Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
After more testing:
P90DL launch: 503 kw, 2.6 sec 0 to 60--this power is less than pre counter-gate
P90DL non-launch: 487 kw, 2.7 sec
P90D insane: 420 kw, 3.1 sec
P90DL sport: 390 kw, 3.7 sec

I was not aware that my P90DL was capable of a 2.6 second 0 to 60. If I remember correctly, the advertised spec was 2.9 seconds and after reading this forum advertised specs are often optimistic.

Which method are you using to gather your data?
 
Definitely reduced max current. I used to get around 1620 amps max. Now I get around 1605 amps max.
I was getting around 510 kw max. My max power is about 1% less now. Not much, but why?

My avg power from 45 to 60 mph used to be 500 kw. Now it's 494 kw.
But why? Exactly my concern. Where does this end? At what point can I say I have received the least performance version of my car? And at what point , will Tesla no longer reduce power, or mess with any other of the performance spec's of "my?" car ? It sure seems like a leased car to me. Though I have never leased before so don't have any idea what rights a leased car owner has? I know this topic has been discussed in another thread - where they speak of over the air updates and owners rights. I think it wouldn't hurt this thread to add the summary findings of that thread. Is there any legal precedence to allow Tesla to degrade the performance of a car post purchase? I can only see one.. where safety is an issue. And in which case I would expect a follow up permanent fix to the suspect hardware to allow the software hack to be removed, and the full performance etc. to be returned to the owner.
If over time, Tesla simply ticks down the performance using the software... which allows them to avoid warranty claims? If it is done in little decrements? Who is going to notice? And if so, when it's only a 7 kw reduction? I don't see myself running to the lawyers. But since we are talking about an 8 year warranty period? You can easily see and reason some degradation in performance over time. It would be pretty simple for Tesla to add a little fudge factor and insure the power reduction over time always happens at a certain rate.

I really hate this ownership experience. i really LOVE the car. Even with the Tesla power reductions it is an epic vehicle. I just cannot let Tesla degrade my cars performance without me being compensated. Don't charge me $10K for a specified performance, and then reduce that performance and pretend everything is cool.

Don't think that over the air updates will allow Tesla to do anything negative to my car. And that I have no legal option to protect my purchase.This cannot be allowed.

Going forward - having so much of the car under software control? Will allow Tesla to do all sorts of things to improve reliability. Like slowing down the opening of the roof to save on the electric roof motor? Reducing the max power to the speakers to allow the radio to last longer... and on and on.

While all the while Tesla advertises that OTA updates bring performance enhancements? How do they explain the performance degradation? This HAS to be illegal.
 
I was not aware that my P90DL was capable of a 2.6 second 0 to 60. If I remember correctly, the advertised spec was 2.9 seconds and after reading this forum advertised specs are often optimistic.

Which method are you using to gather your data?
Depends on which battery you have. Several members here with v3 batteries have used vbox to measure 0 to 60 mph at 2.63 secs.

I'm using a canbus analyzer to measure performance.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: davidc18
MTBF is not a performance metric, it is a reliability metric. The $10K ludicrous upgrade was a performance metric. Apples and oranges.

says you. LMGTFY

I'd bet cutting your power in half would also enhance MTBF performance, you good with that? How much can Tesla cripple your vehicle to increase your reliability?

So you recognize it is a trade off!

Consider your same analysis the other way -- balancing MTBF performance vs ET performance:

"cutting your [MTBF] in half would [result from] enhancing [acceleration] performance [by 2%], you good with that? How much can Tesla cripple your vehicle ['s battery] to increase your [acceleration performance by a couple percent]?"


Since I might own my car out of warranty, I'm fine with them making reasonable trade offs to balance MTBF with ET performance. That they have been fine tuning this balance in both directions (recall early software updates made the car faster) throughout the history of the car should not be a surprise. I trust Tesla engineers, managed by a guy who bought and crashed a McLaren to probably strike the right balance -- that may need to be adjusted as they get more information.
 
Last edited:
It's Friday - going to be a fun weekend. I did some venting and feel better. I don't want to come across like a complainer that is only complaining. I am waiting on a response from legal entities on my argument that Tesla does not have the right to degrade my cars performance post purchase. When I get a response, and I'm allowed to do so, I will report my findings.

This is a GREAT forum. Whether or not I agree with you ... I really respect the level of intelligent arguments and fairness this group exhibits.
 
Last edited:
says you. LMGTFY



So you recognize it is a trade off!

Consider your same analysis the other way -- balancing MTBF performance vs ET performance:

"cutting your [MTBF] in half would [result from] enhancing [acceleration] performance [by 2%], you good with that? How much can Tesla cripple your vehicle ['s battery] to increase your [acceleration performance by a couple percent]?"
They can cripple all they want if the want to pay for it with warranty repairs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
Depends on which battery you have. Several members here with v3 batteries have used vbox to measure 0 to 60 mph at 2.63 secs.

I'm using a canbus analyzer to measure performance.

I have a V3 but currently only seeing 2.9 to 3.0 seconds with launch mode, 90%+ (MB 5 to 10 minutes out) using Power Tools. It seems like Power Tools data is sometimes questionable.

I thought 2.6 seconds is more in the realm of the P100D.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: davidc18
I have a V3 but currently only seeing 2.9 to 3.0 seconds with launch mode, 90%+ (MB 5 to 10 minutes out) using Power Tools. It seems like Power Tools data is sometimes questionable.

I thought 2.6 seconds is more in the realm of the P100D.
I don't use Power Tools, but does it compensate for the 1 foot roll out? If not, you have to subtract about 0.25 secs from your times.
P100D is down to 2.28 secs now.
 
They can cripple all they want if the want to pay for it with warranty repairs.

Having Tesla pay warranty costs is short-sighted.

I don't want to pay out-of-warranty costs. And I don't want resale value whenever I do sell to be more heavily discounted because of expensive out-of-warranty part failures. And I don't want my car in service at all in or out of warranty.

The cars have to have a base line level of strong reliability. And then they can take the performance right up to that edge. Tesla engineers need to find that edge. It might take them a few tries to find that edge.
 

Wish you could have saved me the time and just googled it yourself... Just sayin.

MTBF (mean time between failures) is a measure of how reliable a hardware product or component is. For most components, the measure is typically in thousands or even tens of thousands of hours between failures. For example, a hard disk drive may have a mean time between failures of 300,000 hours.
 
Having Tesla pay warranty costs is short-sighted.

I don't want to pay out-of-warranty costs. And I don't want resale value whenever I do sell to be more heavily discounted because of expensive out-of-warranty part failures. And I don't want my car in service at all in or out of warranty.

The cars have to have a base line level of strong reliability. And then they can take the performance right up to that edge. Tesla engineers need to find that edge. It might take them a few tries to find that edge.
And when they do find that edge? Sell that car to the public... not the one they are testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidc18
Having Tesla pay warranty costs is short-sighted.

I don't want to pay out-of-warranty costs. And I don't want resale value whenever I do sell to be more heavily discounted because of expensive out-of-warranty part failures. And I don't want my car in service at all in or out of warranty.

The cars have to have a base line level of strong reliability. And then they can take the performance right up to that edge. Tesla engineers need to find that edge. It might take them a few tries to find that edge.
As I said before, you are free to pamper your own car as you please. As far as the resale market, most people realize that high performance vehicles are going to be repair nightmares. That's just science. If you want to avoid this don't buy a high performance vehicle. If it's a super reliable vehicle, it probably hasn't been pushed enough to be considered high performance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: yak-55 and davidc18
I'd bet cutting your power in half would also enhance MTBF performance, you good with that? How much can Tesla cripple your vehicle to increase your reliability?
I think that is why they chose 1500A, because that is really the only number they explicitly promised (indirect 1/4 mile stuff aside). In fact, I believe very early on, while the limiter was lower than 1500A, I suggested this was the number they would pick.
 
Since I might own my car out of warranty, I'm fine with them making reasonable trade offs to balance MTBF with ET performance.

That's usually done before selling a product, not afterwards, especially after they charged extra for the level of performance. If the level of performance is going to be reduced after the fact they need to a.) disclose that possibility before the sale and b.) compensate buyers who were not warned of that possibility before the sale. What happened is Tesla made a mistake, a big one, by pushing the performance beyond what certain components were capable of with a reasonable MTBF, and they charged extra for that performance. You are happy to give back some of that performance without compensation, great, your choice, but you should be able to understand that others are not.
If you bought a computer with a processor capable of a specific level of performance and then after the fact the company sent out an update which reduced the output to preserve it's longevity but offered you no compensation for the reduction would you be fine with that? Most would not if they could have simply paid less for a lower performing processor in the first place.
 
That's usually done before selling a product, not afterwards, especially after they charged extra for the level of performance. If the level of performance is going to be reduced after the fact they need to a.) disclose that possibility before the sale and b.) compensate buyers who were not warned of that possibility before the sale. What happened is Tesla made a mistake, a big one, by pushing the performance beyond what certain components were capable of with a reasonable MTBF, and they charged extra for that performance. You are happy to give back some of that performance without compensation, great, your choice, but you should be able to understand that others are not.
If you bought a computer with a processor capable of a specific level of performance and then after the fact the company sent out an update which reduced the output to preserve it's longevity but offered you no compensation for the reduction would you be fine with that? Most would not if they could have simply paid less for a lower performing processor in the first place.
Great explanation of the obvious unfairness of Tesla actions. Really well said.
 
What are the specs of the processor? Does it still meet those specs?

If you think the key to your happiness is the number that power tools reports to you, you might consider that giving up a few of those numbers (which for nearly everyone will have no discernable or measurable effect on acceleration) in exchange for a car that stays out of the shop more, and has better resale value is a good trade off. I do.

The few people who pray to the god of power tools, are greatly outnumbered by those who just want a car that will meet published 0-60 and 1/4 mile (and 45-65 when made) specs and stay out the shop as much as possible. Tesla should cater to the latter.

Requiring launch mode to get best acceleration from a stop is actually consistent with their description of launch mode as providing "Optimum performance" all along.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: AnxietyRanger
Definitely reduced max current. I used to get around 1620 amps max. Now I get around 1605 amps max.
I was getting around 510 kw max. My max power is about 1% less now. Not much, but why?

My avg power from 45 to 60 mph used to be 500 kw. Now it's 494 kw.

My data also shows a 1% power reduction, even with using launch mode.. We lost power there too.
Accelerating without launch mode yields a much larger power reduction. 25 kw or 5% in my case.
I believe the p100d experienced similar losses.

Yes, it is time for the class action lawsuit to go forward. Tesla is not going to fix this for us without it. Very sad.