And not only that: this is not a warranty denial on Tesla's part. It is a deliberate and permanent change (to worse) of product. If you blow a differential on a Merc, the worst is you pay for a new one. With Tesla you buy a new car. Not to mention normal driving has been shown to increase the counters. This is definitely not just about drag strip launches on Tesla.
AR, You are correct. I was only responding to sandpiper's question about warranty. Here, Tesla is removing performance to eliminate a future failure. Such a future failure would cost Tesla to repair thus there is a financial motive for them to preemptively address the issue. Such a future failure would also LIKELY (not proven as Tesla is preventing it) be a catastrophic failure such that the car stops moving. This would be a PR fail as media outlets would surely be all over it with shorts amplifying the coverage. There is no doubt in my mind that Tesla had to do something about this to keep hard failures from occurring. It is good for Tesla and it is good for us owners. I can not imagine any of us wants our car to quit on us one day in the middle of a hard acceleration. Now that they have prevented the failures, are they going to recognize taking value from their customers to do so?
And they will refuse to replace or fix steering wheel on your brand new car even when they screw up how Alcantara has been sown (personal experience) And they will do nothing about the whole generations of engines with exploding engines i.e. bore scoring, IMS (996/997) And they will do nothing about inadequate coolant pipes fitting (all Metzger engines, i.e. 996/997 Turbo, GT3, GT3 RS) i.e. their most expensive cars (personal experience) Still awesome cars, but please don't for one second assume they're better in terms of attitude. Every time I go for service I know they're out to get me, like suggesting unnecessary work etc... It's tiring not being able to trust them
Do you think Porsche would take 100 HP away from you using an artificial counter to limit their warranty commitments? And if so, would it be OK?
Is the discussion in still centered around the ethics of this move by Tesla? Has anyone else gotten written or verbal confirmation or information on this matter from Tesla or their Service Centers?
I wasn't focusing on the Porsche redline counter as much as the known red line limit one would see on the tachometer and generally known by all.
Just to add myself to the list of concerned P90DL owners who has been watching this thread grow. Three weeks ago I purchased a 3 month old ex demo in the UK, so my assumption is that it will have been used numerous times to demonstrate acceleration. (I am assured that the sales team don't use launch mode which may or may not be true). My senior sales rep had no idea of this issue but has looked into it and assures me that it only affects launch mode. He also tells me that my car has zero "Launch Over Torque" counters. I am still concerned.......
I just sent my SA another request for my counters, as well as guidance from Tesla as to how best to enjoy the performance of my car and not trigger a power reduction. Based on their answer I will seriously consider selling the car, while it still has the power. I will be up front to the buyer about the counters, which I would expect won't help the resale value. If I am allowed to drive it as I would like (which comes down to spirited street driving ) for the life time of the car, across multiple battery replacements? I will keep it. I like keeping my car for as long a possible ( last car I drove for 15 years ). When I purchased the P90DL I also expected to enjoy it for 15 plus years. So if triggering a power reduction cannot be reset by replacing the battery? I know I will eventually trigger the reduction. Which means I am basically forced to sell the car, before the power downgrade, and before the value plummets. I love the car. I am hoping this will end up with me keeping it.
Actually Porsche WILL do something to compensate owners ...they didn't want to...refused...and then they lost a class action suit from owners. I fully expect this bullsh*t to be settled in the same way.
Devil's advocate. You don't need a new car, just a new battery pack. I believe from wk057's comments that the counter is in the battery pack, not the car. So a new battery pack will fix things (albeit temporarily, unless the 100 kWh pack doesn't have this issue and you upgrade to that).
You should still be concerned. The above, in my opinion, only serves to demonstrate how little information Tesla is disseminating on this, to the point where even Tesla employees whose job it is to communicate with customers are not being provided accurate information.
It'd be a great pack upgrade for the old 85s with A/B packs that don't supercharge as fast. They wouldn't care about the amp limit so long as the max charge rate is higher and taper doesn't kick in as quick on supercharging.
I was with you until you said instead of keeping the car for your expected 15 years you sell it now (and buy what instead?). And not wait to see exactly what the limits are? How many of what events trigger what power limit? I think that is really the key issue, and we still don't have an answer to those key facts. I'll concede that there could be unreasonable answers to those questions (100 WOTs triggers 30% power limit) or reasonable answers (1000 Launch Mode events triggers 5% power limit, which can be addressed by agreeing to waive warranty claims for extraordinary Launch Modes usage or by replacing the component that has aged beyond acceptable limits due to the extra stress). But we don't know the answers to the questions. I am eager for this key information and hopeful that Tesla will be reasonable, and willing to wait instead of get out the pitchfork. The fact that the TRC cars have not been limited, and Tech Guy refuses to answer how many LMs he has engaged in, makes me think TG and hostman are outliers and TRC and certainly the rest of us are well within whatever the limit is for a long time to come. It is a given that these sorts of mechanical and electrical systems will have a given mean time to failure (MTTF), which will change based on type of use. It should be no surprise that: harder use --> decreased TTF. True of all cars. One way to deal with that is to let premature failure caused by hard use happen, and either cover it under warranty or not. And possibly have a fight about it. And after the warranty expires, the customer covers it no matter what. Another way, likely only possible with software, is to attenuate the power events that are harmful to maintain a certain MTTF floor based high power discharge events. Those with an imagination could imagine some hardware ways too that I just don't know about -- I can imagine a fuse type thing that doesn't blow, but rather just degrades decreasing the power over time based on exposure to high power discharge events. Hardware or software doesn't matter. ICE engines similarly will degrade and it amusing to think of people going to dyno and making claims against the car mfr with their dyno slips in hand while their piston rings and valves wear, their clutch slips etc., all based on their use (including redline events). The point is that there was only certain amount of high discharge events possible in a system until it broke. Should the design simply just let that happen? Let it break? Or should it ration the the high discharge events, and attenuate the ones as you approach the MTTF? I do wish they would have used something like the current easter egg disclosure screen to notify us that Launch Mode events (and perhaps other events? we still don't know) have serious wear consequences. But in hindsight, I realize -- of course they do, why would I expect a free lunch performance lunch? -- of course harder use has higher wear consequences. There is no free engineering lunch -- hard use has stress and fatigue consequences. Rationing the hard use makes perfect sense to me, especially as someone who intends to keep my car well past the warranty period.
Yes I totally agree...and speaking of my prior car porsche 2001 Carrera, over time the performance of the car did decline. And along with the IMS bearing issue, required me to replace the engine with a remanufactured engine. I actually liked the car more after the engine was replaced.. the new engine felt smoother and quieter ( in a good way ). I was able to sell it to a friend later knowing the new engine did not have the IMS bearing issue, and my friend would have a great performing car, equal to his expectations for that model. With the P90DL we are being told based on @TechGuy findings, is that when the counter trigger hits, the power reduction is permanent. But as you have spoken concern about, the information coming from Tesla has been a trickle, and more data is required to really know where we are at. If it is true the power reduction is permanent, that is not like an ICE vehicle suffering performance decline. If however Tesla states that replacing the battery resets the counters, and recovers the power loss? Now I am more understanding of their effort to protect the car. Though they should have been up front about it. So - until we get more detailed feedback from Tesla - explaining how to avoid the power loss, and how to recover it when it triggers? We will easily click off another 115 pages of concern, and speculation.
You are welcome to ration the hard use with your right foot. I am not willing to accept that compromise. Consider the VW Diesel owners who did not buy performance cars but still are unequivocal in their insistence performance not be degraded in fixing their vehicle emissions situation.
Just a point - I do think this issue can be worked around by adjusting the pack's CAN message. Which is fairly doable via a plug-and-play piece of equipment.
Today I called Freemont as my local SC could not help me and suggested I call Freemont. Of course the number given to me rerouted back to my local SC so I tried again. I talked to vehicle support and after 10 minutes of research he responded by reciting the owners manual verbage re Launch Mode. I wanted the number of runs I had left on my counters before power was reduced. He could not help me on that. I asked if I can speak to someone higher and he declined. I expressed my displeasure with any future power cuts. It is apparent to me that Tesla will not disclose any detailed information and I have to wait till my power is cut before I can take legal action.
It's actually worse ... Porsche did not disclose the counter and will refuse to repair or compensate the owner for a grenaded engine.
