Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think a lot of people are missing the main issue here: why has Tesla not answered the questions formally presented here and elsewhere? Any sound company will happily field intelligent questions and, yes, even dumb questions (which of these two is being debated here). If Tesla's interest is in selling product, it is in their best interests to field the questions of both casual customers and certainly those who have collectively committed millions of dollars to their company. I say this as a loyal customer who wants to see the company grow stronger through learning from its mistakes, "Tesla, man up and address these questions."
 
You choose to believe Car & Driver over Autosport and McLaren - I do not.

I gather that it is so difficult to you to give-up the idea that you were so much wronged by Tesla, that you are loosing objectivity with every post on this subject. I never said that I believe one car magazine over another. What is clear now that the assumption that Tesla lied about matching performance of McLaren F1 is dead wrong based on facts that nobody cared to research before jumping to this conclusion. We have is real test data from three magazines that tested the car back in the nineties, the British Autocar tested F1 at 3.2s, presumably without rollout (equivalent to 2.9s with a rolout), but in tests by two american magazines, both with rollout, F1 was significantly slower. In Aug 1994 Issue Car and Driver reported test time of 3.2s with rollout. In November 2012 article Road and Track reported that according to their 1997 test McLaren F1 achieved 3.4s with rollout.

So in three documented tests F1 0 to 60mph acceleration time was 2.9s, 3.2s, 3.4 s (all with rollout or adjusted to be equivalent to a test with rollout). The bottom line is that Tesla claim that P85D, with 3.2s 0 to 60 time, based on data from two US car magazines, matches performance of McLaren F1, is completely legitimate, if not overly conservative.

In the 1994 article they say nothing about rollout and it is not clear how and where they tested it. But since you are writting e-mails ...

Well, you are grasping at straws here. You will not find any references in each individual article to the rollout because both magazines, Car & Driver and Road & Track use convention based on measuring 0 to 60mph times with a rollout. My previous posts and posts by others had links proving this.

On ice cars you pay 25% vat and then 180% registration tax in Denmark, that is why you get the big difference. Tesla being able to sell the P85D without registration tax of 180% does not give them card blance to claim whatever they want and then deliver different.

The Audi upgrade is nothing similar to 85D to P85D, with Audi you get what they sell you when it comes to performance! And on top of that you get a very different looking car. So in that aspect it is the Audi that is the bargin.

With both Audi RS7 and P85D you are getting an 0.8s improvement in performance. Astoundingly, with P85D you can use this performance on loose or slippery surfaces, as it's drivetrain response time is two orders of magnitude (yes, 100 times) quicker that the RS7 - miliseconds vs. tenths of the second. P85D is several times more efficient, can seat 7 vs, 4 in RS7, etc, etc, etc.

To a consumer, as yourself, it is irrelevant where the savings come from, for anybody trying to get serious improvement in performance P85D is a bargain of a lifetime, as you can get identical bump in performance 3.27 times cheaper than in Audi.
 

This conspiracy spin is getting old. Another entirely possible explanation of why they switched to using rollout with P85D is because they used performance matching McLaren F1 as a marketing theme, and since the 3.2s time obtained in testing by Car & Driver in august 1994 was based on using rollout, they also decided to use rollout in their marketing materials.
 
This conspiracy spin is getting old. Another entirely possible explanation of why they switched to using rollout with P85D is because they used performance matching McLaren F1 as a marketing theme, and since the 3.2s time obtained in testing by Car & Driver in august 1994 was based on using rollout, they also decided to use rollout in their marketing materials.

That accounts for one fact. What about the rest? You still have a lot of work to do, if you aim to explain the whole series of events.

The dismissing this as conspiracy spin is also getting old. I did come to this conclusion reluctantly, and would love an alternate explanation - ideally from Tesla themselves. I'm afraid yours doesn't cut it, and they've been silent.
 
My only point is that unshakable faith in conspiracy theories exhibited in a lot of posts here is delusional. There are many shades here, not just black, and yet it seems that painting everything black became a badge of honor in this and another thread regarding the less than perfect handling of this issue by Tesla.
 
My only point is that unshakable faith in conspiracy theories exhibited in a lot of posts here is delusional. There are many shades here, not just black, and yet it seems that painting everything black became a badge of honor in this and another thread regarding the less than perfect handling of this issue by Tesla.
I'm explicitly inviting my "faith" to be shaken.

It's not faith either; it's the only coherent interpretation I've been able to make of the facts. I'd be delighted to hear an innocent explanation - really, anything - so long as it makes sense.

Delusional? If you can identify anything specific I've written here that is counterfactual, please do so.
 
My only point is that unshakable faith in conspiracy theories exhibited in a lot of posts here is delusional. There are many shades here, not just black, and yet it seems that painting everything black became a badge of honor in this and another thread regarding the less than perfect handling of this issue by Tesla.

"Painting everything black" would include accusing Tesla of doing all this on purpose, in an attempt to sell more cars, and hoping no one would ever notice. Conspiracy theories would include suggesting that Tesla has already been served with papers starting lawsuits, and has been settling them one by one, requiring all parties to sign NDAs, in an attempt to prevent the real truth from getting out.

I could go on and on making more and more stuff like this up, but you get the idea.

For the most part, none of us are doing that. Instead, most of us are giving Tesla the benefit of the doubt, and assuming their intentions were and are good. This in spite of a complete lack of communication on their part, even though many of us have asked explicitly for answers.

In other words, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that we are "painting everything black." I think for the most part, we're painting this in as bright a shade as possible, given the circumstances, while still trying to get answers to our questions.
 

Right, so I thought I alluded to that in the comment.

No one knows how Tesla arrived at that figure, and I believe I've commented in that thread that until we know where that number is coming from no one can say whether or not a mistake has been made.

And as has been pointed out many, many, many times. If someone did not know the difference between bhp and whp, and only was testing whp, this same scenario would play out with an ICE vehicle. Until we know what Tesla is measuring, peoples' opinions are unsubstantiated...and people should stop treating their personal opinion as fact.

Of course, this will fall on deaf ears...as it has so many, many, many times.
 
Last edited:
Right, so I thought I alluded to that in the comment.

No one knows how Tesla arrived at that figure, and I believe I've commented in that thread that until we know where that number is coming from no one can say whether or not a mistake has been made.

And as has been pointed out many, many, many times. If someone did not know the difference between bhp and whp, and only was testing whp, this same scenario would play out with an ICE vehicle. Until we know what Tesla is measuring, peoples' opinions are unsubstantiated...and people should stop treating their personal opinion as fact.

Of course, this will fall on deaf ears...as it has so many, many, many times.

Just to clarify, you're talking about how they measured 0-60 and not how they measured horsepower, right?
 
No one knows how Tesla arrived at that figure
Agreed, but we do know that the highest actual power in the car that could be measured - peak battery output (which ignores all wiring, PEM, motor and transmission losses) - is still ~150HP short of the claim.

If that's not exaggeration, nothing is.

If someone did not know the difference between bhp and whp, and only was testing whp, this same scenario would play out with an ICE vehicle.
Not if the claim was more than measured whp and bhp. What reasonable defence could there be when all ways of measuring show the claim to be exaggerated?

Of course, this will fall on deaf ears...as it has so many, many, many times.
I get your argument just fine. I reject it because the reasoning is invalid; your conclusion does not follow from your premise, and your example actually works against you.
 
No one knows how Tesla arrived at that figure

Because they haven't told us!

Faced with questions from many customers, over the course of several months, Tesla has refused to provide this information. It's not as if we're asking for trade secrets here.

If Tesla has done nothing wrong, and everything is fine, and those of us concerned have nothing to be concerned about, why doesn't Tesla just answer our questions, and shut us all up?

The fact that they aren't doing so speaks volumes.
 
Agreed, but we do know that the highest actual power in the car that could be measured - peak battery output (which ignores all wiring, PEM, motor and transmission losses) - is still ~150HP short of the claim.

If that's not exaggeration, nothing is.


Not if the claim was more than measured whp and bhp. What reasonable defence could there be when all ways of measuring show the claim to be exaggerated?


I get your argument just fine. I reject it because the reasoning is invalid; your conclusion does not follow from your premise, and your example actually works against you.

You clearly don't understand my argument. Which is that, like someone upset that their whp measurements don't add up to published numbers...they are missing a key piece of information.

That person that bought a Hellcat is never going to see 707 hp either. The difference is that we know where the 707 figure came from (bhp), but we don't know where the 691 hp figure came from, or why Tesla saw fit to advertise it.
 
Agreed, but we do know that the highest actual power in the car that could be measured - peak battery output (which ignores all wiring, PEM, motor and transmission losses) - is still ~150HP short of the claim.

How was that measured? Did someone attach a current loop to the HV cable to measure it with high-frequency/granularity calibrated equipment, or were you relying upon the streaming API data or, worse yet, the dashboard gauge? I've seen a lot of people draw conclusions from poor data sources (like the "my power is perfect and I get no voltage surges because the dashboard always shows 235V" argument)... and would like to hear how maximum power draw was determined?

I don't have a dog in the fight about the P85D, I'm happy with my P85 and will be happy with the performance X. But I do have a dog in the fight for proper data collection mechanisms and the use of bad data.
 
Because they haven't told us!

Faced with questions from many customers, over the course of several months, Tesla has refused to provide this information. It's not as if we're asking for trade secrets here.

If Tesla has done nothing wrong, and everything is fine, and those of us concerned have nothing to be concerned about, why doesn't Tesla just answer our questions, and shut us all up?

The fact that they aren't doing so speaks volumes.

Yeah, well that's my point. They haven't, and what it speaks to you, or anyone else, is conjecture.

It's not as though I don't understand the frustration...but people are confusing a lack of information with information.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, well that's my point. They haven't, and what it speaks to you, or anyone else, is conjecture.

It may be conjecture, but conjecture based on loads and loads of evidence.

As one simple example...

Pretty much any time people write to the [email protected] address about any issue, we receive a response within, at the most, a day or two. People writing to ask about this issue--some multiple times--have received no response at all.

If there was a simple and innocent answer to this, why wouldn't Tesla just provide the information? What possible reason would Tesla have to let this many customers get this worked up over an issue if, in reality, it is a non-issue?

Common sense would seem to indicate that if there was a simple answer that provides the information that puts Tesla in the clear, they would have provided it by now. The fact that they haven't is very strong evidence in my mind, and I expect to anyone looking at this situation objectively, that Tesla does not have that simple answer.

- - - Updated - - -

How was that measured? Did someone attach a current loop to the HV cable to measure it with high-frequency/granularity calibrated equipment, or were you relying upon the streaming API data or, worse yet, the dashboard gauge? I've seen a lot of people draw conclusions from poor data sources (like the "my power is perfect and I get no voltage surges because the dashboard always shows 235V" argument)... and would like to hear how maximum power draw was determined?

I don't have a dog in the fight about the P85D, I'm happy with my P85 and will be happy with the performance X. But I do have a dog in the fight for proper data collection mechanisms and the use of bad data.

I appreciate your joining this conversation, FlasherZ. You are definitely one of the people here whom I have a great deal of respect for.

It would be better for sorka to answer your question, and I expect he will, but I'll take a quick shot at it until he does.

I believe the main method of measurement was the API data. I also believe there are discussions in the REST threads that provide support for the validity of that data. Personally I have no expertise in those areas, and any discussion deeper than this would definitely be better held with sorka. I just wanted to get your initial question at least somewhat answered.
 
Common sense would seem to indicate that if there was a simple answer that provides the information that puts Tesla in the clear, they would have provided it by now. The fact that they haven't is very strong evidence in my mind, and I expect to anyone looking at this situation objectively, that Tesla does not have that simple answer.

This qualification is my point. Your expectations are arrived at through a bias. Why hasn't Tesla responded the way you want...policy? That's conjecture on my part, but I see no reason that it isn't just as likely. It, of course, could also be exactly as you believe. However, without information neither possibility is more likely than the other...as galling as that may be.
 
Thanks. I don't intend to jump in with both feet and reach any conclusions, I'm watching from the sidelines - but I want to feel comfortable that data is being collected properly; I *definitely* don't trust anything displayed on the instrument panel related to power (other than relative things), and don't know how much I can trust the streaming API data without knowing how it's determined and whether it can be reflective of reality.

An example is measuring voltage and disruptions in that voltage. You can have an analog meter show you 240V RMS on your home service and it would never show a doubling of instantaneous/peak voltage due to reactive current, you'd never see it. most people don't know that the peak instantaneous voltage on your home service is actually about 340V with no reactive power present because the nominal voltage is expressed in RMS voltage.