Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

[dsm363]

Is that really the kind of relationship you'd want to build with your customers? A relationship based on your having used standards you knew they would have no way of knowing about?

Personally I'd prefer to deal with a company that wanted me, as a customer, to have an accurate picture of the product I was going to purchase, as opposed to a company that was doing anything and everything they could to make it look better than it really was. Perhaps that's just me.

What standard for dual motor EVs would you have had them use?

 

[Andyw2100]

The comment sums it up:

View attachment 95718

Actually that comment only shows that the person making the comment doesn't understand the issue at all.

As we have said dozens, if not hundreds of times, we're not talking about wheel horsepower. The P85D does not make 691 HP --anywhere--. The letter never mentions 691 HP at the wheels. If the P85D doesn't make 691HP any where in the drive train, that's a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

What standard for dual motor EVs would you have had them use?

They could have used a conservative figure that they knew the car was capable of meeting or exceeding.

They seem to have done that with the other Ds.

 

[yak-55]

What standard for dual motor EVs would you have had them use?

Absence of a standard doesn't preclude them from advertising a meaningful number. They should have used, and should be using, figures for the car that are representative of its real world performance and that are reasonably comparable to their other models and competitors offerings. Not that hard. Probably something like the peak 550hp owners have determined is available from the battery. Since they however already advertised the car with 691 "motor power" (hp in some jurisdictions apparently) they seem unwilling to use a real world appropriate figure such as this. Many will now reasonably doubt the figures they present. Not too late to make this easy for customers and (in my opinion) remove a cloud over the car and company. Others opinions may vary, my standards may be too high for some.

 

[dsm363]

Absence of a standard doesn't preclude them from advertising a meaningful number. They should have used, and should be using, figures for the car that are representative of its real world performance and that are reasonably comparable to their other models and competitors offerings. Not that hard. Probably something like the peak 550hp owners have determined is available from the battery. Since they however already advertised the car with 691 "motor power" (hp in some jurisdictions apparently) they seem unwilling to use a real world appropriate figure such as this. Many will now reasonably doubt the figures they present. Not too late to make this easy for customers and (in my opinion) remove a cloud over the car and company. Others opinions may vary, my standards may be too high for some.

That would be the ideal but it's possible an engineering oriented company simply didn't think about it when they launched things at first. They picked the only standard in the world it seems addressing it and used it. By the time it became clear it wasn't going to work for some people, it became too late and a legal matter if they changed anything. They are likely going to stick with this for awhile at least is my guess. Basically, we don't know why they did what they did but for those to say they were 'lied' to seems a little much given what we know now. Tesla did not make up the numbers they publish now (the combined number was obviously a mistake on their part) so they do have basis in reality. Just not the reality some would prefer. We'd all love it if every single company in the world used realistic 0-60 times, mpg,....etc of every product they sell but most realize that companies tend to put a positive spin on what they sell. As long as they don't make up the numbers and have some way of showing how they got to what they have, it's not a fabrication.

It may be slightly misleading but I'm not sure if anyone asked Tesla at the time of ordering how they got their numbers. Of course in an ideal world they wouldn't have to but if the website wasn't clear about how the numbers were obtained then it was open to interpretation. If there was a standard that they quoted and then it was proven Tesla lied about how they achieved the numbers then sure, have at them but that's not the case here.

 

[darthy001]

That would be the ideal but it's possible an engineering oriented company simply didn't think about it when they launched things at first. They picked the only standard in the world it seems addressing it and used it. By the time it became clear it wasn't going to work for some people, it became too late and a legal matter if they changed anything. They are likely going to stick with this for awhile at least is my guess. Basically, we don't know why they did what they did but for those to say they were 'lied' to seems a little much given what we know now. Tesla did not make up the numbers they publish now (the combined number was obviously a mistake on their part) so they do have basis in reality. Just not the reality some would prefer. We'd all love it if every single company in the world used realistic 0-60 times, mpg,....etc of every product they sell but most realize that companies tend to put a positive spin on what they sell. As long as they don't make up the numbers and have some way of showing how they got to what they have, it's not a fabrication.

It may be slightly misleading but I'm not sure if anyone asked Tesla at the time of ordering how they got their numbers. Of course in an ideal world they wouldn't have to but if the website wasn't clear about how the numbers were obtained then it was open to interpretation. If there was a standard that they quoted and then it was proven Tesla lied about how they achieved the numbers then sure, have at them but that's not the case here.

I think we are getting close to an agreement here. For me the whole issue has always been communication here.

Summed up from my view:

Before i bought my P85D Tesla did the following:

- Took pride in being different from the dealers. Especially about being open and honest
- Took pride in over delivering on specs as all their cars had better 0-100kph and HP-numbers in the real world than on paper
- Using the same measuring methods for all their cars. I.e. no use of roll-out

Starting from when I ordered my P85D and until now:

- Starting to look more and more like a standard company selling cars with all the negativity that entails in terms of "shady" marketing
- Not over delivering on anything anymore
- Using different measuring methods for the high end car in terms of introducing roll-out without any warning for non-us customers
- Changing the way they advertise HP-numbers without explaining the difference


All in all I see the recent blog and the words used in the response from PR-guy in Norway as a clear statement of where Tesla wants to go. They are now "just a car company". Honestly that's fine by me, and at least now they only have dubious wording on autopilot-webpage left of old misleading information. So steps in the right direction even though I had a minimal hope that some of the old Tesla was still left in there somewhere.

Edit: oh seems like I have been a bit to positive here. The info about using roll-out is not updated to the Norwegian site. So that site is still using the incorrect numbers without any explanation Tesla hasn't bothered updating other countries.

 

[rainman50]

Thanks a lot for clarifying that. Very good to know.

The response from McLaren did not include a direct answer. I asked them to comment on Motor Trend article that reported the 3.2s time for Mclaren F1 with a rollout. They just responded that "The F1 was recorded by Autocar magazine as doing 0-60 mph in 3.2 seconds from standstill, no rollout."

So what this boils down to, as I have already posted back three weeks ago, 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. What 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 reportedtest 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.

- - - Updated - - -

Makes sense, thanks.

But it appears Tesla went with what Motortrend was reporting. And since this is a car you basically can't find anymore to test easily seems reasonable as well.

 

[vgrinshpun]

As we have said dozens, if not hundreds of times, we're not talking about wheel horsepower. The P85D does not make 691 HP --anywhere--. The letter never mentions 691 HP at the wheels. If the P85D doesn't make 691HP any where in the drive train, that's a problem

This is misleading statement. As was posted multiple times the P85D drivetrain is rated 691hp or higher according to Regulation ECE R85. The drivetrain is fully capable to produce this power when supplied from an independent DC source. The car, however, can't output full 691hp because drivetrain is limited by the maximum capability of the battery currently supplied with P85Ds.

 

[cynix]

This is misleading statement. As was posted multiple times the P85D drivetrain is rated 691hp or higher according to Regulation ECE R85. The drivetrain is fully capable to produce this power when supplied from an independent DC source. The car, however, can't output full 691hp because drivetrain is limited by the maximum capability of the battery.

And this is exactly why ECE R85 is useless and should be thrown away like we did with SAE Gross 40 years ago.

 

[vgrinshpun]

And this is exactly why ECE R85 is useless and should be thrown away like we did with SAE Gross 40 years ago.

I would just note that human history shows that a prudent approach would be to make sure that a better replacement Regulation is available before throwing out the "useless" old one. May be we collectively should spend less time attacking Tesla, and lamenting the uselessness of existing Regulation, while directing our energy to coming up with the ways to improve this Regulation.

That seem to be a better use of our time. Even if during such a discussion it turns out that this Regulation can't be improved, we all would've learned a lot in the process.

---------EDIT--------

I am not an expert on ICE standards, but according to what was posted by others (it was Sorka if memory serves me right) the switch from SAE Gross happened much more recently than 40 years ago. In any event, it appears that this switch happened well after the ICE technology matured. As far as EV technology is concerned we are in the infancy stage of it.

 

[rainman50]

I still don't understand why Tesla don't give combined HP for the P85D/P90D and they give it for the 70D and 85D.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I still don't understand why Tesla don't give combined HP for the P85D/P90D and they give it for the 70D and 85D.

I believe that Tesla legal department advised Tesla to limit dissemination of information for P85D because of the threat of the law suits coming from small but vocal group of owners. I personally do not like this situation, but it is just a reality of it.

------EDIT-----

If interested, you can read much more on this - see couple of pages following the linked post:

Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications - Page 30

 

[Andyw2100]

I believe that Tesla legal department advised Tesla to limit dissemination of information for P85D because of the threat of the law suits coming from small but vocal group of owners. I personally do not like this situation, but it is just a reality of it.

------EDIT-----

If interested, you can read much more on this - see couple of pages following the linked post:

Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications - Page 30

I am surprised that you are still attempting to spread this disinformation, suggesting that the group that has been vocal about this issue has also been making threats of lawsuits.

As pointed out in the thread you referenced above, we agree that Tesla's actions are based on the fear of legal action.

But I take issue with your contention that anyone posting here is the cause. While there may be one or two posters here who, in the last few weeks, hinted at legal action, the information about P85D horsepower was removed from the Tesla website months ago. No posters here, to the best of my knowledge, made any references or threats of suing Tesla --BEFORE-- those numbers were removed. So your suggestion of cause and effect there is simply not valid.

In the other thread, where I asked you to support that claim, you couldn't, but rather changed your position to say that Tesla lawyers feared legal action. That is a completely different argument than the one you again made above.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

How is Tesla cherry picking standards? If you know of any US standard or Regulation (yes, as always, you are avoiding inconvenient points, namely, that ECE R85 is a Regulation and compliance with it, therefore, mandatory) that deals with specifying power for an EV drivetrain, please share with us.

Aside from the fact that comparing selection of one of the **two** prevalent **practices** to specify acceleration to the use of **the only one** existing **Regulation** is, well, "completely disingenious" to borrow your words, the reason that Tesla used rollout for P85D most likely is quite innocent. I've posted about this about three weeks ago. Tesla's prominent claim for P85D was matching performance of the McLaren F1, which was 3.2s, with a rollout according to the MotorTrend. So in order to compare apples to apples they switched to the rollout adjusted time.

Agreed. Tesla was using Motor Trend standard for P85D w/ rollout when comparing to McLaren F1's acceleration. Tesla never compared any other model to the McLaren, just the P85D. Tesla kept it apples to apples.

- - - Updated - - -

From another post (hopefully someone will chime in and repost it), that he had a response directly from McLaren and they said the F1 spec was WITHOUT rollout.

I'll see if I can find that post again.

What McLaren says is completely irrelevant because the number Tesla used was from Motor Trend.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? Even if Tesla was cherry picking standards, if I created a product I would market and sell it in the best possible light in order to make my product look as good as I possible could. That's not called deception, that's called capitalism.

^^ this

- - - Updated - - -

Absence of a standard doesn't preclude them from advertising a meaningful number. They should have used, and should be using, figures for the car that are representative of its real world performance and that are reasonably comparable to their other models and competitors offerings. Not that hard. Probably something like the peak 550hp owners have determined is available from the battery. Since they however already advertised the car with 691 "motor power" (hp in some jurisdictions apparently) they seem unwilling to use a real world appropriate figure such as this. Many will now reasonably doubt the figures they present. Not too late to make this easy for customers and (in my opinion) remove a cloud over the car and company. Others opinions may vary, my standards may be too high for some.

It's not that you have higher standards and others have lower standards - that would make you appear to be somehow better than others who happen to disagree with you. Tesla used a methodology to come up with its numbers and it has now explained that methodology. The P85D absolutely performs to Tesla's stated specifications, i.e., 0-60 in 3.1 seconds w/ rollout as compared to the McLaren F1 0-60 time as established by Motor Trend (also w/ rollout). What is being argued and discussed ad-nauseum is the expectation for Tesla's HP to conform ICE HP standards. Clearly it doesn't and that is the crux of the complaints. Tesla has made a marketing decision to sell its cars this way. It is not illegal or unethical. It is actually in line with how other EV makers specify their cars' power. And advertising motor HP instead of "system" HP is required by law in the EU.

I can understand the disconnect, but honestly don't see any culpability on Tesla's part.

 

[Stoneymonster]

Just to muddy the waters, here's the first reference to legal action I could find. Not a threat, but probably enough to prick Tesla's ears up. P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 8

I recall other mentions of legal action in that timeframe but stopped my search.

Also, reading that thread is hilarious, because there's not much being said here that wasn't being said in March.

Edit: and another P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 17

Edit edit: and I don't mean to belittle anyone's opinion by the hilarious comment, just thought it funny that eventually all arguments run into the ground without new information.

 

[smac]

Just to muddy the waters, here's the first reference to legal action I could find. Not a threat, but probably enough to prick Tesla's ears up. P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 8

I recall other mentions of legal action in that timeframe but stopped my search.

Also, reading that thread is hilarious, because there's not much being said here that wasn't being said in March.

Edit: and another P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. - Page 17

Edit edit: and I don't mean to belittle anyone's opinion by the hilarious comment, just thought it funny that eventually all arguments run into the ground without new information.

Come on that's not threat of direct legal action against Tesla. That's concerned folk saying that Tesla need to be careful with claims that could lead them down that path.

 

[Stoneymonster]

Come on that's not threat of direct legal action against Tesla. That's concerned folk saying that Tesla need to be careful with claims that could lead them down that path.

I'm saying it's enough for Tesla to shut the hell up and batten down the hatches. It was a response to:

No posters here, to the best of my knowledge, made any references or threats of suing Tesla --BEFORE-- those numbers were removed. So your suggestion of cause and effect there is simply not valid.

From Andy above. Those are references, yes not threats, but references.

 

[dsm363]

Yes. References about 'need to keep that as an option' obviously would get Tesla's attention. It was brought up at least once on TMC.

 

[Auzie]

I would just note that human history shows that a prudent approach would be to make sure that a better replacement Regulation is available before throwing out the "useless" old one. May be we collectively should spend less time attacking Tesla, and lamenting the uselessness of existing Regulation, while directing our energy to coming up with the ways to improve this Regulation.

That seem to be a better use of our time. Even if during such a discussion it turns out that this Regulation can't be improved, we all would've learned a lot in the process.

---------EDIT--------

I am not an expert on ICE standards, but according to what was posted by others (it was Sorka if memory serves me right) the switch from SAE Gross happened much more recently than 40 years ago. In any event, it appears that this switch happened well after the ICE technology matured. As far as EV technology is concerned we are in the infancy stage of it.

Thank you VG and all other contributors for your combined efforts in clarifying difficult technical subject, I learned a lot from you guys. Great discussion.

Electric car is a complex system. It consists of numerous equally complex components that all interact in various ways under different external conditions.

Trying to describe some complex systems with a single meaningful number is not possible.

Wiki on complex systems

"what is the peak combined power that the car can attain, and under what conditions ?" is not a question that can easily be answered as there are too many variables (components) in a car that can affect the system power output differently under different external conditions.

The car complexity is overlayed with various external conditions that affect car performance in various ways (tyres, driver skill, additional weight, humidity, etc).

There are many answers to that questions and all these answers must be qualified with quite specific description of the components states and the external conditions that produce a particular answer. That write up turns into comprehensive technical essay that might be hard to digest. It is difficult for the average person to relate to such verbose technical write ups.

I would be very surprised if the future regulations for bevs include any attempts to specify the car power at the wheels. My expectation is that the future regulation is likely to specify individual components outputs under certain conditions.

I buy a lot of weird machines from all over the world. I have never come across a machine that is specified in terms of a single output number as such specification is not informative for complex systems. All of these machines always have motor power specified.

 

[smac]

Auzie I'm sorry I don't buy this complexity argument.

An ICE is _MUCH_ more complicated than a BEV in terms of determining power, after all it's a far more complex machine.

For a BEV, take an ammeter and a volt meter put it on the motor cables. Plot the results against RPM, job done.

What is clouding this is testing regimes, and to be honest even this should be simple. Use the current test, which seems fair, then apply a cap equivalent to what the battery (edit) can deliver in the overall peak output given.

The reason R85 allows a power supply for the 30 minute continuous test, is simply because all current EVs would flatten their batteries at full power in under 30 minutes. It doesn't mean using an external power supply with a greater current capacity should be allowed IMHO.

 

[Auzie]

Auzie I'm sorry I don't buy this complexity argument.

An ICE is _MUCH_ more complicated than a BEV in terms of determining power, after all it's a far more complex machine.

----------.

Agree 100%. For the same complexity reasons, a single power number is not informative about the ice cars as well.

Trying to reduce complexity to something simple and easy to understand is likely to lead to misunderstanding and confusion. Qualifiers must be given. If qualifiers are not given, people get accused of lying and misleading.