Which policy or marketing decision that does not depend on the tchnology do you disagree with?
I'm talking about the engineering decision to limit the highest discharge rate at a certain level , and then also to limit that rate to only be available in launch mode.
That is not a "marketing" decision. "Policy" is such a vague word as to be useless in this context, so I can only ask what specific decision you disagree with if not the technical decision to limit discharge rates as I described above.
Bhzmark, I can tell from your comments you are being genuine. Let me try to explain what has happened here since I think your background is not in the auto industry (legal?)
Let's say GM decides to make a special, 700hp camaro. During development the engineers will have no trouble building a test mule that makes 700hp from the existing supercharged vehicle. The team will know from previous testing the static torque limit of the transmission, differential, drive and axle shafts, etc. They will also have some estimates of the durability of these components at different load levels. They will then perform extensive testing to understand if these parts need to be upgraded to withstand the new power levels. When they get a failure mode that is within the estimated warranty period, they will either improve the failed component, or decrease the load (reduce the power level, etc.) so that the failure rate is within the established (company policy) limit. For low volume, this often means accepting higher planned warranty repair cost...it is a balance of concerns and costs and each market segment requires a different balance.
ALL these decisions happen BEFORE the vehicle is sold to the customer. If, after 6 months, GM finds out the new model destroys it's transmission in 5000 miles, they get to pay for warranty repair for a lot of Camaros. The cost of that type of mistake could easily wipe out 100% of the profit from such a project. That level of fail is very rare because the ramifications are so serious for the company.
THAT'S WHY THEY DO THE TESTING BEFORE THEY SELL THE VEHICLE.
What they DON'T get to do, is ask everyone to bring their car back to the dealer so it can be detuned to only make 650hp in the interest of GM's warranty cost.
Here's what happened in Tesla's case (and maybe someone can help me with the numbers). Tesla developed a P90D vehicle that made X kW and achieved a 2.X sec 0-60 launch. One can only assume they tested and accepted the cost estimated for that level of power.
Next, someone...who's name likely rhymes with 'Leon Husk'...decided it would be a great idea to increase the power level of the hardware to X kW and achieve a 2.X sec 0-60. Testing showed some hardware changes were required (fuse pack?). They announce the Ludicrous mode and start selling vehicles (and retrofits), Unfortunately, it seems the increased loads of the launch are creating more failures in the market than planned. (My suspicion is that the engineers involved had a pretty accurate idea of what would be failing and said as much.) So obviously, Tesla failed to properly test this product (the aptly named, ludicrous upgrade) and now wish they could change the product to save themselves some warranty cost and bad reputation that usually follows companies that release products that break.
Their first idea, you will recall, was to simply reduce the power available to below what was initially claimed. That was turning into a PR disaster, so soon Mr. Tweets indicated they had learned that lesson and would revert to the original power level. Let's pause for a minute and dwell on what happened there. In the face of bad press, Tesla changed course. Your assertion that this AG complaint or small claims case is a waste of time seems to ignore this clear evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately, when they finally did update the power to originally advertised levels, they added some other BS to make the power beyond access unless the customer jumps through hoops to engage a launch mode. A different means to their end, and possibly a legal defense. But in this court of public opinion, it will continue to irritate anyone who was ripped off by such bait and switch tactics.
