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

[Discoducky]

Agree with chickensevil and formatted usable HDD space should not be the next analogy or peak read/write speeds

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm confused, perhaps you can clarify what was wrong with the posting? His conversion of HP to KW is off, but not by enough to matter. My home outlets can only output 1.44KW which comes out to just under 2HP. So if this is only a 120V capable compressor then there should be no way to achieve the output described.

Even still this is different from Tesla since Tesla is claiming output of their motors themselves whereas the blog post is claiming that the output rating has been left out on purpose since they would have to list them as 2HP... At least according to the post.

An electrician can probably chime in, but residential circuit breakers typically trip at 3-5x full load current. So the circuit can potentially handle 3-5x the rated power if you look at it instantaneously. This also neglects to factor in if the compressor contains a battery or capacitor (which can multiply that further).

However, in the air compressor application, he is expecting a continuous rating, which those companies may not be using. I agree it is not that applicable here since EVs use a peak rating and not continuous.

 

[brianman]

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.

I have framed copy in my office (original at home) of a Norway advertisement for Model S. Not a P85D, but a Model S nonetheless. FYI.

- - - Updated - - -

Followed elsewhere on the blog page with the following expert definition: A commonly used formula for converting watts into horsepower is 1000 watts equals 1 horsepower.

I'm surprised you missed the sentence immediately following it:

This accounts for losses in the motor.

Searching for typical efficiency of "air compressor" motor and looking at the first html (simple) hit:

It possibly range from 50% to 90%.
...
Centrifugal : 75-80%
...
Centrifugal : 75-85%
...
Reciprocating :
- 65% with Compression ratio of 1.5
- 75% with Compression ratio of 2.0
- 80-85% with Compression ratio of 3-6
...
Rotary : 70%

So his his 745.6 vs 1000 seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[rns-e]

I agree it is not that applicable here since EVs use a peak rating and not continuous.

The ECE R85 also has an 30 min and 1 hr continuous with a limit on voltage drop rating. Those numbers are also in the cars papers

 

[Kalllagtunet]

The ECE R85 also has an 30 min and 1 hr continuous with a limit on voltage drop rating. Those numbers are also in the cars papers

Strange that Tesla that sem so eager to comply with the 85R have not used those numbers in their marketing... The one hour number by the way the number used in the vehicle registration papers.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The ECE R85 also has an 30 min and 1 hr continuous with a limit on voltage drop rating. Those numbers are also in the cars papers

Right, but I have never seen any automaker advertise a continuous rating for an EV, while I suspect that is common for air compressors.

Also at least for the UK car registration, it requires specifying the peak power ("max net power"), not the continuous. Although Tesla does have a history of filling in the continuous instead for P85 (although back then that CoC supposedly only had continuous).

 

[rns-e]

Speaking about killing time researching stuff on the Nets, I just paged through the Danish Marketing Act linked by Rns-e and found the following interesting excerpts (highlighted):

View attachment 103581

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the highlighted parts, but let me tell you what they mean. § 4 is aimed at product placement, editorial content etc thing that are made out not to look like advertisement, but is advertisement.

To give you an resent example Donald Dock Comic Magazine had a front page of the new aquarium The Blue Planet (Anders And-forside meldt til politiet - Nationalt | www.b.dk) and that was the paragraph they used against the publisher and Aquarium.

PCS 4: The EU and the Minister of Business and Growth can deem specific types of marketing as unfair in consumer issues in all circumstances. I can not come up with an example right now.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, but I have never seen any automaker advertise a continuous rating for an EV, while I suspect that is common for air compressors.

This actually speaks to the fact that Tesla is *not* required to advertise the max rating hp numbers for the motors any more than they are required to post the 30 min and 1 hr numbers. So it is Teslas own decision to advertise the numbers, and that makes it even more relevant to the marketing laws that Tesla omitted the battery limit.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This actually speaks to the fact that Tesla is *not* required to advertise the max rating hp numbers for the motors any more than they are required to post the 30 min and 1 hr numbers. So it is Teslas own decision to advertise the numbers, and that makes it even more relevant to the marketing laws that Tesla omitted the battery limit.

Edit:
Looking at the Nissan case, they are required to advertise engine performance numbers according to Directive 80/1269/EEC, and also homologate their cars using that standard (same with Tesla with ECE R85) and the Norway court said in that case that Nissan can't be held at fault for advertising with such numbers (unless it can be demonstrated that the engines sold to customers can't make that power under the same test).

I don't suspect the requirement is that every single line specified by that standard must be specified, but that whenever there is a spec that is advertised that is also included in that standard, it must follow that standard.

In this case, ECE R85 has a continuous and peak rating, but as with my update about the UK registration, I'm pretty sure the DMV is expecting a peak rating, not a continuous.

Given you don't have a language barrier, it is probably more trivial for you to find what kind of number the Norwegian DMV expects for the horsepower line.

 

[rns-e]

Edit:
Looking at the Nissan case, they are required to advertise engine performance numbers according to Directive 80/1269/EEC, and also homologate their cars using that standard (same with Tesla with ECE R85) and the Norway court said in that case that Nissan can't be held at fault for advertising with such numbers (unless it can be demonstrated that the engines sold to customers can't make that power under the same test).

I don't suspect the requirement is that every single line specified by that standard must be specified, but that whenever there is a spec that is advertised that is also included in that standard, it must follow that standard.

In this case, ECE R85 has a continuous and peak rating, but as with my update about the UK registration, I'm pretty sure the DMV is expecting a peak rating, not a continuous.

Given you don't have a language barrier, it is probably more trivial for you to find what kind of number the Norwegian DMV expects for the horsepower line.

The P85D is registered at the DMV in Denmark and Norway with the 66 kW 1 hour max continous rating. Following the Nissan case, that would mean that 66 kW is number Tesla is required to advertise. The 66 kW is the number that you have on your registration papers for the car.

But still, if the requirement should prove to be the max motor power rating, it will still be omission of relevant and influential information not to provide the information about the battery limit according to the marketing laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Having read Tesla's reply to the Norwegian Consumer Counsel (in Norwegian) I am sad to say it had a lot of statements in it but, for someone who has read up on the core of the dispute, was clearly written to obfuscate the issue rather than bring clarity.

Also the Consumer Counsel did not make a ruling or statement siding with either party - they simply stated that since there seems to be no wish from Tesla to admit fault or to enter in to negotiations with dissatisfied customers, the counsel cannot facilitate the process further (no jurisdiction/legal authority) and must leave the issue (at a gridlock).

And since we're talking expensive cars and quite a few customers I think this case will go to court (class action) and my (armchair) guess is Tesla will have a ruling go against them (for misleading marketing/advertising). Tesla having changed the way they now represent the different models is in fact, when you think about it in a very commonsensical way, very "incriminating". The big question is what the court will find to be reasonable compensation.

At this point I think the most import thing is for the Norwegian owners is get proper advise and not just write their own rebuttal. It will simply be to easy for Tesla and their lawyers to take their arguments apart if they do it them selfs. What speaks in favour of Tesla, is that they just need one ill prepared complaint to go to court before anybody else and they will take it apart and it will set precedence for future complaints.

 

[Johan]

At this point I think the most import thing is for the Norwegian owners is get proper advise and not just write their own rebuttal. It will simply be to easy for Tesla and their lawyers to take their arguments apart if they do it them selfs. What speaks in favour of Tesla, is that they just need one ill prepared complaint to go to court before anybody else and they will take it apart and it will set precedence for future complaints.

This is a good observation. They complaint needs to be very to the point, so that the core issue is clearly laid out at cannot be circumvented by Tesla. Preferrably the Norwegian owners should run the case as a class action case, which I also believe is what is being done (among other things from a personal conversation I had with an aquaintance at the local service center two weeks ago, who was part of the group of some almost 200 P85D owners in Norway).

 

[Auzie]

The P85D is registered at the DMV in Denmark and Norway with the 66 kW 1 hour max continous rating. Following the Nissan case, that would mean that 66 kW is number Tesla is required to advertise. The 66 kW is the number that you have on your registration papers for the car.

But still, if the requirement should prove to be the max motor power rating, it will still be omission of relevant and influential information not to provide the information about the battery limit according to the marketing laws.

- - - Updated - - -

At this point I think the most import thing is for the Norwegian owners is get proper advise and not just write their own rebuttal. It will simply be to easy for Tesla and their lawyers to take their arguments apart if they do it them selfs. What speaks in favour of Tesla, is that they just need one ill prepared complaint to go to court before anybody else and they will take it apart and it will set precedence for future complaints.

Rns-e, I understand that some customers might have felt disappointed once they realized their car hp was not what they thought they purchased.

That being said, it makes me wonder what is driving the people pursuing the litigation. The most that can be won through the court is few hundreds, in the (uncertain) case of a win, if Nissan case is any sort of a precedent.

It seems to me that the potential prize is too small for the amount of energy and time required to fight for it. Am I missing something?

 

[Johan]

Rns-e, I understand that some customers might have felt disappointed once they realized their car hp was not what they thought they purchased.

That being said, it makes me wonder what is driving the people pursuing the litigation. The most that can be won through the court is few hundreds, in the (uncertain) case of a win, if Nissan case is any sort of a precedent.

It seems to me that the potential prize is too small for the amount of energy and time required to fight for it. Am I missing something?

There is no reason why the monetary "reward" in the Nissan case would have any precedent for this case. We're talking about a much more expensive car here, with the P-option costing not far from what the entire Nissan car cost (excluding taxes). That being said, it's common knowledge that whenever people feel they are entitled to compensation X they will often be disappointed when the court rules in the favor but only deems compensation 1/10 of X correct.

 

[cynix]

power in a way you are defining it is not a very accurate predictor of the characteristic of the car that you apparently were actually buying

This statement is only true at low speeds, but the performance characteristics of the car in this speed range is already explicitly defined by the published torque and 0-60 specs, and the 691 hp number adds no information. Above this speed range, the car's performance characteristics is precisely defined by the 463 hp number, therefore this is the number that is most useful to the consumer.

 

[vgrinshpun]

- - - Updated - - -


I'm surprised you missed the sentence immediately following it:

Searching for typical efficiency of "air compressor" motor and looking at the first html (simple) hit:

So his his 745.6 vs 1000 seems pretty reasonable to me.

You might've missed the point of quotes in my post.

I'll give you a key: I did not miss the sentence immediately following it.

 

[vgrinshpun]

This statement is only true at low speeds, but the performance characteristics of the car in this speed range is already explicitly defined by the published torque and 0-60 specs, and the 691 hp number adds no information. Above this speed range, the car's performance characteristics is precisely defined by the 463 hp number, therefore this is the number that is most useful to the consumer.

It is (463 hp number) related, but does not uniquely defines it, there are other factors involved. It has been discussed at length for quite some time.

 

[Soolim]

Let's make it clear again. The same data was NOT given for the 85D in the early days. All of the numbers listed were motor power numbers with nothing to do with the battery. It was very late in the game (in the April 2015 time frame after the 6.2 update for more motor power) that the 85D got battery limited numbers added.

See screenshot posted here:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...P90L/page232?p=1267736&viewfull=1#post1267736

Yes, my post is referring to the period when battery limited power is provided for 85D but not P85D.

- - - Updated - - -

An electrician can probably chime in, but residential circuit breakers typically trip at 3-5x full load current. So the circuit can potentially handle 3-5x the rated power if you look at it instantaneously. This also neglects to factor in if the compressor contains a battery or capacitor (which can multiply that further).

However, in the air compressor application, he is expecting a continuous rating, which those companies may not be using. I agree it is not that applicable here since EVs use a peak rating and not continuous.

I do have more than 10 years of training on electricity.:wink: Motor has an inrush current that last for a second, and then returns to normal operating current. The circuit breaker has a continuous rating and any value exceeding the continuous rating will be tripped in an inverse time characteristic. Never seen a single phase motor (intended for residential use) with battery. The capacitor is use for phase shifting to introduce a starting torque since single phase motor with only one winding has no starting torque.

I don't know how you conclude that EVs use peak rating and not continuous rating. Disregarding the EVs battery limitation for the sake of clarity, the motor rated horsepower listed on Tesla is continuous rating, NOT peak rating. Meaning, if the battery can sustain the power, the motors can continue to run at the motor rated hp for prolong period of time.

 

[lolachampcar]

cynix,
Yes, once you reach the speed at which the combined motor horsepower equals the available battery (horse) power, the system is indeed limited to the that available battery power.

I, like you, do not see any way to talk or graph around the above fact.

 

[Kalllagtunet]

cynix,
Yes, once you reach the speed at which the combined motor horsepower equals the available battery (horse) power, the system is indeed limited to the that available battery power.

I, like you, do not see any way to talk or graph around the above fact.

lol and c

You don't have the nessesary education to explain simple facts in a complicated confusing way... :smile:

 

[tomas]

This thread is like groundhogs day. Same dozen people bumping it with the same arguments every day. Every 2 or 3 pages, some other stray like me wandering in. I wonder if there could be a 1 day moratorium for Christmas?

 

[vgrinshpun]

As I noted, performance characteristics (such as acceleration) at higher speeds are related to 463hp number, but not uniquely defined by it.

At the same time the system (power) is indeed limited to 463hp.

Both of the above statements are true, neither one of them contradicts another.

Keeping graphs in mind is very useful in recognizing the above.