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

[Andyw2100]

People will never get 691 hp on the wheel, period, so stop hoping for it. Tesla never offered 691 hp on the wheel, they offered 691 hp motor power. People complained about not getting something they mistakenly thought they were offered. IMO, P85D buyers and tesla are both responsible for this misunderstanding. Tesla is trying to provide the P85D performance improvement (which was not guaranteed), just like all other free OTA improvements. Tesla is actually trying to do something good here and this kind gesture does not mean they were guilty. So be at peace and enjoy.

Where have you seen me say anything, ever, about 691 HP at the wheels? We would be happy with 691 HP produced anywhere in the car.

You're making two different arguments. One argument--the old one that we have been around and around--is that Tesla never promised 691 HP in the car. That one is one people just disagree on, which it seemed you were acknowleding with your second argument, which was that we should now be happy, even though we we didn't get what we thought we were getting in the first place, because, according to your argument, we are now getting it at a discount. That is a separate argument from the original one. And I rejected that argument in my first response to you.

 

[Jian Yang]

Where have you seen me say anything, ever, about 691 HP at the wheels? We would be happy with 691 HP produced anywhere in the car.

Again, this is the fundamental difference between electric motor and ICE. You already got the 691 HP motor power ---- all those coils and the big magnet.

 

[Andyw2100]

Again, this is the fundamental difference between electric motor and ICE. You already got the 691 HP motor power ---- all those coils and the big magnet.

And a battery system that doesn't allow 691 HP to be produced.

 

[dsm363]

And a battery system that doesn't allow 691 HP to be produced.

Can you point to where Tesla said it did at launch? That would be useful evidence to support your case.

 

[Andyw2100]

Can you point to where Tesla said it did at launch? That would be useful evidence to support your case.

We've been around and around this. There's no reason to rehash all the old arguments, and that wasn't my intention when I got involved again today.

I was addressing the new argument that P85D owners should now be satisfied since there are reports that the upgrade seems to improve performance, and because we are being offered the upgrade for $5000 instead of $10,000. I rejected that argument, and then got partially dragged into rehashing the old ones. There's no point in rehashing the old ones. Everyone knows them quite well.

Implicit in Jian Yang's argument suggesting we should all be happy now, was the understanding that "even though you believe you did not get what you were supposed to get." There's no reason to continue arguing that point since it is pretty clear we are never going to reach agreement on it.

 

[dsm363]

We've been around and around this. There's no reason to rehash all the old arguments, and that wasn't my intention when I got involved again today.

I was addressing the new argument that P85D owners should now be satisfied since there are reports that the upgrade seems to improve performance, and because we are being offered the upgrade for $5000 instead of $10,000. I rejected that argument, and then got partially dragged into rehashing the old ones. There's no point in rehashing the old ones. Everyone knows them quite well.

Implicit in Jian Yang's argument suggesting we should all be happy now, was the understanding that "even though you believe you did not get what you were supposed to get." There's no reason to continue arguing that point since it is pretty clear we are never going to reach agreement on it.

So if you acknowledge Tesla never promised 691 hp at battery, shaft...etc than whatever they meant by hp motor power and that was simply your interpretation then that is progress. Tesla made it very clear in their blog post they never meant that so that is without question.

 

[Andyw2100]

So if you acknowledge Tesla never promised 691 hp at battery, shaft...etc than whatever they meant by hp motor power and that was simply your interpretation then that is progress. Tesla made it very clear in their blog post they never meant that so that is without question.

I'm not acknowledging that.

My position is that we expected the car to be able to produce 691 HP --SOMEWHERE-- based on Tesla's promises, marketing, etc. My position is that car does not do that. This is where we disagree, because you and others will point to the 691 HP Motor Power, and say the car does deliver that.

 

[tomas]

Another way to look at this as a missed opportunity.....

I just got back from a run where I was pondering this whole source of energy to make something perform versus the mechanical device that turns that energy into kinetic energy (perceived performance). I can not imagine how to put this into sensational sound bites (or bytes), but it was entertaining to consider the differences between BeV and ICE.

BeV's energy source versus ICE
Long range battery technology does not support sustained high discharge levels (at least not for cost effective production batteries) while gas in a gas tank can be pumped at an alarming rate.

It would be lovely to plot the energy consumed and the energy imparted to the vehicle for both ICE and gas. We would then see that, for example, the 500 hp BeV sucks power from the battery until motor rpm allows for that 500 hp to be drawn then the curve flattens out for a bit for as long as the battery can tolerate a 500 hp draw followed by tapering off of power delivered from the battery to protect it at higher speeds/longer duration runs. Below the battery draw curve can be the vehicle kenitic energy curve showing how much of what you have pulled from the battery actually makes it to moving the car forward. These curves would compare nicely.

The same could be done for a 500 hp ICE by using a flow meter to integrate fuel consumption. It would be instantly apparent to anyone looking at the graphs that the ICE uses 1500 hp of fuel to produce 500 hp of engine power and that the 500 engine hp is inefficiently transferred to vehicle energy.

The only reasons ICE perform as well as they do at highway speeds is because of the wanton wasting of energy.

It is a shame none of this reduces well to sound bites usable at a product launch.

Back to an earlier part of the conversation, this really begs for a new metric. I understand it doesn't reduce easily to a sound byte, but Tesla marketing should take that as a challenge.
Here's how I would think about doing it: List 1) motor hp, 2) *HP, 3) torque, 4) new power metric (?kinetic energy produced up to 60 mph?). I'd pitch new power metric as the "magic" that makes the launch performance work. I'd write a blog and give heads up to all the rags... in it, I'd seek the comparative value of the new power metric for a bunch of competitive cars. Forgive me that I'm not an EE (and I didn't even sleep at Holiday Inn Express), but there's got to be some way to represent the "secret sauce". None of this fixes the water under the bridge, and I'm not suggesting it does.

 

[dsm363]

I'm not acknowledging that.

My position is that we expected the car to be able to produce 691 HP --SOMEWHERE-- based on Tesla's promises, marketing, etc. My position is that car does not do that. This is where we disagree, because you and others will point to the 691 HP Motor Power, and say the car does deliver that.

If you are not acknowledging that you must have something in writing where Tesla started 691hp at battery, shaft or wheels. No one is saying the car produces 691 hp at the system level. It does produce 691 hp motor power in the way Tesla describes with the EU regulation they used with motors separate from the car and output combined. This also has been covered multiple times.

I know what you expected based on the marketing but again...where specifically did Tesla state the car produced 691 hp at battery, shaft...etc.? Tesla only promised 691 hp motor power. They didn't say how they got there until recently. Yes, I understand that but they also never said SAE certified HP at shaft or anything close. They were vague and imprecise. You interpreted something from that and that is pretty much it.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I'm not acknowledging that.

My position is that we expected the car to be able to produce 691 HP --SOMEWHERE-- based on Tesla's promises, marketing, etc. My position is that car does not do that. This is where we disagree, because you and others will point to the 691 HP Motor Power, and say the car does deliver that.

Based on your interpretation of Tesla's promises, marketing, etc.

 

[Andyw2100]

If you are not acknowledging that you must have something in writing where Tesla started 691hp at battery, shaft or wheels. No one is saying the car produces 691 hp at the system level. It does produce 691 hp motor power in the way Tesla describes with the EU regulation they used with motors separate from the car and output combined. This also has been covered multiple times.

I know what you expected based on the marketing but again...where specifically did Tesla state the car produced 691 hp at battery, shaft...etc.? Tesla only promised 691 hp motor power. They didn't say how they got there until recently. Yes, I understand that but they also never said SAE certified HP at shaft or anything close. They were vague and imprecise. You interpreted something from that and that is pretty much it.

And all of this is the old argument that has been discussed over and over again. I don't see any reason to keep debating the same points. My position, and others' on my side of this argument on the points above have been made dozens, if not hundreds of times in the various threads. I'm not going to waste my time, or clutter up the thread by making them again. They are here, for anyone who wants to read them.

- - - Updated - - -

Based on your interpretation of Tesla's promises, marketing, etc.

Yes. Based on my interpretation and many others' as well. This is the old argument. Please see above.

 

[stopcrazypp]

For users in Denmark it was about 1,5 week after delivery the first users contacted Tesla saying something was wrong. I assume we start the clock from when the first cars was delivered and not from October 10th 2014? First cars delivered in Denmark was mid March 2015.

I start the clock from the announcement (that was the time when journalists who have tested the cars can provide criticism if the acceleration performance does not track correctly with the hp). The latest I would start the clock is first deliveries around the world (early December 2014). By March 2015, the 691hp thread already started and it was already a public issue that Tesla was aware of (they started changes to hp numbers on the website in April and removal of 691hp number in May).

 

[dsm363]

So that is progress. It's an interpretation of yours on what you thought Tesla was promising. It's not specifically in writing. This one should be simple. Either it was specifically and clearly promised by Tesla exactly what you wanted or it was vague and left open to interpretation. Your interpretation is very clear that you thought Tesla promised 691 hp at a system level. I don't think anyone is arguing Tesla was crystal clear on their definition. It's an old argument but one that is apparently not clear.

 

[jpet]

Yes. Based on my interpretation and many others' as well.

Including Tesla Sales Advisors that were so carried away that they compared the P85D to a Lambo LP-700. If they had been educated by the mothership on the exact meaning of the motor power concept, they could have explained prospective buyers what they could expect. Tesla SAs increased our expectations in stead of lowering them.

 

[dsm363]

Including Tesla Sales Advisors that were so carried away that they compared the P85D to a Lambo LP-700. If they had been educated by the mothership on the exact meaning of the motor power concept, they could have explained prospective buyers what they could expect. Tesla SAs increased our expectations in stead of lowering them.

An obvious mistake on Tesla's part. I don't think it's in doubt that their messaging was sloppy. I'm just looking for the documentation that says specifically 691hp at the battery or shaft. I don't think it exists. Sales people say a lot of things that are correct and should be verified especially if it's such an important issue. I would be upset as well but expecting Tesla to 'make it right' when it was never in writing or in the contract is a stretch. I'm talking about the US, not the two EU cases.

 

[jpet]

I don't think anyone is arguing Tesla was crystal clear on their definition. It's an old argument but one that is apparently not clear.

It is simply not correct. First, there was no definition. You refer to Tesla. When I buy a car, Tesla Sales Advisors = Tesla. When they explained that the P85D would be faster than an M5 and comparable to a Lambo, I had no reason to ask any more questions. For me that was good enough. In Europe there was no way to test drive way back in October 2014 and I had no reason not to believe Tesla at that time. Well, times have changed.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It is simply not correct. First, there was no definition. You refer to Tesla. When I buy a car, Tesla Sales Advisors = Tesla. When they explained that the P85D would be faster than an M5 and comparable to a Lambo, I had no reason to ask any more questions. For me that was good enough. In Europe there was no way to test drive way back in October 2014 and I had no reason not to believe Tesla at that time. Well, times have changed.

When you had videos like this one comparing to a 691hp Lambo (this was from December 23, 2014). Can you blame them for making that comparison?

 

[dsm363]

It is simply not correct. First, there was no definition. You refer to Tesla. When I buy a car, Tesla Sales Advisors = Tesla. When they explained that the P85D would be faster than an M5 and comparable to a Lambo, I had no reason to ask any more questions. For me that was good enough. In Europe there was no way to test drive way back in October 2014 and I had no reason not to believe Tesla at that time. Well, times have changed.

Faster at what speeds and what exactly (legally) does comparable mean? You hit the nail on the head with 'there was no definition'. That alone should have given people pause who depend on 691hp at the shaft, battery or anywhere in the car.

Their sales people should have obviously not promised the moon. Tesla is at fault there. No one however was forced to order before getting independent verification of exact performance metrics or getting something clearly in writing showing that the car produced the desired and promised performance according to an independent standard or a third perry tester. In the US we use the EPA for the range for example. The company can make the range look like whatever they want using only the best circumstances. That's why the EPA rating is important. That's why the SAE standard that doesn't exist is also needed. We didn't have that.

 

[Andyw2100]

I think what a lot of this boils down to is a combination of two things.

One is what a reasonable person, with a reasonable amount of knowledge, who did a reasonable amount of research, would have thought he or she was receiving. This is the kind of data we would find out if the research stopcrazypp has mentioned ever had to be done for a legal proceeding. I hope it won't come to that, but if it ever does, I honestly, in my heart of hearts believe that it will be very clearly demonstrated that reasonable people, doing reasonable research, presented with the information being presented at the time would have expected the car to be able to make 691 HP. So that is one huge part of this for me.

The other is that until this situation, Tesla had a reputation that was beyond reproach. WE TRUSTED TESLA. Tesla had not given us reason to doubt them. If some random company that people knew nothing about were making the claims Tesla was making in October 2014, perhaps they would have been investigated more thoroughly, and more critically. But the people who were most capable of performing that sort of scrutiny had no reason not to believe Tesla, and the numbers seemed reasonable, given what Tesla had achieved in the past. Essentially anyone saying "you should have known better" is saying "Your mistake was in trusting Tesla." I find that sad.

 

[chickensevil]

The gesture could be anything really... a discount off of a future purchase or bonus value on a trade in, discounted pack upgrade, free or discounted service plan or warranty, free or discounted Ludicrous update, some exclusive swag, who knows. Anything would be better than nothing.

That ship has probably sailed though at this point, though.

Wait, I thought the Ludicrous upgrade was already being given at a discount to current P85D owners who bought the car before that option was released. They didn't state it as a "we are sorry, so here you go" kind of way, but they did offer the upgrade for half the price of ordering it new. Unless I missed something? Seems to me like people didn't think that gesture was "good enough" which is why people are still complaining about this and wanting something more.

Most people I have read complaining about this issue seems to be in one of two camps:

1: Tesla lied and I want them to refund me the car.
2: Tesla lied and I want ludicrous for free.

Because if it was those in the "small but reasonable gesture" category, they got this by getting offered ludicrous at 50% off the actual retail price (which means they are taking an even heavier hit on this since they have to now pay someone to tear your car apart and install the new hardware to make this possible.)

Edit: Store page to upgrade your car at the discounted price:
Tesla Accessories and Charging Adapters LUDICROUS MODE ONLY (P85D) - PRE ORDER DEPOSIT