StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
But you keep having no evidence to support this claim- and a lot of evidence that contradicts it, and literally your only response is to repeat Elons pre-production tweet that doesn't address the PN issue numerous people have tried explaining to you.
Which do you think Tesla would prefer:
A system where their own manufacturing, supply chain, and repair chain, work accurately and efficently and don't make easy to avoid mistakes?
A system where none of that is true, MFG has added complexity since they can't rely on PNs for BOMs, supply chain and repair chain has added complexity for the same reason and ALSO because they can't trust the stamped PN on the shelf.... but it's ok because otherwise people who look in a parts catalog that didn't even exist when they made this decision might get annoyed if they knew what to look for?
That first one-the one from a sane world- if there was any actual difference they'd use different PNs. Which they don't.
You appear to go with door #2 though.
This is my last post on this point unless you have something more convincing than your "same part number" argument.
It might help you understand why Tesla wants to bin the performance of the Silicon Carbide once they are coupled to the drive motor if you do a little research on gate resistance and how it can vary from device to device. This gate resistance causes heat which can cause the devices to fail if over-driven. And it's most likely to happen at high motor speeds at high power levels, something the Performance Model 3 is more likely to experience because it's much more likely to be seen at a racetrack where this could be an issue. Tesla needs these parts to be absolutely reliable which entails not over driving them. And they are not all the same. Binning makes excellent business sense.
Please don't repeat your "same part number" argument again. IMO, it's no argument at all.