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

[stopcrazypp]

You're welcome to that opinion, but that doesn't satisfy K's request - IMO.

Well I live in the US and am not a P85D owner either and given I don't have access to the registration records of cars in Europe (other than whatever has been posted by others on the internet), it's going to be difficult for me to find a exact certificate like that (only closest thing is the Certificate of Origin in the USA showing 738 hp, but I don't have screenshot of that and it doesn't necessarily apply in Europe either).

However, I think my response has adequately addressed his concern. There is no need for a certificate that shows the exact number if it was reasonable to add.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly - Tesla showed the P85D without telling about the battery limit, when in fact it was battery limited. The 85D with 380 hk was not battery limited. So it is inconsistent comparing 380 hk against 700 hk and omitting the fact that there is a 469 hk battery limit on the 700 hk.

Actually none of the numbers show the battery limit. It just happens the S85 and 85D had a motor power less than the battery limit and the S60 and P85D has a motor power higher than the battery limit. So on the face, the numbers are consistent across the board.

 

[Kalllagtunet]

Well I live in the US and am not a P85D owner either and given I don't have access to the registration records of cars in Europe (other than whatever has been posted by others on the internet), it's going to be difficult for me to find a exact certificate like that (only closest thing is the Certificate of Origin in the USA showing 738 hp, but I don't have screenshot of that and it doesn't necessarily apply in Europe either).

However, I think my response has adequately addressed his concern. There is no need for a certificate that shows the exact number if it was reasonable to add.

Since all trace of combing the numbers are removed from all Tesla pages it may be seen as a indication that tesla no logger are sure that adding the numbers are ok....

Here's a link with the EU certificates that by the way have been argued as the basis for using inflated numbers ALSO in the US marketing by the way: https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

 

[stopcrazypp]

This actually speaks to both the battery limit and the 1 foot rollout left out by Tesla. Accuracy of statements was not documented (the battery limit and the reference to ECE and 1-foot rollout was only added later). It was misleading setting up direct comparisons between the 85D (with no battery limit and no rollout) and the P85D (with battery limit and roll out) while omitting those facts. This clearly distorted consumers economic conduct. At least for customers who ordered before any the cars was on the road to test.

While the motor rating may be technical correct, it will not be enough documentation when advertising/selling the car as it is misleading omitting the fact the car is battery limited.

The way Tesla displays is today would be the right way to show data and at the same time not violating §3 in the Danish law on marketing.

I don't know about Danish law, but looking at the Nissan court case in Norway, it seems if Tesla advertised using a government accepted standard and the number was accurately measured, it doesn't matter if there are other facts left out in regards to that number. For example, the court found that the automatic transmission in the car made it have less power than a manual transmission one (and this was not reflected in the standard), but that did not change the court decision.

 

[Kalllagtunet]

I don't know about Danish law, but looking at the Nissan court case in Norway, it seems if Tesla advertised using a government accepted standard and the number was accurately measured, it doesn't matter if there are other facts left out in regards to that number. For example, the court found that the automatic transmission in the car made it have less power than a manual transmission one (and this was not reflected in the standard), but that did not change the court decision.

Again Tesla has NO certificate based on government standard that shows 700 hp. We both know and acknowledge that so why bring that point in again and again! The Nissan case was addressing what are reasonable drivetrain losses.

 

[rns-e]

Actually none of the numbers show the battery limit. It just happens the S85 and 85D had a motor power less than the battery limit and the S60 and P85D has a motor power higher than the battery limit. So on the face, the numbers are consistent across the board.

That is correct, but it still means that it shows hp numbers that are achievable for some of the trim models, while at the same time showing numbers that are not achievable due to battery limitation on other trim models. So on the face, the numbers are consistent across the board, which is misleading !

 

[stopcrazypp]

Since all trace of combing the numbers are removed from all Tesla pages it may be seen as a indication that tesla no logger are sure that adding the numbers are ok....

Here's a link with the EU certificates that by the way have been argued as the basis for using inflated numbers ALSO in the US marketing by the way: https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

That can also be seen as addressing the concerns of the people complaining about the 691 hp number in the thread that started in March 2015. Keep in mind the combined number was removed in May 2015 shortly after the thread got popular. It was not a recent removal.

I've talked about this multiple times and why perception made Tesla reluctant in changing how they present the numbers. Posting the battery-limited number afterwards can be seen as Tesla hoping to clarify things, but in the eyes of those who felt mislead, it is seen is saying the original motor power numbers were wrong.

 

[rns-e]

I don't know about Danish law, but looking at the Nissan court case in Norway, it seems if Tesla advertised using a government accepted standard and the number was accurately measured, it doesn't matter if there are other facts left out in regards to that number. For example, the court found that the automatic transmission in the car made it have less power than a manual transmission one (and this was not reflected in the standard), but that did not change the court decision.

I highly doubt that Tesla will be able use the Nissan case, since ICE and EV are so different. ICE deliver as measured since there is nothing else limiting it, as we know now about Tesla this is completely different. The Nissan case was weather the motor delivered as promised and weather the loss through the auto gearbox was to big. With Tesla we are talking about the limiter being before the motors and not after, so the Motors in the P85D will not deliver the rated power.

In Denmark it will not matter if it is technical correct as they in their advertising omitted a limiter of the magnitude of 231 hk which is misleading.

Edit: You have to remember that the Battery limiter is also technical correct and while it may not be required according to ECE, then it is required to disclose according the marketing laws, at least in Denmark.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Again Tesla has NO certificate based on government standard that shows 700 hp. We both know and acknowledge that so why bring that point in again and again! The Nissan case was addressing what are reasonable drivetrain losses.

Again, they don't have to have it on the certificate if the court deems it reasonable to add in this case. That's why I bring it up and will continue to do so. And given the standard doesn't factor in the battery, the only thing "wrong" about adding would be gearing. The battery does not play a factor at all. Someone asked the UNECE if Tesla is allowed to add and they said the standard doesn't appear to say either way and it is up to the member parties to interpret.

 

[rns-e]

Again, they don't have to have it on the certificate if the court deems it reasonable to add in this case. That's why I bring it up and will continue to do so. And given the standard doesn't factor in the battery, the only thing "wrong" about adding would be gearing. The battery does not play a factor at all. Someone asked the UNECE if Tesla is allowed to add and they said the standard doesn't appear to say either way and it is up to the member parties to interpret.

Again, you need to remember that there may be other laws and regulations that come in to play. So that one regulation or law does not say anything about it, does not mean that you will not be in conflict with other laws or regulations. And it clearly seams that Tesla overreached in their interpretation here.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I highly doubt that Tesla will be able use the Nissan case, since ICE and EV are so different. ICE deliver as measured since there is nothing else limiting it, as we know now about Tesla this is completely different. The Nissan case was weather the motor delivered as promised and weather the loss through the auto gearbox was to big. With Tesla we are talking about the limiter being before the motors and not after, so the Motors in the P85D will not deliver the rated power.

In Denmark it will not matter if it is technical correct as they in their advertising omitted a limiter of the magnitude of 231 hk which is misleading.

Edit: You have to remember that the Battery limiter is also technical correct and while it may not be required according to ECE, then it is required to disclose according the marketing laws, at least in Denmark.

Tesla already brought up the court case in their answer to the Norwegian group and I think they will use it in Norway if challenged in court. The relevance has nothing to do with EV vs ICE, but rather if advertising using a government accepted horsepower standard can be seen as false advertising when a different method deems horsepower lower.

Keep in mind the Nissan case was not about drivetrain losses; both methods of measuring was assuming power at the engine shaft, but the difference was in the procedure. I bring up the automatic transmission case because it is a fact omitted by that standard that may be seen as misleading when comparing cars within the same line up (same here as battery-limited with your point about comparing 85D and P85D), yet it did not change the decision.

The dual motor on the P85D complicates things (Tesla no doubt will need expert testimony to establish that it was legitimate to add in this case), but as it relates to "battery-limited" (which is the core issue here) the standard clearly allows Tesla to do what they are doing in terms of leaving out the battery part (this is more readily apparent when looking at S60/70/70D numbers).

 

[rns-e]

It actually looks like you have the same consumer protection in US Advertising laws.

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

• Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

- - - Updated - - -

Tesla already brought up the court case in their answer to the Norwegian group and I think they will use it in Norway if challenged in court. The relevance has nothing to do with EV vs ICE, but rather if advertising using a government accepted horsepower standard can be seen as false advertising when a different method deems horsepower lower.

Keep in mind the Nissan case was not about drivetrain losses; both methods of measuring was assuming power at the engine shaft, but the difference was in the procedure. I bring up the automatic transmission case because it is a fact omitted by that standard that may be seen as misleading when comparing cars within the same line up (same here as battery-limited with your point about comparing 85D and P85D), yet it did not change the decision.

The dual motor on the P85D complicates things (Tesla no doubt will need expert testimony to establish that it was legitimate to add in this case), but as it relates to "battery-limited" (which is the core issue here) the standard clearly allows Tesla to do what they are doing in terms of leaving out the battery part (this is more readily apparent when looking at S60/70/70D numbers).

It really does not matter, as they omitted the information about the Battery limiter and the roll out. We have it in the Danish laws, you have it in US laws, I bet they have it in Norwegian laws as well.

EDIT: And they also have it Norway - Markedsføringloven §8 - Villedende Uteladelser

 

[Canuck]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before but I just came across it:

Hyundai Kia Horsepower False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit

 

[AudubonB]

It boggles me that I am contributing to this thread (sorry, all other mods!), but is there anyone who authoritatively can say whether the word "advertisement" or "ad" has a specific meaning that can bear in this case? I definitely do not know the situation in Norway, Denmark or other such places, but in North America, Tesla has not ever presented an advertisement.

 

[rns-e]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before but I just came across it:

Hyundai Kia Horsepower False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit

Lets hope it does not come to that, because that would only benefit the lawyers.

- - - Updated - - -

It boggles me that I am contributing to this thread (sorry, all other mods!), but is there anyone who authoritatively can say whether the word "advertisement" or "ad" has a specific meaning that can bear in this case? I definitely do not know the situation in Norway, Denmark or other such places, but in North America, Tesla has not ever presented an advertisement.

In Denmark and Norway the word 'advertisement' would be in its broadest meaning, conveying information to the customer for the purpose to inform them about the product you are trying to sell them. I would imagine that FTC would include the Tesla Motors website into Teslas advertisement.

 

[dsm363]

It actually looks like you have the same consumer protection in US Advertising laws.

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

• Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

- - - Updated - - -



It really does not matter, as they omitted the information about the Battery limiter and the roll out. We have it in the Danish laws, you have it in US laws, I bet they have it in Norwegian laws as well.

EDIT: And they also have it Norway - Markedsføringloven §8 - Villedende Uteladelser

We have nutritional supplement makers make all kinds of wild claims and are never taken to task among many other industries. Not very strong laws here.

 

[Krugerrand]

Krug,
Could you not have seen this coming if you were sitting in meetings talking about using 700 ish hp to describe the P85D?

I'd like to believe, yes, but that doesn't change what I said. It also doesn't mean that the people sitting at the table could have seen it coming, and I'll even argue that the odds of seeing it coming greatly decrease if the real geniuses are sitting at the table. Being super smart doesn't mean you understand how others not of your intelligence level will think or react - unless psychology is your genius.

 

[rns-e]

We have nutritional supplement makers make all kinds of wild claims and are never taken to task among many other industries. Not very strong laws here.

Mayby, and I let Canuck answer weather his professional experience is the same. But Eric Gibbs seams to be the man if you wanted to test it out: Employment Lawyer | Contact Employment Lawyer Eric Gibbs | Girard Gibbs LLP

 

[P85DEE]

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before but I just came across it:

Hyundai Kia Horsepower False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit

Looks like up to $225.00 in cash and up to $325.00 in dealer credits for those owners of affected cars.

The lawyers really made out in that case.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Tesla already brought up the court case in their answer to the Norwegian group and I think they will use it in Norway if challenged in court. The relevance has nothing to do with EV vs ICE, but rather if advertising using a government accepted horsepower standard can be seen as false advertising when a different method deems horsepower lower.

Keep in mind the Nissan case was not about drivetrain losses; both methods of measuring was assuming power at the engine shaft, but the difference was in the procedure. I bring up the automatic transmission case because it is a fact omitted by that standard that may be seen as misleading when comparing cars within the same line up (same here as battery-limited with your point about comparing 85D and P85D), yet it did not change the decision.

The dual motor on the P85D complicates things (Tesla no doubt will need expert testimony to establish that it was legitimate to add in this case), but as it relates to "battery-limited" (which is the core issue here) the standard clearly allows Tesla to do what they are doing in terms of leaving out the battery part (this is more readily apparent when looking at S60/70/70D numbers).

I think that they might not even need to do that if the difference in rpm associated with front vs rear motor power rating (and difference in gearing, which is not clear that is present, at least according to the Manual) is less than tolerance band required by ECE R85 (+/-2% or total 4%). On top of that motor speed limit tolerance there is also a +/-2% tolerance on the maximum power. According to the data in the Model S Manual the difference in front and rear motor power rating rpm is only 150, or 2.5%, which is within the 4% tolerance band of ECE R85.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know about Danish law, but looking at the Nissan court case in Norway, it seems if Tesla advertised using a government accepted standard and the number was accurately measured, it doesn't matter if there are other facts left out in regards to that number. For example, the court found that the automatic transmission in the car made it have less power than a manual transmission one (and this was not reflected in the standard), but that did not change the court decision.

No Government will allow a court ruling that puts into question Govermnment Standard that was intended to provide a benchmark for consistent comparison of cars from different manufacturers. This will be equivalent to Government acknowledging that they did not do a good job coming up with the standard that was designed to avoid having misleading data from different manufacturers to begin with.

 

[rns-e]

No Government will allow a court ruling that puts into question Govermnment Standard that was intended to provide a benchmark for consistent comparison of cars from different manufacturers. This will be equivalent to Government acknowledging that they did not do a good job coming up with the standard that was designed to avoid having misleading data from different manufacturers to begin with.

And they will not do that. The ECE is intended to rate the motors and not for use in marketing/advertising. And the case is not the ECE rating, but the omission of the battery limit - but you know that now