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

[wk057]

Or, we can all summarize our views for the benefit of the thread.

Like-
Tesla announced the P85D with having a lot more power than the previous performance model (the P85+).
The high speed validation work was not done so the cars were shipped without improved higher speed (over say 40 mph or so) performance.
Tesla announces a free OTA upgrade to improve the P85D's high speed performance (perhaps to bring the cars higher speed performance more in line with their own expectations for the car at launch).
Turned out hardware was needed to pull off the higher speed performance and thus the upgrade and Ludicrous was born.

I'm reasonably sure Tesla did not plan on having three levels of performance when they launched the P85D. Their previous MO was small battery, base and performance. Ludicrous was only added to pay for the hardware necessary to draw more current (making lemon aid out of lemons) not because they wanted to add yet another tier of performance.

Anyone else want to provide a summary that accurately reflects their view. For the record, the above is simply my current opinion and is not meant to summarize anyone else's.

Sure, I'll go over my summary of what I think happened at Tesla.

"We need to get Q4 numbers up. Ideas?"

"Well, we have the P85D coming out. That should help if we can get it done in time."

"Yeah, but that's not going to be enough to hit our targets. We'll have to rush it. People are happy enough with their cars as it is. We need something that will appeal to existing owners as well as new owners enough to make them upgrade."

"Well we could throw in an engineering demo of autosteer and talk about it in present tense the whole time without actually saying it's not going to be available for a year."

"Good good. That's on the list. What else?"

"Well, we could make the gap between the P85 and the P85D look better by changing a bunch of metrics. It's only 46 HP more, but it has two motors and has a bunch more torque. That counts for something right?"

"Yeah, we'll just use that 1-ft rollout thing that some other companies use on the 0-60 time to make it look like a wider gap too."

"We'll just add up the power of the two motors and advertise that, even though we know the car can't actually put out that much power, no one will notice because of all of that torque."

"Won't people eventually notice, like people who upgrade from a P85 and notice highway passing performance isn't any better?"

"Yeah well, we'll just put out an OTA update to unlock more power after we test more to make sure things don't blow up, and advertise that so people don't complain. If that doesn't work maybe we'll come up with something else."

"Well, we don't have EPA range numbers for the P85D yet either. We could put some ideal numbers on the order page, that we might be able to get in some engineering firmware, in the meantime along side the other models' EPA numbers. That should make it look even better."

"OK, so we're just going to greatly exaggerate the improvements of the P85D vs the P85 and do our best to appeal to that market. Sounds like a plan!"

(3 weeks later at the D launch event)

"We were able to improve almost everything about the car." "The acceleration gets a little faster, the top speed is higher, the range/efficiency actually increases."

"In the P85D we've actually retained the larger rear motor and added the medium sized motor to the front which basically gives the car half a gain as much power."

"The P85 is pretty good on the power front, as probably a bunch of you have those cars. But this car is nuts. It's like taking off from a carrier deck. It's just bananas. Like having your own personal roller coaster."

- - - Updated - - -

The majority of people are pointing out that Tesla's method of reaching this number, while misleading, has some technical basis in reality and can be backed up. You disagree with that and that's fine. To accuse people of lying and trying to confuse the situation by giving out misinformation is a little much. That would be similar to others accusing some of taking this situation and trying to get free stuff from Tesla. I don't think anyone is saying the car outputs 691 hp at the shaft if that's the confusion you think people are trying to create. I was promised lighted visors and onboard music storage but haven't made it my life's mission to 'make it right'. I've moved on.

If onboard music storage and lighted visors were something advertised when you bought your car then you've been cheated if you haven't received them. To each their own on how to handle that. I think a fib that mis-advertises 200+ HP in gains resulting in people spending 5 figures+ to upgrade to only get 20% of those gains is a bit more of a blunder than $50 in parts/software for the things you mentioned.

And you're lying to yourself if you can honestly say that no one posting here is trying to obfuscate or lie about the issue. There are posts not too far up that are flat out wrong from a technical standpoint. There are others that flat out say "the car has 691 HP." Sorry, these things are wrong. It's misinformation, misleading, and does nothing to remedy the situation.

 

[Canuck]

I find it sad when one side of the argument has to attack the other by way of claiming "Obfuscation by throwing out misinformation, unrelated information, and other nonsense to try and detract from the actual issue" and then claiming they could care less about motives "when the information is wrong." That's quite the statement in itself. We should take positions with each other in good faith and not assume that one side is trying to mislead the other or is being willfully ambiguous. It's also not helpful to quote each other as if the other side is a 12 year old girl....

"OMG we need Tesla!" <-- While statements like these may (or may not) be true, it doesn't affect this particular situation.

Fine to say posts about the good Tesla is doing are irrelevant, in one side's position, but quoting the other side's position (mine in this case) as if I write using "OMG" serves only to try to denigrate me. I'm a big boy and I can take it but it shouldn't be a win at all costs attitude here. Hopefully we can at least acknowledge the sincerity of the other side's position even if we can't acknowledge the merits. Heck, even the Democrats and Republicans can agree on that and they can't agree on much of anything else....!

 

[LetsGoFast]

A question out of curiosity.....

For those that feel they did not get what they paid for, what do you think you are "owed"? I've not included cash, just physical remedies.

Its an interesting question. I'm not especially interested in compensation except as it is a symbol of an earnest effort to regain good will. I'm interested in getting the upgrade and will pay $5k for it without whining. I'm more bummed that it is taking forever to happen than I am about the cost. I'd probably be happier if they promised to return to charging me $100 per service visit to pick up my car or have a ranger come out instead of charging me $500 every time, even though that would cost them less. I find that charge far more aggrivating than the $5k for the upgrade.

 

[wk057]

wk,
You make good points but you seem angry. If I am right, that kind of anger does your health no good and also attacks the attention of wackos.

It definitely irritates the heck out of me when I present the facts and this is the proceeding conversation:

Me: "And that is why I believe xxxxx."

Other: "Well you're wrong. xxxxx is wrong."

Me: "Why?"

Other: "Because of yyyyy."

Me: "But yyyyy has nothing at all to do with xxxxx."

Other: "But look a kitten!"

Pretty much what's been going on in every thread on this topic for months now.

 

[LetsGoFast]

I purchased 10/14, and took their specs at face value. I'd be fine with 1) an aknowledgement of the problem 2) corrections to the marketing materials (mostly done, now) and 3) a reasonable credit towards a future purchase.

Ditto

 

[brianman]

Are you telling me the P85D is not sold as having 85kWh?! Now we are really living in a fantasy. If you accept the P85D has 85kWh, then you MUST accept the fact the first P85D had 691HP.

You haven't shown "logic" here. You've shown an assertion. Many (likely most) disagree with the assertion in your third sentence. Your second sentence is simply counterproductive.

- - - Updated - - -

yes they had (have/has) a 691hp rating. therefor it has 691hp.

No. Labelling (rating) doesn't imply reality. Hopefully the rating isn't too far off from reality, but it definitely doesn't imply it.

 

[Andyw2100]

It definitely irritates the heck out of me when I present the facts and this is the proceeding conversation:

Me: "And that is why I believe xxxxx."

Other: "Well you're wrong. xxxxx is wrong."

Me: "Why?"

Other: "Because of yyyyy."

Me: "But yyyyy has nothing at all to do with xxxxx."

Other: "But look a kitten!"

Pretty much what's been going on in every thread on this topic for months now.

I actually laughed out loud when I got to "But look a kitten!" (And scared the dog, who is not used to hearing such outbursts when we're alone.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

Andy is probably too nice to say it so bluntly.

So I'll say it: Yes, that's exactly what the majority of people are doing when they try to defend Tesla on this issue. Obfuscation by throwing out misinformation, unrelated information, and other nonsense to try and detract from the actual issue. It's pretty easy to see who these people are. As for motives, I could care less about motives when the information is wrong.

I have laid out my viewpoint a bunch of times on the issue of "691hp motor power"
1) The statement is factually true (a judge can easily determine this by looking at Tesla's internal methods of coming up with the number, but throughout the whole thread, it's already abundantly clear how Tesla came up with it, and that it was not made up out of thin air).
2) Tesla did not make that statement with intention to mislead (of course verification of this would only be possible if a judge looks at the internal records of Tesla during the time that they decided to advertise with this method; but personally the fact that they went through the effort to specify "motor power" is telling to me)
3) The statement may be misleading (a carefully worded unbiased survey would need to be done on the public to determine this, and it would have to control for general public perception of horsepower)

I only have agreement with you that the statement may be misleading, but I don't agree that it is "fake" or false. And I don't agree that Tesla intended to mislead. My points are all from this perspective.

 

[brianman]

Can we lock the thread until we determine next new information please?

History (of TMC) has shown this does more harm than good. FYI.

 

[flathillll]

Conspiracy theorists Unite! At best it's an exTesla Roadster employee sitting at home in Norwich, England ;-)

Haha. Right.....

I think it was the man himself....JB who updated the Model S wikipedia entry. No I really don't, but I do believe many in the company have been uncomfortable with the way Tesla did not try to correct the media.

I'm sure JB was uncomfortable with advertising the P85D HP specs the way they did, but Elon is the boss.

People forget Elon when to Wharton and is very well versed in marketing (the yin). JB is the heart of the company (the yang).

 

[wk057]

I have laid out my viewpoint a bunch of times on the issue of "691hp motor power"
1) The statement is factually true (a judge can easily determine this by looking at Tesla's internal methods of coming up with the number, but throughout the whole thread, it's already abundantly clear how Tesla came up with it, and that it was not made up out of thin air).
2) Tesla did not make that statement with intention to mislead (of course verification of this would only be possible if a judge looks at the internal records of Tesla during the time that they decided to advertise with this method; but personally the fact that they went through the effort to specific "motor power" is telling to me)
3) The statement may be misleading (a carefully worded unbiased survey would need to be done on the public to determine this, and it would have to control for general public perception of horsepower)

I only have agreement with you that the statement may be misleading, but I don't agree that it is "fake" or false. And I don't agree that Tesla intended to mislead. My points are all from this perspective.

You've definitely put forth some reasonable arguments on the topic and at least appear mostly rational. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but at least you're mostly on topic. I can't say the same for many others.

Believe it or not, I originally was not on the side of believing the misleading information was intentional. But looking back at a lot of things over the past year or so with Tesla has had me change to my current view that there really is no other logical explanation to have done things the way they have. As for proving that, I'm sure most evidence of this internal at Tesla would be long gone by now if it were true. I'm sure more customers other than myself have written communication from them that includes what are now known to be lies about the P85D's performance around this issue, but whether or not those would be relevant enough in a court case isn't really my field.

 

[brianman]

The majority of people are ...

It's abundantly clear to me that anyone trying to claim this for any "faction" of the discussion is likely incorrect, and definitely unsupported statistically. As such, the rest of any post that builds on such wordage is basically ignorable. FYI.

 

[dsm363]

It's abundantly clear to me that anyone trying to claim this for any "faction" of the discussion is likely incorrect, and definitely unsupported statistically. As such, the rest of any post that builds on such wordage is basically ignorable. FYI.

It's abundantly clear to me that you have a habit of taking a few words out of a post and expanding it into a theory. From reading this thread 'majority' is what it appears to me to be. You disagree fine. I certainly haven't seen more than 50% of the people who disagree with the severely wronged party say the car absolutely outputs 691 hp at the shaft. Care to collect those statements? People disagree on if Telsa should have or had a legal right to list the motor power and combine them and if that was misleading or not.

 

[lolachampcar]

and I disagree with the assertion that Tesla provided factually correct hp numbers at the launch and thus is not responsible for people thinking the car actually had a lot more power. Elon and crew knew exactly what they were doing and had plans to deliver more but got caught up in the reality of pulling it off.

 

[flathillll]

More misinformation. The P85D battery is incapable of putting out 515kW.

There are batteries, with internal impedance, not a theoretical constant voltage source.

V*I=W or W/V=I etc type of equations don't actually work with batteries and always yield an incorrect answer. At low power it can be close enough to be OK, but it's still wrong at any power.

Even thought the battery sags there is a brief period where the battery does apply full charge (peak voltage) to the load. The sag is not instantaneous. Close to instantaneous but NOT instantaneous. I would still never rated the car as being capable of producing 691HP, but that was never up for debate really in this thread. The car has 691HP (motor horsepower). Is this an obfuscation your point? Maybe....but you have to be precise. This points to JB's argument:

"Since the battery electric horsepower rating varies it is not a precise number to use for specifying the physical capability of an EV.”

 

[Andyw2100]

Even thought the battery sags there is a brief period where the battery does apply full charge (peak voltage) to the load. The sag is not instantaneous. Close to instantaneous but NOT instantaneous. I would still never rated the car as being capable of producing 691HP, but that was never up for debate. The car has 691HP (motor horsepower). Is this an obfuscation your point? Maybe....but you have to be precise. This points to JB's argument:

"Since the battery electric horsepower rating varies it is not a precise number to use for specifying the physical capability of an EV.”

The heavy artillery is coming out now...colored print --AND-- huge type!

 

[Auzie]

Very nice summary of this 70 some pages of a thread, although I do not think people should be black listed just because they have complained or taken the issue to the court.

Tesla delivered what they promised, yet didn't explain the technical details to those customers who thought they were promised something else. Tesla benefited from this misunderstanding. IMO both parties have responsibilities.

Agree with you that people should not be blacklisted if they have complained.

If people take the issue to court, then it is a different matter. Repetitive business with litigants would simply lead to more bad business.

Also, some customers might be simply bad for business for various reasons. It should come as no surprise if such bad business is avoided.

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

It's great that you feel the need to summarize the thread for everyone, but I disagree with most of your conclusions.

................................
Some people will remain entrenched on one side of this argument and some on the other side. That's just the way it is going to be. But I won't sit silently by and allow a summary of the thread to be posted that suggests my side has been proven wrong, and that people are leaving my side for the other one. That just isn't true.

Johan asked me a direct question and I responded. I speak for myself. I find it perplexing that by some mysterious thought process you arrived at telling me about my specific need - 'feeling the need to summarize this thread for everyone' when nowhere in my post I mention summarizing anything, let alone summarizing it for everyone. I would consider myself insane if I tried to summarize this thread for everyone.


Your assumption about me 'feeling the need to summarize this thread for everyone' is totally baseless, wrong and inappropriate.

 

[techmaven]

Believe it or not, I originally was not on the side of believing the misleading information was intentional. But looking back at a lot of things over the past year or so with Tesla has had me change to my current view that there really is no other logical explanation to have done things the way they have. As for proving that, I'm sure most evidence of this internal at Tesla would be long gone by now if it were true. I'm sure more customers other than myself have written communication from them that includes what are now known to be lies about the P85D's performance around this issue, but whether or not those would be relevant enough in a court case isn't really my field.

I still think it was a misguided attempt in marketing since 450 hp doesn't communicate the performance of the P85D in its totality. Tesla should have just geeked out with us like we all wanted them to, so that we as a community gets to understand the very real differences between comparing a BEV against an ICE with these various metrics. They should have trusted that we can sort this out, still find the P85D to be desirable, and help educate the world about why the P85D is still a remarkable machine. Would they have had a few less orders? I'm not sure about that. As it turns out, the seat debacle muted their numbers anyways, and the allure of the 0-60 in 3.2-3.5, AWD and the autopilot features together might still have tipped the balance for a slew of you that upgraded your P85/P85+'s to the D's. Tesla should have spent more time on a handling package too to make it more worth the P upgrade.

 

[flathillll]

The heavy artillery is coming out now...colored print --AND-- huge type!

yes pretty soon I - will - be - typing - like - this :biggrin:

also note wk data was not done at high temperature where complex impedance is much lower. wk is well meaning and again I agree in NO WAY can the car be measured to produce 691HP on a dyno, but it appears he has no experience in pulse power system design using lithium cells (which are actually all hybrid capacitors in some respects).

 

[brianman]

It's abundantly clear to me that you have a habit of taking a few words out of a post and expanding it into a theory. From reading this thread 'majority' is what it appears to me to be.

If you start with "if (false) { ... }" or "if (suspect_hypothesis) { ... }" then the rest of the statement could be all kinds of fantasy that really is just intellectual, um, "focus on self". Sorry, it's an engineering / first principles thing.

Also, words like "majority" are often used to attempt to bolster an argument and force people into sides. Generally, I find this counterproductive as it creates conflict and distracts from the merits of the discussion.