-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
I haven't seen any evidence of it either way. Doesn't mean there isn't, may just be that it hasn't been discovered.
It's definitely not likely to be on any non Ludicrous cars though, so if you don't have an underline, you probably don't need to worry about this.
As the magazines would have all received nearly new cars, the odds that Tesla would allow them to get anywhere near the launch limit would be close to zero--the name of the game here is good press: Great Headlines move the metal, and it's especially nice because they're much cheaper than paying for advertising.
Thus, if one was place a nefarious intent on Tesla, one might suggest this was intentional--get the awesome numbers to generate great headlines, but then keep the counter a secret from customers.
If one was to assume good intent on Tesla's part, then one might suggest that long-term durability testing (which does actually take some time, even when accelerated in the lab), revealed a major problem long after the magazines had run their tests. That would lead to Tesla making this change to enhance long-term durability, but simply forgot to mention that they were restricting launches to those that paid out the nose for this maximum level of performance, like us.
Either way, I suspect the right thing for Tesla to do here will be done (voluntarily, or not), but for now it remains undisclosed. As for us, I'm 50/50 with the decision, but suspect we're likely to trade our P90DL in before the end of the year because I cannot stand the feeling of being cheated, even if it may have been unintentional.... It's not the amount of the performance loss that matters, it's the ethics behind doing it and not making us whole.
No one expects perfection of Tesla, but when a mistake happens we do expect them to make it right.
Wait, what? Yes, the V1 beef is valid. But stating V2 was an over-delivery, subject to retraction following a few launches, when in fact it was finally making the cars do their originally (V1) advertised numbers isn't a "free gift", it's a downright shady tactic and a backhand to every V1 owner who ponied up.
No, that's wrong. V2 didn't reach the specs either. More HP yes but not the quarter mile 10.9 spec. V3 that came out late summer did that.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Good luck with that. I don't think they care.
Tesla's already exposed themselves to mountains of copyright claims by pirating software, I've *notified their legal department directly three years ago*, and they still haven't complied with the license for Linux. The company is totally willing to expose itself to unnecessary legal claims by committing shady, ethically questionable behavior, even when it would cost them very little to do the right thing. Worse, Tesla doesn't even disclose these risks in the annual report, which would cost them *nothing*, and failure to disclose the risks exposes them to *additional* legal claims from stockholders. There's a corporate culture problem going on.
I still think Tesla is going to be a great investment even *after* they get hit with the mountains of legal claims which they're piling up, simply due to the lack of competition. But I would be much happier if they would straighten out and fly right.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
The simple take away for me is this-
V1s delivered 1500ish amps
Tesla tried 1600ish amps with the V2
There were some failures related to number of high power usages (likely cell interlink failures??? or thermal damage??)
Tesla caps the pack's exposure for those that use the pack in this area.
Tesla comes out with V3 packs that have improved flex cell interlinks (more robust cell connections) and the 100's better cooling. The 1600ish amps is restored and the improved cell connections allow for less I2R losses == improved pack performance.
My conclusions from this are that ONLY 1600ish V2 packs are affected which is likely a very small number of cars.
No P85DLs are affected (we have a 1500ish limit)
No other Tesla production is affected (as they are nowhere near even 1500ish amps)
Changes made only in the battery and a battery swap removes the limit thus there is NO WEAKNESS in the drive line.
Please disassemble the above and correct me if I am wrong.
V1s delivered 1500ish amps
Tesla tried 1600ish amps with the V2
There were some failures related to number of high power usages (likely cell interlink failures??? or thermal damage??)
Tesla caps the pack's exposure for those that use the pack in this area.
Tesla comes out with V3 packs that have improved flex cell interlinks (more robust cell connections) and the 100's better cooling. The 1600ish amps is restored and the improved cell connections allow for less I2R losses == improved pack performance.
My conclusions from this are that ONLY 1600ish V2 packs are affected which is likely a very small number of cars.
No P85DLs are affected (we have a 1500ish limit)
No other Tesla production is affected (as they are nowhere near even 1500ish amps)
Changes made only in the battery and a battery swap removes the limit thus there is NO WEAKNESS in the drive line.
Please disassemble the above and correct me if I am wrong.
Garlan Garner
Banned
Yes. As both a customer and a substantial stockholder, they absolutely should. Why would you even ask that question?
Garlan Garner
Banned
From what you posted....it appears that Tesla was attempting to improve their car with a larger "xxxx"'ish amp opportunity. Then there were some hardware failures associated with the increased amperage. So instead of ignoring the issue and possibly letting the car catch on fire or smolder....they limited the risk via software?
I wonder how many cars Tesla would sell if many of their most expensive cars start internally combusting. More importantly - I wonder how many investors would stick around.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I ask that question because I've never seen a companies main focus to try to impress an individual customer. A company as large as Tesla can't have granular objectives.
Concerned about:
The masses? Yes.
Investors? Yes.
There comes a point in time where its the responsibility of individuals have to make a decision about whether to invest in a company or not....not the other way around. If you don't like Tesla....don't buy their cars or invest in their company. If there are enough of you....they will get the picture.
I just hate it when there is an expectation by an individual that a company is horrible because the company isn't focusing on "my" issue ( about their car that I own). That's like saying I hate the McDonalds Company while you are in the drive through of a McDonalds.
Oh wait a min. I stand corrected about Tesla, because I have seen the CEO named ELON address individual issues "himself" as he learns of them. I've seen him personally address AP issues to his customers via twitter and at Service Centers. I've seen him bend over backwards to address an individual's concern at the GigaFactory unveiling when the bolts on a persons MX's seat were making noise while driving. Hmmmm... My apologies. I stand corrected...Elon does take care of individuals concerns.
My suggestion...keep talking about the problem ( if indeed it is a problem ) - not the company. If its just a matter of being informed or not being informed about something.....then......what can I say? If its earth shattering....lemon law your Tesla sell your stock and get a Leaf or a Bolt.
Last edited:
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I understand the point you are making.
The problem is that the V3 P90D Ludicrous packs --DID--, finally, meet the specs Tesla had set for the P90D Ludicrous. So in my opinion, the people who have a legitimate beef with Tesla are the P90D Ludicrous V1 buyers, as their cars never met specs, and the P90D V2 Ludicrous buyers, as their cars also never met specs, and now will miss the specs by even more if they launch too much. If Tesla is also limiting V3 P90D Ludicrous buyers, then, of course, they also have a legitimate beef.
The reason this affects all of us is that it is one more example of Tesla playing fast and loose with the facts, and then taking action that many believe are at least somewhat less than ethical. We need to stand up for each other, and let Tesla know that this is not the kind of behavior Tesla customers approve of.
Last edited:
Tech_Guy
ALWAYS IN LUDICROUS MODE! P90D>P100D Upgrade
Well my data is from a v3 battery part number 1088... car. so v3 p90dl are part of this as well.
The if you don't like them, don't buy them is a silly argument. It is often in reality intended to shut down unpleasant conversations.
The world is a complex place and every situation has a myriad of different, but perfectly valid responses.
Public customer feedback and conversation to/about a company/product is certainly one of them.
And sometimes we buy stuff (or have already bought stuff) that has things we dislike, yet has other things we need.
It is perfectly normal - as is company choosing what feedback to listen to and what not.
What is less normal is claiming customers or shareholders should withhold public feedback and conversation, and only have one option: buy and shut up - or don't.
The world is a complex place and every situation has a myriad of different, but perfectly valid responses.
Public customer feedback and conversation to/about a company/product is certainly one of them.
And sometimes we buy stuff (or have already bought stuff) that has things we dislike, yet has other things we need.
It is perfectly normal - as is company choosing what feedback to listen to and what not.
What is less normal is claiming customers or shareholders should withhold public feedback and conversation, and only have one option: buy and shut up - or don't.
Garlan Garner
Banned
I'm just perplexed. How many other things to do people buy that they don't like or care for?
It has nothing to do with whether the conversation is unpleasant or not. I was in full support of the rant that went on here before Tesla put that "skid plate" on the bottom of their cars as they were potentially catching on fire. That conversation was unpleasant and I admit that I contributed to the unpleasantness. I wasn't going to buy one or support Tesla, however when they fixed the issue I was willing to buy one.
I'm just not a fan of buying something from a company that I don't like - then complaining about them. I'm chuckling in unbelief as I typed that last sentence and the next one.
There are just so many more car options out there. No one is forced to buy a tesla.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
What your argument fails to address is that many people only become upset with Tesla --AFTER-- they have purchased their vehicles.
I fall into that category. I purchased a fully loaded P85D shortly after the launch event without ever having seen a Tesla in person. I had done a fair amount of reading on this site, and I watched the D launch video, and videos made of the demos done at that event over and over and over again. I had no reason to think anything negative about Tesla. It was only after taking delivery, and learning some things first-hand, that my love for Tesla as a company waned.
I am not in the camp that hates Tesla, or wants to see them fail. But I do have issues with some of the things they do. I think many of us here hope that by continuing to bring up what we see as problems, Tesla may eventually change. Perhaps we are being too optimistic, but I don't think so.
Garlan Garner
Banned
That's absolutely fair and I appreciate your honest and sincere response. I'm sorry that your love for Tesla has waned. I believe if a person such as yourself keeps addressing your issues in a way you have....it will become contagious and elicit some positive responses from Tesla.
Thanks.
Similar threads
