Tesla blog post: AWD Motor Power and Torque Specifications

[Andyw2100]

Andy, you are beating dead horse. It is unfortunate that majority of buyers do not have enough technical background to fully understand engineering characteristics of EVs, but blaming Tesla for not educating enough, particularly by those who are so quick to accuse Tesla based on misunderstanding of the every communication which Tesla in good faith is putting out there, is not reasonable by a long shot. The two examples that I just gave in my post is just another reminder, of how honest communication is being misunderstood and used to accuse Tesla of all kind of sins.

How am I beating a dead horse?

You said that the reason we didn't have a right to complain was that Tesla stated very clearly in the user's manual that they their methodology was in compliance with the ECE R85 standards. My point is that we did not have access to the user's manual when we ordered the car. Nothing printed in the user's manual is relevant. The user's manual could have said in big, bold letters, "This car only makes 500 HP at the wheels", and that still wouldn't have gotten Tesla off the hook because that information wasn't available to us when we ordered the car.

 

[vgrinshpun]

How am I beating a dead horse?

You said that the reason we didn't have a right to complain was that Tesla stated very clearly in the user's manual that they their methodology was in compliance with the ECE R85 standards. My point is that we did not have access to the user's manual when we ordered the car. Nothing printed in the user's manual is relevant. The user's manual could have said in big, bold letters, "This car only makes 500 HP at the wheels", and that still wouldn't have gotten Tesla off the hook because that information wasn't available to us when we ordered the car.

Andy, the problem is that you became so emotionally involved in this, that you seem to have lost ability for a reasonable discussion. I think that because of your emotional involvement you seem to exaggerate everything that fits your view, while ignoring everything that is not.

Example #1: "You said that the reason we didn't have a right to complain..." Please read my posts again. I never said such thing, I was calling complaints unreasonable, without basis. I never said that you "have no right to complain". Obviously, not the same.

Example #2: "My point is that we did not have access to the user's manual when we ordered the car" I think that you glossing over the fact that a lot of people who got first P85D, and majority of owners who were vocal about this issue, upgraded from various versions of MS, and did have access to the manual. When you took initiative on behalf of all of the owners complaining about this issue, and wrote a letter to Elon, you and all the signers certainly had access to the Manual. I assure you that if the tiny fraction of the colossal time that was collectively spent being in accusatory state, which seem at times to be almost trance-like, was spent on simply googling the stuff in question, we would not be here typing back and forth at close to 2am. Most importantly, however, regardless of what was in the Manual, Tesla always explicitly stated on their Site "motor horsepower", the thing everybody accusing them of lying seemingly ignored.

Example #3: Even after I pointed out about the context in which Elon mentioned 1.5x power of P85D as compared to P85, you still insist that "There is no reason to conclude from that statement and from the context that he was referring only to torque and power up to 40 MPH." Except that Elon did not talk about power up to 40mph, he was talking in general about initial burst of power, like for "taking off from a carrier deck". Again, not the same thing.

Understand, I am not trying to attack you, just trying to point out the circumstances and atmosphere in which no reasonable discussion of the issue is possible. I have very little hope that you ever change your mind on this, just trying to explain my point of view on the situation.

 

[Andyw2100]

Andy, the problem is that you became so emotionally involved in this, that you seem to have lost ability for a reasonable discussion. I think that because of your emotional involvement you seem to exaggerate everything that fits your view, while ignoring everything that is not.

I don't believe that I have exaggerated anything. I am engaging in rational discussion, and pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

Example #1: "You said that the reason we didn't have a right to complain..." Please read my posts again. I never said such thing, I was calling complaints unreasonable, without basis. I never said that you "have no right to complain". Obviously, not the same.

I was paraphrasing what you actually meant when you wrote: Based on this I do not believe that attacks from those who believe that they "did not get what they paid for" are without any basis.
That's not an exaggeration. At worst it's slightly inaccurate paraphrasing, but that wasn't the issue. I wasn't taking any issue with how strongly you were making your statement. I was pointing out the flawed logic, which is still flawed, either way.

Example #2: "My point is that we did not have access to the user's manual when we ordered the car" I think that you glossing over the fact that a lot of people who got first P85D, and majority of owners who were vocal about this issue, upgraded from various versions of MS, and did have access to the manual. When you took initiative on behalf of all of the owners complaining about this issue, and wrote a letter to Elon, you and all the signers certainly had access to the Manual. I assure you that if the tiny fraction of the colossal time that was collectively spent being in accusatory state, which seem at times to be almost trance-like, was spent on simply googling the stuff in question, we would not be here typing back and forth at close to 2am. Most importantly, however, regardless of what was in the Manual, Tesla always explicitly stated on their Site "motor horsepower", the thing everybody accusing them of lying seemingly ignored.

First of all, I don't believe the manuals for the P85s made any reference to how the P85Ds, which had not been invented yet, were using ECE R85 standards. More importantly, even if those manuals somehow traveled through time and did make that reference, not all P85D buyers had access to them, so my point is still completely valid. I don't understand what point you are making by saying that at the time I wrote the letter we had access to the manuals. It certainly wasn't clear to anyone that Tesla was going to use ECE R85 as a way to justify the missing horsepower. And the letter was about asking Tesla to make things right because we had not been informed properly --BEFORE-- we purchased the cars. Again, anything in any of the manuals was completely irrelevant to that.

Example #3: Even after I pointed out about the context in which Elon mentioned 1.5x power of P85D as compared to P85, you still insist that "There is no reason to conclude from that statement and from the context that he was referring only to torque and power up to 40 MPH." Except that Elon did not talk about power up to 40mph, he was talking in general about initial burst of power, like for "taking off from a carrier deck". Again, not the same thing.

You had mentioned the 40MPH in your example. You chose to use what Musk said next to infer that he was talking about torque only when he said power. But immediately before the statement about "half again as much power" he talked about the two drive units. I maintain, no matter how many times you want to tell me I am wrong, that no reasonable person can conclude from that presentation that Musk could only have meant torque, and could not have meant horsepower. Perhaps--PERHAPS--he could have meant either. I think if you polled 100 random people who watched that video and asked them what he meant more people would say horsepower than torque. And I guarantee you that if you polled 100 people who had relatively little experience with sports cars, but a lot of interest in tech--people like me--who were just getting interested in Tesla--almost all of us would say that we thought he was talking about horsepower.

Understand, I am not trying to attack you, just trying to point out the circumstances and atmosphere in which no reasonable discussion of the issue is possible.

I am also trying to have a reasonable discussion. But as long as you keep making flawed arguments, I'm going to keep pointing out the flaws in them.

I have very little hope that you ever change your mind on this, just trying to explain my point of view on the situation.

You are correct about that. I will not be changing my mind on this issue, unless new facts are presented that somehow show that the P85D is really making the horsepower it was advertised as being able to make.

 

[dsm363]

You had mentioned the 40MPH in your example. You chose to use what Musk said next to infer that he was talking about torque only when he said power. But immediately before the statement about "half again as much power" he talked about the two drive units. I maintain, no matter how many times you want to tell me I am wrong, that no reasonable person can conclude from that presentation that Musk could only have meant torque, and could not have meant horsepower. Perhaps--PERHAPS--he could have meant either. I think if you polled 100 random people who watched that video and asked them what he meant more people would say horsepower than torque. And I guarantee you that if you polled 100 people who had relatively little experience with sports cars, but a lot of interest in tech--people like me--who were just getting interested in Tesla--almost all of us would say that we thought he was talking about horsepower.

You are correct about that. I will not be changing my mind on this issue, unless new facts are presented that somehow show that the P85D is really making the horsepower it was advertised as being able to make.

Which is the big problem. It seems getting a clear definition of 'motor power' before buying might have been the way to go. Seems to me if hp was the #1 factor in my decision to buy a car and a new term was thrown around I would want to be certain I knew what that meant. That certainly doesn't mean Tesla wasn't vague and sloppy in their initial marketing but given their blog post, the numbers weren't completely made up either. People may not agree with how they came up with those numbers but they have basis in reality now. It certainly took Tesla a long time to post that blog but likely because of this thread and the various owner letters floating around. A lot of assumptions were made by both Tesla and the people buying the car. The car will never make the 691hp at the shaft, wheels or whatever is desired so it will never get to the level you desire. Really don't have any options here via Tesla as they are likely done with this matter. They've stated how they got their numbers, you just don't agree with them. They are unlikely to give out free cars or hardware upgrades. You had said in the past you wanted Tesla to address how they got these numbers and they've done that now.

 

[Oyvind.H]

In Norway the car was advertised with peak 700hp and 0-100 acceleration of 3.4 seconds.
As it turns out, the car does not produce peak 700hp. And several P85Ds measured 0-100 performance with professional equipment shows that it`s unable to go 0-100 in 3.4 seconds.

It`s not more complicated than that. At least here in Norway for buyers who purchased the car when it was advertised with 700hp and 0-100 in 3.4 seconds.

In comparison - it`s like buying a 90" flatscreen, unboxing at home finding 80" inch flatscreen inside. Still enormous, but not what you bought.

I guess this will end up in court here i Norway. Not because the lack of performance is huge, but because of extremely rude behavior of the scandinavian communication manager. And because of the excuses Tesla keeps coming up with in the discussions about performance (altitude, 1 foot rollout, hp is different than kW etc.)

This is not my beef, and I would not consider buying anything else than a Tesla at this point (waiting for my Model X). But I understand why P85D owners here in Norway now are reporting Tesla to local consumer authorities demanding to return the car. That`s the first step towards a law suit, but hopefully they`ll be able to return the car without fuzz.

 

[Andyw2100]

Which is the big problem. It seems getting a clear definition of 'motor power' before buying might have been the way to go. Seems to me if hp was the #1 factor in my decision to buy a car and a new term was thrown around I would want to be certain I knew what that meant. That certainly doesn't mean Tesla wasn't vague and sloppy in their initial marketing but given their blog post, the numbers weren't completely made up either. People may not agree with how they came up with those numbers but they have basis in reality now. It certainly took Tesla a long time to post that blog but likely because of this thread and the various owner letters floating around. A lot of assumptions were made by both Tesla and the people buying the car. The car will never make the 691hp at the shaft, wheels or whatever is desired so it will never get to the level you desire. Really don't have any options here via Tesla as they are likely done with this matter. They've stated how they got their numbers, you just don't agree with them. They are unlikely to give out free cars or hardware upgrades. You had said in the past you wanted Tesla to address how they got these numbers and they've done that now.

I never said that horsepower was the number one factor for me in purchasing the car. It wasn't. And I don't think it was for many of the people who are now seeking some sort of resolution to this. What is an issue for me, and for others is getting all that we've paid for. I've made a few analogies in other posts. I won't include the long wine analogy again, but I'll mention the short one about getting short-changed when making a purchase in a store. Some people, if they realized they were short-changed a dollar, wouldn't bother to go back to get the dollar back, because they'd figure it wasn't worth their time. I'd go back, and not just because I want my dollar back, but out of principle. I --HATE-- the idea of being taken advantage of--of getting less than what I paid for. That's what this is about for me. I feel like Tesla messed up, and Tesla needs to make this right.

As for my saying I wanted Tesla to address this, that was only part of what I said I wanted. I expected them to address it, and also to make it right.

 

[sandpiper]

I never said that horsepower was the number one factor for me in purchasing the car. It wasn't. And I don't think it was for many of the people who are now seeking some sort of resolution to this. What is an issue for me, and for others is getting all that we've paid for. I've made a few analogies in other posts. I won't include the long wine analogy again, but I'll mention the short one about getting short-changed when making a purchase in a store. Some people, if they realized they were short-changed a dollar, wouldn't bother to go back to get the dollar back, because they'd figure it wasn't worth their time. I'd go back, and not just because I want my dollar back, but out of principle. I --HATE-- the idea of being taken advantage of--of getting less than what I paid for. That's what this is about for me. I feel like Tesla messed up, and Tesla needs to make this right.

As for my saying I wanted Tesla to address this, that was only part of what I said I wanted. I expected them to address it, and also to make it right.

At a certain point, Andy, you have to decide how much effort you're willing to invest in this. You clearly feel that you were short-changed, and that's okay even if many of the rest of us don't. But my personal, objective (as best I can make it) opinion is that you will not gain anything out of this. Telsa has, I think, done a reasonably good job of presenting it's position. While your points may have some merit, the whole thing is muddy enough that it would be years and megabucks of legal costs before anything came of it.

In the meantime, you're going to continue to upset and frustrate yourself.

Sometimes you need to sit back with a beer, set aside your emotion, and look at the likely return on your invested efforts. Sun Tzu - "If a battle cannot be won, do not fight it".

 

[Dwu0212]

I never said that horsepower was the number one factor for me in purchasing the car. It wasn't. And I don't think it was for many of the people who are now seeking some sort of resolution to this. What is an issue for me, and for others is getting all that we've paid for. I've made a few analogies in other posts. I won't include the long wine analogy again, but I'll mention the short one about getting short-changed when making a purchase in a store. Some people, if they realized they were short-changed a dollar, wouldn't bother to go back to get the dollar back, because they'd figure it wasn't worth their time. I'd go back, and not just because I want my dollar back, but out of principle. I --HATE-- the idea of being taken advantage of--of getting less than what I paid for. That's what this is about for me. I feel like Tesla messed up, and Tesla needs to make this right.

As for my saying I wanted Tesla to address this, that was only part of what I said I wanted. I expected them to address it, and also to make it right.

Andy, I think you, sorka, wk057 and many other had made your point very clearly and I support you 100%, so do many of members on this forum. There people who are not going to agree with us and its ok, everyone have their own opinion, this is a tesla fan's forum, so people are going to stand up for Tesla, right or wrong.

 

[dsm363]

Andy, I think you, sorka, wk057 and many other had made your point very clearly and I support you 100%, so do many of members on this forum. There people who are not going to agree with us and its ok, everyone have their own opinion, this is a tesla fan's forum, so people are going to stand up for Tesla, right or wrong.

Yes. Another person saying anyone who disagrees with them has no objectivity. That's about as fair as people calling others whiners. Neither is true. People simply disagree so let's leave it at that.

 

[scaesare]

The EC R85 ... this Regulation **directs** manufacturers to list motor hp rating regardless of the limitations of the battery. I've posted about this several days ago, but, as I suspected, it is being conveniently ignored.

ECE R85, Paragraph 5.3 note

Note: If the battery limits the maximum 30 minutes power, the maximum30 minutes power of an electric vehicle can be less than the maximum 30 minutes power of the drive train of the vehicle according to this test.

To sum this issue up, Tesla use of the motor hp rating is in strict adherence to the existing regulation on the subject. They clearly defined that the motor hp ratings they used are in accordance with the ECE R85 in the Model S Manual. Based on this I do not believe that attacks from those who believe that they "did not get what they paid for" have any basis.

I question that interpretation.

It would appear that the intent if that statement is to allow for the situation where the SoC of the battery not permit the full-power test to continue for 30 minutes. I do NOT interpret that to mean that the maximum full-power the pack can supply at 100% SOC is discounted.

Also note that this very statement infers that the battery is the source for the tests.

Further items in ECE R85 that support that conclusion:

In Section 5.3.x

5.3.1.2. The net power test shall consist of a run at full setting of the power controller

This implies that the inverter limits cannot be ignored.

5.3.1.4. Measurements shall be taken at a sufficient number of motor speeds to define correctly the power curve between zero and the highest motor speed recommended by the manufacturer. The whole test shall be completed within 5 minutes.

This specifies measuring output power while under test with items mentioned above, not simple statement of rated shaft horsepower. It also clearly identifies that the peak HP number is a separate spec that's determined within 5 minutes, as opposed to the 30 min duration test.

5.4. Interpretation of results The net power and the maximum 30 minutes power...

This reinforces that overall net power and the 30-min test are different

In Annex 6 (which covers EV's):

1 DC voltage source Voltage drop during test less than 5 %

This specifies that (especially for the 30 min test), that you may use a voltage source that does not sag significantly. This is to ostensibly demonstrate what power the system can deliver before your battery starts to get low.

It does not, however, discuss if your DC power source for test may supply greater amounts of current than what the battery can supply. If the goal is to measure actual power of the "drive train", then it would seem counter to the goal to allow such.

As further support of this premise, notice that the Annex 5 stipulates standard fuel pumps and carburetors for ICE tests. The intent here would seem to be what the production system is capable of, not just what that motor/engine could produce if fed unlimited power/fuel.

A gasoline system doesn't lose fuel pressure over time, whereas a battery does drop in voltage, so they make allowance to remove that from the equation. But it would seem disingenuous to infer that you can instead substitute an unlimited DC power source for the EV tests.

 

[smac]

What I don't understand is if Tesla are using the EU ECE R85 method for rating power then how come my car only has 69kW ?

 

[Johan]

What I don't understand is if Tesla are using the EU ECE R85 method for rating power then how come my car only has 69kW ?

View attachment 95475

It's exactly the same in Norway. I'm not sure this number has to do with ECE R85, and if so this is a rating for "continuous output" or some similar expression.

 

[ProSkeptic]

What I don't understand is if Tesla are using the EU ECE R85 method for rating power then how come my car only has 69kW ?

Totally spitballling ideas here... perhaps the interpretation of ECE R85 dictates that the stated power be the maximum drawn for 30 minutes that will limit the voltage drop to 5% of nominal?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Tesla publishes the motor power specifications independent of whether the battery can actually supply enough power to meet those specifications. That is the biggest nugget that I gleaned from JB's blog post. Let's take a muffler with an exhaust specification of 600 CFM, but mated to an engine that can only exhaust 400 CFM. Does that 600 CFM muffler then become a 400 CFM muffler? No. It's still a 600 CFM spec muffler, just mated to a source that cannot fully fill the pipe.

The only difference here is that nobody really knew what criteria Tesla was using to come up with its HP "motor power" specs. Now we know. And Tesla's methodology sounds reasonable to me. It's clear that others disagree, but their disagreement is predicated on a basic misunderstanding of how Tesla came up with its numbers, then interpreted those numbers according to their previous ICE experience. Every electric motor by every EV manufacturer specifies motor power, as far as I know. The difference is that those motors are anemic and are easily maxed out by their low power batteries. In the case of the RWD cars, the battery current was sufficient to max out the motor power. In the D cars, that is not the case, and so the motor power does not get maxed out. But those motors are still specified by the maximum HP they can output, assuming sufficient input power. Just like the muffler example.

I can see both sides, honestly.

 

[smac]

Totally spitballling ideas here... perhaps the interpretation of ECE R85 dictates that the stated power be the maximum drawn for 30 minutes that will limit the voltage drop to 5% of nominal?

Indeed tbh it was tongue in cheek. It's obvious Tesla are using ECE R85 for fulfilling EU statutory requirements of how to report Max. Net power for EU cars. (and seemingly Norwegian)

Maybe one of the Norwegian / Danish P85D owners can tell us what their cars state on their EU regulatory docs.

Then we can put this "Tesla use ECE R85" thing to bed?

- - - Updated - - -

I think the idea is that 30 minutes is to prevent very short bursts of over powering the car. (Both for ICE and EV)

The reason to allow EV's to use a DC power supply in lieu of the battery is that at max power most would deplete their batteries long before the test was complete.

 

[vgrinshpun]

What I don't understand is if Tesla are using the EU ECE R85 method for rating power then how come my car only has 69kW ?

View attachment 95475

I do not know what document you are showing here. I do know that one motor versions of Model S have **continuous** rating of 69kW. FYI, in the terminology of National Electric Code continuous rating means that it can be sustained without overheating for more than 3 hours.

It is **not** the same as NET POWER (maximum), nor 30 MINUTES POWER defined in ECE R85. What you are missing is that electric motors can have several ratings, based on the duration of the loading.

- - - Updated - - -

I question that interpretation.

It would appear that the intent if that statement is to allow for the situation where the SoC of the battery not permit the full-power test to continue for 30 minutes. I do NOT interpret that to mean that the maximum full-power the pack can supply at 100% SOC is discounted.

Also note that this very statement infers that the battery is the source for the tests.

Further items in ECE R85 that support that conclusion:

In Section 5.3.x


This implies that the inverter limits cannot be ignored.


This specifies measuring output power while under test with items mentioned above, not simple statement of rated shaft horsepower. It also clearly identifies that the peak HP number is a separate spec that's determined within 5 minutes, as opposed to the 30 min duration test.


This reinforces that overall net power and the 30-min test are different

In Annex 6 (which covers EV's):



This specifies that (especially for the 30 min test), that you may use a voltage source that does not sag significantly. This is to ostensibly demonstrate what power the system can deliver before your battery starts to get low.

It does not, however, discuss if your DC power source for test may supply greater amounts of current than what the battery can supply. If the goal is to measure actual power of the "drive train", then it would seem counter to the goal to allow such.

As further support of this premise, notice that the Annex 5 stipulates standard fuel pumps and carburetors for ICE tests. The intent here would seem to be what the production system is capable of, not just what that motor/engine could produce if fed unlimited power/fuel.

A gasoline system doesn't lose fuel pressure over time, whereas a battery does drop in voltage, so they make allowance to remove that from the equation. But it would seem disingenuous to infer that you can instead substitute an unlimited DC power source for the EV tests.

This is just wrong. There is no need for mental gymnastics in interpreting something that is not there. These regulations specify details of the test. The battery or any device modeling battery is **not there**.

 

[dsm363]

Tesla publishes the motor power specifications independent of whether the battery can actually supply enough power to meet those specifications. That is the biggest nugget that I gleaned from JB's blog post. Let's take a muffler with an exhaust specification of 600 CFM, but mated to an engine that can only exhaust 400 CFM. Does that 600 CFM muffler then become a 400 CFM muffler? No. It's still a 600 CFM spec muffler, just mated to a source that cannot fully fill the pipe.

The only difference here is that nobody really knew what criteria Tesla was using to come up with its HP "motor power" specs. Now we know. And Tesla's methodology sounds reasonable to me. It's clear that others disagree, but their disagreement is predicated on a basic misunderstanding of how Tesla came up with its numbers, then interpreted those numbers according to their previous ICE experience. Every electric motor by every EV manufacturer specifies motor power, as far as I know. The difference is that those motors are anemic and are easily maxed out by their low power batteries. In the case of the RWD cars, the battery current was sufficient to max out the motor power. In the D cars, that is not the case, and so the motor power does not get maxed out. But those motors are still specified by the maximum HP they can output, assuming sufficient input power. Just like the muffler example.

I can see both sides, honestly.

I see both sides as well. I understand feeling a little disappointed about not fully understanding what Tesla meant with their vague 'motor power'. I don't understand the level of anger and feeling of Tesla intentionally lying and/or cheating people with this one number. It's probably time to either take some sort of action if you can't let it go or move on and enjoy the car.

 

[smac]

I do not know what document you are showing here. I do know that one motor versions of Model S have **continuous** rating of 69kW. FYI, in the terminology of National Electric Code continuous rating means that it can be sustained without overheating for more than 3 hours.

It is **not** the same as NET POWER (maximum), nor 30 MINUTES POWER defined in ECE R85. What you are missing is that electric motors can have several ratings, based on the duration of the loading.

That document is a UK "V5", it is our governments EU led interpretation of what ECE R85 means. (Other EU Govts. have similar documents)

So the chain goes something like this.

UNECE set rules > Any EU Member state tests against the rules > an EU CoC is issued (Certificate of conformity) > This is EU wide accepted> All Governments using localized documents issue papers (which are gradually harmonizing)


So irrelevant of "National Electric Code continuous rating" (which is purely US based), the EU (or UK govt.) has determined the "Max. Net Power " for the purpose of EV motor vehicles according to UNECE R85.

This leaves us as readers to have two options: adopt your understanding of what UNECE R85 means, or think the UK (and other) governments got it wrong !


You can't simply cherry pick the bits (i.e. using an external power source) but leave out (i.e. a concept of duration) to justify whatever argument you want to make. It then is no longer the standard!!!


BTW I don't care my car has only 69kW in the eyes of EU/UK govt, when I "paid for 300-ish hp" I knew full well it wasn't that straight forward. Just please don't try and reverse engineer standards to match your argument.

 

[30seconds]

That document is a UK "V5", it is our governments EU led interpretation of what ECE R85 means. (Other EU Govts. have similar documents)

So the chain goes something like this.

UNECE set rules > Any EU Member state tests against the rules > an EU CoC is issued (Certificate of conformity) > This is EU wide accepted> All Governments using localized documents issue papers (which are gradually harmonizing)


So irrelevant of "National Electric Code continuous rating" (which is purely US based), the EU (or UK govt.) has determined the "Max. Net Power " for the purpose of EV motor vehicles according to UNECE R85.

This leaves us as readers to have two options: adopt your understanding of what UNECE R85 means, or think the UK (and other) governments got it wrong !


You can't simply cherry pick the bits (i.e. using an external power source) but leave out (i.e. a concept of duration) to justify whatever argument you want to make. It then is no longer the standard!!!


BTW I don't care my car has only 69kW in the eyes of EU/UK govt, when I "paid for 300-ish hp" I knew full well it wasn't that straight forward. Just please don't try and reverse engineer standards to match your argument.

Looks to me like the regs have two numbers to report 1. Maximum net power and 2. Maximum net power at 30mins

at least on this older german spec sheet it looks like they were reporting both

Range (de_DE) | Tesla Motors

Continuous Power
52 kW
52 kW
69 kW

-->
Max Power**
285 kW (387 PS)
285 kW (387 PS)
350 kW (476 PS)

Max. Motorenleistung***
225 kW (306 PS)
270 kW (367 PS)
310 kW (421 PS)

 

[brianman]

Following this thread all I can think of is how much better off Tesla and all of us would have been if they published 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, torque numbers but no horsepower number. If pressed on this they should have simply stated that the horsepower metric gives little meaning to a prospective buyer and that comparisons to ICEs using a hp number is of little value as the drive train is so different in every other aspect.

Give an honest, clear number that is achievable by the vehicle or don't give a number at all.