I hadn't read that article until just now. Do you really think what may have turned out to be the correct explanation being published in one relatively obscure article should have been able to mitigate the confusion caused by all the publicity over the 691 HP figure? I don't.
What I do think however, is that you left out one really significant excerpt from that article. This one:
"The company is already working on an update to the website to explain this distinction between net power and "motor power."
So...what happened with respect to that update, written about in October 2014 as being "already being worked on?" Did it become the JB Straubel blog post, published a couple of weeks ago, almost a full year later? Or did Tesla just decide it wasn't in their best interests to actually provide that information?
I think in your zeal to defend Tesla, you just led us straight to another smoking gun.
Really?? Wow, just wow!
As I mentioned more than one time I am not interested to debate the obvious: Tesla communications missteps are a common knowledge.
What I demonstrated beyond any doubt, is that Tesla did not lie, did not mislead and did not short changed anybody.
Now, no matter how you are going to complain I will repeat one more time: do your home work and take a deep breath and a walk before posting. I did not leave anything out of this article. Did you even read my post? Here is what I wrote:
...but even reported that company is working on an update to the website to explain the "motor power" term. Looking at the article now, it appears that David Nolan had a contact inside Tesla because otherwise he would not know that company is working on the update to the website explaining term "motor powerThe only zeal I have is to share what I know about the issue with the Forum.
I will let others decide what is the zeal which drives you.