Letter To Elon Musk Regarding P85D Horsepower – Discussion Thread

[Andyw2100]

You are grasping at straws.

If they conspired to increase sales by publishing confusing specifications, the last thing they want is to blow the cover by telling David Nolan one week after reveal, before any cars even started being made, exactly what these specifications mean.

This just does not make any sense.

You don't know who David Noland received his information from. It could have been a knowledgeable and reliable source inside Tesla who didn't care one way or the other about the impact the information getting out would have on Tesla.

Also at the time, Noland reported that Tesla was in the process of working on the update.Tesla may have made the decision not to move forward with the update --AFTER-- speaking to Noland.

Imagine the following hypothetical conversation taking place in the Tesla marketing department:

Ethical Tesla Marketing Employee: "I can't believe how many articles there are talking about how the P85D has 691 HP. It's a good thing we're getting that explanation from engineering to put on the website to clear up the confusion about that."

Much Less Ethical Tesla Marketing Supervisor (or a higher up): "People are ordering the car like crazy. Let's let them think it really does have 691 HP. We snuck the word "motor" in there. It's not our fault they still think it means HP, and that all those magazines are saying 691 HP. We're not going to update the website at all."

Ethical Tesla Marketing Employee: "Oh."

 

[Krugerrand]

You don't know who David Noland received his information from.

You don't either, which makes everything else that you typed following this sentence made up. And what you've made up is a story that feeds your upsettedness. (It's a word now, I've used it in a sentence.)

 

[Laserbrain]

Or the third one: MB advertised exactly in the same way as Tesla ....

Is MB showing misleading information, too? Maybe. Does this justify Tesla to show misleading information? No.

If they conspired to increase sales by publishing confusing specifications, the last thing they want is to blow the cover by telling David Nolan one week after reveal, before any cars even started being made, exactly what these specifications mean.

Who is David Nolan? I never heard of him. Do I meet him, when I am about to buy a Tesla? No?

When I buy a Tesla, I go to Tesla's website and even today Tesla is still showing misleading information.

So is Tesla scamming their customers with intend? I don't know. Hopefully one day this will get judged in a court.

 

[vgrinshpun]

You don't know who David Noland received his information from. It could have been a knowledgeable and reliable source inside Tesla who didn't care one way or the other about the impact the information getting out would have on Tesla.

Also at the time, Noland reported that Tesla was in the process of working on the update.Tesla may have made the decision not to move forward with the update --AFTER-- speaking to Noland.

Imagine the following hypothetical conversation taking place in the Tesla marketing department:

Ethical Tesla Marketing Employee: "I can't believe how many articles there are talking about how the P85D has 691 HP. It's a good thing we're getting that explanation from engineering to put on the website to clear up the confusion about that."

Much Less Ethical Tesla Marketing Supervisor (or a higher up): "People are ordering the car like crazy. Let's let them think it really does have 691 HP. We snuck the word "motor" in there. It's not our fault they still think it means HP, and that all those magazines are saying 691 HP. We're not going to update the website at all."

Ethical Tesla Marketing Employee: "Oh."

Yep, you are grasping at straws.

The only thing that is missing is cheap sinister music playing in the background while somebody reads your made up story.

 

[Andyw2100]

If they conspired to increase sales by publishing confusing specifications, the last thing they want is to blow the cover by telling David Nolan one week after reveal, before any cars even started being made, exactly what these specifications mean.

This just does not make any sense.

You don't know who David Noland received his information from. It could have been a knowledgeable and reliable source inside Tesla who didn't care one way or the other about the impact the information getting out would have on Tesla.

You don't either, which makes everything else that you typed following this sentence made up.

I said the other stuff was a hypothetical conversation, so of course it's made up.

vgrinshpun said it made no sense for Tesla to tell David Noland what the specs meant if they didn't want the information to get out. I said it may not have been Tesla, the company, themselves that had provided the information. You then said I didn't know who he received his information from either, which makes my point--thank you.

The only thing that matters to making my point is that the information did not have to officially come from Tesla. Since Noland didn't say that it did, we have no reason to believe the information came from Tesla officially, hence vgrinshpuns's conclusion that "Tesla wouldn't do that" is invalid.

 

[vgrinshpun]

How would random employee who is not involved in your "conspiracy" would know all the details of what the motor power specifications mean? If he/she has detailed knowledge about specifications it means that the person either involved in conspiracy, and if that the case, would not blow the cover, or the details about the motor power specifications were a common knowledge within the company, which makes conspiracy theory invalid (to borrow your word).

I can't believe I am even involved in this conversation, it is totally insane...

 

[Andyw2100]

I can't believe I am even involved in this conversation, it is totally insane...

Again...one of the few things we agree on. Which is why I'm not going to continue it beyond this, since you'd likely just bring up more craziness to waste my time.

Any number of people within Tesla could have understood what the specifications really meant, and shared that knowledge with David Noland. The fact that several people within Tesla understood the numbers doesn't mean the public easily should have. That could have been why Tesla initially planned to clarify what they meant. The conspiracy, if one were to exist, would only come into play at the point that the decision was made --NOT-- to clarify those numbers. The person who spoke to Noland could have done so in good faith, with no knowledge whatsoever of how that could negatively impact the potential conspiracy that person knew nothing about.

 

[dsm363]

A misunderstanding that Tesla anticipated, started to do something about it to prevent it, and then decided not to. That sounds like there may be some conspiracy involved after all.

And? That doesn't make what they did illegal. You're basing this all off of a David Nolan article. Perhaps they decided to study the issue more or that it wasn't a big deal. It wasn't until this forum and you blew up on the issue. It really is time to move on. You were cheated and lied to in your mind. So do something about it. Talking about it here won't get to the resolution you seek. The letter your wrote got a response in the form of a blog post but that didn't make you happy either. You're not even sure what resolution would make you happy other than for Tesla to "make it right" which we know they can't do physically (upgrade your car to make 691hp anywhere in the car).

 

[dsm363]

So we have conspiracy theories now. We've definitely jumped the shark.

 

[dsm363]

Is MB showing misleading information, too? Maybe. Does this justify Tesla to show misleading information? No.



Who is David Nolan? I never heard of him. Do I meet him, when I am about to buy a Tesla? No?

When I buy a Tesla, I go to Tesla's website and even today Tesla is still showing misleading information.

So is Tesla scamming their customers with intend? I don't know. Hopefully one day this will get judged in a court.

It's no longer misleading. The numbers are separated with 'motor power' for each motor and not combined to 691 as before and there is now a blog post explaining it. And the customer could always ask Tesla what that means. If you can't bother to dig a little deeper if those hp numbers mean that much to you then that's on you.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Again...one of the few things we agree on. Which is why I'm not going to continue it beyond this, since you'd likely just bring up more craziness to waste my time.

Any number of people within Tesla could have understood what the specifications really meant, and shared that knowledge with David Noland. The fact that several people within Tesla understood the numbers doesn't mean the public easily should have. That could have been why Tesla initially planned to clarify what they meant. The conspiracy, if one were to exist, would only come into play at the point that the decision was made --NOT-- to clarify those numbers. The person who spoke to Noland could have done so in good faith, with no knowledge whatsoever of how that could negatively impact the potential conspiracy that person knew nothing about.

I find your remark about wasting your time particularly interesting.

You just can't have it both ways. After telling everybody for months that an average person could not possibly understand P85D specifications (and a bunch of other things which, one by one turned out to be wrong) you now want people to believe that a random local Tesla employee would have detailed knowledge about P85D which was released just a week prior? This is just not possible, and anybody who ever came in contact with Tesla SC or store personnel, would know that. The person who provided Dave Nolan with the detailed information about P85D specs had to be from the corporate engineering. So once again, if Tesla was so bent on promoting misleading specifications, why would it blow the cover?

I am perfectly OK with you not answering my question. There is no good answer for it. I understand.

 

[sorka]

Conspiracy to do what?

To intentionally mislead the public and let them believe that "691 hp motor power" was actually 691 hp.

If you look at my posting history, before JB's blog, you'll see I stood up many times for Tesla and said that I didn't believe they intentionally mislead us and that they were trying to figure out how to solve this. And then Tesla came out with their "in the coming months" high speed update promise and we all knew that they were going to fix this and make it right. But the second part of that update never came.

Then JB posted his blog and it was that instant that I knew this was intentional all along. And before you go all on again about them stating what they were required to under ECE R85:


Consider the following:

• Tesla stated "691 hp motor power" on their website in multiple places. It did not state anywhere that "hp motor power" meant something other than hp produced by motors. There was no asterisk next to the horsepower spec stating that this is not actual horsepower produced by the production vehicle.
• The only place ECE R85 was referenced was inside the owners manuals and even these didn't contain the that reference until after the P85D was already shipping. Are we to expect that prospective buyers doing their research are supposed find this reference first in the owners manual?
• The subsystems page in the manual lists individual motor powers and does not add the front and rear motors together. In fact, if you add up front and rear motors, you get 728 hp, not 691 hp.
• Publications for over a year now have been publicizing 691 hp, not "hp motor power". Why hasn't tesla corrected them and why are they all still quoting 691 hp when the car only makes 480 to 555 hp depending on state of charge?
• The sales people repeatedly stated the P85D makes "691 horsepower" without ever adding the term "motor power".
• Elon Musk himself has been quoted as saying the P85D has 691 hp and did not use the term motor power. He's also been quoted as saying the P85D has 50% more power than the P85.
• If they were going to list a combined horsepower number, they had an obligation to list the power that the P85D actually makes. They do for the other Model S trims. In addition, since the P85D is the only Model S to lose power as the SOC declines in it's normal daily driving range, they should have clarified that the 555 hp is only at 90% SOC or greater and that below that, power will decline as charge declines. This is not true on the other Model S variants until you get much deeper in to charge state.
• Ignoring repeated multiple letters and emails over MONTHS asking for clarification about the horsepower rating. We get responses for everything else we ask but those that inquired about this got nothing. If they were being so above board about this with nothing to hide, how come they refused to respond to the question of "why is my car only making 480 to 555 hp (depending on SOC) when it was advertised at 691 hp"?
• Just because they test according to R85 to arrive at motor power ratings doesn't mean they get to use that in place of actual horsepower specified. Nowhere in the regulation does it state you can substitute horsepower rating of the vehicle with motor power capability of the drivetrain (with a power source not supplied). These are two entirely separate things. One is the actual horsepower produced by the vehicle. The other is an irrelevant specification that can't be reached with the shipping battery. It's only possible value would be knowing your drivetrain could handle more power if a battery with more power became available in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

And? That doesn't make what they did illegal.

It does if they violated the FTC's "Truth in Advertising" laws:

Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 41-58)

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Most states, including California where Tesla is based, also have their own truth in advertising laws. In fact, Tesla was called on the carpet in California in 2012 or 2013 for its misleading advertisement of pricing, forcing Tesla to make a change to its web site. All it takes are a few complaints to the right authorities. Suggest focusing on California.

 

[supratachophobia]

That is the most succinct and well thought out side of the argument yet. My question is, why is there still an argument? Sorka just listed the facts with the conclusion for the consumer being that they were mislead. How can we not agree on this?

The only problem left to solve would be what can/will Tesla do about it?

 

[Andyw2100]

I find your remark about wasting your time particularly interesting.

You just can't have it both ways. After telling everybody for months that an average person could not possibly understand P85D specifications (and a bunch of other things which, one by one turned out to be wrong) you now want people to believe that a random local Tesla employee would have detailed knowledge about P85D which was released just a week prior? This is just not possible, and anybody who ever came in contact with Tesla SC or store personnel, would know that. The person who provided Dave Nolan with the detailed information about P85D specs had to be from the corporate engineering. So once again, if Tesla was so bent on promoting misleading specifications, why would it blow the cover?

I am perfectly OK with you not answering my question. There is no good answer for it. I understand.

Fine. So Noland's source was from corporate engineering. (And speaking of "doing your homework", as you like to do, why do you insist on repeatedly spelling the man's name wrong, even after I spell it correctly?) That doesn't invalidate any of what I suggested could have happened: the source spoke to Noland, with no concept of the fact that Tesla was going to nix the idea of publishing the clarifying information.

 

[vgrinshpun]

That is the most succinct and well thought out side of the argument yet. My question is, why is there still an argument? Sorka just listed the facts with the conclusion for the consumer being that they were mislead. How can we not agree on this?

The only problem left to solve would be what can/will Tesla do about it?

Post with bullets numbering 9 does not qualify as succinct IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

To intentionally mislead the public and let them believe that "691 hp motor power" was actually 691 hp.

If you look at my posting history, before JB's blog, you'll see I stood up many times for Tesla and said that I didn't believe they intentionally mislead us and that they were trying to figure out how to solve this. And then Tesla came out with their "in the coming months" high speed update promise and we all knew that they were going to fix this and make it right. But the second part of that update never came.

Then JB posted his blog and it was that instant that I knew this was intentional all along. And before you go all on again about them stating what they were required to under ECE R85:


Consider the following:

• Tesla stated "691 hp motor power" on their website in multiple places. It did not state anywhere that "hp motor power" meant something other than hp produced by motors. There was no asterisk next to the horsepower spec stating that this is not actual horsepower produced by the production vehicle.
• The only place ECE R85 was referenced was inside the owners manuals and even these didn't contain the that reference until after the P85D was already shipping. Are we to expect that prospective buyers doing their research are supposed find this reference first in the owners manual?
• The subsystems page in the manual lists individual motor powers and does not add the front and rear motors together. In fact, if you add up front and rear motors, you get 728 hp, not 691 hp.
• Publications for over a year now have been publicizing 691 hp, not "hp motor power". Why hasn't tesla corrected them and why are they all still quoting 691 hp when the car only makes 480 to 555 hp depending on state of charge?
• The sales people repeatedly stated the P85D makes "691 horsepower" without ever adding the term "motor power".
• Elon Musk himself has been quoted as saying the P85D has 691 hp and did not use the term motor power. He's also been quoted as saying the P85D has 50% more power than the P85.
• If they were going to list a combined horsepower number, they had an obligation to list the power that the P85D actually makes. They do for the other Model S trims. In addition, since the P85D is the only Model S to lose power as the SOC declines in it's normal daily driving range, they should have clarified that the 555 hp is only at 90% SOC or greater and that below that, power will decline as charge declines. This is not true on the other Model S variants until you get much deeper in to charge state.
• Ignoring repeated multiple letters and emails over MONTHS asking for clarification about the horsepower rating. We get responses for everything else we ask but those that inquired about this got nothing. If they were being so above board about this with nothing to hide, how come they refused to respond to the question of "why is my car only making 480 to 555 hp (depending on SOC) when it was advertised at 691 hp"?
• Just because they test according to R85 to arrive at motor power ratings doesn't mean they get to use that in place of actual horsepower specified. Nowhere in the regulation does it state you can substitute horsepower rating of the vehicle with motor power capability of the drivetrain (with a power source not supplied). These are two entirely separate things. One is the actual horsepower produced by the vehicle. The other is an irrelevant specification that can't be reached with the shipping battery. It's only possible value would be knowing your drivetrain could handle more power if a battery with more power became available in the future.

- - - Updated - - -



It does if they violated the FTC's "Truth in Advertising" laws:

Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 41-58)

Well, we are trying to sort out the conspiracy thing, so let's not throw everything and kitchen sink around to confuse the issue.

So, again, if Tesla was hell bent on misleading people to buy their cars by stating specification that nobody could possibly understand (turned out to be wrong as well as bunch of other stuff), how come they blew the cover by telling David Nolan exactly what these specifications mean?

 

[Andyw2100]

So, again, if Tesla was hell bent on misleading people to buy their cars by stating specification that nobody could possibly understand (turned out to be wrong as well as bunch of other stuff), how come they blew the cover by telling David Nolan exactly what these specifications mean?

So again, whose to say that it was Tesla that spoke to David Noland?

You seem to be having great difficulty grasping the point that it did not have to be an official Tesla press release that Noland wrote his article based on. Any number of people working for Tesla could have spoken to Noland, but we've been over this already. Perhaps you thought others hadn't noticed.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Fine. So Noland's source was from corporate engineering. (And speaking of "doing your homework", as you like to do, why do you insist on repeatedly spelling the man's name wrong, even after I spell it correctly?) That doesn't invalidate any of what I suggested could have happened: the source spoke to Noland, with no concept of the fact that Tesla was going to nix the idea of publishing the clarifying information.

I hope your are not going to go into the discussion on how I am trying to obfuscate the issue by leaving the "d" out of the author's name...

If Noland's source was from corporate engineering, your theory that Tesla conspired to use misleading specifications to increase sales is invalid because in such case Tesla would not blow the cover by explaining exactly what these misleading specifications mean, just week after the unveiling P85D, before shipping a single car.

_________ Updated_________
Oops... Looks like I was wrong, you are going to further explore the issue out of missing "d"

 

[smac]

It's no longer misleading. The numbers are separated with 'motor power' for each motor and not combined to 691 as before and there is now a blog post explaining it. And the customer could always ask Tesla what that means. If you can't bother to dig a little deeper if those hp numbers mean that much to you then that's on you.

Misleading maybe not, obfuscated definitely.

One "good" thing to come out of this is I suspect many people now typing in "P85D power" into Google will come to threads like this now, read these sort of analysis and likely order an 85D instead. With the relatively small performance difference, but big moeny savings, they could decide to spend the difference on PV panels instead

 

[Andyw2100]

I hope your are not going to go into the discussion on how I am trying to obfuscate the issue by leaving the "d" out of the author's name...

If Noland's source was from corporate engineering, your theory that Tesla conspired to use misleading specifications to increase sales is invalid because in such case Tesla would not blow the cover by explaining exactly what these misleading specifications mean, just week after the unveiling P85D, before shipping a single car.

I don't understand how much clearer than the following I can be.

Using your example...

[Hypothetical situation follows]: Someone in corporate engineering spoke to Noland. At the time, he, and everyone else thought there was going to be an explanation clearing up any confusion. AFTER the source spoke to Noland, someone at Tesla--a manager in sales, a high level person in marketing--perhaps Elon Musk for all we know--decided to put the brakes on the idea of clearing things up with an explanation on the website. That is the moment it became a conspiracy. It was not a conspiracy before that. Noland's source--wherever it came from--would not have had any reason to not speak to Noland, as that source honestly believed the information was going to be hitting the website soon. The source was not part of the conspiracy because it did not exist yet!