Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

[Canuck]

Would like to see a link to the actual pages about the Norway resolution (that would be translatable).

In any case, while a bit surprising if it is in fact in Tesla's favor, I don't see how it's a loss. It sounds like the equivalent of the BBB in the USA making a ruling... basically means very little legally.

Link here:

https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

And Brianman posted a translation here:

Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter - Page 67

 

[brianman]

The developments that led to Andy's letter and this case suggest to me that the only winners here are Tesla's competition and opponents to EVs.

 

[P85DEE]

Another teaching moment: It's best not to gloat when you win, or get too down when you lose.

Yes, so true. That's why I said earlier that it's a time to reflect and take stock of what this whole matter has taught us.

 

[wk057]

Link here:

https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

And Brianman posted a translation here:

Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter - Page 67

That's Tesla's response, along with the P85D MotorTrend article (and comments), a dragtimes page, and some motor rating documents (at least one of the above is new information, although not useful). In a cursory glance over the material Tesla is definitely employing their standard misdirection (evident since day 1, proven by JB's blog post, and again by this response) to draw attention away from the horse power numbers and focusing on 0-60 performance instead.

I'm less concerned about Tesla's defense and more concerned with what the Norwegian consumer protection mediation group's next step is, if anything.

 

[Canuck]

That's Tesla's response, along with the P85D MotorTrend article (and comments), a dragtimes page, and some motor rating documents (at least one of the above is new information, although not useful).

Yes, right. Can anyone find a correct link? I wonder if anything was even decided or if someone thought Tesla's arguments were the actual decision.

Edit: I found it here but we still need a translation:

EU Market Situation and Outlook - Page 172

 

[vgrinshpun]

That's Tesla's response, along with the P85D MotorTrend article (and comments), a dragtimes page, and some motor rating documents (at least one of the above is new information, although not useful). In a cursory glance over the material Tesla is definitely employing their standard misdirection (evident since day 1, proven by JB's blog post, and again by this response) to draw attention away from the horse power numbers and focusing on 0-60 performance instead.

I'm less concerned about Tesla's defense and more concerned with what the Norwegian consumer protection mediation group's next step is, if anything.

I don't see how is Tesla "employing their standard misdirection". Their letter simply explains why claim that they delivered car that does not meet Tesla specifications is without any basis.

It seems that the Norwegian owners overreached in their complaint. From what I read in several TMC threads today, they did not seem to claim that Tesla specifications were misleading. The claim, instead, was that Tesla performance did not match Tesla specifications. This claim is demonstrably false.

 

[stopcrazypp]

rotflol

So is Top Gear entertainment or not? Sounds like the courts around the world should at least get on the same page on that point.

It is the Norwegian Top Gear magazine, but operates independent from the BBC show. There are various Top Gear magazines in different countries that may use the same branding (I know there is Top Gear HK for example). That might not be counted as entertainment only, as it is an enthusiast car magazine much like Motor Trend for example. Even in Britain itself there is a Top Gear magazine, and while the presenters to contribute pieces to the magazine, the tone is very different from the show.

- - - Updated - - -

That's Tesla's response, along with the P85D MotorTrend article (and comments), a dragtimes page, and some motor rating documents (at least one of the above is new information, although not useful). In a cursory glance over the material Tesla is definitely employing their standard misdirection (evident since day 1, proven by JB's blog post, and again by this response) to draw attention away from the horse power numbers and focusing on 0-60 performance instead.

I'm less concerned about Tesla's defense and more concerned with what the Norwegian consumer protection mediation group's next step is, if anything.

Tesla's response had to address 0-60 because that was one of the original complaints brought to the council. If you look at the PDF there are 3 different complaints brought up:
1) Tesla's 0-100 km/h in 3.3 seconds claim
2) Tesla's 700 hp claim (European, equivalent to the 691hp claim here)
3) Tesla's software upgrade promise

 

[Auzie]

...............

I'm less concerned about Tesla's defense and more concerned with what the Norwegian consumer protection mediation group's next step is, if anything.

The poster from Norway, Yggdrassill, reported:

...the result was that the Consumer Council (or whatever the translation would be) feel Tesla has fulfilled their evidential burden, and will drop the case.

This means that if the P85D buyers want anything further from Tesla, they will have to hire lawyers and sue. ...

My expectation is that the poster drew his conclusions from the actual ruling, not from the Tesla's response. Hopefully someone will post the link to the ruling soon.

 

[Matias]

I quote from the other thread

Sorry, that's all I've been able to find. The answer has only been sent to the complaintants, who then posted it on a closed facebook group, and then someone reposted these images on the Norwegian EV forum.

Maybe someone can use text recognition software to get it back into text. Also, with some patience, I suspect it might pop up in the news within a few days.

Edit: Actually, it was posted in the other thread: https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. I havent seen the actual decision, I was just relaying what some of the other posters over at the Norwegian EV forum who were on the closed facebook group were saying. Mindsweeper is probably correct in his assesment.

The first page of that document shows that it is Tesla's responce. Not a ruling.

 

[rns-e]

I don't see how is Tesla "employing their standard misdirection". Their letter simply explains why claim that they delivered car that does not meet Tesla specifications is without any basis.

It seems that the Norwegian owners overreached in their complaint. From what I read in several TMC threads today, they did not seem to claim that Tesla specifications were misleading. The claim, instead, was that Tesla performance did not match Tesla specifications. This claim is demonstrably false.

Tesla is using third party vbox measurements of 0-60 mph times *with* 1-foot roll out and links to youtube videos to document the validity of their 0-100 km/h in 3.3s without rollout.

No one have overreached their complaint, the answer from Tesla just shows that it is more valid than ever.

 

[Matias]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

 

[Auzie]

Link to reports in media on the Council decision, courtesy of Yggdrasill:

Now it's up to the owners to prove that Model S P85D not had the effect it was marketed

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla is using third party vbox measurements of 0-60 mph times *with* 1-foot roll out and links to youtube videos to document the validity of their 0-100 km/h in 3.3s without rollout.

No one have overreached their complaint, the answer from Tesla just shows that it is more valid than ever.

Tesla does not claim that they did not use rollout. They have a whole paragraph that says they use the same method NHRA, Motor Trend, and other American automakers use (which uses roll out).

 

[vgrinshpun]

Tesla is using third party vbox measurements of 0-60 mph times *with* 1-foot roll out and links to youtube videos to document the validity of their 0-100 km/h in 3.3s without rollout.

No one have overreached their complaint, the answer from Tesla just shows that it is more valid than ever.

No they do not. The 3.3 sec that you quote from the letter is, as specifically stated in the letter, measured *with* rollout.

The owners had definitely overreached in their complaint. According to the letter they claimed that P85D does not perform according to the specifications, when in fact it is easy to prove that it does. If the owners did not ignore this fact (which was discussed in detail at the time they filed their complaint) and instead of claiming that P85D did not meat the specifications concentrated on the fact that they see specifications as confusing/misleading they IMO had a better chance at success.

The letter is very interesting in that it confirms that P85D indeed was rated according ECE R85 (Section 5.3 and Appendix 6). This is the point that I've outlined in detail a while back. Initially this point was attacked by the unhappy owners as not correct and "just my opinion". When it became obvious that this is, in fact, how Tesla rated P85D, this point was dismissed as "irrelevant".

Another very interesting point that letter makes is that according to the existing precedent (Norwegian case Svein Helge Thomassen vs. Nissan Nordic Europe OY, LB-2006-18354) as long as the engine/motor performance was defined according to the government regulation and measurements performed by public testing authorities, it can not in a legal sense be considered as lacking expected performance.

I have made similar point a while back, saying that I can't see government authorities penalizing Tesla for presenting the rating of P85D according to the Regulation that is required to be used as guide for rating the power for Certificate of Conformity that need to be issued for each car in order to be registered in Europe.

 

[3mp_kwh]

The letter is very interesting in that it confirms that P85D indeed was rated according ECE R85 (Section 5.3 and Appendix 6). This is the point that I've outlined in detail a while back. Initially this point was attacked by the unhappy owners as not correct and "just my opinion".

Tesla offering the letters and numbers, "ECE R85", just poisons the well further, IMO. They should have felt compelled to qualify obscure methods, like this. They knew they were already up against the limits of one-speed EV power roll-off. Couldn't they have predicted the scrutiny? I hope they get it behind them.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla offering the letters and numbers, "ECE R85", just poisons the well further, IMO. They should have felt compelled to qualify obscure methods, like this. They knew they were already up against the limits of one-speed EV power roll-off. Couldn't they have predicted the scrutiny? I hope they get it behind them.

Looking at the court case that Nissan won on appeal was interesting (supposedly the only example of a horsepower dispute that reached Norwegian courts). Here's a link to a forum where the court case was mentioned in context to the P85D issue:
https://translate.google.com/transl...um/index.php?topic=22994.455;wap2&prev=search

The Nissan hp number were based on 80/1269/EEC, of which the standard is a mix of ISO 1585 and ECE R85 according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_80/1269/EEC

I suspect Nissan did not mention what method they used in their advertising, but that may be irrelevant to the case. The court seems to be saying as long as Nissan advertised using numbers that it was homologated with and there is no evidence that the customer's engine that would deviate from this (basically if the customer's engine was ripped out and tested with an engine dyno like with the standard; I am not talking about a whole vehicle case as people have been arguing), they are fine.

The claimants "NAF" basically used a rolling road (AKA dyno) to measure wheel horsepower and then back calculated the power at the engine shaft using the standard corrections that a dyno operator would use, but the court did not accept that as an acceptable way to claim a horsepower deficiency. The claim was the car made 112.5-116.6 hp at the engine while Nissan advertised 140 hp (17-20% difference).

 

[MikeBur]

Looking at the court case that Nissan won on appeal was interesting (supposedly the only example of a horsepower dispute that reached Norwegian courts). Here's a link to a forum where the court case was mentioned in context to the P85D issue:
https://translate.google.com/transl...um/index.php?topic=22994.455;wap2&prev=search

The Nissan hp number were based on 80/1269/EEC, of which the standard is a mix of ISO 1585 and ECE R85 according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_80/1269/EEC

I suspect Nissan did not mention what method they used in their advertising, but that may be irrelevant to the case. The court seems to be saying as long as Nissan advertised using numbers that it was homologated with and there is no evidence that the engine as installed in the car would have significantly less power if tested under the same standard, they are fine.

The claimants "NAF" basically used a rolling road (AKA dyno) to measure wheel horsepower and then back calculated the power at the engine shaft using the standard corrections that a dyno operator would use, but the court did not accept that as an acceptable way to claim a horsepower deficiency. The claim was the car made 112.5-116.6 hp at the engine while Nissan advertised 140 hp (17-20% difference).

Interesting indeed. If you are correct, on the section I highlighted, then this would appear to be in favor of the current claimants though. Unless there is a way to show that *as installed in the car* that the HP number stated is possible. With TM stating it is not, due to the battery limitations, then this would appear to be a potential precedent.
Before the lawyers (and the wannabe lawyers ;-)) want to jump on that statement, I understand Norwegian law is unlike US law, though this is still interesting.

 

[rns-e]

Looking at the court case that Nissan won on appeal was interesting (supposedly the only example of a horsepower dispute that reached Norwegian courts). Here's a link to a forum where the court case was mentioned in context to the P85D issue:
https://translate.google.com/transl...um/index.php?topic=22994.455;wap2&prev=search

The Nissan hp number were based on 80/1269/EEC, of which the standard is a mix of ISO 1585 and ECE R85 according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_80/1269/EEC

I suspect Nissan did not mention what method they used in their advertising, but that may be irrelevant to the case. The court seems to be saying as long as Nissan advertised using numbers that it was homologated with and there is no evidence that the engine as installed in the car would have significantly less power if tested under the same standard, they are fine.

The claimants "NAF" basically used a rolling road (AKA dyno) to measure wheel horsepower and then back calculated the power at the engine shaft using the standard corrections that a dyno operator would use, but the court did not accept that as an acceptable way to claim a horsepower deficiency. The claim was the car made 112.5-116.6 hp at the engine while Nissan advertised 140 hp (17-20% difference).

The Nissan case could be relevant if Tesla had just said that the front motor has xx hp and the rear motor has yy hp as according to the ECE R85. However Tesla decided to add the two together and that is not according to the ECE R85. Tesla did that on their own and that is why the Nissan case is not relevant if it comes to the courts.

 

[MikeBur]

Amen. Some feel tesla was ok, others feel they intentionally misled. Truth is probably right down the middle. Hard to litigate. Hope everybody (including tesla above all) learns a lesson. This car is to good to need marketing stretches.

I believe there are another set of owners too. Those who are exacerbated by the overly zealous and wish we could all just hash this out face-to-face and be done ;-)

 

[rns-e]

No they do not. The 3.3 sec that you quote from the letter is, as specifically stated in the letter, measured *with* rollout.

The owners had definitely overreached in their complaint. According to the letter they claimed that P85D does not perform according to the specifications, when in fact it is easy to prove that it does. If the owners did not ignore this fact (which was discussed in detail at the time they filed their complaint) and instead of claiming that P85D did not meat the specifications concentrated on the fact that they see specifications as confusing/misleading they IMO had a better chance at success.

The letter is very interesting in that it confirms that P85D indeed was rated according ECE R85 (Section 5.3 and Appendix 6). This is the point that I've outlined in detail a while back. Initially this point was attacked by the unhappy owners as not correct and "just my opinion". When it became obvious that this is, in fact, how Tesla rated P85D, this point was dismissed as "irrelevant".

Another very interesting point that letter makes is that according to the existing precedent (Norwegian case Svein Helge Thomassen vs. Nissan Nordic Europe OY, LB-2006-18354) as long as the engine/motor performance was defined according to the government regulation and measurements performed by public testing authorities, it can not in a legal sense be considered as lacking expected performance.

I have made similar point a while back, saying that I can't see government authorities penalizing Tesla for presenting the rating of P85D according to the Regulation that is required to be used as guide for rating the power for Certificate of Conformity that need to be issued for each car in order to be registered in Europe.

It was never specified as using roll out

Re: Nissan and ECE R85 - see above

Tesla is going to loose this one, sorry