Thanks, I believe it's not just my problem here. If an ICE manufacturer said one of cars had an engine capable of 600+ HP under *some* situations if I added nitrous, racing fuel, larger fuel pump, etc (i.e. Increasing the fuel input 200HP beyond what ships with the car), would we consider this differently?
Would it be justifiable if the retort was that there's an (un-ratified?) spec that has so many holes that it has major opportunity for misinterpretation?
One could argue the letter of the law legal standpoint, though would it not be a better manufacturer who stood up and worked to educate the masses and tighten the spec, thereby helping define the industry standard as meaningful? Call me a dreamer
The original comment was not about the standards, but about whether it was "wrong" for journalists to say the P85D has "691 hp" without the "motor power" modifier Tesla used. Basically, there is nothing wrong about that based how horsepower has been measured and defined up to now for cars (which was why I brought up the standards).
As for "holes" in standards you mention, SAE gross (which Ram Trucks still uses today in their diesel trucks) only requires the engine to be stock when testing. I don't know if it allows racing fuel, but it allows a custom intake, exhaust, fuel injection, ignition timing settings, and you didn't have to attach any accessories that might reduce power. For the 1972 Cadillac Eldorado V8 this meant 375 hp vs 235hp under the SAE net rating widely in use today, a 37% difference. I use such an old car because it is one of the few rated under both systems at the same time; the 2016 Ram diesel engine is rated only under SAE gross.
Even the SAE net commonly in use by ICE cars today has "holes" (how much oil is in crankcase, how engine control is calibrated, whether premium fuel was used). The 2005 Toyota 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 engine had a 10% difference (210 hp vs 190 hp) when rated under the SAE certified standard introduced in the same year. SAE is still working on the EV horsepower standards (J2907 and J2908), but the ECE R85 standard Tesla used is not a preliminary standard: the original version went into force in 1995, the latest supplement was added in 2013.
Apologies, I meant industry ratings of vehicles, not always the manufacturer. You're right. I would much prefer seeing these numbers before the ludicrous upgrade is installed. I went on faith on original car, and all appear to agree it would be foolish to trust TM... Which, incidentally, makes me real sad.
I agree up until the comments of "when it reaches the courts". In general, comments about legal interpretation, precedence, expectations of fact, etc. are not required.
This is still easily addressable by TM... What is it (and apologies if I'm bastardizing the interpretation here):the first step in addressing a problem is acknowledging its existence? TM appear to be making steps here for future owners. The second step is reparations for damage done - to reputation, trust, etc...
Again thanks for the explanation.
I think ultimately it will involve courts if owners expect some sort of compensation beyond what has been offered so far (so far only the discounted Ludicrous upgrade can be interpreted as some sort of compensation). And even if it didn't involve courts, I still think a well designed consumer survey is required. If there was absolutely no one that interpreted Tesla's numbers correctly, I would agree that owners are owed compensation, however it is clear to me that is not the case, so this all becomes an issue of opinion.
In the previous cases, when horsepower numbers are different because of differences in rating standards (as opposed to an actual physical loss of power because of differences in equipment), no compensation was offered to owners. For example, for the Toyota V6 engine I mentioned above, even though there was a 10% difference in power, Toyota did not offer any compensation for owners. All they did was switch to the new standard behind the scenes. Tesla might just do the same thing here.