Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but is it also fair to say that Chrysler, Ford, and GM use it freely in --ALL-- their numbers, and don't go back and forth between using it and not using it?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter
- Thread starter kseitzberg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Fair enough, but is it also fair to say that Chrysler, Ford, and GM use it freely in --ALL-- their numbers, and don't go back and forth between using it and not using it?
Snowball starting to roll as CR-news starts to spread? http://www.autoblog.com/2015/08/20/tesla-model-s-p85d-not-quite-insane-as-promised/
title is scarily close to some of the jokes here....
Prior to this thread I had never heard of rollout not being done, I simply assumed every 0-60 time was with rollout. So for me, if I wanted to know how fast a car was *in real life* I always look for a 5-60 benchmark, where cars with turbo's that are too large and other driveline lag lose badly. I think this still holds true without rollout, where on a Model S the 1 foot rollout is the tire rotating a whopping 57 degrees! What's next, measuring the delay from WOT to power application? I've never heard of anyone doing this, although it's pretty important.
Just like measuring integrated power output instead of peak HP, but good luck teaching calculus to everyone so we can all agree on an measurement that is actually meaningful. So let's argue about HP some more...
I'm going to start timing all of my 0-60 runs using 25-ft rollout and publish those numbers. "Yep, did 0-60 in 1.9 seconds." Seems like that'll be equally useful and isn't disallowed even if I don't state how I got the number, based on what you're saying.
- - - Updated - - -
Prior to trying to reconcile data from my trip to the drag strip I personally never knew about the whole 1-ft rollout thing. I thought 0-60 meant zero miles per hour (car stopped) to sixty miles per hour (when the car hits 60 MPH). I had no other reason to believe otherwise. Why would I think that 0-60 actually meant 5 or 7 to 60? Makes no sense.
Also, I'm fine with an actual peak HP rating. Unfortunately the P85D peak HP output is not 691 HP.
It doesn't make sense but manufacturers and auto magazines have been doing it for a long time. That doesn't mean Tesla should continue this practice but someone at a Tesla felt they should. Of course a 25 ft rollout would be well outside the norm in U.S. You know that. Now you can push for a law banning this one foot rollout practice if you want. Contact your legislators.
Fair enough - but as darthy is saying, the cat is out of the bag and there is no chance to explain the nuances and details anymore when headlines like this starts to fill the news feeds:
CR: Tesla Model S P85D not quite as insane as promised
is on every blog and newsite that are interested in the P85D. The majority reading those articles and blogs will be left with the impression that Tesla is overstating performance figures. AND they haven't even looked at the HP's yet.
Reminds me of the old, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge....." Just because the other fools do it doesn't make it right when you do.
In any case, at least it's been figured out how they got to the 3.2/3.1s "0"-60 times, so while I consider it a point against them for sneaking rollout nonsense in, at least I can get to the same number somehow.
For the 691 HP no one has definitively even come up with a testable answer, including Tesla. So as far as I'm concerned the 691 number could have been the result of three rolls of a 10-sided die for all I know. It definitely isn't what the car does.
If you run a car at the drag strip to maximize your 0-60 and 1/4 mile times it will include the 1 foot rollout. So the 3.1-3.2 is what you should get at the drag strip. All the US manufactures and most if not all of the US car magazines use what you should be able to run at a drag strip with optimum conditions (includes rollout). So Tesla using these numbers is proper for comparing it to other cars. CR specifically states they use timing equipment that does not include any rollout. If you look at their times they are consistently slower than other publications. If you look up fastest cars on Wikipedia you will see they use drag strip times. Porsche and Ferrari tend to beat their published times and the American cars are pretty much dead on. So I don't see the problem.
UPDATE FROM THE DANISH TEAM:
Last friday (14th of August), after starting this thread and similar on other forums, we received an email from Tesla management (VP Engineering) and arranged a phone conference, to discuss the subject - Missing performance on P85D's.
During the call, we once again brought the performance issues into attention, asking Tesla to investigate the matter and give an official reply to our letters. After discussing the matter for 30 minuttes, we asked Tesla to test a new vehicle running the latest release (2.5.36 in Europe), and compare this to a february/march build version of the firmware. Tesla agreed to this and promised to return with some information within a "few days" - in my opinion this is 2 days - but I guess we all know Tesla Time is running much slower.
As we hadn't heard anything from Tesla earlier today, we contacted the VP of engineering directly this afternoon, and once again had a plesant call with him. They were still in progess of testing and comparing the firmware versions and the performance given by these different versions, however no final results were ready yet. Doug seems to be very systematic and briefly what they intended to test/were testing. As he stated - Tesla had never intended to downgrade the performance of the P85D, and they were now looking into where this issued occured. When they could identify in which build the problem started, the next step was to identify and rewrite the code controlling the drivetrain, so that the vehicles once again would perform as they did before the unfortunate firmware build. He didn't exactly admit that they had a problem, but it was said in between the lines.
They would continue investigating the issue and promised us an update within this afternoon or tomorrow.
We will post more in this thread when new information is available, and we will continue to update the site at P85D Owners Missing Performance when we have new information.
/Ken
Last friday (14th of August), after starting this thread and similar on other forums, we received an email from Tesla management (VP Engineering) and arranged a phone conference, to discuss the subject - Missing performance on P85D's.
During the call, we once again brought the performance issues into attention, asking Tesla to investigate the matter and give an official reply to our letters. After discussing the matter for 30 minuttes, we asked Tesla to test a new vehicle running the latest release (2.5.36 in Europe), and compare this to a february/march build version of the firmware. Tesla agreed to this and promised to return with some information within a "few days" - in my opinion this is 2 days - but I guess we all know Tesla Time is running much slower.
As we hadn't heard anything from Tesla earlier today, we contacted the VP of engineering directly this afternoon, and once again had a plesant call with him. They were still in progess of testing and comparing the firmware versions and the performance given by these different versions, however no final results were ready yet. Doug seems to be very systematic and briefly what they intended to test/were testing. As he stated - Tesla had never intended to downgrade the performance of the P85D, and they were now looking into where this issued occured. When they could identify in which build the problem started, the next step was to identify and rewrite the code controlling the drivetrain, so that the vehicles once again would perform as they did before the unfortunate firmware build. He didn't exactly admit that they had a problem, but it was said in between the lines.
They would continue investigating the issue and promised us an update within this afternoon or tomorrow.
We will post more in this thread when new information is available, and we will continue to update the site at P85D Owners Missing Performance when we have new information.
/Ken
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
The letter is ready. I have started two new threads: one to discuss the letter, if that is necessary, and one to collect support and signatures. Both threads include the letter in the first post.
Here are the links to the two threads:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...Regarding-P85D-Horsepower--Discussion-Thread
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/51923-Letter-To-Elon-Musk-Regarding-P85D-Horsepower-%C2%96-Signature-Thread-Only-Please
If you have any questions, please post them in the discussion thread.
Thanks!
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I already replied to a similar comment by wk057.
The reaction by the enthusiast crowd has been a big "meh" judging from comments I read at Jalopnik and Autoblog. They already know CR gets higher 0-60 numbers than other publications when they test their cars, so it's no surprise to them. And for the non-enthusiasts they don't care enough for the exact numbers to matter (0-60 in 3.5 seconds is still insanely quick for a sedan and significantly quicker than the outgoing P85).
- - - Updated - - -
I think you know that's not what I'm saying. 1 foot rollout is a longstanding tradition in US drag racing, as you found out yourself. That's where the rollout comes from. It's not something that's completely arbitrary.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
The entirety of this thread can be summed up as: non-U.S. buyers unaware of American drag strip racing custom.
The solution for Tesla should be: An * in the 3.1 second 0-60 figure noting that this spec is achieved with the historic custom 1-ft rollout at U.S. drag strips.
/thread
The solution for Tesla should be: An * in the 3.1 second 0-60 figure noting that this spec is achieved with the historic custom 1-ft rollout at U.S. drag strips.
/thread
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
In US English a few means more than 2. In fact I think of "few" as commonly 3 or 4 with room to extend to 5 or so. If we were to mean 2 we would say in a couple of days or in a day or two.
In addition to the few>2 we have a concept called business days. It isn't uncommon for a US businessman to say I'll get back to you in a few days and then not count his days not at work. Weekends, holidays, any sort of business shutdown is expected to not count towards those number of days he intended to convey. If he wanted you to be sure when he would contact you, I would expect him to communicate more accurately / specifically than using an ambiguous word like "few".
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see videos from people who have done or are doing performance tests. There is too much text and no videos. Some people said they have done tests but there is no video. I think they have underestimated how important it is to record videos while they were doing those tests. Something you write in this topic is going to be forgotten the next day and most people won't see it, won't link to it, won't tweet about it. Text is not a suitable format to communicate performance issues you have with your car. If the Denmark 15 group is planning to do any tests, I hope they find somebody who is good at editing videos. That's the first thing they should do.
I think what non-enthusiast are reading is that it is not as fast as Tesla says more than 3.5 or 3.1 or any other number - and they will transfer this understanding of Teslas communication to the whole range and that will hurt their business. When you are the new kid on the block you need to build trust and Tesla needs that trust for the model 3. This is so much more than performance on P85D, when headlines like that gets around.
Every news paper in Denmark has written about the P85D and every time there is something about Tesla it is in every paper, and I fear that that headline will make it to the papers that the future buyers of Tesla are reading. That motor enthusiasts in the US agree that CR is wrong will not make it to any of those papers and if Tesla goes out in Europe with a public response to the articles that they use roll out on that one specific model, it is going to be a shitstorm like they never experienced before.
Another controversy like those two fires?
I at least wasn't fueling those fires ...
I at least wasn't fueling those fires ...
Last edited by a moderator:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well, non-enthusiasts tend to gloss over exact 0-60 numbers. Few know what a P85D is (out of the few that know what a Tesla is) and few care. The most people had exposure to the car are probably youtube reaction videos to insane mode. If you ask any of them the 0-60 they would draw a blank.
I just looked at the reactions to the supercharger letters. From the reactions over at the supercharger letter thread, you would think the public would side with the owners. However, what I have seen is the opposite. They seem to think Model S owners are a bunch of entitled rich people whining about some reasonable letters Tesla wrote. And that is the reaction to something that is critical for driving.
What would they think of people stressing out over 0.3-0.4 seconds of acceleration time? I doubt they would be able to relate.
Keep in mind while we here focus on those exact numbers, the CR report overall is very positive on the P85D and they also don't mention the discrepancy like it's a big deal in their report: "Our P85D took 1.4 seconds to reach 30 mph and a scant 3.5 seconds to get to 60 mph in "Insane" mode—a bit short of the advertised 3.1 seconds"
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/08/tesla-model-s-p85d-test-results/index.htm
I doubt there would be any negative reports based on the CR results from the mainstream media given the overall tone of the CR report.
Last edited:
