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

[Krugerrand]

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.

Good thing I said nothing even remotely close to that. So once again, brianman, we don't disagree. Though you sure have been trying hard to carry on a dispute.

 

[JonG]

The problem is that consumers are conditioned to look at hp numbers to compare the cars and decide just how much they are worth, and this is reality regardless of any other metrics listed by manufacturers, including acceleration. This is just the automotive world reality that everybody, including Tesla, must live with.

The problem with listing only 463hp is that it eliminates any distinction between the 691 motor hp, 463 hp car and 463 motor hp, 463hp car. The first one will perform as P85D, the second will perform worth than 85D. There is no way the car can be properly marketed using 463hp only. There will be no consumers to be pleasantly surprised because nobody will buy 691 motor hp , 463 hp car over the 463 motor hp, 463 hp car if both are listed as 463hp cars, and the first car costs more.

There is no way the car can be properly marketed using 463hp only? So you're suggesting they should use a figure the car can not deliver is a better and more accurate way? I'm not sure anyone is suggesting it's the only figure but when it comes to HP it is the only accurate figure.

What do other cars do? They make statements like 'the light weight gives a great power to weight ratio' (a lotus Elise). Or 'the low end torque, short getting and 4 wheel drive gives great traction off the line' (like a tesla).. These descriptions people can understand, and they can also understand the implications ie that low end torque, short gearing and 4 wheel drive doesn't mean wild acceleration at 80mph. Using an artificial number that comprises two numbers that can't be added in the real world is just plain deception.

 

[vgrinshpun]

There is no way the car can be properly marketed using 463hp only? So you're suggesting they should use a figure the car can not deliver is a better and more accurate way? I'm not sure anyone is suggesting it's the only figure but when it comes to HP it is the only accurate figure.

What do other cars do? They make statements like 'the light weight gives a great power to weight ratio' (a lotus Elise). Or 'the low end torque, short getting and 4 wheel drive gives great traction off the line' (like a tesla).. These descriptions people can understand, and they can also understand the implications ie that low end torque, short gearing and 4 wheel drive doesn't mean wild acceleration at 80mph. Using an artificial number that comprises two numbers that can't be added in the real world is just plain deception.

If the 463hp is the only accurate figure, how do you explain (and justify) the difference in performance of 463 "accurate" hp car with motors rated at 691hp vs, 463 "accurate" hp car with motors rated 463hp?

As for adding hp of two motors, it is absolutely legitimate as motor characteristics in constant hp region are represented by essentially horizontal straight line. You can read about the Tesla drivetrain motor characteristics here.

 

[JonG]

If the 463hp is the only accurate figure, how do you explain (and justify) the difference in performance of 463 "accurate" hp car with motors rated at 691hp vs, 463 "accurate" hp car with motors rated 463hp?

As for adding hp of two motors, it is absolutely legitimate as motor characteristics in constant hp region are represented by essentially horizontal straight line. You can read about the Tesla drivetrain motor characteristics here.

i gave you the answer in my post. Low down torque and 4 wheel drive and appropriate gearing. Explain and justify why a tesla with 691hp does not perform like a car with 691hp (even a car like a rs7 or m5 with less than 600hp) above 100mph.

Caterham do a car that can hit 60 without roll out in 2.79s. It has 310hp. Should they say it has more power, a figure that's not possible, just to explain its performance. How can I explain and justify that a car with LESS power is faster than a p90dl? It's because of other properties.

Facts are facts. The car can only deliver 463hp. Get used to it. The fact it has other traits that enable it to accelerate fast is what makes it fast off the line.

 

[gsxdsm]

i gave you the answer in my post. Low down torque and 4 wheel drive and appropriate gearing. Explain and justify why a tesla with 691hp does not perform like a car with 691hp (even a car like a rs7 or m5 with less than 600hp) above 100mph.

Caterham do a car that can hit 60 without roll out in 2.79s. It has 310hp. Should they say it has more power, a figure that's not possible, just to explain its performance. How can I explain and justify that a car with LESS power is faster than a p90dl? It's because of other properties.

Facts are facts. The car can only deliver 463hp. Get used to it. The fact it has other traits that enable it to accelerate fast is what makes it fast off the line.

It's crazy how we can both have completely different interpretations of things. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems like you don't get the fact that the motor capability (691hp) directly contributes to the acceleration and such, stating it is valid. We're like on two different planets here and I don't think either side will be able to see eye to eye here.

- - - Updated - - -

Facts are facts. The car can only deliver 463hp. Get used to it. The fact it has other traits that enable it to accelerate fast is what makes it fast off the line.

Facts are facts. The car's motor is rated for 691 hp combined. Get used to it. The fact that it is rated for 691 hp is precisely what enables it to accelerate fast off the line. The fact that it has other limiting factors in certain conditions that limits high speed acceleration is captured in the 463hp battery limited rating.

 

[MikeBur]

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

In lieu of a standard, I believe there is an opportunity for Tesla to provide additional information to enable educated consumer choice. Some steps recently taken, though if TM really strives to be better than the rest it could create a precedent with transparent expected performance curves.

Additionally, given TM experience - doubly so with dual motors, there's also a great opportunity to reduce the ambiguity in ECE R85.

 

[stopcrazypp]

i gave you the answer in my post. Low down torque and 4 wheel drive and appropriate gearing. Explain and justify why a tesla with 691hp does not perform like a car with 691hp (even a car like a rs7 or m5 with less than 600hp) above 100mph.

Caterham do a car that can hit 60 without roll out in 2.79s. It has 310hp. Should they say it has more power, a figure that's not possible, just to explain its performance. How can I explain and justify that a car with LESS power is faster than a p90dl? It's because of other properties.

Facts are facts. The car can only deliver 463hp. Get used to it. The fact it has other traits that enable it to accelerate fast is what makes it fast off the line.

You can't fit "Low down torque and 4 wheel drive and appropriate gearing." in a single nice figure. Ultimately 691hp was a logical number that reflected the expected acceleration performance of the car. I think that's why it took 5 months before anyone brought it up as an issue (in previous horsepower dispute cases, enthusiasts brought up the issue in weeks).

So both numbers have a role. If people cared more about torque perhaps that is an equivalent metric (like the hp it was also 50% higher than the P85). However, unfortunately most people don't care about the torque figure as much as horsepower.

As for the most "accurate" horsepower number, the only one is wheel horsepower. That takes into account everything in the system.

 

[JonG]

It's crazy how we can both have completely different interpretations of things. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems like you don't get the fact that the motor capability (691hp) directly contributes to the acceleration and such, stating it is valid. We're like on two different planets here and I don't think either side will be able to see eye to eye here.

I'm glad you're not saying I'm wrong because I'm not.

If you said the car has 463hp of which up to 100% can be sent to the rear wheels I'd agree. This is what other car makers say. That is not saying the car has 691hp.

Audi Quattro can send up to 80% to the rear wheels... That's the 400hp to the rear (assuming 500hp car). And the max to the front 50% so that's 250hp. These are maximums. They don't quote the car as having 650hp because it's the sum of the max front and back. This is what you are trying to say for tesla.

If you think the benefit is greater torque, then talk torque.

And for completeness, one of the reasons why a PxxD is quicker than a xxD is because the P car can send much more power to the rear wheels on launch if it needed to. At speed that need reduces which is why performance is more comparable.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm glad you're not saying I'm wrong because I'm not.

If you said the car has 463hp of which up to 100% can be sent to the rear wheels I'd agree. This is what other car makers say. That is not saying the car has 691hp.

Audi Quattro can send up to 80% to the rear wheels... That's the 400hp to the rear (assuming 500hp car). And the max to the front 50% so that's 250hp. These are maximums. They don't quote the car as having 650hp because it's the sum of the max front and back. This is what you are trying to say for tesla.

That is not quite the right analogy. The Tesla drivetrain is not doing a power split out of one engine. The drivetrain itself (independent of the battery) is capable of outputting 691hp at the same time. The Quattro drivetrain can't do that.

The Tesla's case is that it adds 100% of the front and 100% of the rear until it hits the battery limit plateau (where you basically draw a flat line at 463hp and cut off anything that goes past that).

If you think the benefit is greater torque, then talk torque.

Tesla is finally focusing more on torque with the new figures, but ultimately I think they didn't focus on that originally because people care more about horsepower than torque. Using 50% more "motor power" is essentially the same as saying 50% more torque, but it gets the point across better.

 

[Jian Yang]

I'm glad you're not saying I'm wrong because I'm not.

If you said the car has 463hp of which up to 100% can be sent to the rear wheels I'd agree. This is what other car makers say. That is not saying the car has 691hp.

Audi Quattro can send up to 80% to the rear wheels... That's the 400hp to the rear (assuming 500hp car). And the max to the front 50% so that's 250hp. These are maximums. They don't quote the car as having 650hp because it's the sum of the max front and back. This is what you are trying to say for tesla.

If you think the benefit is greater torque, then talk torque.

And for completeness, one of the reasons why a PxxD is quicker than a xxD is because the P car can send much more power to the rear wheels on launch if it needed to. At speed that need reduces which is why performance is more comparable.

The reason why Audi Quattro can not be call a 650hp car is that it can not produce the peak torque of a 650hp car. The reason the tesla can be called a 691hp motor power car is because tesla can produce the peak torque of the 691hp rated motor, and tesla does have 691hp rated motor. And this is the exact reason why tesla p85D can send more power to rear wheels at launch--because it has a bigger hp rated motor.

I feel the wheel of this thread has turned too many circles , and if people in this thread could not understand this issue, how do you expect the general public to understand it, and how could tesla market the model s with anything but 691hp motor power?

I do think more information should be provided at tesla's end, but marketing the car with 691hp motor power is not wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

In lieu of a standard, I believe there is an opportunity for Tesla to provide additional information to enable educated consumer choice. Some steps recently taken, though if TM really strives to be better than the rest it could create a precedent with transparent expected performance curves.

Additionally, given TM experience - doubly so with dual motors, there's also a great opportunity to reduce the ambiguity in ECE R85.

That is what Tesla should do ASAP. That being said, IMHO, what tesla did before wasn't bad, just not good enough.

 

[JonG]

I'm not sure how you derive the logic that you can quote a HP figure because the car can produce the torque figure but not the HP figure. It's really not worth making stuff up.

its also not worth trying to change the debate to standards. They have a HP figure for each motor. I don't think anyone has challenged the individual outputs.

And Ive no problem with Tesla quoting these individual motor powers so long as the context is correct.

This is a well trodden argument and i thought we were getting some sense of agreement that the difference was in the presentation of numbers and the rights and wrongs of tesla inc the response to reviews and magazine articles, whether this was deliberate, careless or they had no need and did nothing wrong. You seem to be bringing the argument back to it really having 691hp useable HP because it a, goes quick off the line like a 691hp car (whatever that means given there are faster cars with less and more powerful trucks which are slower) and b, it produces a lot of torque. It could put a man on the moon for all I care but that does not change the HP the car can deliver at any point of time and that number is not 691.

 

[Johan]

Using 50% more "motor power" is essentially the same as saying 50% more torque, but it gets the point across better.

This is actually a great way of stating where the center of the technical conflict/disagreement on this issue lies.

 

[Auzie]

The reason why Audi Quattro can not be call a 650hp car is that it can not produce the peak torque of a 650hp car. The reason the tesla can be called a 691hp motor power car is because tesla can produce the peak torque of the 691hp rated motor, and tesla does have 691hp rated motor. And this is the exact reason why tesla p85D can send more power to rear wheels at launch--because it has a bigger hp rated motor.

I feel the wheel of this thread has turned too many circles , and if people in this thread could not understand this issue, how do you expect the general public to understand it, and how could tesla market the model s with anything but 691hp motor power?

I do think more information should be provided at tesla's end, but marketing the car with 691hp motor power is not wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

That is what Tesla should do ASAP. That being said, IMHO, what tesla did before wasn't bad, just not good enough.

Agree with most of what you said, except the bit on what Tesla should do. Providing more detailed information to people who are not sufficiently trained to understand that information can easily lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

Perhaps I will rephrase that. Tesla can provide detailed technical information to customers, but when it comes to marketing, it might be better to stick with generally understood concepts.

It is unrealistic to expect people with no adequate training to understand some concepts discussed here.

This is actually a great way of stating where the center of the technical conflict/disagreement on this issue lies.

In my view, this is more of a confusion and conflation of different concepts rather than a technical conflict or disagreement.

 

[Johan]

In my view, this is more of a confusion and conflation of different concepts rather than a technical conflict or disagreement.

Well put. The conflict stems from a conceptual difference in viewpoint rather than other typical sources of conflict (such as identity, ideology, religion, culture etc.).

There are enough people on this thread intelligent enough to just say: "I understand that we interpret the same facts differently, from both interpretations we arrive at some sensible conclusions (for example: it is a fact the at no point in time does the car output 691 hp of power, but at the same time the difference in motor power is the only variable creating the difference in performance between a P85D and an S85D) but I choose to put my emphasis on my interpretation rather than any of the other interpretations".

This way we can arrive at a common situation in life: a difference of opinion (not a difference of facts) which is perfectly fine. "Let's agree to disagree".

Next, one could try to persuade the other parties that one's interpretation is better, more correct, more logical but in this particular case I think it's unlikely those entrenched on either side will defect.

 

[Jian Yang]

Well put. The conflict stems from a conceptual difference in viewpoint rather than other typical sources of conflict (such as identity, ideology, religion, culture etc.).

There are enough people on this thread intelligent enough to just say: "I understand that we interpret the same facts differently, from both interpretations we arrive at some sensible conclusions (for example: it is a fact the at no point in time does the car output 691 hp of power, but at the same time the difference in motor power is the only variable creating the difference in performance between a P85D and an S85D) but I choose to put my emphasis on my interpretation rather than any of the other interpretations".

This way we can arrive at a common situation in life: a difference of opinion (not a difference of facts) which is perfectly fine. "Let's agree to disagree".

Next, one could try to persuade the other parties that one's interpretation is better, more correct, more logical but in this particular case I think it's unlikely those entrenched on either side will defect.

Agreed.

 

[Andyw2100]

Providing more detailed information to people who are not sufficiently trained to understand that information can easily lead to confusion and misunderstanding.

Perhaps I will rephrase that. Tesla can provide detailed technical information to customers, but when it comes to marketing, it might be better to stick with generally understood concepts.

Wouldn't you agree, though, that if Tesla is to stick with generally understood concepts (which means providing just one set of numbers, and not both, because we're going with your premise that the general public is not sufficiently trained to understand both without there being confusion and misunderstanding), the numbers they should provide should be the more conservative ones? That way no one is disappointed, and the people who dig in and are capable of understanding the additional information understand that the car is even better than marketing is presenting it as being. The alternative--presenting only the better numbers through marketing--results in people being misled, and the people capable of digging into the details being disappointed when they uncover them instead of things being the other way around.

 

[Krugerrand]

Wouldn't you agree, though, that if Tesla is to stick with generally understood concepts (which means providing just one set of numbers, and not both, because we're going with your premise that the general public is not sufficiently trained to understand both without there being confusion and misunderstanding), the numbers they should provide should be the more conservative ones?

No.

The people who started this whole thing (everyone else came along for some other reason that I'm not convinced they'd have bothered with otherwise - as in they had no idea until the original performance minded people said something) are those concerned quite specifically with hp and how it relates specifically to performance and specifically to passing performance at higher speeds. In summary, people focused on performance from a performance version of the Model S. Therefore a little asterisk beside the performance variant of the vehicle to indicate 'more information is available *here* (link to blog or whatever) should suffice because those looking specifically for performance equal to the motor power horsepower figure at specific times during vehicle operation have some due diligence to investigate to ensure the performance version of the vehicle will satisfy their wants and needs in the performance department.

That shouldn't be an issue for anyone moving forward having placed equal weight on Tesla to provide more detailed and accurate information about horsepower vs. motor power horsepower, etc... and on the customer to make sure they're getting what they want and need in the performance variant.

 

[Andyw2100]

No.

The people who started this whole thing (everyone else came along for some other reason that I'm not convinced they'd have bothered with otherwise - as in they had no idea until the original performance minded people said something) are those concerned quite specifically with hp and how it relates specifically to performance and specifically to passing performance at higher speeds. In summary, people focused on performance from a performance version of the Model S. Therefore a little asterisk beside the performance variant of the vehicle to indicate 'more information is available *here* (link to blog or whatever) should suffice because those looking specifically for performance equal to the motor power horsepower figure at specific times during vehicle operation have some due diligence to investigate to ensure the performance version of the vehicle will satisfy their wants and needs in the performance department.

That shouldn't be an issue for anyone moving forward having placed equal weight on Tesla to provide more detailed and accurate information about horsepower vs. motor power horsepower, etc... and on the customer to make sure they're getting what they want and need in the performance variant.

The asterisk with explanation elsewhere would be fine.

But my question was addressed to Auzie, because she was suggesting that marketing present just one piece of information, so as not to confuse people. I was asking if she agreed that if only one piece of information was to be presented, that it should be the more conservative one.

 

[Krugerrand]

The asterisk with explanation elsewhere would be fine.

But my question was addressed to Auzie, because she was suggesting that marketing present just one piece of information, so as not to confuse people. I was asking if she agreed that if only one piece of information was to be presented, that it should be the more conservative one.

Yes, I know you addressed Auzie specifically. I took the liberty of offering an answer and solution that fits the parameters being discussed, where one piece of information is provided so as not to confuse people, as well as an opportunity for more accurate/detailed information for the other people who place importance on the finer points of performance specifics.

 

[Jian Yang]

No.

The people who started this whole thing (everyone else came along for some other reason that I'm not convinced they'd have bothered with otherwise - as in they had no idea until the original performance minded people said something) are those concerned quite specifically with hp and how it relates specifically to performance and specifically to passing performance at higher speeds. In summary, people focused on performance from a performance version of the Model S. Therefore a little asterisk beside the performance variant of the vehicle to indicate 'more information is available *here* (link to blog or whatever) should suffice because those looking specifically for performance equal to the motor power horsepower figure at specific times during vehicle operation have some due diligence to investigate to ensure the performance version of the vehicle will satisfy their wants and needs in the performance department.

That shouldn't be an issue for anyone moving forward having placed equal weight on Tesla to provide more detailed and accurate information about horsepower vs. motor power horsepower, etc... and on the customer to make sure they're getting what they want and need in the performance variant.

I do think this is the best way to market P85D. Go for the impressive numbers for general public that do not necessarily need or understand 691hp motor power but would buy it anyway, and a * for those who really dig performance and mechanics.