StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Well, just be glad they don't nerf the performance with an OTA update after they are a couple of years old like Apple did with iPhone processors in a sad attempt to get you to upgrade to a snappier, newer model.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
FUD threads in TMC?
- Thread starter Dan Detweiler
- Start date
Well, just be glad they don't nerf the performance with an OTA update after they are a couple of years old like Apple did with iPhone processors in a sad attempt to get you to upgrade to a snappier, newer model.
Yes the 35K Model 3 will go the same way as the Model S 40. Hey no one wants it anyhow so we quit making it.
As for China production that product will be for China consumption, at least that is my prediction.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
See, that's what I'm talking about. A "fake" lawsuit if I've ever seen one. Because the P85D could out-accelerate any ICE car with similar HP and weight ratings. So, even if the pure HP rating was technically fudged due to being limited by software for longevity reasons, it could perform as if it were an ICE car with the same weight and HP rating. Manufacturers have been fudging HP numbers by using the highest possible rating from a sweet engine running absolutely perfectly for decades, ever since the first Model T came off the production line. Manufacturing tolerances, barometric pressure differences, etc. will ensure that most buyers will never see those numbers.
To say the real world performance of a P85D would leave any real person wanting is to say there are people who love to attack Tesla to try to bring them down, create negative press coverage or get something for nothing.
Last edited:
I got my battery replaced for $29 and my iPhone is good as new.
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
So did I, but it’s nowhere good as new. I still have to charge it twice a day and it’s much slower than it was new.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Apple didn't offer $29 battery replacements until outraged customers found that Apple had covertly slowed down the processors in their old phones without telling the owners. It was a measure to try to equate the slowing down of their processors with conserving battery power instead of admitting they had nerfed performance to encourage more frequent upgrades to newer models which were less laggy than their hobbled phones.
Tesla might have overly optimistic development/production schedules but they don't nerf the performance of their vehicles to encourage a shorter replacement cycle! Tesla has always treated me honestly and with respect which is more than I can say about a lot of corporations and banks.
Did you miss the whole "fast charger counter" on p90D/90D cars that would permanently cripple your supercharging speed once reached?
I guess you don't know about countergate? Maybe I'm missing the sarcasm.
EDIT: Darn it, @verygreen beat me to it!
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
That's not to encourage you to buy another Tesla, it's to prevent premature battery degradation! And on most cars that counter would never reach the limit for the fastest Supercharger speeds, it takes a TON of Supercharging to hit it. On the other hand, iPhones are charged every day so every user was getting nerfed after 2-3 years.
Apple had a similar defense - "it's to avoid untold bad things".
The reality is 90 packs (I am not using kWh here because they never were) were made of experimental chemistry that did not pan out so they degrade super fast and almost linearly no matter what: Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)
Tesla plays all sorts of underhanded tricks to hide how much 90 packs degraded (and it helps they don't warranty against battery degradation on S/X, only against failure)
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
More FUD. It's true the new battery chemistries are far better than they had then. However, even Tesla's earliest packs were far better than that offered by other EV makers at the time. Tesla has always been way ahead of the pack when it came to battery longevity and things just keep improving. The first few model years of the Nissan Leaf had batteries that would die after surprisingly short lives, particularly if you lived in a warm climate.
I don't see limiting Supercharging speeds to extend battery life as underhanded, I see it as beneficial. The difference between Tesla's actions and Apple's actions with iPhone processor speed is that it happened to all iPhones and it was done covertly and obviously to stimulate new sales. Apple would have had extended the batteries life more effectively by limiting the charge speed but that would not have been very effective at stimulating new sales. Tesla's actions were not covert as they reported the limited SC speeds to the owner. It would have been under-handed if they reported normal SC speeds (but it just took longer).
So, trying to voice your opinion and protect your investment is a personality disorder? If someone wrongs you or is acting out of line and you are heavily invested in them, you have a duty and a right to call them out. It’s called alpha behavior, not beta. Beta behavior is being submissive and making excuses for other people when they walk all over you.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Sigh...no. Read what I actually wrote:
"It's not the subject matter that makes it FUD, it's the intent of the person spreading it."
"Protect your investment"? Dissuading others from buying a Tesla does the opposite of protecting your investment. Tesla can provide the best warranty service and its products will retain the best value when the company is strong and growing at a healthy clip.
Nice goalpost switching.
The reality: Old Tesla chemistries are noticeably better than current chemistries wrt degradation.
It does nto matter what other EV makers do, we are not discussing them, ok? We are discussing what Tesla is doing and others committing bad things does not allow Tesla to do bad things. After all Tesla is different, is not it?
Nice. Please publish your VIN number so we can limit your Supercharger speed to 20kW max, it is very beneficial.
Where as obviously Tesla actions were well documented in the user manual happened only to the previous generation of the cars at the time and were not aimed to generate new sales due to Tesla's excellent and widely known easy and cheap battery-replacement program, right? /s
You don't know the issue at hand was the degraded battery would just flake out under load (visible result - iphone suddenly rebooting seemingly out of nowhere), so their chosen solution was to just limit the load (by not allowing the phone to go s fast). Charging speed would play no role there.
Oh yeah? They only confirmed it to particular owners that did notice it, and only after trying to conceal it from them with other confusing messages trying to claim it is all normal. The SC display in car reported it as normal SC speeds without any indication the rate is degraded for whatever reason by the BMS and not because somethign is wrong with the supercharger or whatever. And on top of that, the non-SC sessions (but DCHS) also count into the counter even if they never reach into the supercharger rate territory. Very nice and transparent right there.
The most effective way to positively spin things in a bad situation is to try to put an element of truth into it all. Suddenly the bad thing starts to look like a good one or at least not as a bad one, you just need to concentrate on potential positive side no matter how small or unlikely. That's really basics of any PR management. Someone who focusses on the positive with the majority of their posts either has a personality disorder or a hidden agenda.
Deep pocketed Tesla investors and Tesla themselves being the 50B+ corporation themselves can spend untold millions of dollars with slick ad campaigns designed to make you think they are environmental and technologically advanced and also be fully transparent, but it's much cheaper and more effective to run a fake grassroot advertising campaign designed to make you think the opposite side are all liars and fudsters and are paid shills instead.
Did you find it strange that a lot of the very vocal supporters are seemingly never aware of all the bad things Tesla did in the past and once demonstrated - quickly find some nonsensical excuses, blame the messenger and otherwise try to dismiss the problems outright?
Turnabout is a fair play, right?
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
You obviously were not comparing other EV makers battery life to Tesla but I was. It helps to add some much-needed perspective rather than try to judge the performance of Teslas batteries in isolation. And please support your off-the-wall claim that Model 3 batteries degrade more quickly than earlier batteries. Because it's false and it's FUD.
That comment shows a lack of understanding of how the chemistry of battery degradation happens. As batteries are charged repeatedly they develop a barrier between the cathode and anode that restricts the free exchange of electrons. This causes more heat build-up if charge rates are kept high. The obvious solution is to reduce charge rates on batteries in this condition to reduce the cascading effect that will eventually result in failure.
Huh? You're not making any sense.
Actually no. That was Apples big fat lie of an excuse when they got caught red-handed due to some skillful reverse engineering that they didn't expect. In fact, the battery has to be severely degraded for that to happen and yet they were doing it far before the issue surfaced. Their big fat lie of an excuse is obvious to anyone who understands degradation of Li-ion cellphone batteries. Because the load a cell phone puts on a typical battery is very low, only discharging it in the worst case scenario of around four hours. One hour drawdown is not even considered excessive draw. So, limiting the rate of discharge will not prevent damage to the battery if the rate of discharge is already acceptable. If Apple was really trying to prevent shut-downs from the processor drawing too much current, they could have waited for it to happen one time, then set a flag to reduce the power draw from that time forward using an intelligent combination of actions, reducing display brightness is a big one, in combination with throttling the processor. This would have prevented further shutdowns due to high draw. The fact that they covertly throttled the speed of the phone before the issue even prevented itself shows they were trying to encourage a shorter replacement cycle by making their older models less desirable (feeling a little slow and clunky before their time).
Whatever, I'm sure the corporation could have handled it better, my point was simply that there is nothing nefarious going on there.
Or they recognize they own an amazing vehicle, one that can do a lot of amazing things that no other vehicle can match. I am blown away by the design, efficiency and operation of both of our Model 3's. The P3D is stupendous!
Pretty funny! You would have to have a real disconnect from reality to think enthusiastic owners are the result of an advertising campaign. The product is so good owners want to share their experiences.
Sure, it's fair play if you believe in what you're saying. But I have difficulty believing that you really think Tesla stands out as a corporation with nefarious goals.
Yeah, their experiences. Both good and bad. Yet everythign good is ok, but everythign bad is FUD, right?
And please support your unsubstantiated claim that Model3 batteries do not degrade faster that batteries from 85-packs. Ideally show some data from Tesla themselves since you seem to trust them so much more than anyone else.
So you totally don't mind getting your supercharging rate limited to 20kW, right?
If Tesla was really trying to prevent excessive degradation they would measure any actual battery state instead of going with a generic counter of fast charging cycles before triggering the charge speed limit, right? And they would also offer people an option to replace these (obviously degraded) batteries when they ask for it too, right?
I never claimed that though, so nice strawman.
What I do not subscribe to is the belief that Tesla could do no wrong and whatever they do there's always a good honest explanation for it and it's always for the better of the company/mankind and such. In reality they are just another faceless modern corporation taht does nto care about anything else other than profits.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Yeah, their experiences. Both good and bad. Yet everythign good is ok, but everythign bad is FUD, right?
I know the Model 3 well enough (owning and driving two of them in all kinds of conditions) to know that anyone who posts 90%-100% negativity has an agenda (beyond just sharing their honest opinion).
You are the one who made the ridiculous claim that the Model 3 batteries degrade more quickly than Tesla's first batteries. I asked you to support that and the best you can do is to tell me to show otherwise?
Typically, the person who makes the claim should support it with some evidence. Otherwise it's just FUD.
First off, in normal temperatures the SC'ing was not limited to 20kW, that's a wild exaggeration and more FUD. Secondly, I'll never SC often enough to have to worry about having my rate throttled - that was only for those who SC'ed excessively. Most people do at least 90% of their charging at home. But, yes, if I SC'ed that much, go ahead and throttle my speeds.
Sigh...(I'm doing a lot of "sighing" with you).
Yes, if there was a better indicator of when a battery could benefit from limiting the fastest charge speeds that would be the way to go. But I don't know of any better method of determing that. Do you? As far as replacing the batteries, yes, that would be good but not under warranty, battery degradation is not covered. If the battery failed, Tesla would routinely replace it free of charge, even when the owner's charge/use habits were far from ideal.I don't believe that Tesla can do no wrong either. What I find troubling is the people who try to paint them as a big, greedy incompetent company with crappy products. Nothing could be further from the truth.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
I lost all faith in the author when he wrote this:
Because he shouldn't talk about things he doesn't know about. The announcememnt of the $35K Model 3 came one day before the convertible notes were due but the payment of those notes using TSLA shares required the share price to average $360 for the 20 trading days previous to the due date. There is no way a one day price spike could allow the conversion of TSLA shares for repayment purposes because it would have to spike to something well over $1000/share. Announcement of a 35K model is not going to do that.
Similar threads
- Article