Talk:Tesla Model S/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Outstanding protecting against rollover ?

@TGCP:, @Amagi82: Each of you have modified the phrase 'outstanding protecting against rollover', lastly for the benefit of 'good protection against rollover'. The source citation includes the quote:

NHTSA's normal tests couldn't induce the car to flip, so the agency had to resort to "special means". Tesla credits the sedan's battery pack for that, which gives the Model S a very low center of gravity.

It appears that you do not agree that when the NHTSA had to resort to "special means" in order to induce the rollover at all, then that is something exceptional, something that makes the car stand out, i.e. outstanding. However, merely having 'good' protection against rollover does not seem to do justice to the description in the source.

So I solicit (from anyone) a formulation that explains that the rollover protection is so good, that the normal NHTSA tests could not actually make the car rollover. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Partially agree, the problem is that the source doesn't independantly say so (the "twice as good" claim is by Tesla), and we must not do original research by assuming "special" is unique. We don't know if other cars needed similar special means for testing. I searched other low sports cars on NHTSA but found few rollover tests. Not even Corvette had results. We also don't know if other cars have similar good protection against rollover, untested. What we CAN do, which I suggested over at Rollover article talk, is to gather data and make a list and graph.

In short, there is no reference for using the word "outstanding". TGCP (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lklundin: My complaint was more with the term "outstanding", which comes off as hyperbole, and doesn't sound professional in an encyclopedic article- this is Wikipedia, not a sales brochure. I haven't seen any quantifiable measurements we can quote concerning rollover, and I'd rather keep the hype to a minimum. The whole article is already crossing the border of neutrality. So if you can find some good science on the subject of rollovers, I'd very much like to see "the percentage of vehicle rollovers from the Model S is X% of the national average", or something like that. Amagi82 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your feed-back, with fair points. Perhaps we can simply quote the source more closely, i.e. something about the fact that the car could not actually be made to roll over during the normal tests. And although the NHTSA's web-page on rollover clearly shows cars that roll over, we don't know how often they don't under their testing. I saw also the 5.7% rollover risk for the Model S. It is a good point that NHTSA does not subject that many cars to that test, especially among the more expensive. Perhaps a comparison of that risk among other 5-star cars could be informative. I will update the list at the above rollover talk page, if I find any more models. Perhaps something quantifiable can be made of that. Lklundin (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Outstanding protecting against rollover ?

@TGCP:, @Amagi82: Each of you have modified the phrase 'outstanding protecting against rollover', lastly for the benefit of 'good protection against rollover'. The source citation includes the quote:

NHTSA's normal tests couldn't induce the car to flip, so the agency had to resort to "special means". Tesla credits the sedan's battery pack for that, which gives the Model S a very low center of gravity.

It appears that you do not agree that when the NHTSA had to resort to "special means" in order to induce the rollover at all, then that is something exceptional, something that makes the car stand out, i.e. outstanding. However, merely having 'good' protection against rollover does not seem to do justice to the description in the source.

So I solicit (from anyone) a formulation that explains that the rollover protection is so good, that the normal NHTSA tests could not actually make the car rollover. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Partially agree, the problem is that the source doesn't independantly say so (the "twice as good" claim is by Tesla), and we must not do original research by assuming "special" is unique. We don't know if other cars needed similar special means for testing. I searched other low sports cars on NHTSA but found few rollover tests. Not even Corvette had results. We also don't know if other cars have similar good protection against rollover, untested. What we CAN do, which I suggested over at Rollover article talk, is to gather data and make a list and graph.

In short, there is no reference for using the word "outstanding". TGCP (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lklundin: My complaint was more with the term "outstanding", which comes off as hyperbole, and doesn't sound professional in an encyclopedic article- this is Wikipedia, not a sales brochure. I haven't seen any quantifiable measurements we can quote concerning rollover, and I'd rather keep the hype to a minimum. The whole article is already crossing the border of neutrality. So if you can find some good science on the subject of rollovers, I'd very much like to see "the percentage of vehicle rollovers from the Model S is X% of the national average", or something like that. Amagi82 (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your feed-back, with fair points. Perhaps we can simply quote the source more closely, i.e. something about the fact that the car could not actually be made to roll over during the normal tests. And although the NHTSA's web-page on rollover clearly shows cars that roll over, we don't know how often they don't under their testing. I saw also the 5.7% rollover risk for the Model S. It is a good point that NHTSA does not subject that many cars to that test, especially among the more expensive. Perhaps a comparison of that risk among other 5-star cars could be informative. I will update the list at the above rollover talk page, if I find any more models. Perhaps something quantifiable can be made of that. Lklundin (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Accolade from competitors?

Is that notable? Porsche: “We have great respect for Tesla,” Mr. Müller said. “They are the only one who have brought an electric vehicle on the market that you have to take seriously.” It shows that Tesla is respected in the industry, to such degree that high-price competitors also choose the all-electric concept. TGCP (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes is also building a long-range EV archive translation TGCP (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese copy - a kind of competitor? TGCP (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Accolade from competitors?

Is that notable? Porsche: “We have great respect for Tesla,” Mr. Müller said. “They are the only one who have brought an electric vehicle on the market that you have to take seriously.” It shows that Tesla is respected in the industry, to such degree that high-price competitors also choose the all-electric concept. TGCP (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes is also building a long-range EV archive translation TGCP (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Chinese copy - a kind of competitor? TGCP (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Motor

How many motors does the Model S have? From the photo it looks like a single unit but the large bracket might be hiding a gap between two motors. Or possibly it has two separate rotating assemblies (one for left, one for right) inside a common case. Having two motors (or two separate rotating assemblies) has the obvious advantage of not requiring a differential.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was one originally. Then I read a single review that said it had two, and the picture looked like it was symmetrical, which if you think about it, would definitely imply it had two. But on closer inspection the chassis is not actually symmetrical, and I was unable to find any authoritative source that said it had two.GliderMaven (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spent some of my lunchtime trawling the web and found [1]. Search for "differential" and you will find where he says it has an ordinary open diff, driven by a single motor just behind, which is coaxially aligned with a 3 phase electric inverter (which looks similar to an electrical motor). Also found this picture [2], which is also ambiguous but might help visualize things.  Stepho  talk  05:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Tesla actually lists combined motor power, not just individual : horsepower, US kW, AUS not sure how to incorporate into article ? TGCP (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Motor

How many motors does the Model S have? From the photo it looks like a single unit but the large bracket might be hiding a gap between two motors. Or possibly it has two separate rotating assemblies (one for left, one for right) inside a common case. Having two motors (or two separate rotating assemblies) has the obvious advantage of not requiring a differential.  Stepho  talk  22:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was one originally. Then I read a single review that said it had two, and the picture looked like it was symmetrical, which if you think about it, would definitely imply it had two. But on closer inspection the chassis is not actually symmetrical, and I was unable to find any authoritative source that said it had two.GliderMaven (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Spent some of my lunchtime trawling the web and found [3]. Search for "differential" and you will find where he says it has an ordinary open diff, driven by a single motor just behind, which is coaxially aligned with a 3 phase electric inverter (which looks similar to an electrical motor). Also found this picture [4], which is also ambiguous but might help visualize things.  Stepho  talk  05:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Tesla actually lists combined motor power, not just individual : horsepower, US kW, AUS not sure how to incorporate into article ? TGCP (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Model S per capita

Hi, I added the Model S density in the sales table. However I couldn't get the table sortable. Would anyone be so kind to do this for me? ~ Aufbakanleitung (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aufbakanleitung, very nice info, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. This indicator must come from a reliable source, if you can produced one, please restore your edit with the corresponding the source. Check WP:OR and WP:RS. Cheers, --Mariordo (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Model S per capita

Hi, I added the Model S density in the sales table. However I couldn't get the table sortable. Would anyone be so kind to do this for me? ~ Aufbakanleitung (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Aufbakanleitung, very nice info, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. This indicator must come from a reliable source, if you can produced one, please restore your edit with the corresponding the source. Check WP:OR and WP:RS. Cheers, --Mariordo (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Model S burns to the ground at charging station in Norway

This looks like something to be kept track of. English link, here.

Post-edit: Incident was apparently video recorded. Sb2s3 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I will add it to the article.  Stepho  talk  01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Model S burns to the ground at charging station in Norway

This looks like something to be kept track of. English link, here.

Post-edit: Incident was apparently video recorded. Sb2s3 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I will add it to the article.  Stepho  talk  01:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sales graph

Hi,

Just noticed a minor issue with "Global Sales" chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_sales_Tesla_Model_S_by_quarter.png there is a duplicated label Q2 2015 instead of Q3. Can you please suggest how to update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.88.33 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! I will fix it, but since Tesla is about to publish the 3Q financial report with the accurate sales figure, I will wait until next week to fix the typo and update the sales figure. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How about using Module:Chart

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

3Q 2012

4Q 2012

1Q 2013

2Q 2013

3Q 2013

4Q 2013

1Q 2014

2Q 2014

3Q 2014

4Q 2014

1Q 2015

2Q 2015

3Q 2015

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

3Q 2012

2013

2014

2015

Much easier to make changes each quarter. Might need to experiment a bit.  Stepho  talk  05:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Or more variations using Template:Bar chart and Template:Vertical bar chart.  Stepho  talk  07:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Global sales per quarter

Quarter	Global sales
3Q 2012	250
4Q 2012	2,400
1Q 2013	4,900
2Q 2013	5,150
3Q 2013	5,500
4Q 2013	6,892
1Q 2014	6,457
2Q 2014	7,579
3Q 2014	7,785
4Q 2014	9,834
1Q 2015	10,045
2Q 2015	11,532
3Q 2015	11,574

Global sales by quarter

Good sugestion. I used it. While the data set is small this is the easiest way to update the graph. Later we may change it for anual sales. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be of service.  Stepho  talk  03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I did remove my signature from the article. I think you must have copied my signature when you copied the talk page example.  Stepho  talk  03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Indeed I did, sorry for the mistake, cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I see this has already paid for itself for the Q4 update :)  Stepho  talk  03:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sales graph

Hi,

Just noticed a minor issue with "Global Sales" chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_sales_Tesla_Model_S_by_quarter.png there is a duplicated label Q2 2015 instead of Q3. Can you please suggest how to update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.88.33 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! I will fix it, but since Tesla is about to publish the 3Q financial report with the accurate sales figure, I will wait until next week to fix the typo and update the sales figure. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How about using Module:Chart

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

3Q 2012

4Q 2012

1Q 2013

2Q 2013

3Q 2013

4Q 2013

1Q 2014

2Q 2014

3Q 2014

4Q 2014

1Q 2015

2Q 2015

3Q 2015

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

3Q 2012

2013

2014

2015

Much easier to make changes each quarter. Might need to experiment a bit.  Stepho  talk  05:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Or more variations using Template:Bar chart and Template:Vertical bar chart.  Stepho  talk  07:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Global sales per quarter

Quarter	Global sales
3Q 2012	250
4Q 2012	2,400
1Q 2013	4,900
2Q 2013	5,150
3Q 2013	5,500
4Q 2013	6,892
1Q 2014	6,457
2Q 2014	7,579
3Q 2014	7,785
4Q 2014	9,834
1Q 2015	10,045
2Q 2015	11,532
3Q 2015	11,574

Global sales by quarter

Good sugestion. I used it. While the data set is small this is the easiest way to update the graph. Later we may change it for anual sales. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be of service.  Stepho  talk  03:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Although I did remove my signature from the article. I think you must have copied my signature when you copied the talk page example.  Stepho  talk  03:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Indeed I did, sorry for the mistake, cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I see this has already paid for itself for the Q4 update :)  Stepho  talk  03:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Weight?

The battery weighs in at 540 kg, so the rest of the car comes in at about one and a half metric tons at least. How come? There is no gearbox, no power train, and no heavy engine! Comment by 176.2.137.40

(Please sign your comments). I suggest you find a source that explains this, and possibly compare to similar piston cars like Mercedes. The load-bearing structures are one reason for higher weight. Other electric cars are also heavier than their piston counterparts, but comparing battery-less weight must be done outside Wikipedia to abide with WP:OR. TGCP (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Weight?

The battery weighs in at 540 kg, so the rest of the car comes in at about one and a half metric tons at least. How come? There is no gearbox, no power train, and no heavy engine! Comment by 176.2.137.40

(Please sign your comments). I suggest you find a source that explains this, and possibly compare to similar piston cars like Mercedes. The load-bearing structures are one reason for higher weight. Other electric cars are also heavier than their piston counterparts, but comparing battery-less weight must be done outside Wikipedia to abide with WP:OR. TGCP (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tesla Model S. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150503064457/http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/model_s_quick_guide_roadside_assistance_safety_and_warranty_for_europe.pdf to http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/model_s_quick_guide_roadside_assistance_safety_and_warranty_for_europe.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tesla Model S. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150503064457/http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/model_s_quick_guide_roadside_assistance_safety_and_warranty_for_europe.pdf to http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/model_s_quick_guide_roadside_assistance_safety_and_warranty_for_europe.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Consumer Reports Edits

Please stop deleting the secondary sources provided to highlight some of the issues Consumer Reports cited while they removed their recommendation. Videos and photos are presented as ample evidence that these issues are happening, and mirror may owners experiences with their vehicles.

Then "many owners' experiences" must be reported by reliable secondary sources. Not a blog by a single owner, not with weasel wording, and not with WP:UNDUE weight. Scr★pIron^IV 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary source, as per WP:SECONDARY - "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Blog provides interpretation that supports Consumer Reports Primary Source and review. It should be kept in. No weasel words used - simply providing factual information for consumption.

It appears that Tesla Fanboys are removing links to a site that shows flaws in the Model S design. Link continues to be deleted through it appears to show first-hand account of the issues presented in the Consumer Reports story and on Edmunds.com.

Mothermercury77, please read carefully WP:Notability, WP:Original research, and WP:Reliable sources, these are Wikipedia policies all of us have to comply. Notability here is not your personal definition, nor reliable source, and Wikipedia is not a blog where you can write whatever you want. If several experience editors are reversing your edits is for a good reason. If you think we are wrong, then seek consensus here (read also WP:Consensus), that is the Wikipedia way. Your edits are welcome, but you ought to play by the rules. Finally, I hope you are familiar with the rule about reversing an edit more than three times (check WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mariordo - Have read all of that, and provided rationale for the edits. However, users like you who are more interested in keeping negative Tesla comments away from the discussion continue to reverse. The blog I read is a secondary source that supports the primary sources being cited, a blog I came across from this Wiki before you reversed the edits - see WP:SECONDARY. Just because you are an experienced editor doesn't allow you and your friends to decide what makes the final cut and what doesn't. These types of pages get attacked by Tesla Fanboys, stock holders, etc., when negative branding links get added. The blog the initial edit showed included videos, images, and first hand experiences with the Model S, experiences that mirror those written about in CS and Edmunds. It should be allowed to stay. Mothermercury77 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My problem with the source is that is represents a single vehicle. Apparently quite a lemon, but it is still a single example out of over 100,000 vehicles sold. That is where I think it would be undue weight. Find me a registry with 1000 cars, heck, even 100 and I'd support including it. Otherwise including this does nothing except advertise for a single case. The article already contains the section about Consumer Reports and Edmunds withdrawing their recommendation, so the addition of a blog is just an example.MartinezMD (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

When I visited the blog, I found the examples (mostly the videos) useful to put into context what CS and Edmunds were saying. It showed things more than just numbers or a chart. There are articles out there that discuss owners not wanting to speak about their own issues because of their loyalty to the company. This makes it hard for a registry to actually include, but the blog that was originally linked here really allowed me to see what the CS team was discussing. Mothermercury77 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Consumer Reports Edits

Please stop deleting the secondary sources provided to highlight some of the issues Consumer Reports cited while they removed their recommendation. Videos and photos are presented as ample evidence that these issues are happening, and mirror may owners experiences with their vehicles.

Then "many owners' experiences" must be reported by reliable secondary sources. Not a blog by a single owner, not with weasel wording, and not with WP:UNDUE weight. Scr★pIron^IV 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Secondary source, as per WP:SECONDARY - "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Blog provides interpretation that supports Consumer Reports Primary Source and review. It should be kept in. No weasel words used - simply providing factual information for consumption.

It appears that Tesla Fanboys are removing links to a site that shows flaws in the Model S design. Link continues to be deleted through it appears to show first-hand account of the issues presented in the Consumer Reports story and on Edmunds.com.

Mothermercury77, please read carefully WP:Notability, WP:Original research, and WP:Reliable sources, these are Wikipedia policies all of us have to comply. Notability here is not your personal definition, nor reliable source, and Wikipedia is not a blog where you can write whatever you want. If several experience editors are reversing your edits is for a good reason. If you think we are wrong, then seek consensus here (read also WP:Consensus), that is the Wikipedia way. Your edits are welcome, but you ought to play by the rules. Finally, I hope you are familiar with the rule about reversing an edit more than three times (check WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mariordo - Have read all of that, and provided rationale for the edits. However, users like you who are more interested in keeping negative Tesla comments away from the discussion continue to reverse. The blog I read is a secondary source that supports the primary sources being cited, a blog I came across from this Wiki before you reversed the edits - see WP:SECONDARY. Just because you are an experienced editor doesn't allow you and your friends to decide what makes the final cut and what doesn't. These types of pages get attacked by Tesla Fanboys, stock holders, etc., when negative branding links get added. The blog the initial edit showed included videos, images, and first hand experiences with the Model S, experiences that mirror those written about in CS and Edmunds. It should be allowed to stay. Mothermercury77 (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My problem with the source is that is represents a single vehicle. Apparently quite a lemon, but it is still a single example out of over 100,000 vehicles sold. That is where I think it would be undue weight. Find me a registry with 1000 cars, heck, even 100 and I'd support including it. Otherwise including this does nothing except advertise for a single case. The article already contains the section about Consumer Reports and Edmunds withdrawing their recommendation, so the addition of a blog is just an example.MartinezMD (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

When I visited the blog, I found the examples (mostly the videos) useful to put into context what CS and Edmunds were saying. It showed things more than just numbers or a chart. There are articles out there that discuss owners not wanting to speak about their own issues because of their loyalty to the company. This makes it hard for a registry to actually include, but the blog that was originally linked here really allowed me to see what the CS team was discussing. Mothermercury77 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Battery weight

Says weight of the extended pack is 1200lbs. What is the weight of the standard pack?--MartinezMD (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

--Some articles on the web state that the curb weight is 4900 pounds. This is probably with the 85KWH hour battery pack. So about 1,000 pounds more to go from a 40KWH pack to 85KWH pack, so the total battery weight is ~2,000 pounds for the 85KWH pack. This is PURE speculation. Some people need to weigh this vehicle and state what battery pack they have. - Danwat1234 March 13th 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The battery weight source is a circular reference. If you go to that website it says the data comes from here. --33 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. The earliest archive says 1200lb, but the earlier wiki also says 1200lb. We need a true source. Defining what is included in the battery pack may be a different discussion. TGCP (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Battery weight

Says weight of the extended pack is 1200lbs. What is the weight of the standard pack?--MartinezMD (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

--Some articles on the web state that the curb weight is 4900 pounds. This is probably with the 85KWH hour battery pack. So about 1,000 pounds more to go from a 40KWH pack to 85KWH pack, so the total battery weight is ~2,000 pounds for the 85KWH pack. This is PURE speculation. Some people need to weigh this vehicle and state what battery pack they have. - Danwat1234 March 13th 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.47.120 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The battery weight source is a circular reference. If you go to that website it says the data comes from here. --33 (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Well spotted. The earliest archive says 1200lb, but the earlier wiki also says 1200lb. We need a true source. Defining what is included in the battery pack may be a different discussion. TGCP (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Max Power

The figures shown in the specifications table for max power in the dual-motor vehicles contradict Tesla's own website. 124.171.82.85 (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific. Or at least give an example. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  23:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at Tesla's website. The maximum system power is not simply the sum of the front and rear motors. The article claims the P90D ludicrous mode delivers 568kW. That is the sum of the two motors, but the vehicle's combined power delivery is limited to 397kW. 124.171.82.85 (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tesla gives a P90D max power figure of 397 kW with the caveat "Battery limited maximum motor shaft power". We give the sum of the two motors as 568 kW with the caveat "Total motor power specification, battery power limited to less". Or the put it another way, Tesla gives you the figure that the car actually has today while we give the figure that the motors could do if other parts (eg the battery, cabling and the power controllers) are upgraded in the future. Both ways are correct with their stated caveats. I prefer Tesla's this-is-what-it-does-now approach but we'd need consensus among editors to change the article. Anybody else want to comment?  Stepho  talk  01:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit like adding up the thrust of all stages of a multi-stage rocket and quoting the sum total as the maximum thrust. 124.171.82.85 (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See Tesla_Model_S#Power_discrepancy - Tesla no longer states a combined 568kW. At this time, it is WP:OR to state 568kW as a single number in the article - it not up to us to add two numbers as we cannot judge the validity of that addition. As Tesla states: "With the P85D the combined motor shaft power can often exceed the battery electrical horsepower available". It is however standard WP practice to quote what the number used to be, but that context should be included when quoting that number. In short, actual horsepower depends on circumstances, and the 568kW belongs in a section such as Power_discrepancy, not in a main table. TGCP (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Max Power

The figures shown in the specifications table for max power in the dual-motor vehicles contradict Tesla's own website. 124.171.82.85 (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific. Or at least give an example. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  23:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at Tesla's website. The maximum system power is not simply the sum of the front and rear motors. The article claims the P90D ludicrous mode delivers 568kW. That is the sum of the two motors, but the vehicle's combined power delivery is limited to 397kW. 124.171.82.85 (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Tesla gives a P90D max power figure of 397 kW with the caveat "Battery limited maximum motor shaft power". We give the sum of the two motors as 568 kW with the caveat "Total motor power specification, battery power limited to less". Or the put it another way, Tesla gives you the figure that the car actually has today while we give the figure that the motors could do if other parts (eg the battery, cabling and the power controllers) are upgraded in the future. Both ways are correct with their stated caveats. I prefer Tesla's this-is-what-it-does-now approach but we'd need consensus among editors to change the article. Anybody else want to comment?  Stepho  talk  01:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit like adding up the thrust of all stages of a multi-stage rocket and quoting the sum total as the maximum thrust. 124.171.82.85 (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

See Tesla_Model_S#Power_discrepancy - Tesla no longer states a combined 568kW. At this time, it is WP:OR to state 568kW as a single number in the article - it not up to us to add two numbers as we cannot judge the validity of that addition. As Tesla states: "With the P85D the combined motor shaft power can often exceed the battery electrical horsepower available". It is however standard WP practice to quote what the number used to be, but that context should be included when quoting that number. In short, actual horsepower depends on circumstances, and the 568kW belongs in a section such as Power_discrepancy, not in a main table. TGCP (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Safety

The safety section has a lot of negative examples. Here is a positive example where 5 joyriding teenagers flipped a Model S and survived without major injuries due to a good safety cell:

• http://www.merkur.de/lokales/wolfratshausen/icking-ort28838/unfall-icking-18-jaehrige-verliert-kontrolle-ueber-sportwagen-6373049.html (long German article)
• http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/teslas-inherent-safety-saves-five-joyriding-teenagers-in-germany/ (short English summary of German article)  Stepho  talk  02:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Safety

The safety section has a lot of negative examples. Here is a positive example where 5 joyriding teenagers flipped a Model S and survived without major injuries due to a good safety cell:

• http://www.merkur.de/lokales/wolfratshausen/icking-ort28838/unfall-icking-18-jaehrige-verliert-kontrolle-ueber-sportwagen-6373049.html (long German article)
• http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/teslas-inherent-safety-saves-five-joyriding-teenagers-in-germany/ (short English summary of German article)  Stepho  talk  02:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Deaths per million miles in autopilot

• Tesla also stated that this was Tesla’s first known autopilot death in some 130 million miles (208 million km) driven by its customers. According to Tesla there is a fatality every 94 million miles (150 million km) among all type of vehicles in the U.S.

This stat could be disingenuous since it probably includes miles driven in non-autopilot mode. -- GreenC 21:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point. I think it is important to dig/search a bit more to clarify this issue, beginning with finding the original Tesla statement. --Mariordo (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Tesla's press release clearly states those are Autopilot miles, check here: https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/tragic-loss The Guardian omitted that key detail. I will fix it soon adding this source. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And by the way, in searching for the sources I used to expand the fatal accident, there is plenty about criticism and the limitations of Autopilot. These sources can be used to expand the section about "Autonomy limitations" near the end of the article. Help is required to achieved NPOV here.--Mariordo (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)