defined by the difference between the accelerating torque and load torque (due to friction, air resistance, etc) divided by the inertia of the car, and the higher motor horsepower results in higher torque, P85D has significantly better 0 to 60 acceleration time than 85D (approximately 0.8 sec), although the battery limit remains the same between the two variants of the car.

In case of the Audi, no matter how much one raises the differential rating, acceleration from 0 to 60mph will not change significantly, because the maximum torque, defined by the hp rating of the engine will remain the same.
�

aznt1217 said: ?

I always thought you guys were all like Bjorn. haha I kid. On a more serious note, I'm struggling with this... because the question is, what is the remedy? At what point would these owners be happy. The car is capable of doing this with certain conditions. I've read the thread and it seems that they are more taken aback by industry standard testing methodology. This is again a case where Tesla gets unfair extra scrutiny. To be completely fair, saying combined 700hp may not have been right, but then again I'd say it because it's too annoying to say 250 hp in the front 470 in the rear because it's simpler. Most ICE cars state xx hp at the crank, but you expect over 20% power loss due to drive train. Not even factoring things like atmospheric pressure, grade of fuel, etc. but I don't see any articles about this.

At the end of the day the P85D is putting out comparable performance to high HP gas vehicle performance cars... If these specific owners feel like they were lied to and are so angry. I say Tesla should buy them back. Soon enough the owners will see that they are far worse without it.
Click to expand...

Should be sold like electrinic components with graphs of speed/time, heat, soc, grade, load, pressure, wind and tire types (Norwegian vs Goodyear). It's not an ICE so don't sell it like an ICE. I get the feeling Tesla is afraid of its own success and can't get rid of useless tired old blood oil paradigms. Who owns a horse and hauls cargo with it?
�

JST said: ?

I have no dog whatsoever in the P85D fight, but the "motor power" thing really rubs me the wrong way. Literally any other company pulling the same stunt would be excoriated, and rightfully so. Imagine this exchange:

"Oh, well, yes, the 460 cubic inch V8 only makes 150 hp with a two barrel carb and a catalytic converter. But if you put a Holley double-pumper on it and some long-tube headers, it would make 400, easy. So we rated it as 400 hp."

"Do you sell the car with a Holley double pumper and long-tube headers?"

"No."

"When you sell the car, what kind of carb does it have?"

"2 barrel"

"And how much power does it make?"

"150."

"So why do you say it makes 400?"

"Well, the power that a V8 produces just feels a lot more immediate because it has so much more torque. So we feel like customers used to 4 cylinder engines might be confused by the 150 hp number."

"But, to be clear, this V8, in this car, can never actually produce 400 hp."

"Right."
Click to expand...

Fantastic analogy!
�

JST said: ?

I saw that in his blog post. But it's just self-evidently false, and the fact that they switched all of the cars to "motor power" proves it. If "motor power" is a better representation of the car's performance than system power, why don't S60s and S85s perform exactly the same? In fact, why aren't S60s faster, because they are lighter?

The answer is clear: "motor power" doesn't actually represent what the car can do, because it's a theoretical number that has no relationship to the actual cars. The claim that "motor power" is more representative of what the car can do than system power has some tissue thin logic when applied to comparisons with ICE cars, but it makes no sense when comparing one Model S to another--which is precisely what P85 owners were doing in late 2014 when considering whether to buy a P85D.

I have no dog whatsoever in the P85D fight, but the "motor power" thing really rubs me the wrong way. Literally any other company pulling the same stunt would be excoriated, and rightfully so. Imagine this exchange:

"Oh, well, yes, the 460 cubic inch V8 only makes 150 hp with a two barrel carb and a catalytic converter. But if you put a Holley double-pumper on it and some long-tube headers, it would make 400, easy. So we rated it as 400 hp."

"Do you sell the car with a Holley double pumper and long-tube headers?"

"No."

"When you sell the car, what kind of carb does it have?"

"2 barrel"

"And how much power does it make?"

"150."

"So why do you say it makes 400?"

"Well, the power that a V8 produces just feels a lot more immediate because it has so much more torque. So we feel like customers used to 4 cylinder engines might be confused by the 150 hp number."

"But, to be clear, this V8, in this car, can never actually produce 400 hp."

"Right."
Click to expand...

This is great, and I love it. The problem is that the analogous exchange with Tesla isn't even that clear. They've yet to publish, or otherwise note anywhere in any exchange that I've seen, how much power the P85D/P90D/P90D (and the mythical creature, the P85D) actually produce.
�

JST said: ?

The answer is clear: "motor power" doesn't actually represent what the car can do, because it's a theoretical number that has no relationship to the actual cars. The claim that "motor power" is more representative of what the car can do than system power has some tissue thin logic when applied to comparisons with ICE cars, but it makes no sense when comparing one Model S to another--which is precisely what P85 owners were doing in late 2014 when considering whether to buy a P85D.
Click to expand...

This is not true. The higher motor power in P85D results in higher torque rating as compared to P85. This results in 0.8 sec improvement in 0 to 60 mph acceleration. The motor horsepower *has* relationship to what an electric car can do.

JST said: ?

I have no dog whatsoever in the P85D fight, but the "motor power" thing really rubs me the wrong way. Literally any other company pulling the same stunt would be excoriated, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Not true. Mercedes lists technical data for the Mercedes SLS Electric the same way as Tesla - combined motor hp. The same is true for the combined electric motor hp in Porsche 918. This is, perhaps, due to the existence of the ECE R85 European Regulation, reference to which is conveniently missing in the posts by the horsepower deprived.

My apologies to the innocent bystanders - we are back discussing the same stuff that seemingly has been beaten to death - several times over...
�

Couple thoughts spring to mind...

Reminds me of when automakers produce a very high horsepower car, but the tires are to small to put down the power and it all goes up in smoke instead of forward motion.
Many cars have electronic governers on them to protect their transmissions and drivelines. They will throttle back the torque in the lower gears to avoid damage.
Many cars have electronic traction control that also serve to reduce the engine power to the road. If tire slip is detected, torque will be reduced. Sold as a safety feature.
The Hellcat from Fiat/Chrysler has two keys. One releases the full 707 hp and the other only around 400. Might see a parking valet sue the owner that he was expecting to be parking a 707 hp car, but only got to experience 400 (and the tip was too small too)
Some cars throttle back available power if they detect knock from heat, lower octane fuel or uphill grade. The owner is never notified exactly how much power is available at any precise moment (the horror)
A new car often does not provide its maximum rated power until after a break in period.
One vehicle make more power than another of the same model due to production variations.

Fair settlement for this case might be for Tesla to offer to buy back the cars from those in dispute. Discount the buyback for depreciation and miles driven (evidently the owners were not so disappointed that they just let the cars sit). Then resell them, most likely taking a small loss of each one, but everybody would be made whole.

Lots will depend on the rules and regulations in each locality where the car was sold.
�

AustinPowers said: ?

These owners that are taking Tesla to court should really get their priorities straight.

Plus, they should begin by appreciating how good they have it in Norway, compared say to Germany. Massive EV subsidies, tax breaks, free toll roads, and the like. Nothing like that over here. All we get is at most a few hundred Euros in road tax over a ten year period, plus the possibility for towns to let EVs use the bus lanes or free parking spaces (which incidentally almost now town council is currently planning to do/offer). Most of us over here couldn't even afford a P85D.

And anyway, 500 hp, 700 hp? Plus 0.7 seconds faster acceleration? What difference does it make in everyday driving? Norway afaik has very strict speed limits on most of their roads, no limit-free Autobahns either. So really, these owners should get on with life and be happy with the great performance car they have.

First world problems indeed, especially taking into account the current refugee crisis situation we have in Europe, with literally millions of displaced and practically homeless people, individuals, families, kids, babies. That is a problem worth thinking about. Even in our rural area, new refugee camps are popping up in every town. School sport arenas are re-purposed, as are barracks, empty business buildings etc. Basically every usable empty building that is available - and it is still by far not enough. The whole situation is beginning to put a huge strain on society, in many countries all over Europe. I think our US forum members might not even be able to imagine the true scope of this immense crisis and the effects it is having currently.

Honestly, as much as I understand being unhappy about carmakers' actions sometimes (we have a VW diesel after all - the Dieselgate version that is!), I still know how to set things in perspective.
Click to expand...

First world problems indeed
�

Norwegian consumer laws are pretty simple, if the company is forced to do a buyback it is at the original amount the customer paid, regardless of use and wear. Hence that WOULD be at a fairly significant loss to Tesla Norway. And why I said that is not the first offer.
Though on the flip side, you do not get any punitive damages, so you do not get someone suing Tesla to win the lottery. If the product is deemed to be $10k too expensive for what you got, then you get the $10k back, nothing more.

Cobos
�

WarpedOne said: ?

If those people feel they are victims of false advertising, going to court is the right way.

That is how issue can be resolved. They have to list their complaints/demands and tesla gets opportunity to explain their actions. And a third party then decides what is the matter. If there was something really wrong tesla did, they should be compensated. No matter the subsidies in other countries, no matter the actual 0-60 time.

If there was something really wrong, they should be compensated. But if the court decides there was not, they should pay all the legal fees and be ordered to somehow compensate Tesla for the smearing of their brand.

This is the way, not open letters, not forum complaining, not media ****-storm.
Click to expand...

And if they had done that, that is done it the right way by simply taking this to court privately if they really feel that cheated, this thread here wouldn't even exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Spidy said: ?

What is ridiculous is to bring up a unrelated refugee crisis.

But that doesn't matter. In the end of the day those people brought a performance version of the car for a higher price which now turns out to not perform much better. I mean wasn't the difference like $20k?

If your BMW 330Cd performed like a 318d you would also complain...

Then why does Tesla even sell it?
Click to expand...

To answer in reverse order: why? I haven't got a clue. The whole idea of the "P" versions seems ridiculous to me, as do the prices for these upgrades. An S70D should be far more than enough for any spirited driver - especially in Norway with its ridiculously low general speed limits. (Not that low speed limits are bad per se, but complaining about supercar performance vs. even more supercar performance while living in a country with such speed limits is laughable at best).
I understand that the P versions are the halo cars for Tesla, but then again I don't understand the need for an i8 (or halo cars in general) either. I would never buy a BMW because they have the i8, nor a Mercedes because they have an AMG GT. But that is a whole different matter.

The difference between a 330 Cd and a 318d by the way is quite a bit more noticable than 0.7 seconds. I would of course complain if that scenario was the case, but I wouldn't go to the media to get as much attention as those guys did because I see no need to hurt a company more than necessary. In the case of our VW for example I see no big deal as yet because afaik at the moment, that special software isn't even active in our car. It is there, but not in use because the car meets our emission standards even without the software. (Don't argue about German emission standards, I think they are too soft either, but it is the way it is.)

What I would be more interested, how heavily Tesla actually "advertised" the 700 hp / performance to make those owners buy their cars in the first place. Oh and as you mentioned performance in particular, i agree, a 500 hp car of course isn't really a performance car

Oh and the refugee situation? Of course that is unrelated, I just brought that up to show how ridiculous these owners are behaving by making such a big deal about it in public. As others have said rightly, these owners could just have taken this to the courts and be done with it. Absolutely no need to make this public other than wanting some kind of "revenge" on Tesla. Which seems strange anyway, as I always thought people who bought EVs would be more rational, sensible and above all sensitive than the majority of the car-buying public. Then again, I think the "typical" EV buyer is not someone who cares too much about 700 hp cars in general anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

aznt1217 said: ?

At the end of the day the P85D is putting out comparable performance to high HP gas vehicle performance cars... If these specific owners feel like they were lied to and are so angry. I say Tesla should buy them back. Soon enough the owners will see that they are far worse without it.
Click to expand...

+1 Exactly
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

You are missing the point so badly that I'm not sure it's worth replying, but I'll give it a go.
I'll give it another try to make you guys understand, using an analogy. [...]

No matter how much you love Tesla (which I do as well), I just can understand how you can think "this is not an issue, just enjoy your car". If it was the regular Model S, a slight performance loss could possibly be accepted since performance was not the main reason for purchase. This is about the performance version of Model S - people paid $20 000 extra ONLY for the extra performance Tesla promised. You can't just accept it and say "Oh well, the car is pretty good anyway" when you paid a premium for a noticable extra performance, and they don't deliver it.

[...]

I took the 700hp with a grain of salt yes, but that's because I was already aware that electric motors are different. You can't expect normal people to be completely aware of how this works. But I still did not doubt that it would be much faster than P85: It's got WAY more power so it's going to be WAY faster, not only during the first 100kmh.

The with/without rollout is not a minor thing in my opinion. Yes, it's an accapted standard, but it's absolutely not OK to use this standard for one model, and a different standard for another model. It's pretty obvious that they chose the 1 feet rollout timing to make it look even faster than the other versions. At the time there weren't even anything mentioning this, so the 0-100kmh times were undoubtably misleading.
Click to expand...

Thankfully I neither know what "1 foot rollout" means, nor do I care.

To me it comes down to one simple question: how did Tesla advertise the "far better performance" in order to force these people to buy a car they have never test driven before?
You mentioned normal people. I don't want to speculate how normal these specific buyers are, but you would imagine that people who are about to fork out more than 100k Dollar/Euro/Krone for a car, let alone one driven by alternative means, would be a little knowledgable about the subject matter.
And a personal remark, imho no one in such a situation (or any car buyer, new or used) should buy a car without a test-drive first. But perhaps I am too old school in that respect.
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

I don't think the problem here is Norway. How would owners in the rest of the world feel if norwegians got their upgrade for free? They would be forced to give it to everyone asking. And as far as I understand, this is not a simple upgrade, but a very time consuming and thus costly upgrade.
Click to expand...

A ruling here in Norway likely wouldn't have any meaningful impact outside our borders. Our consumer protection laws are unusually strong, so a ruling here doesn't mean a ruling elsewhere would have the same result. Tesla doesn't have to upgrade the cars anywhere but where they are forced to do so.

Torpedo Ted said: ?

I took the 700hp with a grain of salt yes, but that's because I was already aware that electric motors are different. You can't expect normal people to be completely aware of how this works. But I still did not doubt that it would be much faster than P85: It's got WAY more power so it's going to be WAY faster, not only during the first 100kmh.
Click to expand...

It is significantly faster. 0.7 seconds is *a lot* when you're talking about times under 5 seconds. But you're right that most people won't know how to assess the hp. This is something that will be central in an eventual court case. Tesla is the professional party and the professional party is always judged to a higher standard.

Even so, stating the motor power is fairly common among car makers. I don't know about any car maker that states the power at the wheels. The central question will be if the actual power is less than what it would be reasonable to expect given the stated 700 hp. Which way this will go in court is very hard to say. If this ruling goes against Tesla, Tesla will probably need to retrofit Ludicrous to get it within the reasonable expectations of power.

Torpedo Ted said: ?

The with/without rollout is not a minor thing in my opinion. Yes, it's an accapted standard, but it's absolutely not OK to use this standard for one model, and a different standard for another model. It's pretty obvious that they chose the 1 feet rollout timing to make it look even faster than the other versions. At the time there weren't even anything mentioning this, so the 0-100kmh times were undoubtably misleading.
Click to expand...

They likely weren't *intentionally* misleading. Someone probably were just a bit too trigger-happy in the translation-department. It's very uncertain whether this translation-mishap will be judged to be significant. The site also has disclaimers like "Informasjon p� dette nettstedet er basert p� data tilgjengelig til enhver tid. Design, spesifikasjoner, pris og produksjonsdatoer kan endres uten forvarsel og gjelder spesifikt for amerikanske kj�ret�y." ("The information on this site is based on the data available at any given time. Design, specifications, price and production dates kan be changed without warning and apply specifically to US vehicles.") Typically these sorts of disclaimers aren't worth much in court, but they have some weight. If this ruling goes against Tesla, again, Ludicrous will likely be sufficient to get the acceleration close enough to be within what one could reasonably expect.
�

Yggdrasill said: ?

It is significantly faster. 0.7 seconds is *a lot* when you're talking about times under 5 seconds. But you're right that most people won't know how to assess the hp. This is something that will be central in an eventual court case. Tesla is the professional party and the professional party is always judged to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

But I think that question hasn't been answered: what was actually advertised incorrectly? Just the hp? Or the acceleration time and max speed also?
In other words, do the cars in question accelerate as fast as Tesla advertised (even though the nominal hp is less than advertised), or do they also accelerate slower?

Can anyone from Norway answer that?
�

Krugerrand said: ?

All I want to know is if Norwegian courts are efficient, then I'll know when I won't be seeing any more new threads on this topic. Please, please tell me they won't drag it on for years.

And to the OP: chickens haven't hatched yet.
Click to expand...

Neither have yours : there are Danish and Dutch owners who are also contemplating action. This can drag on for a long, long time. Even worse if a Belgian owner would start a case. Courts are notoriously inefficient...
�

schonelucht said: ?

Neither have yours : there are Danish and Dutch owners who are also contemplating action. This can drag on for a long, long time. Even worse if a Belgian owner would start a case. Courts are notoriously inefficient...
Click to expand...

In Norway, this should be a very efficient process. If the consumers authorities judge this in favor of the P85D owners, then Tesla should accept that verdict. If not, this could be an really embarrassing case for Tesla in Norway.
�

AustinPowers said: ?

But I think that question hasn't been answered: what was actually advertised incorrectly? Just the hp? Or the acceleration time and max speed also?
In other words, do the cars in question accelerate as fast as Tesla advertised (even though the nominal hp is less than advertised), or do they also accelerate slower?

Can anyone from Norway answer that?
Click to expand...

The car is also slower than the 3.3 sec 0-100 kph Tesla write on the Norwegian webpage. Vbox show 3.7 to 3.8 sec from a stand still to 100 kph.

Noone use 1 ft rollout in Norway or Europe. 0-100 kph or 0-62 mph is from zero like all other car manufacturers specs cars i Norway and rest of Europe. Even other us manufacturers.
�

wk057 said: ?

This is great, and I love it. The problem is that the analogous exchange with Tesla isn't even that clear. They've yet to publish, or otherwise note anywhere in any exchange that I've seen, how much power the P85D/P90D/P90D (and the mythical creature, the P85D) actually produce.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it in the blog post "Tesla All Wheel Drive (Dual Motor) Power and Torque Specifications" would seem a decent place to give some numbers...

<ducks>
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

Keep in mind, those who purchased the P versions of Model S, did it BECAUSE of performance - nothing else.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Many owners purchased P versions for the sport suspension and other features unique to the P models. Not every owner is out drag racing Lamborghinis.

This is a first world problem if there ever was one!
�

ToddRLockwood said: ?

Not entirely true. Many owners purchased P versions for the sport suspension and other features unique to the P models. Not every owner is out drag racing Lamborghinis.

This is a first world problem if there ever was one!
Click to expand...

Other than the +, I don't believe Ps had specific sport suspension settings. That's one of the reasons I didn't get one.
�

The P85D did have different suspension until 30 april. After that same as 85D and 70D. But Tesla have changed to sport suspension again not long ago.
�

vgrinshpun said: ?

This analogy is flawed.

The power is proportional to the product of torque and rotational speed. Or, in another words, torque is proportional to the power divided by rotational speed, and is constant in the lower band of rpm (approximately 0 to 30+ miles per hour for Model S). Since acceleration time is defined by the difference between the accelerating torque and load torque (due to friction, air resistance, etc) divided by the inertia of the car, and the higher motor horsepower results in higher torque, P85D has significantly better 0 to 60 acceleration time than 85D (approximately 0.8 sec), although the battery limit remains the same between the two variants of the car.

In case of the Audi, no matter how much one raises the differential rating, acceleration from 0 to 60mph will not change significantly, because the maximum torque, defined by the hp rating of the engine will remain the same.
Click to expand...

I agree that torque and power are related, of course, though in this case torque is the measured value and power is the derived value.

And I also agree that one of the defining differences between electric motors and ICEs is that maximum torque from an electric motor is available at zero RPM.

Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Maximum torque for the P85D is (as Tesla confirmed in its blog post) defined by the battery, not the motors. That is, the motors are capable of producing more torque than the battery can. Acceleration from 0-60 is thus (ultimately) limited by the battery.

Now, it's true that the RWD P85 was traction limited. I assume (though I don't really know) that Tesla was using a fairly complex traction control strategy that, at bottom, limited the amount of the available battery power that could go to the motor during launch, in order to prevent the rear wheels from going up in smoke.

The P85D can use more (and, in fact, can use all) of its battery power at launch, because it funnels some of the power to the front motor and some to the rear.

Thus, the P85D launches much harder than the P85.

But this is no different from any other high-hp car. Add AWD, and the car gets faster, because it can use more of the power available to it. You don't spend so much time either spinning the rear wheels or limiting the power to prevent spinning the rear wheels.

There are mechanical issues that make launching a powerful AWD ICE car difficult, but they can be overcome. If you don't believe me, take a ride in a Panamera Turbo S with launch control. The acceleration in that car is every bit as brutal as the P85D (though it's not as conveniently accessed).
�

Anyone not satisfied with their purchase could have returned it within the return period, correct?
�

SabrToothSqrl said: ?

Anyone not satisfied with their purchase could have returned it within the return period, correct?
Click to expand...

Only if they leased it. In the US.
�

RobStark said: ?

Tesla should buy back all twenty something P85D at full price and register them in Denmark. And sell them at their leisure.
Click to expand...

SabrToothSqrl said: ?

Anyone not satisfied with their purchase could have returned it within the return period, correct?
Click to expand...

These comments about "just buying the cars back" and "not being satisfied with the purchase, so return the car" completely miss the point and would not be acceptable solutions for many P85D buyers.

Many of us are generally pretty happy with our cars, and already have a lot invested in them. We just want to get all of what we paid for instead of most of what we paid for. If Tesla can't provide what they promised to provide, I think most of us are very open to working with Tesla, to accept some sort of a compromise. It's not all or nothing. There are any number of ways Tesla could offer to resolve the issue. So far they have chosen not to offer any. Perhaps that will change based on what happens in Norway.
�

JST said: ?

I agree that torque and power are related, of course, though in this case torque is the measured value and power is the derived value.

And I also agree that one of the defining differences between electric motors and ICEs is that maximum torque from an electric motor is available at zero RPM.

Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Maximum torque for the P85D is (as Tesla confirmed in its blog post) defined by the battery, not the motors. That is, the motors are capable of producing more torque than the battery can. Acceleration from 0-60 is thus (ultimately) limited by the battery.

Now, it's true that the RWD P85 was traction limited. I assume (though I don't really know) that Tesla was using a fairly complex traction control strategy that, at bottom, limited the amount of the available battery power that could go to the motor during launch, in order to prevent the rear wheels from going up in smoke.

The P85D can use more (and, in fact, can use all) of its battery power at launch, because it funnels some of the power to the front motor and some to the rear.

Thus, the P85D launches much harder than the P85.

But this is no different from any other high-hp car. Add AWD, and the car gets faster, because it can use more of the power available to it. You don't spend so much time either spinning the rear wheels or limiting the power to prevent spinning the rear wheels.

There are mechanical issues that make launching a powerful AWD ICE car difficult, but they can be overcome. If you don't believe me, take a ride in a Panamera Turbo S with launch control. The acceleration in that car is every bit as brutal as the P85D (though it's not as conveniently accessed).
Click to expand...

Most of the gain in 0 to 60 mph acceleration in P85D is due to higher hp and torque of the motors, not due to improvement in traction. My P85+ launches without spin on summer tires, reasonably good road surface and warm ambient temperature.

As I indicated in my post, since power is proportional to the product of torque and rotational speed, the battery output does not limit torque until car hits 30+ mph, so P85D *motor* hp advantage over the P85 does produce proportionately higher torque until 30+mph, resulting in much improved acceleration from 0 to 60 mph. So this motor hp is absolutely indicative of how car performs.

Here is calculation for your edification (keep in mind that initial portion of the Power and Torque vs. speed graph is known as a constant torque region):

Power = Torque x RPM / 5252 ===> RPM = Power x 5252 / Torque

The above formula can be used to calculate rpm at which battery output starting to limit the torque and power/torque graphs transition from the constant torque region to constant power region.

Let's assume that for talking purposes the output of the battery is limited to 550hp, which, after accounting for the inverter and motor losses imposes 500hp limit on the motor output. P85D power/torque upon introduction was 691hp / 686 lb-ft.

RPM = 500 x 5252 / 686 = 3828 rpm

Taking into account 9.73:1 ratio of the reduction gear and that Continental DW 245/35R21 tires have circumference yielding 750 rpm/mile, the speed at which output of the battery starts to limit the combined torque of the motors:

60 x 3828 / 9.73 / 750 = 31.5 mph.

In summary, the P85D 0 to 60 mph advantage in acceleration over P85 is due to higher total motor hp, which in the constant torque portion of the power curve directly translated into the proportionately higher torque, *regardless* of the limitation imposed by the maximum battery output.
�

vgrinshpun said: ?

Most of the gain in 0 to 60 mph acceleration in P85D is due to higher hp and torque of the motors, not due to improvement in traction. My P85+ launches without spin on summer tires, reasonably good road surface and warm ambient temperature.

As I indicated in my post, since power is proportional to the product of torque and rotational speed, the battery output does not limit torque until car hits 30+ mph, so P85D *motor* hp advantage over the P85 does produce proportionately higher torque until 30+mph, resulting in much improved acceleration from 0 to 60 mph. So this motor hp is absolutely indicative of how car performs.

Here is calculation for your edification (keep in mind that initial portion of the Power and Torque vs. speed graph is known as a constant torque region):

Power = Torque x RPM / 5252 ===> RPM = Power x 5252 / T

The above formula can be used to calculate rpm at which battery output starting to limit the torque and power/torque graphs transition from the constant torque region to constant power region)

Let's assume that for talking purposes the output of the battery is limited to 550hp, which, after accounting for the inverter and motor losses imposes 500hp limit on the motor output. P85D power/torque upon introduction was 691hp / 686 lb-ft.

RPM = 500 x 5252 / 686 = 3828 rpm

Taking into account 9.73:1 ratio of the reduction gear and that Continental DW 245/35R21 tires has circumference yielding 750 rpm/mile, the speed at which output of the battery starts to limit the combined torque of the motors:

60 x 3828 / 9.73 / 750 = 31.5 mph.

In summary, the P85D 0 to 60 mph advantage in acceleration over P85 is due to higher total motor hp, which in the constant torque portion of the power curve directly translated into the proportionately higher torque, *regardless* of the limitation imposed by the maximum battery output.
Click to expand...

But that's not peak motor hp, which is what Tesla is citing.

What you're saying (I think) is that the motors in the P85D produce more torque at low speeds than the motor in the P85. I suspect you're correct about that, but I haven't seen the actual torque curves.

So, OK. You've shown why relying on peak HP as a proxy for determining performance doesn't work. There are too many variables in how a car makes power for peak HP to tell you much of anything.

BUT.

The fact that peak HP has limitations in terms of what it can tell you doesn't mean you should make up a peak HP number that is unrelated to what the car can actually do. If you want to emphasize torque at launch, emphasize torque at launch. It's easy enough to do--the P85D makes xxx lbs-ft of torque at launch, compared to yyy lbs-ft of torque made by the P85.

Go back to my V8 analogy, above. You can make the same argument there--you can try and defend saying the V8 is "capable" of 400 hp because saying that it only makes 150 hp gives you a misleading picture of the car's performance. But that doesn't make it correct.
�

Andyw2100 said: ?

These comments about "just buying the cars back" and "not being satisfied with the purchase, so return the car" completely miss the point and would not be acceptable solutions for many P85D buyers.

Many of us are generally pretty happy with our cars, and already have a lot invested in them. We just want to get all of what we paid for instead of most of what we paid for. If Tesla can't provide what they promised to provide, I think most of us are very open to working with Tesla, to accept some sort of a compromise. It's not all or nothing. There are any number of ways Tesla could offer to resolve the issue. So far they have chosen not to offer any. Perhaps that will change based on what happens in Norway.
Click to expand...

Well, we've been here before, weren't we?

The problem is that Tesla delivered exactly what it advertised, 691 *motor hp*,without taking into consideration limitations imposed by the battery, as defined in the only available pertinent regulation, ECE R85, and the owners certainly got what they paid for. So Tesla absolutely provided to owners what it promised.

Taking into account the above context, I will be very surprised if Tesla would be found in violation of any consumer laws in Norway.

- - - Updated - - -

JST said: ?

But that's not peak motor hp, which is what Tesla is citing.

What you're saying (I think) is that the motors in the P85D produce more torque at low speeds than the motor in the P85. I suspect you're correct about that, but I haven't seen the actual torque curves.

So, OK. You've shown why relying on peak HP as a proxy for determining performance doesn't work. There are too many variables in how a car makes power for peak HP to tell you much of anything.

BUT.

The fact that peak HP has limitations in terms of what it can tell you doesn't mean you should make up a peak HP number that is unrelated to what the car can actually do. If you want to emphasize torque at launch, emphasize torque at launch. It's easy enough to do--the P85D makes xxx lbs-ft of torque at launch, compared to yyy lbs-ft of torque made by the P85.

Go back to my V8 analogy, above. You can make the same argument there--you can try and defend saying the V8 is "capable" of 400 hp because saying that it only makes 150 hp gives you a misleading picture of the car's performance. But that doesn't make it correct.
Click to expand...

Well, there is no BUT. Another thing that you might be missing is that Tesla did not "make up a peak HP number", it stated motor hp in strict accordance to the only pertinent available regulation - ECE R85. Just read through section 5.3, Annex 2 and Annex 6 to see for yourself.

The hp used in my calculation is defined by the battery output, but the maximum torque of both P85D and P85 are **constant** from zero rpm up to the speed at which motor hit their maximum hp rating. This constant torque (within the "constant torque" region of the power curve) is absolutely defined by the corresponding motor hp, **not** limitation imposed by the battery.
�

vgrinshpun said: ?

Well, we've been here before, weren't we?
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to get into the whole debate again.

I was merely trying to point out that the solution to just give the cars back or have Tesla buy the cars back was not the solution many of us are looking for or would accept, because many of us are generally happy with most aspects of the car.
�

vgrinshpun said: ?

Well, we've been here before, weren't we?

The problem is that Tesla delivered exactly what it advertised, 691 *motor hp*,without taking into consideration limitations imposed by the battery, as defined in the only available pertinent regulation, ECE R85, and the owners certainly got what they paid for. So Tesla absolutely provided to owners what it promised.

Taking into account the above context, I will be very surprised if Tesla would be found in violation of any consumer laws in Norway.
Click to expand...

And here is where I do think you are wrong. If I recall correctly Tesla said 700 hp initially when the cars where ordered, NOT 700motor hp. And our consumer laws are VERY strict on what you can promise. If due to issues with the battery you can only feed the motors power equal to 550hp that is a significant defect. That is a 20% weaker propulsion system. The later orders on the other hand did see 690 motor hp, so their case is a lot weaker.
Keep in mind this is now not in the court system but with the consumer ombudsman service. They can make a ruling that has the power of law unless either party wants to take this to the actual courts. The good part is that any ruling should be done in a few weeks times either way, in contrast to the court system when we would be talking at least 12 months probably more before the case gets it's day in court.

Cobos
�

JST said: ?

Yes, you have two motors, but it's really a distinction without a difference. The question is "how much stored energy can I convert to motive energy at any given time?" That's the car's maximum power. Whether that's limited by the battery, the motor, the inverter, the carb, the fuel pump, the heads, the total swept area of the cylinders...it doesn't really matter.

In the case of the P85D, the bottleneck is the battery. That "motor power" tells you essentially the same thing as the torque split in an active differential. To use round numbers, if the battery can provide enough power to make 500 hp, the front motor can make 200, and the back motor can make 400, that's no different than saying "I have a 500 hp ICE engine with a differential that can put a maximum of 80 percent of the power to the rear."

But I think this nicely illustrates my point. If I said "I have an AWD car that has a differential rated to provide 200 percent more power than the engine can deliver," no one would care. I mean, I suppose people would view that as a sign of overall robustness, but it's certainly not the number you'd put in ads. Can you imagine ad copy like this:

AUDI S4, 660 hp*

*660 hp is the differential rating

Followed by a blog post a year later that explained that "differential rating" means the amount of power the differential could theoretical transfer if it were hooked to an engine of unlimited power.

I mean, people would laugh. They would jeer.
Click to expand...

People might laugh, but is it illegal for them to do that if they choose to do so? That is the core question in a lawsuit.

Also despite the analogies, "691hp motor power" supposedly did sell a lot of vehicles (or people wouldn't have a basis to sue). "660hp differential power" may be laughed at because that goes against convention in the ICE world.

Also, differentials aren't typically rated by power, while it is common electric motors and drivetrains, examples from two of the most well known:
UQM 150kW system:
http://www.neweagle.net/support/wiki/docs/Datasheets/UQM/PP150.pdf
AC Propulsion 75kW and 150kW systems:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/products-drivesystem.html

The ECE R85 rating (which is also doesn't factor in battery and was supposedly the basis for Tesla's numbers) has been discussed at length elsewhere.

Advertising the motor power as an independent number for a car is not without precedent in the EV industry (even advertising the ICE as an independent number is not as per SAE gross power). I don't want to rehash too much as this has been covered at length in other thread.
Examples include:
Fisker Karma advertised at 300kW/402hp by adding up motor power of two motors (150kW each), but dynos at 230whp.
Ford Energi advertised at higher motor power number (88kW/118hp), but digging into spec sheet, the battery power is lower (68kW/91hp).
SLS e-Cell also has a combined motor power number (740hp/552kW) derived from adding up 4 individual motors (185hp/138kW). Although they claim a separate battery power number higher than that (600kW), the 0-60 is much slower than the P85D at 3.6 seconds despite the car weighting 500lbs less (4400lbs vs 4936lbs) and having 49hp more "motor power" on paper, 200+hp more if you believe it actually does make 740hp vs ~500hp for P85D and there is a lack of information about acceleration up top (top speed is the same at 155mph).
�

Cobos said: ?

And here is where I do think you are wrong. If I recall correctly Tesla said 700 hp initially when the cars where ordered, NOT 700motor hp. And our consumer laws are VERY strict on what you can promise. If due to issues with the battery you can only feed the motors power equal to 550hp that is a significant defect. That is a 20% weaker propulsion system. The later orders on the other hand did see 690 motor hp, so their case is a lot weaker.
Keep in mind this is now not in the court system but with the consumer ombudsman service. They can make a ruling that has the power of law unless either party wants to take this to the actual courts. The good part is that any ruling should be done in a few weeks times either way, in contrast to the court system when we would be talking at least 12 months probably more before the case gets it's day in court.

Cobos
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that Tesla listed "motor hp" in both US and Norway, but you are welcome to prove me wrong by providing the link showing otherwise.
�

stopcrazypp said: ?

People might laugh, but is it illegal for them to do that if they choose to do so? That is the core question in a lawsuit.

Also despite the analogies, "691hp motor power" supposedly did sell a lot of vehicles (or people wouldn't have a basis to sue). "660hp differential power" may be laughed at because that goes against convention in the ICE world.

Also, differentials aren't typically rated by power, while it is common electric motors and drivetrains, examples from two of the most well known:
UQM 150kW system:
http://www.neweagle.net/support/wiki/docs/Datasheets/UQM/PP150.pdf
AC Propulsion 75kW and 150kW systems:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/products-drivesystem.html

The ECE R85 rating (which is also doesn't factor in battery and was supposedly the basis for Tesla's numbers) has been discussed at length elsewhere.

Advertising the motor power as an independent number for a car is not without precedent in the EV industry (even advertising the ICE as an independent number is not as per SAE gross power). I don't want to rehash too much as this has been covered at length in other thread.
Examples include:
Fisker Karma advertised at 300kW/402hp by adding up motor power of two motors (150kW each), but dynos at 230whp.
Ford Energi advertised at higher motor power number (88kW/118hp), but digging into spec sheet, the battery power is lower (68kW/91hp).
SLS e-Cell also has a combined motor power number (740hp/552kW) derived from adding up 4 individual motors (185hp/138kW). Although they claim a separate battery power number higher than that (600kW), the 0-60 is much slower than the P85D at 3.6 seconds despite the car weighting 500lbs less (4400lbs vs 4936lbs) and having 49hp more "motor power" on paper, 200+hp more if you believe it actually does make 740hp vs ~500hp for P85D and there is a lack of information about acceleration up top (top speed is the same at 155mph).
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't take a position on any of the legal issues. I'm just saying that I find the reference to "motor power" ridiculous, because it doesn't actually tell you what the car can do.

The fact that other car makers may have done the same thing doesn't change that. Lots of car makers do lots of shady and borderline shady things to sell cars.
�

vgrinshpun said: ?

I am pretty sure that Tesla listed "motor hp" in both US and Norway, but you are welcome to prove me wrong by providing the link showing otherwise.
Click to expand...

I do not have any links as I don't really care about this. Except it would be nice for Tesla Norway to get through this and concentrate on improving their customer service here in Norway. Without any proof, the customers here have no standing, so since this hasn't already blown over already I guess they have something specific enough to warrrant a ruling. If you think it's very important I can always go hunting around the Norwegian EV forums and facebook pages.

Cobos
�

vgrinshpun said: ?

Well, we've been here before, weren't we?

The problem is that Tesla delivered exactly what it advertised, 691 *motor hp*,without taking into consideration limitations imposed by the battery, as defined in the only available pertinent regulation, ECE R85, and the owners certainly got what they paid for. So Tesla absolutely provided to owners what it promised.

Taking into account the above context, I will be very surprised if Tesla would be found in violation of any consumer laws in Norway.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, there is no BUT. Another thing that you might be missing is that Tesla did not "make up a peak HP number", it stated motor hp in strict accordance to the only pertinent available regulation - ECE R85. Just read through section 5.3, Annex 2 and Annex 6 to see for yourself.

The hp used in my calculation is defined by the battery output, but the maximum torque of both P85D and P85 are **constant** from zero rpm up to the speed at which motor hit their maximum hp rating. This constant torque (within the "constant torque" region of the power curve) is absolutely defined by the corresponding motor hp, **not** limitation imposed by the battery.
Click to expand...

If the torque is constant and peaks at zero and is not limited in any way by the battery, why not use that figure? Why instead use a derived figure that's based on a rotational speed that the motor cannot achieve when hooked up to the battery that's in the car?

I don't know enough about ECE R85 to express an opinion about it.
�

JST said: ?

If the torque is constant and peaks at zero and is not limited in any way by the battery, why not use that figure? Why instead use a derived figure that's based on a rotational speed that the motor cannot achieve when hooked up to the battery that's in the car?

I don't know enough about ECE R85 to express an opinion about it.
Click to expand...

They did mention torque during P85D launch (and that press release avoided talking about power):
"The P85D combines the performance of the P85 rear motor with an additional 50 percent of torque available from our new front drive unit."
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/dual-motor-model-s-and-autopilot

However, I believe they added torque to their numbers only recently:
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options

I think the core issue is that people tend to gloss over torque vs power. I can remember off the top of my head the P85 being 416hp, but I can't remember what the torque number was (I suspect this is true of most people).

Advertising 50% more "motor power" vs the old P85, was probably deemed more effective than advertising a torque number that is 50% higher than the P85 (even though technically the torque example is closer to the point). And as related to the ECE R85 standard, the conformance certificates used in EU and USA requires a power number, not a torque number.
�

stopcrazypp said: ?

The ECE R85 rating (which is also doesn't factor in battery and was supposedly the basis for Tesla's numbers) has been discussed at length elsewhere.
Click to expand...

If Tesla is just applying a standard, why aren't they using the same standard for the 70D, 85D or 90D? Same with rollout.

Sorry Tesla is obviously trying to mislead their customers and I really hope that the Norwegians are successful against this unethical corporate behaviour.

Because I want to be a fan of Tesla (again) and currently - with the hp and rollout scam - I can't.
�

There is no rollout scam. Say what you want about hp but rollout is not an issue. It's a US vs rest of the world convention difference maybe but no scam.
�

dsm363 said: ?

There is no rollout scam. Say what you want about hp for rollout not an issue. It's a US vs rest of the world convention difference maybe but no scam.
Click to expand...

I agree scam is a strong word, and that the main issue is US vs rest of the world.

But now that Tesla has recognized that there is confusion over this, don't you think the most straight-forward thing for Tesla to do would be to standardize their numbers across all models to either use 1-foot roll out or not use 1-foot roll out, and explain what they are doing either way? Doing so would eliminate any confusion, and would allow people to make comparisons between models much more easily.
�

They should match advertising convention in each region or qualify their statements like they do now with 0-60.
�

Laserbrain said: ?

If Tesla is just applying a standard, why aren't they using the same standard for the 70D, 85D or 90D? Same with rollout.

Sorry Tesla is obviously trying to mislead their customers and I really hope that the Norwegians are successful against this unethical corporate behaviour.

Because I want to be a fan of Tesla (again) and currently - with the hp and rollout scam - I can't.
Click to expand...

They still list individual motor power (motorkraft in Norwegian) numbers from what I can tell, they just removed the combined numbers and use system power for the non-P85D models:
http://www.teslamotors.com/no_NO/models#battery-options
http://www.teslamotors.com/models#battery-options

To make it clear there are two standards Tesla has used so far:
1) System power, which is what they used before dual motor launch and present in non-P85D models today as a combined number. It is unknown how Tesla derived it.
2) "Motor power", introduced with dual motor in October 2014 and used uniformly for all models until April 2015. From what we can tell, "motor power" is the ECE R85 standard.
And various combinations:
3) In April-May 2015 there was a short while where all non-P85D used system power and P85D still had the combined motor power number shown
4) In May 2015, P85D combined motor power number was removed, leaving only the individual numbers.
5) In late-July 2015, the individual motor powers were added back for other models.

The period from April to late July 2015 is really the only time where the non-P85D were all system power and P85D was all motor power (and only in April-May was the 691/700hp number still present in this period).
�

dsm363 said: ?

They should match advertising convention in each region or qualify their statements like they do now with 0-60.
Click to expand...

Still no such info on roll-out usage on norwegian site. This is getting ridiculous.
�

Warning: This is a rant, my first ever on this forum!

I have to say, this whole thing makes me incredibly sad. No good can come from this effort to shame Tesla in Norway.

Norway has been incredibly well treated and favoured by Tesla:

Norway got the first superchargers outside the U.S.
Norway has the densest supercharger network, per capita, in the whole world
Norway got the first EU deliveries of Model S
Norway has had multiple personal visits from Elon

Tesla has one global intent and one only: "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport." That is it. There is no hidden agenda. There are no scams. There is very little personal interest. Elon has amazingly vowed: "My money was the first in, and will the last out."

Each performance enhancement to Model S has been real and has been dramatic, unexpected, and unprecedented for a car of its type� production electric, family sedan.

The P85 was faster than the 85
The P85+ was faster than the P85
The P85D was faster than the P85+
The P90DL is faster than the P85D

All of this was done to surprise and delight the current and prospective customer base. None of it was done to enable pissing contests on drag strips. Sure that was entertaining for a while, but let's all grow up just a little. We are part of a movement to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport," not to maximize the utilization of testosterone.

Yes, I place a great value on personal and company ethics and on clear and constructive communication in marketing and ownership relations. But if you stop and think about the Tesla people involved, and who have blogged and commented on this whole issue, it is clear that there is no deceit intended nor offered.

J.B. Straubel, in particular, could not deceive a flea if he tried, and he would never try.

Think about your own motivations. What are they really? What are you doing to help Tesla succeed? Will the world really be better off, will Norway be better off, if Tesla is "taken down" by some court or agency?

Let's move on, just move on.
�

It's an investment forum but nobody yet have addressed the question on how this could affect the company. What's the damage, worst case scenario?
�

Vger said: ?

Warning: This is a rant, my first ever on this forum!

I have to say, this whole thing makes me incredibly sad. No good can come from this effort to shame Tesla in Norway.

Norway has been incredibly well treated and favoured by Tesla:

Norway got the first superchargers outside the U.S.
Norway has the densest supercharger network, per capita, in the whole world
Norway got the first EU deliveries of Model S
Norway has had multiple personal visits from Elon

Tesla has one global intent and one only: "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport." That is it. There is no hidden agenda. There are no scams. There is very little personal interest. Elon has amazingly vowed: "My money was the first in, and will the last out."

Each performance enhancement to Model S has been real and has been dramatic, unexpected, and unprecedented for a car of its type� production electric, family sedan.

The P85 was faster than the 85
The P85+ was faster than the P85
The P85D was faster than the P85+
The P90DL is faster than the P85D

All of this was done to surprise and delight the current and prospective customer base. None of it was done to enable pissing contests on drag strips. Sure that was entertaining for a while, but let's all grow up just a little. We are part of a movement to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport," not to maximize the utilization of testosterone.

Yes, I place a great value on personal and company ethics and on clear and constructive communication in marketing and ownership relations. But if you stop and think about the Tesla people involved, and who have blogged and commented on this whole issue, it is clear that there is no deceit intended nor offered.

J.B. Straubel, in particular, could not deceive a flea if he tried, and he would never try.

Think about your own motivations. What are they really? What are you doing to help Tesla succeed? Will the world really be better off, will Norway be better off, if Tesla is "taken down" by some court or agency?

Let's move on, just move on.
Click to expand...

I notice there are no numbers/specs in your rant... which is what is at question here. Not the morals of Elon Musk and J.B. Straubel. If Tesla the company deceived/mislead consumers about the specifications of one or more of their vehicles (which I firmly believe they have, which you probably already know) then, whether you or others like it or not, they should be held accountable regardless of whatever else they may, may not have done, or potentially will do for the world, good or bad.

Oh, and if they did not mislead/deceive customers and everyone in fact got what they paid for... well they have nothing to worry about then do they?
�

TNEVol said: ?

Actually I believe Motor Trend where the P85D (Insane Mode)(Not Ludicrous) beat the Hellcat in a 1/4 mile Motor Trend's HellCat VS P85D
Click to expand...

Let me quite myself:

Tesla is only competitive in short drag races.
Click to expand...

Drive units start to overheat in about 5-7 minutes and after that it's downhill fast. This is a real disappointment for me
�

Vger said: ?

Warning: This is a rant, my first ever on this forum!

I have to say, this whole thing makes me incredibly sad. No good can come from this effort to shame Tesla in Norway.

Norway has been incredibly well treated and favoured by Tesla:

Norway got the first superchargers outside the U.S.
Norway has the densest supercharger network, per capita, in the whole world
Norway got the first EU deliveries of Model S
Norway has had multiple personal visits from Elon

Tesla has one global intent and one only: "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport." That is it. There is no hidden agenda. There are no scams. There is very little personal interest. Elon has amazingly vowed: "My money was the first in, and will the last out."

Each performance enhancement to Model S has been real and has been dramatic, unexpected, and unprecedented for a car of its type� production electric, family sedan.

The P85 was faster than the 85
The P85+ was faster than the P85
The P85D was faster than the P85+
The P90DL is faster than the P85D

All of this was done to surprise and delight the current and prospective customer base. None of it was done to enable pissing contests on drag strips. Sure that was entertaining for a while, but let's all grow up just a little. We are part of a movement to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport," not to maximize the utilization of testosterone.

Yes, I place a great value on personal and company ethics and on clear and constructive communication in marketing and ownership relations. But if you stop and think about the Tesla people involved, and who have blogged and commented on this whole issue, it is clear that there is no deceit intended nor offered.

J.B. Straubel, in particular, could not deceive a flea if he tried, and he would never try.

Think about your own motivations. What are they really? What are you doing to help Tesla succeed? Will the world really be better off, will Norway be better off, if Tesla is "taken down" by some court or agency?

Let's move on, just move on.
Click to expand...

+1

Mud sticks

What makes me concerned and sad is that the apparent mud slinging Tesla's way is disproportionate to Tesla's missteps in communicating, and the hurt and the damage seems to be disproportionate. That seems to give no pause to some repetitive loud complainers.

Unfortunately the forum that I adore seems to be playing unintended role in this.

Public rehashing of problems often leads to people digging their heels in and refusing to budge from their initial positions as the egos get in the way and the public face must be preserved.

Some complainers stick to rehashing their issues on the forum as they have more leverage that way rather than quietly sorting the issue with Tesla or failing that, through the court system.
�

wk057 said: ?

I notice there are no numbers/specs in your rant... which is what is at question here. Not the morals of Elon Musk and J.B. Straubel.
Click to expand...

You have most certainly questioned the morals (AND ethics) of Elon Musk and J.B. Straubel; they represent the company front and center on the topic. You then went on to elaborate on that questioning of morals and ethics of them in your post (but you've also done it in several other posts throughout the forum).

If Tesla the company deceived/mislead consumers about the specifications of one or more of their vehicles (which I firmly believe they have, which you probably already know) then, whether you or others like it or not, they should be held accountable regardless of whatever else they may, may not have done, or potentially will do for the world, good or bad.

Oh, and if they did not mislead/deceive customers and everyone in fact got what they paid for... well they have nothing to worry about then do they?
Click to expand...

�

Vger said: ?

Norway has been incredibly well treated and favoured by Tesla:
Click to expand...

Tesla has even more been incredibly well treated and favoured by Norway.

Anyway, your rant shows an emotional investment with the company. There is nothing wrong with that. But this is the financial investor forum. Just remember that investing both emotionally and financially in the same company frequently leads to bad decisions.
�

Vger said: ?

Warning: This is a rant, my first ever on this forum!

I have to say, this whole thing makes me incredibly sad. No good can come from this effort to shame Tesla in Norway.

Norway has been incredibly well treated and favoured by Tesla:

Norway got the first superchargers outside the U.S.
Norway has the densest supercharger network, per capita, in the whole world
Norway got the first EU deliveries of Model S
Norway has had multiple personal visits from Elon
Click to expand...

Seriously? At times Norway was selling more than the entire rest of Europe combined. The Model S capitol of the world is NOT SF but Oslo. Walk around for about an hour and see if you can find a route where you spot less than 10 Model S in Oslo. So of course in their biggest market with a massive PR win for Tesla it's pretty logical for Norway to get the first superchargers and the highest density per capita. We have the highest density of Model S per capita in the world after all.

Vger said: ?

Tesla has one global intent and one only: "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport." That is it. There is no hidden agenda. There are no scams. There is very little personal interest. Elon has amazingly vowed: "My money was the first in, and will the last out."
Click to expand...

And that is one of the reasons they sell so well here. But their marketing schemes are borderline scams. Most probably they will get daily fines soon here in Norway for the price with fuel savings included marketing idea they have and still are using. That is until they remove it of course.

Vger said: ?

Each performance enhancement to Model S has been real and has been dramatic, unexpected, and unprecedented for a car of its type� production electric, family sedan.

The P85 was faster than the 85
The P85+ was faster than the P85
The P85D was faster than the P85+
The P90DL is faster than the P85D

I'm not quite sure on the P85+ being faster than the P85 and they came at the same time
All of this was done to surprise and delight the current and prospective customer base. None of it was done to enable pissing contests on drag strips. Sure that was entertaining for a while, but let's all grow up just a little. We are part of a movement to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport," not to maximize the utilization of testosterone.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure on the P85+ being faster than the P85 and they came at the same time but that is besides the point.
Anyone that makes cars that go to 100km/h under 4 seconds know that is for bragging rights and drag strip performance. You need that extra 2 seconds to get to the grocery store 10 seconds earlier? You sell it for showing off and you buy it for the same reason.

Vger said: ?

Yes, I place a great value on personal and company ethics and on clear and constructive communication in marketing and ownership relations. But if you stop and think about the Tesla people involved, and who have blogged and commented on this whole issue, it is clear that there is no deceit intended nor offered.
Click to expand...

So do I. I've been on these forums since 2007, and been a Tesla fan since. But I must say this irks me a great deal. It means Tesla is moving off the high ground and is turning into slimy car salesmen, and I dare say quite a few of their early fans here in Norway thinks the same. That IS dangerous especially when they due to currency issues are moving up, up, up in price.

So sorry for my own rant.

Cobos
�

Cobos said: ?

And that is one of the reasons they sell so well here. But their marketing schemes are borderline scams. Most probably they will get daily fines soon here in Norway for the price with fuel savings included marketing idea they have and still are using. That is until they remove it of course.
Click to expand...

I agree this is a major screwup. I just don't see why Tesla feels the need to resort to such questionable practices, which may be illegal.
�

dakh said: ?

It's an investment forum but nobody yet have addressed the question on how this could affect the company. What's the damage, worst case scenario?
Click to expand...

I don't know as I have no legal training. But my guess as to a likely scenario is that all early P85D ordered between some dates Oct 2014 - May 2015, Oct 2014 - July 15 or whatever gets the Ludicrous upgrade for free. As to worst case scenario, then it's been sold what, 900 P85D in Norway. Tesla is then forced to buy back all of them at original purchase price AND change their sales material obviously. Though our laws have bounds about very high cost to supplier, so the Ludicrous mode sounds like the likely solution.

Cobos
�

dsm363 said: ?

There is no rollout scam. Say what you want about hp but rollout is not an issue. It's a US vs rest of the world convention difference maybe but no scam.
Click to expand...

Well, now that I have read about what 1 foot rollout actually means, I wouldn't call it (the concept itself, not Tesla using it) a scam, but a very strange concept in itself. What justification is there to say "we don't measure the first foot"? If one follows that idea through, one could also use all kinds of similar techniques. Like 100 meter dash at the Olympics. Why start the clock at the "go" signal and not after all starters' feet have left the starting block. The 1 foot rollout thing seems completely arbitrary. Why 1 foot? Why not 2, or 5 or x? If not measuring from standstill, why measure at all?

Okay, back on topic...
�

AustinPowers said: ?

Well, now that I have read about what 1 foot rollout actually means, I wouldn't call it (the concept itself, not Tesla using it) a scam, but a very strange concept in itself. What justification is there to say "we don't measure the first foot"? If one follows that idea through, one could also use all kinds of similar techniques. Like 100 meter dash at the Olympics. Why start the clock at the "go" signal and not after all starters' feet have left the starting block. The 1 foot rollout thing seems completely arbitrary. Why 1 foot? Why not 2, or 5 or x? If not measuring from standstill, why measure at all?

Okay, back on topic...
Click to expand...

It all comes from drag racing. In a drag race there is a staging area with two beams, one foot apart. As soon as your tires break the first beam, you are staged and ready to go. As soon as your tire clears the second beam, the race timer has officially begun. As a result, early performance numbers in the US (0-60 and quarter mile) didn't start the clock until you had moved 1 foot. It was a result of the technology we had available to time performance cars. In Europe, there was no drag racing and 0-60 and quarter mile times were not important. Europe adopted these numbers much later, when there was better technology available. America simply continued to use the numbers that were consistent with the old numbers, even once we had the technology to do it a different way. At drag strips, it still works the same way!
�

Vger said: ?

Warning: This is a rant, my first ever on this forum!

I have to say, this whole thing makes me incredibly sad. No good can come from this effort to shame Tesla in Norway.

Norway has been incredibly well treated and favoured by Tesla:

Norway got the first superchargers outside the U.S.
Norway has the densest supercharger network, per capita, in the whole world
Norway got the first EU deliveries of Model S
Norway has had multiple personal visits from Elon

Tesla has one global intent and one only: "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport." That is it. There is no hidden agenda. There are no scams. There is very little personal interest. Elon has amazingly vowed: "My money was the first in, and will the last out."

Each performance enhancement to Model S has been real and has been dramatic, unexpected, and unprecedented for a car of its type� production electric, family sedan.

The P85 was faster than the 85
The P85+ was faster than the P85
The P85D was faster than the P85+
The P90DL is faster than the P85D

All of this was done to surprise and delight the current and prospective customer base. None of it was done to enable pissing contests on drag strips. Sure that was entertaining for a while, but let's all grow up just a little. We are part of a movement to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport," not to maximize the utilization of testosterone.

Yes, I place a great value on personal and company ethics and on clear and constructive communication in marketing and ownership relations. But if you stop and think about the Tesla people involved, and who have blogged and commented on this whole issue, it is clear that there is no deceit intended nor offered.

J.B. Straubel, in particular, could not deceive a flea if he tried, and he would never try.

Think about your own motivations. What are they really? What are you doing to help Tesla succeed? Will the world really be better off, will Norway be better off, if Tesla is "taken down" by some court or agency?

Let's move on, just move on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except for all the deceit they are all really swell guys. No need for accountability, we're busy saving humanity!
�

AustinPowers said: ?

Well, now that I have read about what 1 foot rollout actually means, I wouldn't call it (the concept itself, not Tesla using it) a scam, but a very strange concept in itself. What justification is there to say "we don't measure the first foot"? If one follows that idea through, one could also use all kinds of similar techniques. Like 100 meter dash at the Olympics. Why start the clock at the "go" signal and not after all starters' feet have left the starting block. The 1 foot rollout thing seems completely arbitrary. Why 1 foot? Why not 2, or 5 or x? If not measuring from standstill, why measure at all?

Okay, back on topic...
Click to expand...

They do this because they want to rule out traction conditions. It's the only way to "neutralize" all vehicles and testing.

- - - Updated - - -

Cobos said: ?

I don't know as I have no legal training. But my guess as to a likely scenario is that all early P85D ordered between some dates Oct 2014 - May 2015, Oct 2014 - July 15 or whatever gets the Ludicrous upgrade for free. As to worst case scenario, then it's been sold what, 900 P85D in Norway. Tesla is then forced to buy back all of them at original purchase price AND change their sales material obviously. Though our laws have bounds about very high cost to supplier, so the Ludicrous mode sounds like the likely solution.

Cobos
Click to expand...

Your assumption is the cars can't be resold to recoup value. They can and hold values really well (especially P85D).
�

aznt1217 said: ?

Your assumption is the cars can't be resold to recoup value. They can and hold values really well (especially P85D).
Click to expand...

An interesting factor here is that many of the cars in question were confirmed in October 2014, when the applicable USD/NOK currency rate was around 6.5, while today, it's 8.35. That means that if these buyers paid 120k USD for their cars, Tesla would only have to buy them back at 93k USD. (This assumes Tesla currency hedged when the cars were confirmed.) If Tesla were to then turn around and sell them for say 100k USD in Denmark, they would make a profit of 7k USD!
�

yak-55 said: ?

Yeah, except for all the deceit they are all really swell guys. No need for accountability, we're busy saving humanity!
Click to expand...

�

wk057 said: ?

In any case, I'm quite happy to see this going somewhere in Norway. It will make it much easy to do the same in the USA when there is a ruling there.
Click to expand...

That depends on the ruling. If Norway, with it's very strong consumer protection legislation, says Tesla hasn't done anything wrong, I can't see that helping.
�

AustinPowers said: ?

Well, now that I have read about what 1 foot rollout actually means, I wouldn't call it (the concept itself, not Tesla using it) a scam, but a very strange concept in itself. What justification is there to say "we don't measure the first foot"? If one follows that idea through, one could also use all kinds of similar techniques. Like 100 meter dash at the Olympics. Why start the clock at the "go" signal and not after all starters' feet have left the starting block. The 1 foot rollout thing seems completely arbitrary. Why 1 foot? Why not 2, or 5 or x? If not measuring from standstill, why measure at all?

Okay, back on topic...
Click to expand...

I agree it's stupid automakers in the US use it but they do. It seems to largely be a car magazine thing to make the numbers look better.
�

dsm363 said: ?

I agree it's stupid automakers in the US use it but they do. It seems to largely be a car magazine thing to make the numbers look better.
Click to expand...

If you go to a dragstrip, it's still relevant. In Europe, however, I imagine there aren't very many drag strips.

It's the same with the trap speed, which is an average from the last 60 feet. That may seem arbitrary, but that was the only way with the technology at the time. Now it is possible to accurately get the speed exactly at the end of the quarter mile, but trap speed is still specified that way.
�

caveat emptor.

I've bought things that have disjointed me. Greatly. My car isn't one of them. I don't care what HP rating says. I go by how it makes me feel.
�

I am wondering if any of slightly more than 3 percent of unhappy P85D owners from Norway are aware that their cars are rated according to the European Regulation ECE R85. The motor hp, as defined in this regulation is determined by a test without any consideration of the battery power output. According to Norwegian rules the motor hp measured according to ECE R85 must be included on the Certificate of Conformity, which is mandatory document required for the registration of a car.

So the question is how can Norwegian authorities rule that Tesla can't use the motor horsepower on their Site, if it is used as part of the official document that shows technical characteristics of the car and is required for the registration? After reading some of the comments from the Norwegian TMC members in this thread it seems that they are not aware of any of this, and are not really interested in learning more.
�

I'm slighty handicapped right now since our DMV is reporting database maintenance this entire weekend. Though if I've understood correctly the ECE R85 regulation matches what is written on my registration. I've got a S60 and it was sold with about 300 hp. It performs at that level, roughly similar to a 300hp ICE car. And just to add I'm perfectly happy with how my car performs. BUT my registration data says my car has a continous power of about 79hp, which in no way represents the performance I get. I'm guessing this is the level of power the engine can handle effortlessly without overheating. I'm also guessing that is the number required by ECE R85. Without DMV I can't look up the numbers for the P85D but I expect them to be similarily low.
The reason these numbers are irrelevant is that the power level you experience from the car is it's burst power which in my S60s case is about 300hp. Teslas webpage also promotes the 300hp value for my car (or they did when they still sold S60s), and I pay insurance on a 300hp car and not a 79hp car. So the only place you find this number is on the car registration data, which you can also search up on our DMV website, when their database is not down.

So to answer your question, Teslas website is showing the burst hp number which is not shown on any other officiall document. Hence as a buyer of an P85D our only information has been Teslas website and their salespeople. That's where the 690/700hp number comes from and that's what the issue depends on.

Hopefully that made it more clear.

Cobos
�

Moderator's Note

I've moved eight posts to Snippiness. My apologies for some wheat that got moved with the chaff.

Two reminders:

This is the Investment forum. Please keep the arc of the conversation on the impact on TSLA.

Talk about ideas, not the people who post them. Do not attribute motives to others.

Thank you,
Robert
�

vgrinshpun said: ?

So the question is how can Norwegian authorities rule that Tesla can't use the motor horsepower on their Site, if it is used as part of the official document that shows technical characteristics of the car and is required for the registration?
Click to expand...

Why would you think one and the other are linked? Technically correct data can still confuse customers and if their confusion is exploited to sell cars that ordinary buyers wouldn't have bought otherwise, then it becomes a consumer protection issue. I don't know enough of the Norwegian law to know if that's the case here but I don't see why it would be impossible a priori.
�

Cobos said: ?

I'm slighty handicapped right now since our DMV is reporting database maintenance this entire weekend. Though if I've understood correctly the ECE R85 regulation matches what is written on my registration. I've got a S60 and it was sold with about 300 hp. It performs at that level, roughly similar to a 300hp ICE car. And just to add I'm perfectly happy with how my car performs. BUT my registration data says my car has a continous power of about 79hp, which in no way represents the performance I get.
Click to expand...

ECE R85 has two ratings, and the EU certificate of conformity has three numbers. Tesla chose to put the continuous number in a lot of registrations (even when the field was supposed to be the maximum), but if you have copy of the EU certificate of conformity, it's going to have the "burst" number (AKA "maximum net power" number):

loco said: ?

From P85D certificate of conformity:
27.2 Maximum hourly output: 66kW
27.3 Maximum net power: 193kW (front), 350kW (rear)
27.4 Maximum 30min power: 79kW (front), 90kW (rear)

So combined motor power is 543kW (728hp) and not 515kW? Confusing.
Click to expand...

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/53877-Tesla-blog-post-AWD-Motor-Power-and-Torque-Specifications/page28?p=1166701&viewfull=1#post1166701

From what I seen, the registration number is manually filled out by whoever is registering, so that will be up to whoever is doing the registration for the car (in the US it can be the owner itself).
�

Fukuta motor - not so good.
�

Avenger said: ?

Fukuta motor - not so good.
Click to expand...

Good thing they don't make the motors used in the Model S.
�

Vger said: ?

Norway has been incredibly well treated and favoured by Tesla:
Click to expand...

Has is the keyword there. It's clear that Tesla don't care about Norway at all anymore. Norway have by far the worst coverage of Superchargers per Tesla, at least in the bigger markets.

They also have by far the longest waiting times at Service centers - around 5 month for warranty repairs and service. Yes that's right, if I were to call the SC and say that a speaker is broken, they would offer me an apointment in March 2016. It's been like that for well over a year, so it's obvious that they are not doing anything about it.

Think about your own motivations. What are they really? What are you doing to help Tesla succeed? Will the world really be better off, will Norway be better off, if Tesla is "taken down" by some court or agency?
Click to expand...

You know, some people bought the Model S simply because they wanted a car. And those people also possibly have the same damands that they would have when buying a car from Toyota.

It's frightning to read how many people think that just because the car is fantastic and Tesla is possibly changing the world, you aren't allowed to complain when you feel misled.

I'll just make it clear that I have NOT made a formal complaint about my P85D. But I fully support those who do.

PS: I heard that there's now over 50 formal complaints. In other words, nearly 10% of the P85D owners in Norway are not satisfied with their purchase. I would be a little worried if I were Tesla.
�

The horse power is insufficient , what exquisite selectivity .
This will end up in the Supreme Court.
�

Vger said: ?

The P85+ was faster than the P85
The P90DL is faster than the P85D
Click to expand...

Faster means top speed, no? If so, both of these are incorrect (AFAIK).

- - - Updated - - -

Vger said: ?

... drag strips. Sure that was entertaining for a while, but let's all grow up just a little.
Click to expand...

I found this offensive -- for members of both sides of the discussions. "Entertainment" has nothing to do with why I've followed (and somewhat participated in) the topics. I'd prefer that none of the thread on the related topics were born -- but that's in the hands of Tesla. Blaming the customers and enthusiasts for taking issue and discussing it is simply wrongheaded.
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

They also have by far the longest waiting times at Service centers - around 5 month for warranty repairs and service.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised this hasn't triggered some complaints at a consumer group.
�

Spidy said: ?

I'm actually surprised this hasn't triggered some complaints at a consumer group.
Click to expand...

I think part of that is because Tesla has been good at prioritizing problems that lead to non-drivable car. For those they usually get it done in a few days. But squeeks and rattles, single door handle not working etc the wait time can be upto 9 months actually. The other part is Tesla IS expanding service capability, but it takes time to find a suitable workshop, getting good mechanics is hard in Norway. Around Oslo they added a largish sc with like 15-20 carlifts on the eastern side. But that got swamped by commuters coming from the northeast of Oslo. So they this october added a even larger sc about 1 hour drive northeast of Oslo. And around january 2016 the huge sc west of Oslo will open as well. So slowly slowly it's getting better, but I suppose the backlog will keep the wait times up for a while.

And of course not to mention service time is hard to complain about since Tesla hasn't promised anything, and as mentioned for those cases where the product is not usable (i.e. you can't drive the car) the service is just a few days.

Cobos
�

Tesla have now basically admitted that 700HP was misleading. They have removed any HP info from the sales page, and updated their website with actual HP performance numbers.

Tesla now says P85D delivers 463 HP: Model S | Tesla Motors

But of course - since the car is very fast, we are not allowed to complain about this. :-/

PS: The norwegian Consumer Council have recieved 52 formal complaints about P85D, and are going to meet with Tesla November, 2nd.
�

Torpedo Ted said: ?

Tesla have now basically admitted that 700HP was misleading. They have removed any HP info from the sales page, and updated their website with actual HP performance numbers.

Tesla now says P85D delivers 463 HP: Model S | Tesla Motors

But of course - since the car is very fast, we are not allowed to complain about this. :-/

PS: The norwegian Consumer Council have recieved 52 formal complaints about P85D, and are going to meet with Tesla November, 2nd.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you see as removed. They did add new language though.
�

Tesla Motors Inc Accused Of False Advertising Claims In Norway

http://www.technbob.com/tesla-motors-inc-accused-of-false-advertising-claims-in-norway-2284529/2

"The thread had 70 pages of comments and discussion as of Wednesday morning after the news of the Norwegian Consumer Council mediation in the hp case broke. No additional info on the horsepower problem of Tesla is available for now, but chances are that more complaints will crop up from places other than Norway."

�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Sáu, 27 tháng 1, 2017

Tesla may be forced to compensate owners of P85D in Norway part 1

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét