My request that the Arizona Attorney General's office investigate Tesla's changes to Ludicrous Mode

[Pruitt]

But I don't understand your issue. When Tesla talks about the various performance upgrades, they talk about how much they've increased the amperage. I gave you the various amperages and calculated the percentages for you. You need something more than they removed one-third of the upgraded performance I purchased? How about motor shaft horsepower?

P90DL v3: 565 hp
P90D 1500 amps: 532 hp
P90D insane: 463 hp

(532 - 463) / (565 - 463) = 0.67
So I only have 67 percent of the additional hp that ludicrous mode added when I purchased the car.

The P cars are all pretty similar up to about 40 mph, because they are traction limited. So the main difference is passing performance at highway speeds. This has always been a weakness for Tesla. So the more hp available for highway passing the better. This is what Tesla has reduced.

I'm not the one with the issue. I'm fine with my 90D as it is. I didn't feel a need to spend an extra 25-30 grand or so for a couple seconds better acceleration.

But amps and horsepower are just numbers. Yes, Tesla removed 1/3 of the additional power. What matters is how that change translates into performance impacts, right? Did you lose 1/3 of the performance enhancement with the power-limiting update as well? I suspect not, because the relationship between the power and performance is not linear (for example air drag exponentially increases as speed increases, so getting to a higher speed faster will increase drag faster, mitigating some of the performance enhancements).

So what did you lose in terms of performance improvements? 20-25%, maybe? Would you be satisfied if Tesla reimbursed you that same percentage of the cost of the ludicrous upgrade, or do you just want them to take back their car and walk away?

You've convinced me that you have an honest issue (wasn't so sure at the start of this thread). What resolution will honestly satisfy you?

 

[Pruitt]

It's pure physics. There is a definite drop in performance.

Yes, there would have to be, unless other factors are in play as well. But it isn't linear. What's the real impact (see my reply to Tippy)?

 

[Pruitt]

Considering MBR and LM:

Not real good with acronyms. What are MBR and LM (guessing Ludicrous Mode for the latter, but the other...)?

 

[Trunk Gap]

This thread is massive, can someone share, how do you know if your power has been pulled?

I drive w ludicrous mode on 100% of the time, but I never/rarely launch. How would I know? If my car is being limited remotely it's getting traded in, purely out of principle

 

[bhzmark]

how do you know if your power has been pulled?

Take it to the drag strip and compare to your runs in similar conditions before the software change.

 

[benjiejr]

Not real good with acronyms. What are MBR and LM (guessing Ludicrous Mode for the latter, but the other...)?

MBR = Max Battery Ready
LM = Launch Mode

 

[TIppy]

I'm not the one with the issue. I'm fine with my 90D as it is. I didn't feel a need to spend an extra 25-30 grand or so for a couple seconds better acceleration.

I might be wrong, but it sounds like a little air of superiority going on here. You feel you are much more rational with your money than others with "needs" might be.

But amps and horsepower are just numbers.

That is kind of specious. Any measure of performance you care to choose would just be numbers.

What matters is how that change translates into performance impacts, right?

What matters is that I retain what I purchased, whether it's beer, beads or amps. Tesla markets it as an increase in amps, so that's probably the most obvious metric.

Did you lose 1/3 of the performance enhancement with the power-limiting update as well? I suspect not, because the relationship between the power and performance is not linear (for example air drag exponentially increases as speed increases, so getting to a higher speed faster will increase drag faster, mitigating some of the performance enhancements).

So what did you lose in terms of performance improvements? 20-25%, maybe?

Drag increases with speed squared not exponentially. But if one uses the time it takes to accelerate from 70 to 90 mph, the drag forces will be small compared to the propulsive forces of the motors. It only takes 14 hp to cruise at 55 mph. The increased power leads to a linear increase in torque and thus acceleration. The improvement in time will be proportional to the increased power. Thus I loose one-third of the extra passing performance I purchased.

What resolution will honestly satisfy you?

Just restore the car as it was when I purchased it. Doesn't seem like an extreme request to me.
If they are unwilling to repair the car, they should by it back. I would likely be subject to paying for the usage of the car to that point, but that's ok. Frankly, I won't do business with a company that treats me unethically.

 

[Pruitt]

I might be wrong, but it sounds like a little air of superiority going on here. You feel you are much more rational with your money than others with "needs" might be.

Not intentionally. Sorry if it sounded that way. If I had bucks to burn, I'd have trotted right out there and picked up a P100D as soon as they were announced.

That is kind of specious. Any measure of performance you care to choose would just be numbers.

Not really. Amps delivered is not sensible to you. The only way you know how much amperage is being delivered is either through instrumentation or the effect on acceleration / speed. Reduce the weight of the car (which they didn't, of course) at the same time amps delivered are reduced, and you might have no performance degradation at all.

What matters is that I retain what I purchased, whether it's beer, beads or amps. Tesla markets it as an increase in amps, so that's probably the most obvious metric.

No real argument on that - it's a completely personal thing, at least until it goes into the legal system. Then someone else will eventually impose their viewpoint.

Drag increases with speed squared not exponentially. But if one uses the time it takes to accelerate from 70 to 90 mph, the drag forces will be small compared to the propulsive forces of the motors. It only takes 14 hp to cruise at 55 mph. The increased power leads to a linear increase in torque and thus acceleration. The improvement in time will be proportional to the increase power. Thus I loose one-third of the extra passing performance I purchased.

Uh... Squared IS exponentially. It's the second power. Do you believe that it only takes 28 hp to cruise at 110 mph? THAT would be linear.

Just restore the car as it was when I purchased it. Doesn't seem like an extreme request to me.
If they are unwilling to repair the car, the should by it back. I would likely be subject to paying for the usage of the car to that point, but that's ok. Frankly, I won't do business with a company that treats me unethically.

We could argue the ethics of this whole thing ad nauseum and probably never see it the same way. But if you're feelings about this are really that strong, I hope you get to a satisfactory (to you) resolution.

 

[TIppy]

Uh... Squared IS exponentially. It's the second power. Do you believe that it only takes 28 hp to cruise at 110 mph? THAT would be linear.

Exponential would be if the speed was the exponent, not 2. You even said it yourself. It's a power function.
At 55mph about half of the drag is rolling resistance which is more or less invariant with speed. So at 110 mph I believe is takes 7 * 8 + 7 *2 = 70 hp to cruise. Aerodynamic drag force goes up as speed squared,but the power goes up with speed cubed.

 

[Walta]

I'm not the one with the issue. I'm fine with my 90D as it is. I didn't feel a need to spend an extra 25-30 grand or so for a couple seconds better acceleration.

I have requested they remove all the performance boost components of my car and make it a 90D. And refund me the $30K + tax difference in price. Which I believe covers the increase in price from a 90D to a P90DL ?
Since they have already negatively messed with ludicrous mode - I would expect nothing less of Tesla to then negatively mess with insane mode also if they have any warranty issues in using the insane performance.
You stated "you are fine with the 90D as is" . What a nice feeling that must be. I hope to join your club of happy Tesla owners.

 

[bhzmark]

That's a non-answer. If you don't know the specifics of how your performance was impacted, just say so.

Tesla gave pretty specific performance figures for the car, I believe. What are your reduced performance numbers? Do you even have any?

That's the key issue. I still haven't seen any evidence on this.

 

[jeffro01]

I have requested they remove all the performance boost components of my car and make it a 90D. And refund me the $30K + tax difference in price. Which I believe covers the increase in price from a 90D to a P90DL ?
Since they have already negatively messed with ludicrous mode - I would expect nothing less of Tesla to then negatively mess with insane mode also if they have any warranty issues in using the insane performance.
You stated "you are fine with the 90D as is" . What a nice feeling that must be. I hope to join your club of happy Tesla owners.

LOL... You can't be serious... Please tell me this is a tongue in cheek post... There is no way Tesla is going to do that, nor should they for that matter. You've intentionally given them terms you know they aren't going to accept so you can use that to further your own agenda.

Jeff

 

[Walta]

LOL... You can't be serious... Please tell me this is a tongue in cheek post... There is no way Tesla is going to do that, nor should they for that matter. You've intentionally given them terms you know they aren't going to accept so you can use that to further your own agenda.

Jeff

I am totally serious. If they can't deliver on the car they sold me - why wouldn't I want my money back? I believe for Tesla to make my P90DL a 90D is not difficult..

One thing they could propose is to design and implement ludicrous mode performance as per the original design presented to me at time of purchase. With a battery that won't be damaged if I use ludicrous mode. That would play.

Simply getting what I paid for is the entirety of my "agenda" .

 

[jeffro01]

I am totally serious. If they can't deliver on the car they sold me - why wouldn't I want my money back? I believe for Tesla to make my P90DL a 90D is not difficult..

One thing they could propose is to design and implement ludicrous mode performance as per the original design presented to me at time of purchase. With a battery that won't be damaged if I use ludicrous mode. That would play.

Simply getting what I paid for is the entirety of my "agenda" .

Wow... You're simply not going to get that, it's just not going to happen.

How is it they aren't delivering on the car they sold you? Is it not meeting the advertised performance characteristics? Yeah I'm aware of the "fix" for countergate but one thing seems to still be missing from all of you who are grossly overreacting, does the car today/right now, hit the 0-60 times specified when you purchased the car? If the answer is no, that's a problem. if the answer is yes, then you have no grounds at all. If the answer is it used to but doesn't now, then that's also a problem.

So the question seems tor remain, what performance are you now not getting that your car should be getting per the advertised specifications when you ordered?

Jeff

 

[SDRick]

If it is simply a software fix to neuter a P90DL to a 90D, Tesla should consider it for those who are not getting what they paid for. I was under the impression though that the dual motors are different between the D and the PD?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

There is not much to argue if the vehicle is still meeting Tesla's advertised specs. The fact that it may have hit 1600A prior to the update and 1500A after the update is rather irrelevant as long as the vehicle still meets the advertised specifications. Tesla advertises 0-60 times, not battery amperage or kW.

 

[Walta]

Wow... You're simply not going to get that, it's just not going to happen.

How is it they aren't delivering on the car they sold you? Is it not meeting the advertised performance characteristics? Yeah I'm aware of the "fix" for countergate but one thing seems to still be missing from all of you who are grossly overreacting, does the car today/right now, hit the 0-60 times specified when you purchased the car? If the answer is no, that's a problem. if the answer is yes, then you have no grounds at all. If the answer is it used to but doesn't now, then that's also a problem.

So the question seems tor remain, what performance are you now not getting that your car should be getting per the advertised specifications when you ordered?

Jeff

Compare the 2015 Tesla Model S owners manual with the 2017 Tesla Model S Owners manual. Specifically the sections related to ludicrous mode. I posted that exact wording earlier in this thread. The changes are drastic. Going from acceptance of daily use of ludicrous mode - to major changes to reduce the use of max performance to only when in launch mode on a closed course, along with not using it daily. Also the performance was cut in quarter mile time from 10.8 to 11.0.

Please review the entirety of the thread for answers to your questions, to eliminate rehashing things we have already covered.

 

[Walta]

There is not much to argue if the vehicle is still meeting Tesla's advertised specs. The fact that it may have hit 1600A prior to the update and 1500A after the update is rather irrelevant as long as the vehicle still meets the advertised specifications. Tesla advertises 0-60 times, not battery amperage or kW.

Even if the car I have could meet the specs? Would it be OK to you if Tesla changed how ludicrous mode was implemented post purchase? To make it less likely to be used? What point would you say enough already? If Tesla changed ludicrous mode to only operate after max battery was ready - then changed max battery ready to take 72 hours? Would you want your money back then?

 

[TIppy]

There is not much to argue if the vehicle is still meeting Tesla's advertised specs. The fact that it may have hit 1600A prior to the update and 1500A after the update is rather irrelevant as long as the vehicle still meets the advertised specifications. Tesla advertises 0-60 times, not battery amperage or kW.

They did advertise amperages and how they affected 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile times. Not to mention that most of the numbers that Tesla puts up on their website have little to do with absolute specs. All we can do is observe what we get and see if they change.

 

[jeffro01]

There is not much to argue if the vehicle is still meeting Tesla's advertised specs. The fact that it may have hit 1600A prior to the update and 1500A after the update is rather irrelevant as long as the vehicle still meets the advertised specifications. Tesla advertises 0-60 times, not battery amperage or kW.

^^^THIS...

It would appear, judging follow up posts from @Walta, the car IS meeting the advertised specs. Which makes this all the more ridiculous that some are still pushing this without any ground to stand on...

Jeff