Here we go with the same old tired responses that we already have 199 pages of. What published spec did @Walta's battery not meet when Tesla replaced it for rapid degradation. Not willingly mind you.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
My request that the Arizona Attorney General's office investigate Tesla's changes to Ludicrous Mode
- Thread starter azdryheat
- Start date
Walta
Member
I give up. You are not processing the information I and others are providing.
You have made it to my "ignore worthy" list.
jeffro01
Active Member
What does that have to do with anything? Answer, it doesn't. Furthermore, Tesla honored it's warranty so again WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
Good god, countergate as an issue is absolutely an issue and Tesla made some egregious missteps with it for sure. That being said, some of the vultures that have circled around this are amazing...
This is VERY simple. Does the car meet the advertised specifications at the time it was ordered, specifically the 0-60 time(s)? If yes, case close and conversation over. If no, then what is it Tesla did that prevents the car from hitting the advertised specs. I feel like I'm stuck repeating myself here... I keep asking this question and keep getting "well what about X, or Y, or Z...???" I don't give a lick about X, Y, or Z, just answer the question as asked...
Jeff
jeffro01
Active Member
Naturally when people don't have an argument they just bury their head and hope it'll go away... Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong...
So if you really have put me on ignore then you're not reading this which really entices me to say something that'll get me in serious trouble but I won't...
Jeff
Not without a lemon law claim. They stonewalled Walta for over a year. That's the problem and the basis of this thread.
The point is a claim doesn't have to be based on some meaningless number Tesla puts on their website. If your car no longer performs as it did when you purchased it, you have a claim. They can't send out cars to the media, let you test drive a car before purchase, and then let you test drive your car at delivery that all have 565 hp, and then after you take delivery reduce it to 532 hp.
jeffro01
Active Member
Perhaps Walta's claim in the first place was BS? Likely not though otherwise Tesla wouldn't have caved so easily once the lawyers got involved...
Okay so about your second paragraph... You're simply wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong. I came up with a few analogies but neither were very good for one reason or another. The way I see this is pretty straight forward, some bought a car that was advertised to go 0-60 in X time, but the car was actually a little faster which was causing unexpected degradation in the battery/drive train so Tesla took steps to limit that "little faster" section but the car still meets the specifications that were advertised when you bought it. I don't see the harm here, I just don't.
Now, a little bit of context to my above paragraph because I have only been emphasizing one aspect of my POV. As I said in the countergate thread before, this entire situation has demonstrated to me that it's not worth my money to ever buy a P version from Tesla. They have in effect, permanently lost a P version model sale from me because of it. I recognize that Tesla develops on the bleeding edge and what likely, IMHO, happened here is the envelope was pushed a little too far and now Tesla has to back track a bit to avoid excessive warranty claims. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Hence why I've taken the position with regards to my purchasing of a P version going forward. I simply cannot trust that Tesla won't again push the envelop to the point of needing to dial it back again and I'm just not going to put myself in that position of trying to figure out just how angry I should be if that happened to me.
So yes, I do get where the frustration comes from and such. My issue here is I believe some are being grossly unreasonable with their response and their demands from Tesla because of it.
Jeff
Dumb argument. You think only the 0-60 time is what matters? So it can take 20 seconds to accelerate from 60-70 and that is still OK since Tesla never advertised a 60-70 mph time?
I should press for a ludicrous refund too. It really doesn't make any difference in performance now.
I don't see it as unreasonable to have my car returned to as purchased and have Tesla bear the warranty expense for their decision to push the battery to meet their unfulfilled advertised claims.This issue probably won't affect all v3 batteries. It is generally accepted that the manufacturers of goods have access to better data to make informed decisions about reliability than customers, and that they can spread their costs over all their customers rather than have the affected customers bear all of the pain.
It's already been argued that Tesla should have known the batteries wouldn't hold up and just admitted they couldn't meet their advertised claims. Of course, that would have created a lot of exposure for false advertising. So here we are.
jeffro01
Active Member
LOL... When it comes to this argument, specifically countergate, 0-60 IS what matters. It's the ONLY thing that matters here. You're now going to pull completely irrelevant information to this argument as some sort of odd straw man attempt to deflect from my only question.
It's a dumb argument to you because you can't counter it, and I'm not going to chase each tangent down the rabbit hole... Go figure... It wouldn't be the first time coming from you and it won't be the last...
Jeff
jeffro01
Active Member
Interesting point indeed, thank you for the post. Finally we're both speaking the same language...
I can't really counter your post here as I tend to agree with you and hopefully you'll appreciate my perspective after my last post on this issue. I do not see Tesla as the saint here, I just don't think Tesla is Marry Magdalene either...
Jeff
Which IS exponentially. Trust me on that - I have a degree in mathematics (Carroll College, 1980).
Oh good, a dose of reality. We now know that it takes 20 seconds for the highest performance Teslas to go from 60 to 70 mph. I'M going to demand a refund on my Tesla, too.
NO car, without aftermarket mods, performs the same as it did when you purchased it for very long. That's called wear and tear, and is why EVERYTHING has a finite lifetime. [A tangent; not central to the discussion. But I wanted to make that point.]
I would suggest you refresh your knowledge. 2^x is exponential, x^2 and x^3 are simple power functions. More specifically, the derivative of an exponential function scales with the value of that function. This does not hold for a power function.
Yeah, you're right. Sorry - brain fart. the squared is an exponent, but the function is not exponential.
Thanks!
How accurate is this? Since i havent run my car at the track or done any datalogging yet, I wouldnt have a before/after. I guess I could just compare to others.
BTW am I wrong to fundamentally question if this power reduction stuff is even actually happening? What proof do we have that this is real?
This captures the data that the car reports back to Tesla, so It's fairly accurate.
If you have a refreshed p90dl with a v3 battery your power is being limited outside of launch mode. The v3 battery's part number begins with 1088. If you log your power with power tools with max battery ready and state of charge greater than 90 percent, you'll find that it's limited to about 485KW instead of the 510Kw it used to be.
With a can bus logger, you can see that the reason for this is that they have reduced max battery current from 1600 amps to 1500 amps.
Awesome, thank you for the actionable information vs the forum banter. Super helpful, appreciate it. Will check it out.
EDIT - quick look at the sticker underneath the car, it says part # is 1071941-00-C - what does this mean in terms of the battery I have (is it a good one?), if they are pulling power, etc?
Similar threads
