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

[SDRick]

bhzmark

I noticed that you did not comment on what u00mem9 said in post 436. Are you letting that post go unanswered or are you in agreement?

To me, this is the the crux of the matter and the rest being mostly superfluous.

 

[bhzmark]

Can you also ask the OP to substantiate his damages?

Can you also ask the OP to explain what his damages are when he is driving around at < 90% SOC anyway and his acceleration is naturally limited by it's lower SOC power reduction?

The crux of the matter is -- what are the real damages? how is real life performance (not phone app numbers) really affected?

bhzmark

I noticed that you did not comment on what u00mem9 said in post 436. Are you letting that post go unanswered or are you in agreement?

To me, this is the the crux of the matter and the rest being mostly superfluous.

 

[SDRick]

Can you also ask the OP to substantiate his damages?

Can you also ask the OP to explain what his damages are when he is driving around at < 90% SOC anyway and his acceleration is naturally limited by it's lower SOC power reduction?

The crux of the matter is -- what are the real damages? how is real life performance (not phone app numbers) really affected?

Nice deflection.

I believe post 436 sums up the situation clearly so I was surprised that you did not address it directly.

(You can ask the OP any questions you want).

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The crux of the matter is -- what are the real damages? how is real life performance (not phone app numbers) really affected?

It is obvious to me that real-life overtaking performance, in 90 kWh Ludicrous V3 cars, has been lessened by the changes on high states of charge. Both common sense and existing reports convince me of it. The idea that these after-the-sale changes did not affect real-life performance is ludicrous. The numbers and reports show it.

On the other end, 90 kWh batteries V1 and V2, have upon shipping - and now continue to - fail to reach manufacturer announced real-life driving specifications at all. That's the other obvious thing.

So all of the above is IMO massively obvious even if we don't go into any detailed discussions about how to define 90 kWh V3 performance and its relationship to manufacturer specs.

The obvious issues:

1) V3 real-life performance was lessened clandestinely by manufacturer after it was sold
2) V1 and V2 never met manufacturer announced specs as sold

There may be more to this, the mentioned V3 after update performance-levels and specs can be debated over the charging range etc., but also the performance lessening update may have had an effect on V2 and perhapvs V1 as well.

However, even if we forget ALL about those additional debates or assume the best for Tesla in those casess, the above points 1) and 2) are so obvious that IMO even most ardent Tesla fans agree.

And that means all versions of 90 kWh battery have been the subject of questionanble manufacturer ethics and action. Incidentally, that same battery is also the one where most DC charge peak rate throttling by Tesla has been reported...

It also seems likely to me you will not admit to otherwise, no matter how many people chime in, no matter how much data is gathered to illustrate the point. I would be glad to be wrong on that part.

 

[u00mem9]

Actually, I'm thinking of submitting my resume down at Bhzco.

I kinda like the idea that I can walk in 3 months after the product I designed enters the market and starts to fail, and announce "I think we need to make some changes!"

...And the boss will mutter to himself "hot damn! These engineers are good!"

 

[jeffro01]

And that means all versions of 90 kWh battery have been the subject of questionanble manufacturer ethics and action. Incidentally, that same battery is also the one where most DC charge peak rate throttling by Tesla has been reported...

It also seems likely to me you will not admit to otherwise, no matter how many people chime in, no matter how much data is gathered to illustrate the point. I would be glad to be wrong on that part.

While not directly relatable to this discussion, I have been disappointed with the total range and overall range loss with my 90D (v1) since the moment I picked it up... I haven't said anything or complained to Tesla about it because I know all I'm going to get back is the canned "it's performing within specifications" answer... So yes, on that specific item I cannot and will not disagree with you with regards to the broader point...

As I've also said in the original performance counter thread, Tesla's actions here have all but completely talked me out of ever buying a P version of any Tesla going forward... I cannot trust them post sale. I'm sure that sounds pretty messed up when compared to my overall feelings about Tesla and it's cars but I think you feel both emotions...

Jeff

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Fair post @jeffro01, appreciate it. Incidentially, the 90 kWh degradation was an additional point I had on a draft, but removed to keep the point a bit simpler...

And I totally get the dualism of opinion and emotion. It is not black and white... Even though I myself sound probably very critical of Tesla (and in certain ways I am), there are moments and angles that I like very much too.

 

[Walta]

Fair post @jeffro01, appreciate it. Incidentially, the 90 kWh degradation was an additional point I had on a draft, but removed to keep the point a bit simpler...

And I totally get the dualism of opinion and emotion. It is not black and white... Even though I myself sound probably very critical of Tesla (and in certain ways I am), there are moments and angles that I like very much too.

Speaking of battery degradation - the warranty stated that "gradual loss over time" is not covered ( not sure if that warranty wording has changed since I last checked over a year ago). If you can show your battery degradation was not gradual - you can get Tesla to listen. And even rectify the situation. Tesla needs to know that owners will not remain passive when Tesla does not deliver the product paid for. Especially at these price points.

 

[jeffro01]

Speaking of battery degradation - the warranty stated that "gradual loss over time" is not covered ( not sure if that warranty wording has changed since I last checked over a year ago). If you can show your battery degradation was not gradual - you can get Tesla to listen. And even rectify the situation. Tesla needs to know that owners will not remain passive when Tesla does not deliver the product paid for. Especially at these price points.

I hear you but I just don't think it's worth my time and effort to push... I've been asked by various members to do so when I bring it up but I very closely follow how Tesla reacts to claims such as these. To date, I haven't seen an instance where significant effort wasn't required to get their attention and I just don't have the time.

The result? While I won't go as far as to say we're never purchasing a Tesla again, I will say that any future purchases are in a quite precarious state... My issues with Tesla go beyond just my battery situation so it's more complicated than that.

Jeff

 

[brianman]

As I've also said in the original performance counter thread, Tesla's actions here have all but completely talked me out of ever buying a P version of any Tesla going forward... I cannot trust them post sale. I'm sure that sounds pretty messed up when compared to my overall feelings about Tesla and it's cars but I think you feel both emotions...

Kudos for being so forthcoming. It's upsetting that Tesla has put fans and customers in this position.

 

[Walta]

I hear you but I just don't think it's worth my time and effort to push... I've been asked by various members to do so when I bring it up but I very closely follow how Tesla reacts to claims such as these. To date, I haven't seen an instance where significant effort wasn't required to get their attention and I just don't have the time.

The result? While I won't go as far as to say we're never purchasing a Tesla again, I will say that any future purchases are in a quite precarious state... My issues with Tesla go beyond just my battery situation so it's more complicated than that.

Jeff

Tesla has done some things to warrant your opinion regarding future purchases. I agree. I am thinking of going forward with the Model 3 purchase for my wife... though it will be a bare bones purchase because of how things went with the P90DL. I hope Tesla will learn from their customers, and improve.

I busted you earlier and decided you were "ignore worthy". I am happy that we can argue these tough and somewhat emotional issues and share opinions. Thanks.

You are off my "ignore worthy" list. Not saying that is a big deal... just sayin....

 

[jeffro01]

Tesla has done some things to warrant your opinion regarding future purchases. I agree. I am thinking of going forward with the Model 3 purchase for my wife... though it will be a bare bones purchase because of how things went with the P90DL. I hope Tesla will learn from their customers, and improve.

I busted you earlier and decided you were "ignore worthy". I am happy that we can argue these tough and somewhat emotional issues and share opinions. Thanks.

You are off my "ignore worthy" list. Not saying that is a big deal... just sayin....

Funny enough my wife and I are looking at the Model 3 for her as she thinks the X and S are too large for her to want to drive every day.

Regarding the ignore list and such, I'm used to it in that my opinions are usually very strong, delivered very forcefully, contain little (if any) wiggle room, and almost always lack any level of candor or tact... It gets me into trouble with the mods here from time to time... However, I'm always willing to admit when I was wrong and have had to put my foot in my mouth a time or two hundred here. LOL Most people won't ever admit fault or being wrong, that's not me but before you get me to that point, I'm going to probably rub you the wrong way.

Jeff

 

[TIppy]

Can you also ask the OP to explain what his damages are when he is driving around at < 90% SOC anyway and his acceleration is naturally limited by it's lower SOC power reduction?

I've already answered this false claim in the sister thread, but so that it doesn't go unanswered here I will restate it.

It doesn't matter what the state of charge is. 1600 amps will provide more power than 1500 amps at any given state of charge. So outside of launch mode, the power is always limited with these post-sale limitations regardless the state of charge.

 

[St Charles]

I've already answered this false claim in the sister thread, but so that it doesn't go unanswered here I will restate it.

It doesn't matter what the state of charge is. 1600 amps will provide more power than 1500 amps at any given state of charge. So outside of launch mode, the power is always limited with these post-sale limitations regardless the state of charge.

What is the difference in Voltage sag between a 1500A draw and a 1600A draw?

 

[TIppy]

What is the difference in Voltage sag between a 1500A draw and a 1600A draw?

Here are a couple of values I probed from recent runs:

313 volts @ 1600 amps
319 volts @ 1520 amps

 

[TIppy]

The battery voltage before each run was 398 volts.

 

[St Charles]

Here are a couple of values I probed from recent runs:

313 volts @ 1600 amps
319 volts @ 1520 amps

Napkin math shows that to be a power loss of about 3.2%. Was this done on a V3 battery?

I am fairly certain that my V2 car was drawing 1600A back on 7.1. More napkin math shows that if I applied 1600A to my maximum power logged (495kW) I would see a drop to 309V. Perhaps that's too low to be safe?

 

[TIppy]

Napkin math shows that to be a power loss of about 3.2%. Was this done on a V3 battery?

I am fairly certain that my V2 car was drawing 1600A back on 7.1. More napkin math shows that if I applied 1600A to my maximum power logged (495kW) I would see a drop to 309V. Perhaps that's too low to be safe?

Mine is a v3 battery.

Searching for the peak power on the 1500 amp run, I found 319.6 volts and 1526.1 amps, or 488 kW. On the 1600 amp run, i got 313.1 volts and 1606 amps, or 503 kW. The recent firmware seems to have lowered the max current from around 1620 amps to 1600 amps. My max power used to be around 511 to 512 kW.

The current and voltage data are quite noisy, so the fact that you got a single max reading of 495 kW vs the 488kW typical of 1500 amps may just be a statistical anomaly. n2mb_racing's v2 battery now seems to have values consistent with 1500 amps with launch mode and 1400 amps without.

Did anyone measure v2 battery current with canbus? If you do have 1600 amps available, then you will certainly be limited now outside of launch mode. And if n2mb_racing's car is any indication, even if you only have 1500 amps.

I've started a private conversation with the other v2 owner, but he hasn't replied yet.

 

[St Charles]

My data is old (7.1) which I recorded last year but it isn't a statistical anomaly. The power fluctuates only a few kW and slowly tapers to about 485kW right about when my car is passing 95-100MPH.

This is a graph of a drag strip pass I made last year. My ET was 11.08, SoC was ~95%:

 

[TIppy]

My data is old (7.1) which I recorded last year but it isn't a statistical anomaly. The power fluctuates only a few kW and slowly tapers to about 485kW right about when my car is passing 95-100MPH.

This is a graph of a drag strip pass I made last year. My ET was 11.08, SoC was ~95%:

This doesn't show the voltage and current. Is your increased power over the p90dlv1 because the current was increased or because the internal resistance of the battery decreased? The numbers seem to work out better for the decreased internal resistance scenario. But @n2mb_racing indicates he has a canbus monitor. Maybe he'll check which is correct. But the fact that he's being limited points in the direction of v2 batteries having 1600 amps. It could be either. In either case, I look forward to your time slips.