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

[tomas]

Motor trend does not ask for manufacturer comment on their independent tests. They just publish what they measure. Their original P85 0-60 beat tesla's published number. Tesla did not comment then. Amidst all this hubbub and the Danish and Norwegian processes, why would Tesla comment now on an independent test? Anyone whose been in a C suite knows that legal counsel creates a huge filter, especially where there is already controversy. I'd say the whole litigious society is sad, not just the individual instance. Wrong to call out tesla on what any Corp would do. Let's wait for owner metrics.

 

[rns-e]

Motor trend does not ask for manufacturer comment on their independent tests. They just publish what they measure. Their original P85 0-60 beat tesla's published number. Tesla did not comment then. Amidst all this hubbub and the Danish and Norwegian processes, why would Tesla comment now on an independent test? Anyone whose been in a C suite knows that legal counsel creates a huge filter, especially where there is already controversy. I'd say the whole litigious society is sad, not just the individual instance. Wrong to call out tesla on what any Corp would do. Let's wait for owner metrics.

Tesla is the one that made a close relation to Motor Trend, when using Motor Trend as the official reference for the 1 foot roll out, and choosing to let Motor Trend have the first tests of both the P85D and the P90D, and retweeting their results etc.

One of the first things you learn as a CEO of a public traded company is to be as precise as possible with your statements, not understating nor overstating as anything but as precise as possible will make the stock analysts question anything you say in stead of believing what you say. It is kind of the same thing Tesla has to realise when it comes to communicate accurate information to existing and future customers. The more accurate the better. Prior to the P85D the customers believed Tesla to always understate their performance numbers and with that came the expectation that the practise would continue with the P85D. We know now that not to be the case. Some now say Tesla stated performance numbers correctly others that Tesla overstated. This confusion is carried over to the P90D and the Ludicrous upgrade for the P85D and that is just not a good business practise. Some hope and believe that there will be software upgrades that will make it faster, but in reality Tesla promises nothing supporting that hope. In the past they have done it, but they also used to understate performance claims. But then came the P85D and the performance upgrade not as software, but as hardware at an additional price.

Whether you think Tesla did something wrong with regards to the P85D performance claims or not, I think we all would benefit from the most accurate numbers to base our buying decision on.

 

[lolachampcar]

tomas,

From the post above the one you read-

"Pity Tesla can not/will not share some of that in depth engineering data you know they have. This is one of the down sides to the company getting bigger and customers getting more awnrey."

Also, I think it is worth discussing that this is the first time Tesla has shipped a car that has not delivered the specified 1/4 mile performance. They have provided MotorTrend with a car that does yet has stayed silent on why there is a difference between production and magazine product. I simply do not buy that they do no know. That leaves knowing and staying silent on purpose.

I'm open to discussing reasonable alternatives to the above conclusions. I've not written Tesla on this matter so I am not calling anyone out. I'm simply discussing my understanding of reality with my peeps.

 

[Krugerrand]

Whether you think Tesla did something wrong with regards to the P85D performance claims or not, I think we all would benefit from the most accurate numbers to base our buying decision on.

More accurately, the people who place great significance on the topic at hand (horsepower) would like to have the most accurate numbers to base their buying decision on. Everyone else simply does not care.

 

[P85DEE]

regretfully, yes
Perhaps it is time for me to take a break and let all the what Tesla will and what they will not do dust settle.
It is sad that they allowed the MotorTrend number to be published without a lick of explanation.........

The good thing here is that they've started the upgrades at this time, and that's important if the cutoff for the deposits is 1/17/16.

With about 68 days left until then, hopefully we see any planned changes to current Ludicrous which would allow cars to hit the 10.9 mark before then.

I'm thinking that for those of us in the east who've put down the deposit, there should be plenty of time to evaluate the results and or any potential changes before our actual appointment dates.

 

[tomas]

tomas,

From the post above the one you read-

"Pity Tesla can not/will not share some of that in depth engineering data you know they have. This is one of the down sides to the company getting bigger and customers getting more awnrey."

Also, I think it is worth discussing that this is the first time Tesla has shipped a car that has not delivered the specified 1/4 mile performance. They have provided MotorTrend with a car that does yet has stayed silent on why there is a difference between production and magazine product. I simply do not buy that they do no know. That leaves knowing and staying silent on purpose.

I'm open to discussing reasonable alternatives to the above conclusions. I've not written Tesla on this matter so I am not calling anyone out. I'm simply discussing my understanding of reality with my peeps.

Lolachampcar, you are one of my favorite forum members, and one of the most level-headed in this thread as well. My post was not intended to be argumentative - but it seems sensitivity in this thread is at all time high.

Point is that corporate culture - for better or worse - wears a legal muzzle these days, and I suspect the one at Tesla is tighter than ever. Sure, they have technical data. But, from a legal perspective, when there are actions already in place and people are threatening others regarding performance metrics, the approach of staying mute but letting an independent party test and publish metrics should be no surprise to anyone.

I personally loved the small company, say everything approach Tesla had a couple of years ago. I thought it refreshing that their CEO and others would often talk unfiltered. Alas, I think those days are over, and from here in, we'll get what many have asked for... less communication and more conservative (less aspirational) statements.

 

[lolachampcar]

I agree thus my comments on bigger company and awnrey customers. I just did not want to appear to be calling Tesla out (on this issue). Absolutely no offense taken as, like you, I've come to trust your posts.

 

[Andyw2100]

Lolachampcar, you are one of my favorite forum members, and one of the most level-headed in this thread as well. My post was not intended to be argumentative - but it seems sensitivity in this thread is at all time high.

Point is that corporate culture - for better or worse - wears a legal muzzle these days, and I suspect the one at Tesla is tighter than ever. Sure, they have technical data. But, from a legal perspective, when there are actions already in place and people are threatening others regarding performance metrics, the approach of staying mute but letting an independent party test and publish metrics should be no surprise to anyone.

I personally loved the small company, say everything approach Tesla had a couple of years ago. I thought it refreshing that their CEO and others would often talk unfiltered. Alas, I think those days are over, and from here in, we'll get what many have asked for... less communication and more conservative (less aspirational) statements.

Your earlier post--the one that lola responded to--ended with "Let's wait for owner metrics." That was your suggestion that went along with explaining why Tesla probably wouldn't comment on the Motortrend testing. lola's response, touched on the point that I was going to make if he had not: the owner metrics at the moment, for the P90D with Ludicrous fall short of the Tesla announced specifications in the quarter mile. The Motortrend results do not. I think all we're suggesting is that the article really provided Tesla a golden opportunity to explain to their customers what's going on. If there is a software update coming that will turn consumer P90Ds with Ludicrous into the Motortrend car, it would have been great for Tesla to explain that. If that is not the case, and Tesla has missed on the 10.9 second quarter mile specification, then that's a different story. I don't believe that is what has happened. But leaving us guessing--more importantly leaving those P90D with Ludicrous customers guessing--is not a great approach for Tesla to be taking.

 

[AWDtsla]

Your earlier post--the one that lola responded to--ended with "Let's wait for owner metrics." That was your suggestion that went along with explaining why Tesla probably wouldn't comment on the Motortrend testing. lola's response, touched on the point that I was going to make if he had not: the owner metrics at the moment, for the P90D with Ludicrous fall short of the Tesla announced specifications in the quarter mile. The Motortrend results do not. I think all we're suggesting is that the article really provided Tesla a golden opportunity to explain to their customers what's going on. If there is a software update coming that will turn consumer P90Ds with Ludicrous into the Motortrend car, it would have been great for Tesla to explain that. If that is not the case, and Tesla has missed on the 10.9 second quarter mile specification, then that's a different story. I don't believe that is what has happened. But leaving us guessing--more importantly leaving those P90D with Ludicrous customers guessing--is not a great approach for Tesla to be taking.

Why risk customers expecting they will get a infinity HP software update? Isn't this what was requested?

 

[Andyw2100]

Why risk customers expecting they will get a infinity HP software update? Isn't this what was requested?

Assuming the Motortrend car was not set up as some kind of a sham, Tesla already knows they can deliver whatever software the Motortrend car was running. A simple statement that the Motortrend car was running a version of the software that would be released to production cars soon would be all that was needed, though of course an actual date and/or more specifics would be even better.

I have no idea what you mean about an infinity HP software update.

 

[AWDtsla]

I have no idea what you mean about an infinity HP software update.

This is how Elon Musk's comments about the P85D software upgrade were interpreted. So silence on the issue seems to be the appropriate response. When it's released you'll see it, otherwise why fuel rampant speculation. Reduce expectations and over deliver, right?

 

[Hookmaker]

More accurately, the people who place great significance on the topic at hand (horsepower) would like to have the most accurate numbers to base their buying decision on. Everyone else simply does not care.

"Everyone else who just happened only to opt for the 85D (unless they are un-sound in mind) to be more precise.

 

[Andyw2100]

This is how Elon Musk's comments about the P85D software upgrade were interpreted. So silence on the issue seems to be the appropriate response. When it's released you'll see it, otherwise why fuel rampant speculation. Reduce expectations and over deliver, right?

You're missing the point.

At this point Tesla is under-delivering on a promised specification on the P90D with Ludicrous. Tesla owes those customers an explanation now--not at some point in the future.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You're missing the point.

At this point Tesla is under-delivering on a promised specification on the P90D with Ludicrous. Tesla owes those customers an explanation now--not at some point in the future.

I think there is some confusion because two different but similar things are being discussed. One is the P85D with Ludicrous retrofit, the other is the P90D with Ludicrous option. They are related, but not the same. We have absolutely no idea how a P85D with Ludicrous retrofit performs in the real world right now, I think most are waiting for results there. The P90D is a whole other issue.

 

[Andyw2100]

I think there is some confusion because two different but similar things are being discussed. One is the P85D with Ludicrous retrofit, the other is the P90D with Ludicrous option. They are related, but not the same. We have absolutely no idea how a P85D with Ludicrous retrofit performs in the real world right now, I think most are waiting for results there. The P90D is a whole other issue.

They are definitely two different issues, and definitely related. If there's any confusion, it's not on my part.

My point earlier was that we won't know if the P85Ds, once upgraded, are performing the best they ever will if they achieve just the small, currently promised improvements. lola and others are expecting Tesla to be under-promising and over-delivering when talking about just the .2 second improvement there. I'm saying that if the P85Ds, once upgraded, show only that .2 second improvement we won't know if "that's it", and that's all there will ever be, or if they may be in the same state we hope the P90Ds with Ludicrous are in now, which is waiting for an update that will improve their performance to a) fully meet their specs, and possibly b) meet the Motortrend testing which would meet and exceed the original P90D with Ludicrous specs.

lola had suggested it would be nice if Tesla let people know what was going on. I supported that. Others said Tesla shouldn't risk over-promising. I pointed out that at the moment, Tesla was still failing to meet the specs on delivered P90Ds with Ludicrous, so some explaining was in order.

That's how everything ties together.

Any explanation Tesla might provide for their current P90D with Ludicrous customers--an explanation which those customers are owed--would help us know what to make of the initial testing of the P85Ds upgraded to Ludicrous.

 

[stopcrazypp]

They are definitely two different issues, and definitely related. If there's any confusion, it's not on my part.


My point earlier was that we won't know if the P85Ds, once upgraded, are performing the best they ever will if they achieve just the small, currently promised improvements. lola and others are expecting Tesla to be under-promising and over-delivering when talking about just the .2 second improvement there. I'm saying that if the P85Ds, once upgraded, show only that .2 second improvement we won't know if "that's it", and that's all there will ever be, or if they may be in the same state we hope the P90Ds with Ludicrous are in now, which is waiting for an update that will improve their performance to a) fully meet their specs, and possibly b) meet the Motortrend testing which would meet and exceed the original P90D with Ludicrous specs.


lola had suggested it would be nice if Tesla let people know what was going on. I supported that. Others said Tesla shouldn't risk over-promising. I pointed out that at the moment, Tesla was still failing to meet the specs on delivered P90Ds with Ludicrous, so some explaining was in order.


That's how everything ties together.

Any explanation Tesla might provide for their current P90D with Ludicrous customers--an explanation which those customers are owed--would help us know what to make of the initial testing of the P85Ds upgraded to Ludicrous.

I see you point. You are right that if the P85D L ends up with the same 0.2 second improvement as with the current P90D L, that would put the both cars in a similar position, but so far we don't know that yet. Also, I don't think addressing the P90D L issue will necessarily help set the correct expectations for the P85D L. I think Tesla has been clear that the P85D L will not perform the same as a P90D L regardless. So even if the P90D L was improved to 10.9 second 1/4 mile today, that will not really tell you what to expect on the P85D L.

 

[brianman]

More accurately, the people who place great significance on the topic at hand (horsepower) would like to have the most accurate numbers to base their buying decision on. Everyone else simply does not care.

Completely disagree with the underlined.

Speaking specifically, if you don't think Tesla should be providing potential customers with accurate information then you are doing Tesla and the push to EV technology a disservice.

- - - Updated - - -

RE: Motor Trend
For any forums members that have been able to get useful information from Motor Trend before, any luck on finding the firmware version used in the 10.9 test vehicle?

The dash pics look like 7.x for both Blue and Red.

 

[cynix]

"The motors of the P85D" might, but that's not the same thing as "The P85D".

That's like saying my feet can go 100mph but only if they're not connected to my body and are fueled by some other cyborg testing device.

Yep, this is exactly why the ECE R85 standard is so absurd. This standard does not benefit consumers at all.

stopcrazypp, you say that current standards for measuring engine/motor power all dictate that you take the engine/motor and attach accessories as appropriate. Whilst the gist is correct, the difference is that SAE actually requires you to attach the accessories that have an effect on engine performance, whereas ECE R85 discards a very crucial "accessory" — the battery — which is typically the limiting factor in an EV due to current technological constraints. And before you bring up your examples of manufacturers still using SAE gross hp today, I'd like to point out that, out of the thousands of car models on the market, only a couple of manufacturers and several non-mainstream models are still using SAE gross hp. I think this clearly shows that the majority of people expect to see SAE net hp these days.

 

[jerry33]

Shouldn't we have clear and unambiguous statements from Tesla?

Wouldn't that cut out about 80% of the posts on TMC? We'd be bored silly.

 

[dsm363]

Yep, this is exactly why the ECE R85 standard is so absurd. This standard does not benefit consumers at all.

stopcrazypp, you say that current standards for measuring engine/motor power all dictate that you take the engine/motor and attach accessories as appropriate. Whilst the gist is correct, the difference is that SAE actually requires you to attach the accessories that have an effect on engine performance, whereas ECE R85 discards a very crucial "accessory" — the battery — which is typically the limiting factor in an EV due to current technological constraints. And before you bring up your examples of manufacturers still using SAE gross hp today, I'd like to point out that, out of the thousands of car models on the market, only a couple of manufacturers and several non-mainstream models are still using SAE gross hp. I think this clearly shows that the majority of people expect to see SAE net hp these days.

Agree on all accounts. The main issue is there isn't an SAE standard for EVs yet.