Tesla Ordered To Pay $6,000 Fine Per Model S P85D Sold In Norway For Listing Wrong HP Figure

JUL 4 2016 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 60

The P85D

The P85D

Tesla Motors recently lost a ruling in Norway on the listing of the power output of its Model S P85D, and as such may have to shell out 50,000 Krones ($6,000 USD) to each of the ~150 owners of the car in the country, Electrek reports.  The company has some time to yet appeal the decision if they choose.

Why the fine? Well, it seems Tesla wrongly listed the horsepower rating for the Model S P85D. Tesla had stated that the P85D had a rear motor with 467 HP and a front motor rating at 224 HP for a combined rating of 691 HP. However, the vehicle was never capable of delivering all that power to those motors.

Tesla has made a statement on the Norway’s Consumer Council’s decision:

“Testing done by Tesla and independent third parties has demonstrated that the Model S P85D’s acceleration and motor power numbers have always been accurate, even understated. With respect to acceleration, Tesla described the P85D as having a 0-100 kph time of 3.3 seconds, and Motor Trend and others actually achieved a time of 3.1 seconds. Similarly, the motor power numbers used by Tesla were legally required and confirmed as accurate by European regulatory authorities. Based on this information, the Consumer Council previously resolved these issues in Tesla’s favor. Tesla will be reviewing the decision by the Consumer Disputes Commission to better understand the conclusion that it reached.”

Source: Electrek

Categories: Tesla

Tags:

Leave a Reply

60 Comments on "Tesla Ordered To Pay $6,000 Fine Per Model S P85D Sold In Norway For Listing Wrong HP Figure"

newest oldest most voted

Ouch.

Tesla exaggerates or omits details on all public information, their followers don’t care. The SEC and NHSTA are coming around though.

Yes, yes… ALL information released by Tesla is inaccurate. This from somebody who is obviously not prone to exaggeration.

You obviously are not paying attention.

Wonder how this issue will be resolved in US and other countries. Norway has set a good precedence for others.

I don’t think HP was ever quoted, the power rating for the motors would have been in kW as below.

Motor Power
375 kW rear, 193 kW front 193 kW front and rear 193 kW front and rear

397 kW (Ludicrous) *
346 kW *

That’s obviously irrelevant – stating the power in kW units or HP units is equivalent and you can simply convert one into the other. The issue is that Tesla simply added up the maximum rated power for each motor, ignoring the fact that the power electronics cannot actually deliver that same max power to both motors at once. Tesla says this is how “everyone’s been doing it” which may be correct, but irrelevant since on ICE supplying enough gas to each engine isn’t really a problem even in the rare cases that a car has more than one engine… Personally I tend to agree with Tesla that the ACTUALLY relevant thing is performance – acceleration and top speed. The car definitely delivers on these counts. It’s difficult to see how a power rating is relevant then. On the other hand there’s definitely something to be said for truth in advertising. So the Tesla owners who opportunistically sought compensation because of a technicality at least could be said to also do a form of “public service” by helping to make clear that advertised information needs to be true not merely in some narrow, technical sense – but not suited to deceive… Read more »

Agreed about the necessity of precise information.
Speaking of, the total output is fundamentaly limited by the discharge rate of the battery and the electronic being the manager of these limitation, not the limitation in itself.
So, you’re right but imprecise:)

It was wrong for Tesla to claim simple sum of front + rear. The analogy I make is putting 1000 HP motor on kid’s powerwheels and claiming it as 1000 HP EV knowing that it can’t deliver it.

http://sparkev.blogspot.com/2015/09/vw-fraud-tesla-p85d-fraud.html

But $6K seem harsh. If Tesla gets slapped with $6K per car fine for just minor issue like that, I wonder how much VW will be charged for far more egrigous dieselgate. $60K per car?

I agree with the Norway’s Consumer Council decision. And I’m glad this happened in Norway of all places, and those few $mln lost should be a lesson.

This is the sort of shit that could get the company in real trouble. This and the battery capacity thing pointed out by wk057.
Tesla should refrain from these marketing stunts. It really doesn’t need them.
I don’t think that most Tesla customers buy these cars because 700 horsepower.

They should stick to local government testing facilities’ numbers only.

They knew exactly what they did when they advertised those numbers and hoped they’d get away with it.

Yup, about time Tesla got nailed for this. It is misleading – period.

See Tesla’s response – it still dodges (and refuses to admit) the main horsepower fact. They are starting to act like regular auto companies spewing legal-PR mumbo jumbo crap onto the public.

By your reasoning Norway can fine all gas guzzler manufacturers…for selling vehicles that pollute the air we breathe on planet Earth. When you purchase a gas guzzler it doesn’t come with a pollution disclosure.

Why doesn’t this “fine” go to the buyers of these vehicles? Fines to Norway won’t go to the actual victims here; the govt. isn’t sharing it! (Tip: Nobody was actually harmed by missing that extra 2/10 of a second in power, so its just another money grab by greedy bureaucrats).

LOL! By that excuse, I can sell you false gold at full gold price 🙂

LOL…we are all suckers when we drive gas guzzling toxic fume spewing vehicles. And then we want clean air and water lol

The article clearly states that the $6000 goes to each of the Model S owners.

+1

By that comparison VW should pay at least 10000$ for each of their substantially cheaper cars.

Further more, there is a legitimate possibility that you may upgrade the battery pack one day and unleash those ponies.

VW never broke the law in the EU (and by extension Norway via our EEC membership). So they won’t get fined a dime over here for dieselgate. Unlike he US, the EU did not have a paragraph explicitly banning the use of “defeat devices”. So AFAIU it was basically legal to cheat! As long as you passed the lab test, all was well. They are still modifying the cars, but in the EU they can get within legal limits (after removing the cheat mode) by simply applying a software update. Europeans can breathe considerably higher concentrations of NOx than Americans with no ill effects, apparently… What is really a scandal is that the authorities have said they’ll modify the testing procedures to make them representative of actual real world performance – but then they allow emissions twice as high as the former legal limit until 2020, and 50% more after that! This from a base that is ten times as high as the rules you got in the US back in 2009! Also worth noting is that nearly ALL diesels (97%) in Europe emit FAR more (6x on average) NOx than the legal limits in real use. The VW group… Read more »

Wow! Now we really know why car makers stayed out of the US diesel passenger car market for so long.

I seem to recall that the individual motor hp rating is accurate but the batteries couldn’t deliver the total combined power.

Yeah – batteries and/or other power electronics. Which of course would limit the true maximum power.

That’s a good joke.
There’s a better lawsuit against all ICE vehicles, because NONE of them report the actual Horsepower at the wheels.

There’s a better lawsuit for ICE vehicles in the area of pollution and contamination of our air and water.

This is a Pandora’s GOLD MINE for Lawyers.

Totally unfair since everybody understood the sum KW of the motors were obviously limited by what the battery can deliver. No cheating, just common sense.

What about gas cars that can’t delivered the indicated HP when operating at higher altitude.

Let’s not bring whataboutism into this.

It’s better to close all these “doors”, especially when there are a lot of people/organizations/companies who would try to use this sort of stuff against you.

Tesla need to get their shit strait, globally.
Model 3 is supposed to be manufactured in the hundreds of thousands, yearly. For years to come.

This behavior isn’t acceptable anymore.
I really hope they change their ways when it comes to marketing.

“Totally unfair since everybody understood the sum KW of the motors were obviously limited by what the battery can deliver. No cheating, just common sense.”

It wasn’t obvious to me, and I’m certainly better informed on such subjects than the average person.

Don’t ICE engines’ hp degrades over time too?

I’d also chime in on arne-nl’s point that actual consumption (and pollution) is a much more important number that needs to be accurate!

I believe Tesla will appeal and that they will win.

Seems likely.

I’m happy to bet that they either won’t appeal, or lose if they do.

The case is very clear and Tesla hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Marketing some theoretical maximum power that the motors could handle if only it was available as the vehicle’s total power is… total bullshit.

I agree Tesla did something wrong here, but it’s not a $6K per car transgression nor anything close to that. (Is that fine based on the price of the car at least?)

More to the point, I can’t think of any technology company which *doesn’t* state theoretical maximums (when there are no regulations that force them to state the result of a standardised test). Your 2TB drive? Well, it’s actually a 1.8TiB drive. Your phone that has 32GB capacity? Well, not really, because you’ve got an unremovable OS that means you have perhaps 28GB of actual usable space. Your internet service is 20Mbit? No, there are all sorts of protocol overheads which means *you* can’t achieve the maximum speed.

Everyone understands these things perfectly, and they’re totally different to a theoretical maximum power for some EV motors, right? No? OK, we really need to start suing an awfully large number of companies.

I doubt that everybody understands that perfectly, but I agree that it is standard practice in the technology industry to state the total capacity, not the usable capacity, whether it’s bandwidth, memory, etc.

There is nothing “theoretical” about how much power the motors can produce. Take any one of those motors out of the car, and put them on a test stand, and they will absolutely produce their rated output.

The power rating of the motors absolutely true and indisputable.

Just like when you take a 650 CFM carburetor and put it on a 4 liter motor. It will NEVER flow 650 CFM, the gas motor will never flow that much air. But that carb is still absolutely undeniably a 650 CFM carburetor.

However, Tesla failed to make it clear that they were quoting the rated output of the motors themselves, and not their rated output when tested in the car with the battery pack and electronics limitations.

But stating the motor ratings themselves weren’t accurate, is making the same mistake that Tesla made — wrongly conflating the rating of the PART with the rating of the VEHICLE as a whole.

So when Tesla next releases a software update that allows the battery to provide more power to the motors, whats the bet it will be $6000 aftermarket option in Norway but free everywhere else….

Yeah, that’s the way to build brand loyalty. Unlike in the US, Tesla is not the best selling EV in Norway. Silicon Valley bro antics will just result in lost market share.

Sigh… didn’t add figured it was rather obvious…

Maybe if they were idiots.

Tesla is often better than traditional car makers at doing the right thing. With respect to how power should be advertised, there’s just no doubt that the customers who complained are right.

Tesla is right that it’s a technicality and that the *performance* advertised really is delivered, and then some.

So in a way I feel little sympathy with the rich boys who got their P85D, are extremely happy with, but decided to opportunistically file complaints against Tesla over a technically inaccurate claim on their web site.

On the other hand, truth in advertising is a good idea (and one FAR too seldom pursued with any force).

I trust Tesla is smart enough to take this on their chin. They did change their advertised power immediately when the complaints surfaced, so although they aren’t saying so it sure seems they actually agree.

Terawatt, Tesla earned this. HP “motor power” did the intended job of confusing US customers, mags, etc. In Norway, the translation was botched and there was no room to hide behind it. The 691hp car, that put out ~460hp.

I see no need to claim deliberate foul, here. Probably a marketing oversight – not everyone understands this stuff, even some people who should.

@Terawatt

Well said, sir. Every bit of that.

It’s no different than when Cadillac claimed its 2014 ELR had enormous amounts of horsepower and torque when combining the engine with the battery, and yet it barely accelerated 0-60 in 8 seconds! The 2016 ELR was better, but still never delivered engine HP + battery HP = total HP.

“…the motor power numbers used by Tesla were legally required and confirmed as accurate by European regulatory authorities.”

Seriously, Tesla Motors is doubling down on this hype, this factually incorrect information, even after they changed the figure on their own website?

I have often taken Tesla to task for using too much hype, but I think this is the first time that I actually feel shame over being a Tesla fan. 😥

“If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” — Will Rogers

+1

Awww my car doesn’t have the HP stated by Tesla!

I need $6,000 in compensation!

boo hoo

The weird part is, the car performs exactly( or extremely close) to how Tesla says it will. So their argument isn’t about how the cars actually behave, because they behave as stated by Tesla. The argument seems to be; ‘ my car is performing(sometimes outperforming) to my expectations, but it’s not giving me the stated horsepower while performing(or outperforming) my expectations’.

I wonder if any of these owners hold, or even thought to hold, their gasoline vehicles to that very ‘first world’ standard.

Compared to an ICE w/691hp over 60mph, a P85D is gutless. Instead of educating its customers about the actual ~460hp peaking down low, Tesla doubled down and deceived with 691hp. Yeah, they do some things completely wrong.

You are talking about a part of the world where beer glasses have a white line marking where the appropriate ml of drink should be so that customers don’t get stiffed. They don’t look kindly to fraudulent measures in Germanic and Nordic countries.

We need that in the United States. I’m so tired of getting “Pints” of beer that are in 14 ounce glasses, that are filled with 13 ounces of beer and 1 ounce of foam.

I share your sentiment. The dudes who are complaining are extremely happy customers who got everything they hoped for and expected – but still decided to opportunistically file complaints over a technicality.

But the thing is this: the bastards are right about that technicality.

So Tesla should change its practice (it has), apologize and move on. Instead, it’s arguing it did the right thing while simultaneously changing its practice – a move so transparently ridiculous that they look foolish!

I agree that Tesla should advertise their numbers accurately and uninflated. Howevever. HP are just a means to an end. A car buyer wants acceleration and speed. So if the car delivers the acceleration and speed as advertised, why should you care how much HP is needed to accomplish that? It is just a theoretical number. It’s idiotic the fines are this high for a number that actually has no meaning in the real world, apart from the bragging rights (‘mine is bigger than yours’). If the cars didn’t meet the acceleration and/or top speed numbers, that would be a whole different story. But $ 6000 while the car is as fast or even faster as Tesla has promised? Ludicrous. And as others have pointed out, there’s a good bit of double standards going on here. Not that it is relevant for the case, but nevertheless important in a broader sense. The real world performance of ICE cars when it comes to fuel consumption are way higher than advertised. And that is not a theoretical-for-bragging-rights-only number, but a real world metric that hurts people in their wallets and pollutes our environment. But in that case, people know that they’re being… Read more »

A fine of $6000 per car does seem extreme for something which, as you point out, actually has little if any impact on anyone’s buying decision.

But two wrongs don’t make a right.

I wasn’t trying to right a wrong, merely pointing out inconsistencies in our selective reaction to misleading claims by car manufacturers.

You have to consider its just 150 cars. If the fine is to mean anything it has to be large per car then.

What Tesla should learn from this: If you are faced with complaints, perhaps try to work out a reasonable solution with your customers instead of dragging your feet and wait until institutions of justice get involved. I’m sure your pesky buyers would have agreed to a $1000 compensation and a change of practice from Tesla.

Instead, Tesla spent some time and money on this case internally, repeatedly got a fair bit of bad press for a year or longer, and end up paying much more as well as change their practice.

Come on Tesla – you are smarter than this!

I believe it was their intention to keep it simple. I think hybrid cars have done this all along. I see this as class action extortion. If you ask me Tesla is giving you the advertised acceleration at an even lower ‘fuel consumption’ than they stated. I would agree with the fine if the acceleration was any slower than stated.

Agreed Hari. If they can get away with this with Tesla, then there’s likely “gold in them thar hills”!
I imagine Tesla’s not the only game in town with regard to inaccuracies in stated horsepower.

I’m not sure, but wouldn’t $6000 cover the cost of a ‘ludicrous’ upgrade to the P85D? If that’s the case, then it’s possible that was the intention of this?
Tesla’s aquiescence on this, and efforts to correct it’s information, did NOT calm the matter(which I thought would be the case) but instead had an effect akin to throwing blood in a shark tank.

Now that some had gotten the ADMISSION, they seem to have gone on A MISSION. Now it appears they want something ‘for their troubles’.

Ludicrous is $10k in the US, and even more in Norway.

Since there is no free lunch, to recuperate the cost, Tesla will soon need to increase the prices further in Norway.

This is ridiculous…finally, proof that the USA isn’t the only place for frivolous lawsuits!