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

[stopcrazypp]

People were certainly confused over whether 691 hp referred to the motors' capability given an unlimited power source, or the car's capability as it is delivered. The word "hp" without any qualifiers, in the context of talking about the power of a vehicle, by default refers to power at driveshaft with all production parts (or whatever the correct measurement point is), which has been the standard vehicle power measurement for 40+ years. You can't expect people to automagically know that when Tesla says "hp" they mean something else.

I don't know what hp "by default" means. I take it if you did a survey, plenty of people would think the power is actually measured at the wheels. I actually did a google on this previously because of another comment. Basically if Tesla ever got into a lawsuit, how should the survey be worded in terms of judging the public's interpretation of what "691 hp motor power" meant as written on their website? I found that the public has no idea about how horsepower is advertised, just looking at some yahoo answers responses. So I noted such a survey must control for this factor.
https://www.google.com/search?q=horsepower+at+wheels+or+crank+site:answers.yahoo.com

That is your opinion though. I interpreted "motor power" to mean what Tesla is saying it means. I know I am not alone in that interpretation. The survey will also have to control for public perception of what "horsepower" means in general. Do people even know how it is measured in an ICE car in the first place, much less an EV?

I don't claim to know how the public interprets power (esp. as it relates to EVs too), but I do know I was not alone in understanding what Tesla meant when they used "motor power".

And actually looking into it a bit more, SAE J2723 certified (introduced in 2005) applies to both J1349 (net) or J1995 (gross), which means that gross power is still in use (I previously assumed it ended in the 1970s, but actually it didn't).

And I found some examples that are rated under SAE Gross:

Mitsubishi Fuso:
http://www.mitfuso.com/en-US/Canter-Work-Truck-Models/FE180

2016 Ram HD's 6.7L Cummins diesel (actually some controversy here about their use of gross power):
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/08/are-the-2016-ram-hd-s-output-figures-bogus-.html

The Ram website doesn't indicate at all that the Cummins diesel engines are using a completely different rating standard than their gasoline engines. This goes toward my point that most automakers don't make any note about the rating system they use (Tesla at least did by saying "motor power").

All they say is:
6.7L CUMMINS® HIGH-OUTPUT
TURBO DIESEL I6 ENGINE
AISIN AS69RC Six-Speed Automatic Transmission
385 HP
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/performance/#heavy_duty

Note that there are absolutely no asterisks and no qualifiers. That seems to go against your claim that "The word "hp" without any qualifiers, in the context of talking about the power of a vehicle, by default refers to power at driveshaft with all production parts".

 

[wk057]

I don't know what hp "by default" means. I take it if you did a survey, plenty of people would think the power is actually measured at the wheels. I actually did a google on this previously because of another comment. Basically if Tesla ever got into a lawsuit, how should the survey be worded in terms of judging the public's interpretation of what "691 hp motor power" meant as written on their website? I found that the public has no idea about how horsepower is advertised, just looking at some yahoo answers responses. So I noted such a survey must control for this factor.
https://www.google.com/search?q=horsepower+at+wheels+or+crank+site:answers.yahoo.com


I don't claim to know how the public interprets power (esp. as it relates to EVs too), but I do know I was not alone in understanding what Tesla meant when they used "motor power".

And actually looking into it a bit more, SAE J2723 certified (introduced in 2005) applies to both J1349 (net) or J1995 (gross), which means that gross power is still in use (I previously assumed it ended in the 1970s, but actually it didn't).

And I found some examples that are rated under SAE Gross:

Mitsubishi Fuso:
http://www.mitfuso.com/en-US/Canter-Work-Truck-Models/FE180

2016 Ram HD's 6.7L Cummins diesel (actually some controversy here about their use of gross power):
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/08/are-the-2016-ram-hd-s-output-figures-bogus-.html

The Ram website doesn't indicate at all that the Cummins diesel engines are using a completely different rating standard than their gasoline engines. This goes toward my point that most automakers don't make any note about the rating system they use (Tesla at least did by saying "motor power").

All they say is:
6.7L CUMMINS® HIGH-OUTPUT
TURBO DIESEL I6 ENGINE
AISIN AS69RC Six-Speed Automatic Transmission
385 HP
http://www.ramtrucks.com/en/performance/#heavy_duty

Note that there are absolutely no asterisks and no qualifiers. That seems to go against your claim that "The word "hp" without any qualifiers, in the context of talking about the power of a vehicle, by default refers to power at driveshaft with all production parts".

I'd be curious to see power output of those engines at the crank in the vehicles themselves. If the difference is 33% less than the advertised amount, then we'll talk. I guarantee it isn't that far off, since the SAE gross measurements are supposed to approximate the power output at the flywheel/crank shaft.

I'd be happy if the P85D produced 691 HP anywhere in the power train, but it doesn't. The comparisons to SAE gross are getting old and are irrelevant.

 

[Auzie]

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

I've explained why I am not interested in cutting ties with Tesla. You may be confusing me with someone else. I've never said that I am certain that this was something Tesla set out to do intentionally. I've never said that I've felt greatly wronged. I just want to get what I paid for.

If someone said publicly about me what you publicly said about Tesla, I'd made sure to cut all the ties with that party as fast as I could.

Nothing personal, it would simply be a bad business to continue a relationship in a bad faith.

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.

Conspiracy to do what?

Conspiracy to let the confusing information remain in place and keep confusing potential customers, to increase sales. The explanation they were working on would have prevented that.

 

[brianman]

I don't think anyone was ever confused when Elon said the car has "691hp" that he was referring to motor output

Wow. I'm speechless that after reading the volume of discussion in various threads on this topic that you (or anyone) can actually have this perspective.

I recommend you first talk to Motor Trend about their recent article because it's pretty clear their prose reflects exactly that confusion.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'd be curious to see power output of those engines at the crank in the vehicles themselves. If the difference is 33% less than the advertised amount, then we'll talk. I guarantee it isn't that far off, since the SAE gross measurements are supposed to approximate the power output at the flywheel/crank shaft.

I'm not an expert on the SAE standards (I'm just learning as I'm going along), but for an example, when Cadillac issued a number for both, it was 365 hp under SAE gross, 235hp under SAE net.
"Cadillac issued both net and gross figures for 1972, which were 365 hp and 535 lb-ft SAE gross, 235 hp and 385 lb-ft SAE net. They quoted the same figures for both 1971 and 1972, in this instance."
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
http://automotivemileposts.com/eldorado/prod1972eldo.html

For 1972 Cadillac Eldorado (SAE J1349 net / SAE J1995 gross):
235/365 = 0.644x

For comparison for the P85D (battery-limited power / motor power):
463/691 = 0.67x

It seems the difference is actually worse for net vs gross than for battery-limited power vs motor power.

Previously I also found the SAE J2723 certified (J1349 net subsection) vs SAE J1349 net for the 2003-2006 Camry V6:
190/210 = 0.905x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_certified_power

I'd be happy if the P85D produced 691 HP anywhere in the power train, but it doesn't. The comparisons to SAE gross are getting old and are irrelevant.

I don't see how it is irrelevant. SAE gross is also a number that a car doesn't produce "anywhere in the powertrain". The relative differences of the number vs SAE net is also very similar to the differences for the P85D "motor power" vs the new "battery-limited" numbers. Seems like a one-to-one comparison to me.

 

[Soolim]

Exactly. Being this upset about a number but turning down a full refund on a product that was used for well over a year is beyond confusing.

Get the refund and move on. It is like a divorce:tongue:

 

[WestCoastP85D]

Do you mind sharing your letter? I suggest a group letter be drafted asking for a response.

I have written them 3 letters with no response.

- - - Updated - - -

Suggest two options for Tesla:

1) Refund $20,000 in cash to those who purchased the P85D over the 85D based on marketing material (and sales positioning.)

2) Buy back car at full retail (but, how would the ~$11K in taxes be dealt with? stipulations on tax rebates?)

So, folks who generally like the car can go with #1 else #2. I do not see how free Luda upgrades addresses this problem.

Thoughts?

 

[rns-e]

I don't know what hp "by default" means. I take it if you did a survey, plenty of people would think the power is actually measured at the wheels. I actually did a google on this previously because of another comment. Basically if Tesla ever got into a lawsuit, how should the survey be worded in terms of judging the public's interpretation of what "691 hp motor power" meant as written on their website? I found that the public has no idea about how horsepower is advertised, just looking at some yahoo answers responses. So I noted such a survey must control for this factor.

You said it your self, most people understand hp as being at the wheels, so that is what Tesla should take into consideration when advertising hp numbers.

I'm not an expert on the SAE standards (I'm just learning as I'm going along), but for an example, when Cadillac issued a number for both, it was 365 hp under SAE gross, 235hp under SAE net.
"Cadillac issued both net and gross figures for 1972, which were 365 hp and 535 lb-ft SAE gross, 235 hp and 385 lb-ft SAE net. They quoted the same figures for both 1971 and 1972, in this instance."
http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/
http://automotivemileposts.com/eldorado/prod1972eldo.html

For 1972 Cadillac Eldorado (SAE J1349 net / SAE J1995 gross):
235/365 = 0.644x

For comparison for the P85D (battery-limited power / motor power):
463/691 = 0.67x

It seems the difference is actually worse for net vs gross than for battery-limited power vs motor power.

Previously I also found the SAE J2723 certified (J1349 net subsection) vs SAE J1349 net for the 2003-2006 Camry V6:
190/210 = 0.905x
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_certified_power

Really - reference to 1972 Cadillacs to explain why people should have known that the 691 hp number Tesla used was fantacy numbers ...

While all you 'people should have known' are at it, why don't you propose a mandetory master level education for car buyers All the things we as customers should have known, while everything could have been clear if just Tesla had been forthcoming with all information

 

[WestCoastP85D]

Hi Bonnie - thanks.

Reality is that all P85D owners paid $20K more -- and many (myself included) based this purchasing equation on a 200+ HP delta that didn't exist. At the minimum, the $20K was extracted from my family based on this "value" and differentiation from the 85D. IMHO, it is a fair exchange to refund that amount for those who purchased the car, generally like the car, but don't want to lose value in 3rd party mod or energy incentive stipulations. Frankly, I am not sure I would have purchased a Tesla at all if the 463 number was positioned, but I know certainly I would not have purchased a P85D over an 85D. Hence my suggestion of a dual customer-choice discussion.

For those who don't think this is a big deal, that's fine, no one is forced to participate. I really wish Tesla simply, proactively would contact P85D owners with an offer of resolution -- would take the edge off. Each passing day that I hear nothing makes this feel worse.

Andy, I'm trying to avoid this thread and have admittedly tonight only read back the last 10 or more posts.

But I think what people are saying is that IF the HP number was important to you (which clearly it is by the looks of this thread), why wouldn't you want to just get your money back and move on? And if it's not that important, why ask for compensation? You don't want to give the car up, so it's hard to argue that you feel wronged.

At least that's what the posts above seem to be saying.

 

[Johan]

There was an interesting question posed here, that god tangled up in some snippiness and moved over to that thread, but it was an interesting question none the less:

If the P85D had been built with the exact same battery and inverter but with motors capable of only 463 hp motor power, instead of the theoretical 691 hp motor power, would the car have performed the same or not?

 

[brianman]

There was an interesting question posed here, that god tangled up in some snippiness and moved over to that thread, but it was an interesting question none the less:

If the P85D had been built with the exact same battery and inverter but with motors capable of only 463 hp motor power, instead of the theoretical 691 hp motor power, would the car have performed the same or not?

503 + 259 | 463 Non-Ludicrous
503 + 259 | 532 Ludicrous

I believe for non-ludicrous the performance should be the same whether the rear is 463 or 503. (There is headroom when putting all power to rear.)
I believe for ludicrous the performance should be better with a 503 rear than a 463 rear. (There isn't as much room to focus power to the rear.)

I believe for both non-ludicrous and ludicrous if the front + rear motor powers summed to 463 / 532 the performance would be lesser than the currently delivered P85D vehicles. (There is no room to focus power in the rear -- always must be evenly distributed if using full battery power.)

 

[Johan]

I believe the answer is no.

... so do I, hence perhaps the issue was/is a bit more complex than what can be communicated through one specific number? I know that's not a popular view in this thread which has a tendency to look for binary solutions (right/wrong and nothing in between).

 

[brianman]

@Johan, I edited my post. Please revisit it. Sorry for the ninja text change.

 

[lolachampcar]

Andy, I'm trying to avoid this thread and have admittedly tonight only read back the last 10 or more posts.

But I think what people are saying is that IF the HP number was important to you (which clearly it is by the looks of this thread), why wouldn't you want to just get your money back and move on? And if it's not that important, why ask for compensation? You don't want to give the car up, so it's hard to argue that you feel wronged.

At least that's what the posts above seem to be saying.

When I read your post above and a lot of Andy's posts, I come away with a bit of a question....
What did Tesla's line up look like before customer's concerns over hp?
Tesla launches the PD with talk about more power than the previous P series. This car represents their first real hardware based jump in performance (not just tweaking power draw for small improvements).
Elon tweets and the web site posts an OTA update to provide more performance at speed.
Hardware issues prevent that from happening and the $5K upgrade and $10K Ludicrous tied to a $3K capacity increase are born.

If the above is reasonably accurate, Tesla likely never anticipated Ludicrous in their line up. We would simply have had the $3K capacity option once it was available for production. I submit that Tesla never intended to have a $10K Ludicrous feature and that this was born of the inability to deliver the high speed performance they anticipated (and pitched) at the P85D announcement. I believe Tesla is trying to make lemon aid from lemons.

IFFFF I am correct, is it no surprise that owners want the high speed performance Tesla thought they were going to deliver?

Oh, and if there was any doubt, I love the AWD, torque distribution, improved handling and amazing low speed performance of my P85D along with the Next Gen seats all around and the + suspension with AWD tweaks. There is no way I'm giving this (class of) car up but I'm really liking the idea of getting the P90DL performance.

 

[tomas]

People expecting $20k are dreaming. People expecting proactive offer from tesla are dreaming. People losing sleep over this day-by-day are damaging their health, which is worth more than $20K.

There is a significant low end performance edge in D vs 85. And the L option, addressing higher range performance, which is unavailable in 85. P buyers got some value for their $20k. Can dispute if it is 20k worth, but suggest don't get fixated on that.

If if you are looking for tesla to assess themselves punitive damages in an offer to you, you are dreaming.

 

[P85DEE]

I have written them 3 letters with no response.

Wow.

I think that they should at least give you response.

Even GM will at least respond to a written complaint. Even if it's not the response that the customer wants. Is there someone you can speak to by phone, or even pay a visit? Usually the owner's manual of web site will have somewhere, some department or some individual to call or write. I see that you are in California. If you took a ride there, it would be hard for them to refuse to see you then.

 

[rns-e]

... so do I, hence perhaps the issue was/is a bit more complex than what can be communicated through one specific number? I know that's not a popular view in this thread which has a tendency to look for binary solutions (right/wrong and nothing in between).

Would it still have AWD? If so, I would say; yes, it would. At the moment the P85D is torque restricted so it is not using all the torque available anyway at 0 - approx 15 mph or so

 

[WestCoastP85D]

Likely right. But it was Tesla who decided to position the 691hp for the short term gain in sales, and it was Tesla who now had to reverse this position (due to pressure from various sources). Doing nothing will most certainly impact customer loyalty -- and it will be remembered in a marketplace with many EV options (in a couple of years).

I believe $20K is the right measure of value as that was the delta to obtain the 691 hp. Do you suggest we credit Tesla for the ~55 actual HP we gained? So, that's about 25% of the ~220hp we paid for, so I guess $15K is the right number? There is some value exchange here that is reasonable....

People expecting $20k are dreaming. People expecting proactive offer from tesla are dreaming. People losing sleep over this day-by-day are damaging their health, which is worth more than $20K.

There is a significant low end performance edge in D vs 85. And the L option, addressing higher range performance, which is unavailable in 85. P buyers got some value for their $20k. Can dispute if it is 20k worth, but suggest don't get fixated on that.

If if you are looking for tesla to assess themselves punitive damages in an offer to you, you are dreaming.

 

[tomas]

Likely right. But it was Tesla who decided to position the 691hp for the short term gain in sales, and it was Tesla who now had to reverse this position (due to pressure from various sources). Doing nothing will most certainly impact customer loyalty -- and it will be remembered in a marketplace with many EV options (in a couple of years).

I believe $20K is the right measure of value as that was the delta to obtain the 691 hp. Do you suggest we credit Tesla for the ~55 actual HP we gained? So, that's about 25% of the ~220hp we paid for, so I guess $15K is the right number? There is some value exchange here that is reasonable....

no. You got value in additional usable torque. HP is not only difference between 85D and P. IMO if you got offer of L upgrade for labor only, you should walk away happy and thank your lucky star.

I don't have data to prove, but believe most car buyers shop on competitive features at time of purchase. Not past grudges, tho they do play a role. After owning 6 BMWs I swore my 545 would be last due to many many design flaws. A couple of years ago, bought X1. Why? Best car in class again.

 

[WestCoastP85D]

Interesting point of view on the value from torque... looking forward to other thoughts here.

no. You got value in additional usable torque. HP is not only difference between 85D and P. IMO if you got offer of L upgrade for labor only, you should walk away happy and thank your lucky star.

I don't have data to prove, but believe most car buyers shop on competitive features at time of purchase. Not past grudges, tho they do play a role. After owning 6 BMWs I swore my 545 would be last due to many many design flaws. A couple of years ago, bought X1. Why? Best car in class again.