P3D Add performance checkbox removes on new custom orders

[Sam1]

And yet- in normal use they stop the car in exactly the same distance as the largest, most expensive, brakes you can put on the vehicle.

The brakes don't stop the car- the tires do.

The P3D- comes with far far crappier tires than the P3D+

Swap PS4s tires on your P3D- and you'll knock ~30 feet off your braking distance 60-0 (mph).

Swap P+ brakes on and your braking distance will change by 0.

Thanks for the input. Have you thought about teaching all these car companies that they're wasting money by designing upgraded brakes? Let them know they can save millions per year by just throwing some cheap brakes on their cars and good tires.

I bet some of the the best engineers on the planet have never even considered your perspective!

 

[Sam1]

While brakes obviously are part of the system stopping the car, isn't the determination of stoppage distance more about the tires?

edit: Knightshade beat me to it with a much more better response

If the brakes and/or tires max out, abs is engaged. For someone to make an assertion of the braking capacity without knowing the status of that, shows they're just guessing.

 

[Knightshade]

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the 980 has the headroom needed to take the P3D to the level Tesla wants to. Maybe they both have enough headroom that it didn't matter which was used.

Then why does the 990 exist at all?

That's the million dollar question. If it were simply a cost reduction move, why not do it to both motors? Front and rear? According to threads here, the front motor is where most of half a second reduction in 0 60 came from. Seems like a lot of leeway to leave on the table for the bean counters to pass over.

I think you just answered your own question.

The profit from the $2000 boost is greater than the potential savings from a "cheaper" front motor.

Let's say it is cheaper. Cheaper does not necessarily mean it has to be lower performance, or even the same performance. It could be higher and be cheaper. We don't know.

Of course we do.

If it was cheaper AND equal or better peformance, they'd replace the 980 with the 990 in everything.

Why would they keep using a more expensive but NOT MORE CAPABLE motor if your premise was true?

Also, if the MY threads are accurate, why wasn't the 990 or another variant used in the non-P Y?

Probably the same reason it wasn't in the 3 either for the first 6-12 months of production.

They need fleet data to see how mass production cars in large numbers do.

If the data suggests the LR AWD Ys (which are significantly heavier) are doing find with plenty of headroom they can probably move to the cheaper 990 in those too.

Then, we have the fact that more than a few rear DUs have failed on the 3 (even though it's fairly rare overall). Could the 990 changes be the result of this?

No... in fact you tell us why right after you ask the question.

Which then begs the obvious question: Why is the 980 still being used? Still a large inventory? Overproduction?

It's been over a year since the first 990s showed up, it makes 0 sense there'd be hundreds of thousands of "spare" 980s they're still trying to burn through.

(and even LESS sense they would keep using them in the HIGHEST performing cars, AND the Y, if there was a flaw in them)

And it's easier to use them in vehicles already configured for them for the time being? Are they using a phased-in approach to the 990 so in case there's a flaw, it doesn't affect all their cars?

...what?

If it's a phased approach they'd use them in the smaller-number-sold P. And not at all in the Y that JUST came out.

And again it's been well over a year since the first ones showed up.

IMO, too many unanswered questions to draw any concrete conclusions. Objective testing and data are needed to be certain. Ultimately, it may simply be a cost-reduction move and nothing more.

This simply doesn't work based on known facts.

If it's cheaper and just as capable it'd be in all versions of the 3 by now, and have LAUNCHED with the Y.

If it's NOT cheaper it wouldn't even exist.

Therefore cheaper AND less capable is the only thing that fits all known facts.

 

[Knightshade]

If the brakes and/or tires max out, abs is engaged. For someone to make an assertion of the braking capacity without knowing the status of that, shows they're just guessing.

We do know though.

Go get up to 60 in your Tesla.

Slam the brake pedal.

Does ABS engage? (spoiler: it does)

In fact- that's true of virtually every car made in at least the last 10-20 years.


So on all of those cars large brakes do literally nothing to stop you any shorter.

Because that's how physics works.

Thanks for the input. Have you thought about teaching all these car companies that they're wasting money by designing upgraded brakes? Let them know they can save millions per year by just throwing some cheap brakes on their cars and good tires.

In most cases they're there for one of two reasons:

1) They're on a car the owner might actually take on a race track (Porsche is a big one here)- because as explained to you- big brakes have some uses there... (but shorter stopping is not one of em- more triple-digit back to back to back stops without it getting LONGER is though)

2) They know ignorant buyers who don't understand how or why a car stops will be happy to drop $5000 to add the BIG BRAKE PACKAGE that only cost them $2500 so that they can "feel" like they got an upgrade when driving their BMW to the grocery store. So PROFIT!

This is also the same reason some companies are happy to sell heavy 20"/21/22" wheels on "performance" models instead of the lightweight 18s/19s actual performance drivers would want.

I bet some of the the best engineers on the planet have never even considered your perspective!

Funny you should mention that.

Here's an essay from a world renowned brake engineer. He designs braking systems for major car and brake OEMs (Ford, Stoptech, and others). He teaches SAE master classes on braking systems. He has literally written books on the topic.

He also tells you exactly the same thing I am (so do lots of other sources, but he lays it out the most clearly)


I suggest you give it a read and dispel some of the myths you appear to be holding on to.

GRM Pulp Friction

He described what each element of a braking system does, and why none of them can stop the car any shorter.

He does then go into some detail on what brake upgrades can do for you- and why you might do them.

None of them are "stop the car shorter" though.

Because the brakes don't stop the car- the tires do.

 

[StealthP3D]

Since early/mid 2019 the LR AWD and the P3D- have had a different rear drive unit from each other, so I find that speculation unlikely.

That's when they actually got around to actually giving them different part numbers. The drive units have always been differentiated (even though they had the same part number for the first 11 months or so of Performance production). When Tesla started production of the Performance Model 3 in the Summer of 2018, they binned the drive units after they were manufactured. All Performance Models got the higher binned units (as well as many of the regular AWD's).

They finally got around to having unique serial numbers for the drive units of Performance and AWD Model 3's about a year ago.

 

[TMThree]

Since early/mid 2019 the LR AWD and the P3D- have had a different rear drive unit from each other, so I find that speculation unlikely.

(unless they are abandoning the lesser 990 drive unit and switching the LR AWD back to the 980 I guess, which would be pretty weird)

yeah, that's why the boost upgrade only gets you halfway to a full performance increase. Many of the AWD cars don't have the same hardware, so they split the difference in performance to get you halfway there. Would have been cool if the ones with the same hardware got full performance, but that muddies the water and will leave some feeling unhappy.

 

[Knightshade]

That's when they actually got around to actually giving them different part numbers. The drive units have always been differentiated (even though they had the same part number for the first 11 months or so of Performance production). When Tesla started production of the Performance Model 3 in the Summer of 2018, they binned the drive units after they were manufactured. All Performance Models got the higher binned units (as well as many of the regular AWD's).

This is complete nonsense based off speculation from one Elon tweet from before production even began on the P.

It's totally unsupported by Teslas own parts catalog- and by the fact numerous folks had an AWD at delivery that was then software flashed to a P on the spot.

Also by the basic idea of why you bin, or have part numbers, or how supply chains work in the first place.


Chip manufacturers (among others) have been actually binning parts for years.

They all give lesser parts different part numbers for multiple reasons. There's no sane explanation for Tesla somehow doing real binning and then using the SAME part number on everything.



Also- from the pics of a 990 taken apart, it's physically different not just a "binned" 980.

 

[P3dStealth]

I use the brakes on this car less than any car I've ever owned and I an in NY. I have a performance without the brake upgrade. I'm pretty happy. Maybe I will paint them red over the summer and get like 3 more stopping feet out of that.

I've never been to a track.

 

[john5520]

Then why does the 990 exist at all?

For other possible reasons outlined? Reliability? Cheaper to produce?

I think you just answered your own question.

The profit from the $2000 boost is greater than the potential savings from a "cheaper" front motor.

That would be assuming enough people bought the boost. And they can cut corners on both motors and still charge for a boost upgrade? Do we know the headroom of both motors? Do we know what the cost reduction from cutting some headroom from the front motors would be?

Of course we do.

Then show me the proof. Deductive reasoning isn't proof. Let's see some numbers. Somewhere there is an actual cost estimate for both drive units.

Why would they keep using a more expensive but NOT MORE CAPABLE motor if your premise was true?

Market overestimation which left a lot of unused units? Didn't want to configure their cars for the new motor so soon? Phased in approach? Maybe both motors have enough headroom? Maybe there's a cost involved in retrofitting for the new motors?

Probably the same reason it wasn't in the 3 either for the first 6-12 months of production.

They need fleet data to see how mass production cars in large numbers do.

Regarding the Y, they already have that data from the 3.I can't imagine their engineers not being able to come up with a projection for the Y from that data. And the AWD Y is slower and not significantly heavier.

If the data suggests the LR AWD Ys (which are significantly heavier) are doing find with plenty of headroom they can probably move to the cheaper 990 in those too.

Roughly 344 lbs more is not significantly heavier. Not when comparing 4000+ lb vehicles. And they are SLOWER by about 1/2 second than the AWD 3.

No... in fact you tell us why right after you ask the question.

I haven't told anyone anything. Just asking questions, throwing out different possibilities.

It's been over a year since the first 990s showed up, it makes 0 sense there'd be hundreds of thousands of "spare" 980s they're still trying to burn through.(and even LESS sense they would keep using them in the HIGHEST performing cars, AND the Y, if there was a flaw in them)

Maybe they overestimated the market? Phased in approach? Maybe there's a hidden cost to fitting the P3s with them that they care not to incure right now. Have you looked at the market for cars lately?

And more than few rear DUs have failed and if the threads are to be believed, they were centered around the inverters, the very things that got changed in 990 units. More than a few failures from the same part indicates a flaw, IMO. Sure, it is relatively rare, but it has and is still happening, but mainly to the older 3s it seems. More data needed here though.

...what?

If it's a phased approach they'd use them in the smaller-number-sold P. And not at all in the Y that JUST came out.

Why? The P is more than likely their most profitable 3. Why chance it there? Plus, less feedback data from less cars.

And again it's been well over a year since the first ones showed up.

Exactly, so why not use them the not-so-much-heavier, slower Y AWD? A year should be enough time to guage reliability.

This simply doesn't work based on known facts.

If it's cheaper and just as capable it'd be in all versions of the 3 by now, and have LAUNCHED with the Y.

Phased in approach? Other hidden costs involved in fitting them on the other cars that they prefer not to incur right now. What if it's actually more expensive and we're both wrong?

If it's NOT cheaper it wouldn't even exist.

If it's more expensive and more reliable, why not?

Therefore cheaper AND less capable is the only thing that fits all known facts.

Until every other possibility is ruled out with objective data, no concrete conclusion can be drawn. Deductive reasoning is not proof.

I haven't drawn any conclusions nor am I saying you're wrong. I'm simply bringing up other possibilities. Ultimately, I'm asking for the objective data to prove your conclusion. Even word of mouth from a credible source from Tesla would suffice. We have opinions from threads here and deductive reasoning, some very sound based on what we 'have'. But no real proof.

 

[Knightshade]

For other possible reasons outlined? Reliability? Cheaper to produce?

Already debunked-...because then they'd all be 990s.

Why would they keep using the more expensive, less reliable, 980 at all?

Then show me the proof. Deductive reasoning isn't proof.

It's the only thing that fits the actual facts.

Again if you have anything else that does- provide it.

Instead you provided things already contradicted by known facts.


If the 990 were cheaper AND just as (or more) capable- there'd be no 980s in use anymore. So that's clearly not true.

If the 990 were the same price and MORE reliable (and just as, or more, capable) there'd be no 980s in use anymore- so also clearly not true.

If the 990 were more expensive- it wouldn't exist.


990 cheaper and less capable is the ONLY situation where it makes sense to be using them in the LR AWD exclusively.

Market overestimation which left a lot of unused units? Didn't want to configure their cars for the new motor so soon? Phased in approach? Maybe both motors have enough headroom? Maybe there's a cost involved in retrofitting for the new motors?

None of those fit known facts though.

The 990 has been in use starting almost 18 months ago. And it's (externally) the same physical drive unit. Only an internal difference.

So it's insane to think they'd have 18 months of "left over" 980s they're still working through (and even then you wouldn't put them on EVERYTHING but the LR AWD)

And there's no physical reason to not switch to the 990 if it's better and cheaper. Therefor it can't be

Regarding the Y, they already have that data from the 3

No, they don't.

The Y is hundreds of lbs heavier- and has an official (even in the US) tow rating.

Roughly 344 lbs more is not significantly heavier. Not when comparing 4000+ lb vehicles. And they are SLOWER by about 1/2 second than the AWD 3.

They're slower for 2 reasons.

One of them it the weight

Another is, like the LR AWD 3, they're probably not running them at full power out of the gate until they get fleet data.

Maybe they overestimated the market?

... what market? Overestimated what? They're literally selling them faster than they can build them (or were up till the virus stuff)

Phased in approach?

Maybe there's a hidden cost to fitting the P3s with them that they care not to incure right now. Have you looked at the market for cars lately?[/QUOTE]

Again this utter nonsense.

The change began 18 months ago.

They were selling them faster than they could build them up until basically 2 months ago when the economy was turned off.


What "hidden cost" would there be to swapping a physically (externally) identical unit?

And more than few rear DUs have failed and if the threads are to be believed, they were centered around the inverters, the very things that got changed in 990 units. More than a few failures from the same part indicates a flaw, IMO

Where's your numbers?


And again- why wouldn't they use the "better" unit in the P in that case?

None of your theories actually fit the facts.

Why? The P is more than likely their most profitable 3. Why chance it there? Plus, less feedback data from less cars.

Chance what? You're the one trying to push the idea the 990 is better in some way.

The fact they don't use it in the P debunks your claim though.

Until every other possibility is ruled out with objective data

It's already ruled out by basic logic as applied to known facts.


You've yet to present an alternative not already dismissable via those known facts.

 

[john5520]

Already debunked-...because then they'd all be 990s.




It's already ruled out by basic logic as applied to known facts.


You've yet to present an alternative not already dismissable via those known facts.

Until you have numbers and objective data, you have no proof. That's not even debatable. At the very best, what you have is a hypothesis.
I haven't drawn any conclusions, you have. So the burden is on you.

 

[U_S_D]

Why does Tesla not publish the technical specifications of the products they're selling? Why is there so much guess work involved?

 

[Knightshade]

Until you have numbers and objective data, you have no proof.

I mean- I do though,

I gave you a bunch of specific, known facts.

Then pointed out there's only one framework in which all those facts (which we know to be true) would collectively make any sense.

I then offered to listen if you had an alternative explaination that fit all the facts.

You replied with several alternatives that explicitly can not be true in light of known facts- so I pointed out why those alternatives fail to work with what we know for certain.

I haven't drawn any conclusions, you have. So the burden is on you.

Yes, and I met it by explaining the things we know for a fact, and why what I've explained is the only thing that fits those facts.


You have yet to cite any example, or reason, or flaw in the explanation- or offer any alternative that isn't already debunked by said known facts.


We KNOW the 990 only appeared in early 2019, and only has appeared on LR AWD cars. All Ps still use the 980.

We KNOW the 990 is a physically different part internally from pics that have been posted, but physically fits in the same spot externally. Specifically the 990 appears to have fewer MOSFETs than the 980. Which fits with the explanation it has a less capable inverter. Which also fits with the fact it's used in the non-P AWD only.

So does the numbering on some of the REMAN parts in the catalog (supporting the difference in inverter capability)

So, the 990 is less capable, based on the known facts. (How MUCH less is unknown though- but less)- because if it were MORE capable it'd be in the P, not the LR AWD (and wouldn't be missing parts internally).


We KNOW the 990 must be cheaper to produce- because if it's not, why would it exist? You wouldn't raise your MFG and supply chain costs by having TWO rear DUs that cost the same... you'd stick to the 980 in everything as they did at launch.


So based on KNOWN FACTS we can conclude:

the 990 is both cheaper, and less capable, than the 980. Any other combo of attributes and it makes no sense for the 990 to exist AND only be used in the LR AWD 18 months into its use.




Again- Feel free to cite any flaws you can find in the above based on the known facts though. Or any other explanation that fits those facts.

 

[Sam1]

Why does Tesla not publish the technical specifications of the products they're selling? Why is there so much guess work involved?

It's a practice we use in my field called 'security through obscurity'. It's hard to copy a competitor (not impossible, but harder), if you don't know the details.

 

[StealthP3D]

They all give lesser parts different part numbers for multiple reasons. There's no sane explanation for Tesla somehow doing real binning and then using the SAME part number on everything.

Tesla moves much faster than other manufacturers. As an investor in TSLA, I track the company pretty closely. What I know about mid-2018, when they first released the Performance version, is that Tesla was going through a cash crunch and many didn't know if they would go bankrupt or not. They needed to get the higher-margin Performance Model 3 to market sooner than expected. So they did announce it and start selling it very quickly, about 2 weeks if I recall. And they had a high take rate for the first several months and it helped stave off the possibility of bankruptcy. During this period the drive units that tested highest were tagged for possible install in Performance models.

Eventually, they did get their own part number. If you wouldn't keep spreading falsehoods and spreading information that directly contradicts what the insiders have told us, on the public record, then I wouldn't need to keep correcting you.

 

[john5520]

Again- Feel free to cite any flaws you can find in the above based on the known facts though. Or any other explanation that fits those facts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't have all the facts. Most importantly, we don't have the cost of both units to compare and we don't have any test data that definitively
show the 990 is less capable. You're basically telling me you've met your burden of proof without these 2 critical pieces of info and I disagree.

 

[Knightshade]

Tesla moves much faster than other manufacturers. As an investor in TSLA, I track the company pretty closely. What I know about mid-2018, when they first released the Performance version, is that Tesla was going through a cash crunch and many didn't know if they would go bankrupt or not. They needed to get the higher-margin Performance Model 3 to market sooner than expected. So they did announce it and start selling it very quickly, about 2 weeks if I recall. And they had a high take rate for the first several months and it helped stave off the possibility of bankruptcy. During this period the drive units that tested highest were tagged for possible install in Performance models.

A claim of which you have zero evidence actually ever happened- and can provide no evidence of any such tagging.

Further- the parts catalog itself contradicts the claim.

If you go to Tesla and ask to buy a 980, they don't care if you are buying for a P or an LR AWD.

Because all 980s are the same unit.


Whcih directly contradicts your claim.

If there WERE "binned" 980s- well as I say, they'd already have their own PN to begin with... but if they didn't and has some double-secret-hidden-marker, they'd require your VIN to sell you a replacement 980.

They don't.


So stop making up things that not only you can't prove- but available proof directly contradicts.

Eventually, they did get their own part number.

Except, they didn't.

Because we have pics of the 990 internals and it's a physically different part

So again actual facts disprove your unsourced claim.

The 990 isn't a "binned" 980- it's a different part.

If you wouldn't keep spreading falsehoods

Take your own advice. Literally everything you claimed is explictly disproven by available facts.


Nothing I said is though.

You can tell because you provided none.

 

[Knightshade]

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't have all the facts. Most importantly, we don't have the cost of both units to compare and we don't have any test data to definitively
show the 990 is less capable.

If the 990 is just as capable- and it's cheaper- why isn't it used in the P?

If it's just as capable and NOT cheaper- why does it exist at all? (the only answer you've offered here is maybe it's more reliable. In which case- if it's just as capable, same price, and more reliable- why does the 980 keep being used in everything ELSE?)


I've asked multiple times now- and you've given no plausible answer to any of those.

Based of the facts we know, and what Tesla is putting in which vehicle, and when, it gets us to the 990 being cheaper and less capable.

Because again- nothing else fits the facts we DO know as facts.

 

[StealthP3D]

A claim of which you have zero evidence actually ever happened- and can provide no evidence of any such tagging.

The evidence is strong. Investors who have visited the factory during that time period were shown the binning process as part of the tour To believe otherwise would require you to believe that Tesla faked this part of the tour in order to deceive those taking the tour. They shared their experience right here on TMC but you either missed it or chose to close your mind.

The other evidence comes directly from the man who runs the company. He said they were binning the drive units for the Performance version. And, if you're going to push the same part to a higher thermal limit, one near its design limit, you better only do it on the units that tested well enough to handle it.

Further- the parts catalog itself contradicts the claim.

If you go to Tesla and ask to buy a 980, they don't care if you are buying for a P or an LR AWD.

Because all 980s are the same unit.

Your wacky theory rests entirely upon the assumption that if Tesla had binned the drive motors they would necessarily have given them a different part number (because that's what other companies do). Pretty weak medicine.

As far as going to Tesla and asking "to buy a 980", LOL! That proves you are unfamiliar with how it works. Because Tesla won't sell you a 980. That's right - they are unobtainable except to authorized Tesla Service Centers for install into a Model 3. You can't just waltz in and buy one without a car to put it in. And when a Tesla Service Center orders one, they need to tell them the VIN number of the car it's going into. Can you guess why they need that info?

Because we have pics of the 990 internals and it's a physically different part

So again actual facts disprove your unsourced claim.

The 990 isn't a "binned" 980- it's a different part.

Now they make unique parts for each model. I never claimed otherwise nor does that disprove anything I said. You are playing linguistical games here. They have unique parts because they have unique requirements. The Performance Model 3 drive units require higher thermal limits. That's why they binned them in the beginning before they bothered to make unique parts for each model.

Take your own advice. Literally everything you claimed is explictly disproven by available facts.


Nothing I said is though.

You can tell because you provided none.

Huh? You have provided nothing but wild speculative theories based on nothing more than your unsupported assertion that Tesla would not bin the drive units without applying a different part number (simply because everyone else does), LOL! Granted, if Tesla said no-way, no-how will we bin parts that had already been manufactured and assigned part numbers then you would be 100% correct. But there is no evidence that is true other than your tenuous assertion that since that's how others do it, that's how Tesla should do it. And it directly contradicts what the CEO of the company has said and what Tesla Tour Guides have told the tour groups. That would be a lot of deception for something so insignificant in the bigger picture.

And even you have conceded that, eventually, Tesla did do exactly what you claimed they would have done from the beginning. Namely, given each model it's own unique part with different part numbers to match the required thermal performance unique to each version.

All that said, it's obvious your mind is made up and is essentially "locked" into your belief that the motors were not binned (even though we know through multiple sources they were). So I'll just leave you to your world.

 

[john5520]

If the 990 is just as capable- and it's cheaper- why isn't it used in the P?

If it's just as capable and NOT cheaper- why does it exist at all? (the only answer you've offered here is maybe it's more reliable. In which case- if it's just as capable, same price, and more reliable- why does the 980 keep being used in everything ELSE?)


I've asked multiple times now- and you've given no plausible answer to any of those.

Based of the facts we know, and what Tesla is putting in which vehicle, and when, it gets us to the 990 being cheaper and less capable.

Because again- nothing else fits the facts we DO know as facts.

Like mentioned before, you've formulated a hypothesis, without actual proof. If that's all you're going to bring to the table, then we'll have to adjourn till a later date.