Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[TSLA Pilot]

For me the issue is not the number of cars affected, but rather what this says, yet again, about Tesla's corporate attitude.

It appears to me that once again, Tesla is taking the stance that since not that many cars will be affected, and since not very many of those owners are likely to even notice, they'll try something that is somewhat shady, and would never fly if it affected many owners and was brought to light.

"Let's just limit the power, to save ourselves warranty replacement costs. Very few people will even know. It'll be fine."

"Let's call it 691 Motor Horsepower. No one is likely to realize it isn't 691 HP. At least not for a while. It'll be fine."

"Let's understate the power available in almost all our packs. Most people won't notice. It'll be fine."

"Let's suddenly start using 1 foot roll out in our 0-60 times, without telling anyone. They'll never know. It'll be fine."

I had hoped Tesla had learned from some of their past mistakes. This issue, no matter how few people it affects, shows me that they have not. This is where my concern lies.

THIS and:

I don't know you guys, but if I ever buy Tesla again, It won't be a P model. One of the reasons I've paid extra for the P was to support Tesla's mission. But now, I don't believe in the company anymore. Their business practices and car's quality issues are not acceptable.

It's the dishonesty that bothers me the most.

We get it: A "P" Model is grossly "up-charged" for what you get, but that helps Tesla's cash flow which helps the cause so, well, we pay. BUT NOW we find out that what we've purchased has a hidden "counter" function that removes performance.

Permanently.

It is NOT the amount of the reduction as it's really not relevant, but the fact that it's there, and that it was hidden from buyers until just now.

**This removes/takes back something I've paid for, and it is wrong.**

Let's not take this to court as no one needs the bad press or to make lawyers more wealthy (this is a classic class action-type of lawsuit which will attract their attention should it not be resolved in the near future), but it IS unethical and unacceptable; Elon needs to fix it.

 

[brianman]

P85D+-?

~P85D

 

[croman]

Did these limitations only come about because of FW 8.0 or did they exist the entire time? If they are 8.0 related, it could be that they will be removed once Tesla determines more about whether launches truly cause problems or some other solution. If they existed from the beginning, that seems like fraud (withholding critical information a consumer relies upon when making a purchasing decision). Tesla shouldn't be messing around with a ticking time bomb of a consumer class action from P90DL owners.

I'm still curious if jackrabbit starts with non-P90 cars creates any issue? I have a 60D I'm picking up on Friday and I drive with a fairly heavy foot and my Leaf has never suddenly lost its (relatively) meager quick starts. I would hate if my car that cost 3x more started to act like a car that cost 3x less. Acceleration was one reason I wanted a Tesla over my current EV (I already get all the other EV benefits like 100% torque and no point source emissions).

 

[jaguar36]

I'm still curious if jackrabbit starts with non-P90 cars creates any issue? I have a 60D I'm picking up on Friday and I drive with a fairly heavy foot and my Leaf has never suddenly lost its (relatively) meager quick starts. I would hate if my car that cost 3x more started to act like a car that cost 3x less. Acceleration was one reason I wanted a Tesla over my current EV (I already get all the other EV benefits like 100% torque and no point source emissions).

It seems very unlikely to apply to any other models. It seems that it was basically done as a way for Tesla to get to the advertised 10.9s 1/4mile.
In addition the power loss relatively low (not that that excuses Tesla) and won't take the car from quick to slow.

 

[yak-55]

I wonder if Tesla also upgrades your P90DL badge to P85DL+ for free?

The new badge (when the death counter is reached) is P90D-

 

[u00mem9]

Tesla shouldn't be messing around with a ticking time bomb of a consumer class action from P90DL owners.

I guess the legal team was getting bored after finishing work on the Norway settlement.

 

[stopcrazypp]

For background with the GT-R it's true that the transmissions were a weak point at launch. In 2008/2009 failures started to show up. The cars do log everything though which allowed for analysis back in Japan.

In 2010 nissan pulled launch control completely (it's not in that years model).

In 2011 they brought it back, faster but now with restrictions. Ensure the car is up to operating temperature then you can do launches. If you need to do more than 4 in a row you need to drive it 2 miles to let the drivetrain cool down.

Since it's outlined in the manual there is no confusion. "If the R mode start function is used 4 times continuously, the function may be disabled and cannot be turned on for protection. While the function is disabled, the warning light illuminates. When the warning light goes off, the function can be used again."

It's a very different situation to have a temporary lockout versus a lifetime counter.

I should also mention that last year I had a friend with a 2009 GT-R suffer a transmission failure. Despite being 3 years out of warranty Nissan decided to provide him with a replacement transmission for free (they are worth $20,000). The early transmissions simply weren't up to the task and it was great to see Nissan make it right even after all this time.

I'm not sure about the future models, but from the article I linked, the software update for the 2009 GTR permanently reduced performance by lowering the max rpms that the launch control uses and changing how the clutch engagement works to reduce stress on the system.

That seems to be pretty much what Tesla is doing here, except they have a 25 (or whatever) time grace period instead of immediately cutting off the performance. It's still unclear for Tesla if this applies only to launch control or to all launches however. Like the GTR the subsequent models (P100D) is not affected (unlike the GTR however, Tesla didn't eliminated launch control for 1 year).

 

[SDRick]

Any ideas as to how one would go about finding how close they are to the cut off limit? Would this require going to the service center or could someone at corporate be able to view this data over the air?

 

[sandpiper]

Any ideas as to how one would go about finding how close they are to the cut off limit? Would this require going to the service center or could someone at corporate be able to view this data over the air?

Sure. There are a couple of options:

Option#1.

1. Gain root access to the vehicle operating system.
2. Get access to the battery management system.
3. Take a snapshot of the NVRAM (or whatever form of memory) that stores the battery configuration parameters.
4. Do a launch.
5. Repeat #1 to 3
6. Run a compare and look for a parameter that increments by 1
7. Repeat 1 to 6 as required to confirm that you've got the right number.
8. If this doesn't work, don't complain to me. I'm just a big picture guy on this one.

Option #2

Contact Tesla corporate or the service center and ask nicely.

Personally I think that your likelihood of success is much greater with option #1.

 

[Andyw2100]

I'm not sure about the future models, but from the article I linked, the software update for the 2009 GTR permanently reduced performance by lowering the max rpms that the launch control uses and changing how the clutch engagement works to reduce stress on the system.

That seems to be pretty much what Tesla is doing here, except they have a 25 (or whatever) time grace period instead of immediately cutting off the performance. It's still unclear for Tesla if this applies only to launch control or to all launches however. Like the GTR the subsequent models (P100D) is not affected (unlike the GTR however, Tesla didn't eliminated launch control for 1 year).

Another, quite significant, difference is that Nissan was completely open about what they were doing. Tesla has been, shall we say, less than completely open about this.

Additionally, Nissan wasn't making the change to existing owners' cars over the air. The cars had to be brought in for service.

These are pretty significant differences.

 

[NSX1992]

400? My 85 Ludicrous upgraded pack hit 455 the other day starting max acceleration from about 40 MPH. I haven't logged from 0 mph in ages. 400 is even less than the old 85 insane mode (415 kw max).

My mistake. I was going from memory as I remember about 50 kw reduction. For the real number see Tech_Guys post.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Another, quite significant, difference is that Nissan was completely open about what they were doing. Tesla has been, shall we say, less than completely open about this.

Additionally, Nissan wasn't making the change to existing owners' cars over the air. The cars had to be brought in for service.

These are pretty significant differences.

Well Nissan was forced to be open because they already had plenty of transmissions being destroyed and a lot of negative press (this is very similar to what happened with their battery warranty). Tesla haven't reached that point yet. I'm sure if Nissan found the issue beforehand they would do it more behind the scenes.

As of the OTA, that's just a side effect of the fact that OTA updates didn't exist back then for cars, with Tesla being a pioneer in this field. GM's Bolt is probably the only other example besides from Tesla that even has the ability to do OTA updates.

 

[wk057]

If WK057's "I need two of these, the big ones" project comes together he may eventually find the weak link, as you can bet his won't have any launch counters enabled.

Pfft. Launch limits.....

Little OT, but I couldn't help but use that project title in my update tweet...
Jason Hughes on Twitter

 

[Andyw2100]

As of the OTA, that's just a side effect of the fact that OTA updates didn't exist back then for cars, with Tesla being a pioneer in this field. GM's Bolt is probably the only other example besides from Tesla that even has the ability to do OTA updates.

This is even more of a reason why Tesla should not do anything nefarious via OTA update.

Years back, when Tesla limited the suspension stuff via OTA, that was, at least partially, a safety concern. And Tesla quickly rectified that issue with the battery shields, etc., and then quickly returned the lost functionality.

And even in that situation, people were upset.

No one likes to think about Tesla "messing with our cars" simply because they can. The unique ability Tesla has that allows them to improve our cars via OTA update should always be a selling point for Tesla. The more Tesla uses that capability to limit our cars, or take away features, the quicker that selling point becomes a negative.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is even more of a reason why Tesla should not do anything nefarious via OTA update.

Years back, when Tesla limited the suspension stuff via OTA, that was, at least partially, a safety concern. And Tesla quickly rectified that issue with the battery shields, etc., and then quickly returned the lost functionality.

And even in that situation, people were upset.

No one likes to think about Tesla "messing with our cars" simply because they can. The unique ability Tesla has that allows them to improve our cars via OTA update should always be a selling point for Tesla. The more Tesla uses that capability to limit our cars, or take away features, the quicker that selling point becomes a negative.

I guess when they do OTAs they should have more complete release notes beforehand, so that people can make a decision whether to apply it or not. Some people see a certain change as an enhancement of safety/reliability, while others see it is a taking away a feature.

 

[u00mem9]

I guess when they do OTAs they should have more complete release notes beforehand, so that people can make a decision whether to apply it or not. Some people see a certain change as an enhancement of safety/reliability, while others see it is a taking away a feature.

It's not like this is an accident or laziness on the part of Tesla. This and the changes related to 8.0 were MARKETED to us as improvements with very little or no detail about all the negative changes.

At this point, I wouldn't trust release notes to provide honest change info.

 

[jmsurpri]

Pretty sure that's just the pre-programmed torque curve though. I'm certain that a base Tesla could perform better if Tesla wanted to (afterall it's just 350V vs 400V), but then it would make it hard to differentiate between the product levels. Would you pay extra for the P if the base wasn't that much slower.

Interesting that 10-60 is much more spirited. Will make for some interesting vbox comparisons

I have an 85D and I agree with others that launching from 10mph seems to throw you back in the seat more than from 0. Also if you watch the power meter you can see a gradual rise to max power from 0 but a near instantaneous jump to max power from 10.

 

[u00mem9]

You really have to feel for this poor guy. He burned up all his ludicrous launch coupons in a single night of g-crazed fun!

Request: How many times can a Tesla Model S go ludicrous on a single charge? • /r/teslamotors

 

[Skipdd]

It's not like this is an accident or laziness on the part of Tesla. This and the changes related to 8.0 were MARKETED to us as improvements with very little or no detail about all the negative changes.

At this point, I wouldn't trust release notes to provide honest change info.

FWIW, I only trust this forum for info about OTA updates. For this reason, I wait to see what gets identified by those with more technical acumen.. I do think Tesla needs to adjust its game if it intends to maintain its position once other serious competitors have real product in the market.

 

[Andyw2100]

FWIW, I only trust this forum for info about OTA updates. For this reason, I wait to see what gets identified by those with more technical acumen..

If you're looking for people with more technical acumen than Ingineer and wk057 I think you're going to be looking for quite a while.