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

[stopcrazypp]

Tesla veteran explains how electric motors crash gas engines, with one notable exception

He's probably taking about back EMF where you have to boost the supply voltage to maintain a certain level of power at higher rpms. However the motor has a voltage limit, so the power has to drop at higher rpms (the torque drops as you hit the thermal limit of the motor, such that you can't supply more power). Looking at the Roadster and P85+ graph (single motor and not battery-limited) illustrates this well: power hits a peak point and then steadily drops (torque drops even more rapidly as it hits the power limit of the motor).
http://www.brosen.com/files/torque.png
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=95512

 

[Canuck]

Tesla is now in mediation with 150 Model S owners in Norway over horsepower claims | Electrek

"Norway’s Consumer Council is now acting as a mediator between Tesla and over 150 Model S owners or about 25% of the ~600 Dual Motor Model S owners in the country."

So it's nowhere near the majority of owners in Norway.

"This process is not public.”

It's a government mediator and the process is not public? I wonder if the results obtained, if any, will be public or if it will include a non-disclosure clause?

Mediated claims are, in the vast majority of cases, settled to avoid the risk and the costs associated with going forward. They also usually include, in exchange for whatever payment or other consideration is given, a clause stating that it is a compromised settlement of a disputed claim and no liability is admitted. So I doubt this proceeding will determine anything on this issue, for the purpose of this thread anyway. At least in the US/Canada class actions the lawyers come out ahead.

 

[lolachampcar]

Being a nerd, I have no problem understanding that the PD's battery was not going to live up to Tesla's near 700 hp claims. However, I think the following likely sums up how the rest of the normal world views Tesla's pitch-

"There’s been some concerns over the way Tesla is reporting the power output of its Model S, especially the Dual Motor version. Until recently, the company advertised the combined power output of both motors without accurately accounting for the limitations of the battery pack."

 

[bonnie]

Bonnie, you are a trouble maker

You're just now discovering this? You must be new here.

Don't you have a Model X coming in to worry about? I'm looking forward to a full report.

That's the rumor. A couple of 'em, actually.

 

[stopcrazypp]

"Norway’s Consumer Council is now acting as a mediator between Tesla and over 150 Model S owners or about 25% of the ~600 Dual Motor Model S owners in the country."

So it's nowhere near the majority of owners in Norway.

"This process is not public.”

It's a government mediator and the process is not public? I wonder if the results obtained, if any, will be public or if it will include a non-disclosure clause?

Mediated claims are, in the vast majority of cases, settled to avoid the risk and the costs associated with going forward. They also usually include, in exchange for whatever payment or other consideration is given, a clause stating that it is a compromised settlement of a disputed claim and no liability is admitted. So I doubt this proceeding will determine anything on this issue, for the purpose of this thread anyway. At least in the US/Canada class actions the lawyers come out ahead.

I said similar up thread. The fact that the process is not public makes it so its application is difficult even in other countries in Europe, much less the US. Hopefully there is no NDA on the result so we at least know the verdict (but again its use is going to be limited without knowing the details).

- - - Updated - - -

Being a nerd, I have no problem understanding that the PD's battery was not going to live up to Tesla's near 700 hp claims. However, I think the following likely sums up how the rest of the normal world views Tesla's pitch-

"There’s been some concerns over the way Tesla is reporting the power output of its Model S, especially the Dual Motor version. Until recently, the company advertised the combined power output of both motors without accurately accounting for the limitations of the battery pack."

I would only adjust that statement slightly as there is an implication there from the phrase "accurately" that the standard Tesla uses accounts for the battery, but didn't do it accurately (when it doesn't account for the battery at all). If I'm going to nitpick, I should add the motor controller and inverters too.

The following would be a better summary:
"There’s been some concerns over the way Tesla is reporting the power output of its Model S, especially the Dual Motor version. Until recently, the company advertised the combined power output of both motors (and motor controllers/inverters) without accounting for the limitations of the battery pack (at all)."

 

[P85DEE]

"Norway’s Consumer Council is now acting as a mediator between Tesla and over 150 Model S owners or about 25% of the ~600 Dual Motor Model S owners in the country."

So it's nowhere near the majority of owners in Norway.

"This process is not public.”

It's a government mediator and the process is not public? I wonder if the results obtained, if any, will be public or if it will include a non-disclosure clause?

Mediated claims are, in the vast majority of cases, settled to avoid the risk and the costs associated with going forward. They also usually include, in exchange for whatever payment or other consideration is given, a clause stating that it is a compromised settlement of a disputed claim and no liability is admitted. So I doubt this proceeding will determine anything on this issue, for the purpose of this thread anyway. At least in the US/Canada class actions the lawyers come out ahead.

Good info.

So only about 25%, and whatever the outcome, it probably won't be public?

Good news, and better news.

 

[Andyw2100]

So only about 25%, and whatever the outcome, it probably won't be public?

It started with what--eight or ten owners a few weeks ago? It's built up to 150 owners, or 25% of all the P85D owners in just a few weeks, based on people hearing about it. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that number is going to continue to grow, and that 25% is not the cap.

I also think assuming the results won't be public is making a conclusion from information that was not present in the story. The story said the process is not public. It did not say the results are not public.

 

[Krugerrand]

Alcohol, in my experience, does not make those I've observed more civil, but tends to do just the opposite.

Yes, exactly. Sharp objects, alcohol and people arguing in a locked room = problem solved very quickly. :wink: The civility comment was sarcasm.

But enough of that, brianman wants us back on topic so....hasn't everything already been said? It'll die with the horse, right?

 

[woof]

It'll die with the horse, right?

Sure, all 691 of 'em. Oh come on, I'm not the only one thinking that!

 

[Canuck]

It started with what--eight or ten owners a few weeks ago? It's built up to 150 owners, or 25% of all the P85D owners in just a few weeks, based on people hearing about it. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that number is going to continue to grow, and that 25% is not the cap.

I also think assuming the results won't be public is making a conclusion from information that was not present in the story. The story said the process is not public. It did not say the results are not public.

1. The number will grow "based on people hearing about it." Great (sarcasm) and I agree. In my opinion, it won't grow based on "hp was promised to me, I relied on it, and I didn't get it" (those people have been frustrated from the start and are well-aware of what is going on) but it will grow based on, "hey, look, we can get something free here". Also, in my opinion, that 25% number includes bandwagon jumpers. The real number of those who actually relied on the hp number, and wouldn't have purchased the vehicle is hp was advertised differently (which is the true test in my mind for compensation*) is probably far lower than 25%.

2. Even if the results are public, mediated results are not based on a judgement determined by facts, evidence and law. They are based on negotiating risk and no assumption of liability. So they basically mean nothing, even if public.

* "compensation" should be Tesla must buy the vehicle back for full cost paid including taxes, etc. and then ban them for life. Those truly affected won't care anyway since they wouldn't have bought in the first place, nor would anyone want to buy from a company they believe deceived them, and it will be a true test to determine the legitimate class entitled to compensation.

If only I could be the adjudicator of this issue! Before people call me bias to Tesla (which I am -- but I am trying to be impartial here) please remember that I am ordering Tesla to give a FULL refund to those truly affected, and I bet many of them would want me in that role.

 

[tomas]

Next time I need a lawyer or arbitrator, it's Canuck.

 

[P85DEE]

1. The number will grow "based on people hearing about it." Great (sarcasm) and I agree. In my opinion, it won't grow based on "hp was promised to me, I relied on it, and I didn't get it" (those people have been frustrated from the start and are well-aware of what is going on) but it will grow based on, "hey, look, we can get something free here". Also, in my opinion, that 25% number includes bandwagon jumpers. The real number of those who actually relied on the hp number, and wouldn't have purchased the vehicle is hp was advertised differently (which is the true test in my mind for compensation*) is probably far lower than 25%.

2. Even if the results are public, mediated results are not based on a judgement determined by facts, evidence and law. They are based on negotiating risk and no assumption of liability. So they basically mean nothing, even if public.

* "compensation" should be Tesla must buy the vehicle back for full cost paid including taxes, etc. and then ban them for life. Those truly affected won't care anyway since they wouldn't have bought in the first place, nor would anyone want to buy from a company they believe deceived them, and it will be a true test to determine the legitimate class entitled to compensation.

If only I could be the adjudicator of this issue! Before people call me bias to Tesla (which I am -- but I am trying to be impartial here) please remember that I am ordering Tesla to give a FULL refund to those truly affected, and I bet many of them would want me in that role.

You make several good points.

IMO, "compensation", if any is forthcoming, should include purchasing the vehicle back, and then banning those who took advantage of that opportunity, from ever purchasing even so much as a Tesla key chain afterwards for stirring this trouble.

Anyone is free to call that retribution if you want, but that's exactly what should happen.

Banning them from purchasing a Tesla for life, is a crucial and essential part of any "compensation" agreement arrived at here, and a step that Tesla should take without hesitation.

The one, should not be exclusive of the other. But instead, the first, accepting "compensation", should automatically trigger the second.

As you have already alluded, anyone who was actually "injured" here, won't care anyway, since their position is that they would not have bought the car in the first place had the hp been advertised differently, nor would anyone want to buy from a company which they believed had cheated them anyway.

This and only this would be the litmus test of litmus tests to determine just who was entitled to compensation.

In other words, wait on, and take your "compensation", those of you raising a stink about this, and who feel strongly enough about it that you are willing to sell your cars back to Tesla for the full amount that you paid for it.

Those of you who do not feel "quite that strongly about it", well then it's time to "pipe down", since you apparently really don't feel so strongly about it, that you are willing to go that far.

But those of you who do feel strongly enough to take the "compensation', don't bother coming back looking to purchase another Tesla. You will need to purchase another vehicle. This should conclude any current or future business between you and Tesla.

That arrangement, ought not bother you, if you truly feel that you have been injured here enough to sell your car back to Tesla.

And if you haven't been injured "that badly" well then it's time to quit complaining about this matter.

 

[vgrinshpun]

1. The number will grow "based on people hearing about it." Great (sarcasm) and I agree. In my opinion, it won't grow based on "hp was promised to me, I relied on it, and I didn't get it" (those people have been frustrated from the start and are well-aware of what is going on) but it will grow based on, "hey, look, we can get something free here". Also, in my opinion, that 25% number includes bandwagon jumpers. The real number of those who actually relied on the hp number, and wouldn't have purchased the vehicle is hp was advertised differently (which is the true test in my mind for compensation*) is probably far lower than 25%.

2. Even if the results are public, mediated results are not based on a judgement determined by facts, evidence and law. They are based on negotiating risk and no assumption of liability. So they basically mean nothing, even if public.

* "compensation" should be Tesla must buy the vehicle back for full cost paid including taxes, etc. and then ban them for life. Those truly affected won't care anyway since they wouldn't have bought in the first place, nor would anyone want to buy from a company they believe deceived them, and it will be a true test to determine the legitimate class entitled to compensation.

If only I could be the adjudicator of this issue! Before people call me bias to Tesla (which I am -- but I am trying to be impartial here) please remember that I am ordering Tesla to give a FULL refund to those truly affected, and I bet many of them would want me in that role.

I bet that the number would be in line with the surveys done by Consumer Reports. According to these surveys, although Model S had lower than average reliability, 97% of the owners indicated that they still would buy Model S again. So my guess is that the true number would be less than 3%.

 

[brianman]

* "compensation" should be Tesla must buy the vehicle back for full cost paid including taxes, etc. and then ban them for life.

Compensation that involves punishment of the "compensated" is a bit absurd IMO.

 

[P85DEE]

Compensation that involves punishment of the "compensated" is a bit absurd IMO.

Compensation which involves future risk for those doing the compensating to possibly have to repeat that process, is even more absurd IMO.

Take a shot at a bullseye painted on Tesla's backside, and they're supposed to reposition themselves to allow you the chance to take yet another shot after you've put a hole into their backsides with the first shot?

I don't think so.

You get one shot, and then you get gone.

Tesla is not obligated to sell anyone in here another car.

No one is "entitled" to buy a Tesla from Tesla, even if they're bringing cold, hard, cash money with them.

I hope that some in here learn that the hard way.

 

[NSX1992]

I was not going to comment but P85DEE continuing effort to put us in a box deserves another comeback. I ordered an S85 in September, 2014 and then changed it to a P85D after Elons presentation in October. It was clear to me that the P85D had 50% claimed more power then the P85. The Tesla Owner Advisor filled out my order on his pc and did not explain motor hp or that you cannot add the 2 motors together. He did not mislead me because at that time he did not know himself. Before I get scolded for not doing my homework before a $120,000 purchase let me assure you I did by reading hundreds of posts and magazine articles. I have built a street legal kit car (Astra J5) from the ground up that did 10.75 @ 132 in the 1/4 and an aluminum dunable sandrail with a turbocharged Volvo V6 that did the 100 yard sandrags in 3.20 @ 104. So I could not resist a family sedan with 691 hp that does 0-60 in 3.2.

I love my Tesla and do not appreciate somebody trying to paint me in a corner by saying I must sell the car back to Tesla if offered if I complain about the hp numbers. Reading numerous posts over the last year+ takes several hours each day but I only comment rarely. I am glad that Tesla finally shows the true shaft motor battery limited power but I was certainly mislead by the 691 hp. Stating motor power that cannot be achieved with the battery supplied is misleading. Nevertheless I am a Tesla fan and am on the waiting list for the Ludicrous upgrade.

 

[cynix]

Compensation which involves future risk for those doing the compensating to possibly have to repeat that process, is even more absurd IMO.

Take a shot at a bullseye painted on Tesla's backside, and they're supposed to reposition themselves to allow you the chance to take yet another shot after you've put a hole into their backsides with the first shot?

I don't think so.

You get one shot, and then you get gone.

Tesla is not obligated to sell anyone in here another car.

No one is "entitled" to buy a Tesla from Tesla, even if they're bringing cold, hard, cash money with them.

I hope that some in here learn that the hard way.

Maybe if they didn't advertise confusing numbers, those people wouldn't have "taken the shot" in the first place?

By not allowing these people to buy again, you're taking away the incentive for Tesla to learn from their mistake. They can do it again and this time the "noisy" people won't be there to complain.

 

[Auzie]

This thread lives on because people that feel misled seek closure. They hope to get a closure from Tesla, in a way of some monetary compensation and acknowledgement.


Imho Canuck's and P85DEE's posts are as good as Tesla laying its cards on the table. The best that people can get is a refund, at a cost of not being able to buy another car from Tesla.


This setting limits on expectations might bring closure to some customers as they can stop hoping that Tesla will come forward and offer goodies for free.


Tesla is likely to handle this matter as described by these two gentlemen. Tesla set a precedent with the lemon law case. It is insane to take anyone to court and to expect to be able to continue the good will relationship.


I would be surprised if anyone in the US takes Tesla to court, there is too much to lose and too little to gain.


The issue is unlikely to be fully put to bed, though.


Some ill will over the issue is likely to linger. This thread is likely to live on. That is not necessarily a bad thing, the thread is quite informative and often fun.


Tesla will hopefully improve its messaging and transmission. It is not enough to have a correct message, the frequency of transmission has to match the tuning of the audience's antenna's. Switching to a different frequency might be in order. Failing that, misunderstood messages easily create ill will and that is not good for business.

 

[Johan]

"Norway’s Consumer Council is now acting as a mediator between Tesla and over 150 Model S owners or about 25% of the ~600 Dual Motor Model S owners in the country."

So it's nowhere near the majority of owners in Norway.

"This process is not public.”

It's a government mediator and the process is not public? I wonder if the results obtained, if any, will be public or if it will include a non-disclosure clause?

Mediated claims are, in the vast majority of cases, settled to avoid the risk and the costs associated with going forward. They also usually include, in exchange for whatever payment or other consideration is given, a clause stating that it is a compromised settlement of a disputed claim and no liability is admitted. So I doubt this proceeding will determine anything on this issue, for the purpose of this thread anyway. At least in the US/Canada class actions the lawyers come out ahead.

I read the original article in Norwegian.

"Det har kommet en jevn strøm med klager og de fortsetter å komme. Akkurat nå fungerer Forbrukerrådet som en nøytral megler mellom partene. Vi forsøker å finne en løsning. Denne prosessen er imidlertid ikke offentlig, sier direktør for forbrukerservice i Forbrukerrådet, Ingeborg Flønes, til avisen."

translated:

"There has been a steady stream of incoming complaints and the complaints keep coming. At the present time the Consumer Counsil of Norway is acting as a neutral mediator between the parties. We are trying to work out a solution. This process, however, is not public, says the director of consumer service at the Consumer Counsil of Norway: Ingeborg Flønes, to the newspaper."

For reference the Consumer Counsil of Norway is a government financed entity, but it is free of political oversight from the ministry under which is is organized (the ministry for Children, Equality and Inclusion). The Counsil has special authorities, its own board of directors and its own statutes.

In the Scandinavian countries there is a long standing tradition of avoiding that disputes between consumers and businesses end up in the court systems, since, as you point out, in reality the only people who stand to gain from all matters big and small being settled in court are the lawyers.

 

[lolachampcar]

NSX,
I've looked that this eight ways to Sunday in an attempt to understand and embrace several of the arguments made yet I always come away just about right where you are on this.

It's a shame really given all Elon had to do was stop at the 0-60 time (which they were demonstrating like mad at the launch) and 1/4 mile time. The car delivered on these (P85D). If he absolutely needed to, he could have said the car launches like a 700 hp ICE. There simply was no need to get out over his skis so far by saying the car had 50% more ____ or 691 ___ horsepower. It is the dumbest of self inflicted wounds.

Auzie,
I do wish there were other solutions that reasonable people could come to. My only fear with Tesla is that the first levels of the company are often told to dismiss the customer on any issue(s) not identified and defined by the company. The first reaction a customer is likely to get will be dismissive. This is not the best way to start a conversation with a reasonable person.

If the problem is escalated, upper management has a tendency to use 800 lb gorilla tactics and pull an "our way or the highway" move. I've experienced this in dealing with a few issues of Tesla's making where a change on their part significantly affected the value of a particular deal. The only way I have (partially) worked around this is to very carefully and delicately explain in excruciating detail how the position they are taking is one of a bully. Again, this is not the ideal way to have a conversation with a reasonable person. If that reasonable person considers themselves a customer, they are likely to expect Tesla to go the extra mile to make something work and not the other way around.

To be clear, my issues have never had anything to do with servicing or supporting our MS'. On those, it as always been way over the customer first attitude.

I've been forced down the litigation route in my business life. It is made difficult, painful and very expensive for all involved likely to discourage its use. There is a need for it in this life but the bar is so very high for me that I can not imagine any non-criminal interaction regarding a car that would warrant it short of blatant outright dishonesty. I can not bring myself to think what has happened here comes remotely close but then that is simply my opinion.