Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[AnxietyRanger]

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.

Realistical as your description may be, Tesla should either find that edge before sales or compensate for those whom a sale has already happened to - yes, including buybacks if someone is not happy with a change they were not told of at the time of purchase.

We expected no less from Volkswagen on the dieselgate.

 

[TIppy]

Tesla is unlike other car manufacturers in that their specs are constantly changing rather than fixed for a model year. Their advertising and manual are frequently far behind what is being delivered to the customer. The only indication of what we are receiving is the vehicle at the time of delivery.

The original p85d came with the upgraded P85+ suspension. Then they decided for some reason it was better to install the softer standard suspension. Should they have forced all previous owners to convert to the softer suspension, or should they get to keep what was on the car at the time of delivery? On the other hand, if we like the soft suspension and tesla now says it's the better setup, should we be able to demand the upgrade after purchase since they are allowed to force a downgrade? Same with 21" wheels. Some came staggered others where square.

So I think with Telsa the only rational approach is to accept as deliverables that which is actually accepted at delivery assuming of course that they meet at least their latest outdated advertisements.

 

[JRP3]

What are the specs of the processor? Does it still meet those specs?

Obviously not if it was advertised with one level of performance but was later crippled to a lower level of performance.

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.

Irrelevant. If the car is not capable of acceptable longevity as it was sold then it's defective, as would be any other product.

 

[bhzmark]

If the processor meets the advertised specs, you don't have a claim if it lost some power by some other measure, or for some function, but it still meets the advertised specs.

Can anyone claim that when they bought their car the 0-60 time or some other performance metric was represented as X, and only now because of this recent change in software, they cannot now obtain that spec? Because they tried and have some proof such as vbox or timeslips? And allowing that weighty options have consequences separate from software changes.

As long as the recent changes do not prevent the car from meeting the specs, Tesla should maximize longevity. And that isn't an issue of "acceptable longevity" or not -- it is not binary -- it is more or less.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If the processor meets the advertised specs, you don't have a claim if it lost some power by some other measure, or for some function, but it still meets the advertised specs.

Can anyone claim that when they bought their car the 0-60 time or some other performance metric was represented as X, and only now because of this recent change in software, they cannot now obtain that spec? Because they tried and have some proof such as vbox or timeslips? And allowing that weighty options have consequences separate from software changes.

As long as the recent changes do not prevent the car from meeting the specs, Tesla should maximize longevity. And that isn't an issue of "acceptable longevity" or not -- it is not binary -- it is more or less.

Be that as it may, obviously there are several specs the Performance Teslas have been failing to meet either after the changes or sometimes even before them.

That's really a non-starter as a way out for this.

Let's just admit, Tesla really dropped the ball on this.

 

[SDRick]

If the processor meets the advertised specs, you don't have a claim if it lost some power by some other measure, or for some function, but it still meets the advertised specs.

Can anyone claim that when they bought their car the 0-60 time or some other performance metric was represented as X, and only now because of this recent change in software, they cannot now obtain that spec? Because they tried and have some proof such as vbox or timeslips? And allowing that weighty options have consequences separate from software changes.

As long as the recent changes do not prevent the car from meeting the specs, Tesla should maximize longevity. And that isn't an issue of "acceptable longevity" or not -- it is not binary -- it is more or less.

When I purchased the car with ludicrous, not once was it stated in multiple test drives, marketing material or the owners manual that one had to come to a full stop to perhaps achieve advertised specifications.

 

[TIppy]

.QUOTE="bhzmark, post: 2080636, member: 15186"]As long as the recent changes do not prevent the car from meeting the specs, Tesla should maximize longevity. And that isn't an issue of "acceptable longevity" or not -- it is not binary -- it is more or less.[/QUOTE]

If bmw says their m5 is an 11.9 sec car, does that mean that if you take it to the track and they double the boost above the normal value you can get an 11.9, but normally boosted it's really only a 14.0 second car? If they let you use that level of power in everyday driving your engine would blow in 6 month, but they're still going to claim its an 11.9 sec car.

The p90dl will not do a 10.9 sec 1/4 mile at 1500 amps. If it did, they wouldn't have continued to push the limits of the battery to 1600 amps.
So by briefly(because the car can't really handle 1600amps) boosting the current to 1600 amps in launch mode, they are claiming that the car is a 10.9 when it's really an 11.1 sec car.

We have a new package. We attach three jado rockets to the back of the car, and if you fire one of them your 1/4 mile time drops to 1.2 secs. We've discovered an issue with the longenvity of these, so we're going to have to limit firing of the rockets to once every three years. But it is a 1.2 sec 1 /4 mile car.

 

[bhzmark]

not once was it stated in multiple test drives, marketing material or the owners manual that one had to come to a full stop to perhaps achieve advertised specifications

You got me there. I confess that it may be hard to replicate those 0-60 (yes zero!) and 1/4 mile specifications -- -from a roll.

 

[bhzmark]

So by briefly(because the car can't really handle 1600amps) boosting the current to 1600 amps in launch mode, they are claiming that the car is a 10.9 when it's really an 11.1 sec car.

Launch mode provides optimum acceleration. It has said that in the owners manual all along.

And other car makers require a launch mode to access the best acceleration.

I suppose those who don't read the owners manual, or are not familiar with other performance cars, might be surprised. They should get over it and enjoy their car.

 

[n2mb_racing]

Launch mode provides optimum acceleration. It has said that in the owners manual all along.

And other car makers require a launch mode to access the best acceleration.

I suppose those who don't read the owners manual, or are not familiar with other performance cars, might be surprised. They should get over it and enjoy their car.

The problem is not that they require launch mode to achieve the maximum acceleration. That is fine if they want to do that for cars going forward. The problem is that they retroactively DOWNGRADED the performance of our cars AFTER purchase. That's what I'm pissed about. My car could get 490 kW whenever I floored it, from a roll, when I first bought it. After the latest firmware update, now I can only get 465 kW. And, I can only get ~480 kW now with launch mode. They have further reduced even launch mode by about 1-2 %

 

[smac]

Tesla is unlike other car manufacturers in that their specs are constantly changing rather than fixed for a model year.

Which I think will bite them in the backside at a point down the line, if for no other reason than logistics around parts stocking issues.

A silly example in my car is that the sun visors needed to be changed. I now have two newer variants that don't quite fit in the pocket profile of the headlining. (I also have an excess of airbag warning stickers, with a passenger side visor from a RHD car, and a driver's side visor from a LHD car ).

If you were to need rear a specific suspension piece for a P+ style car, as these are no longer currently heading down production line, how long before you are likely on supplier back order for those specific parts? Or would they change out your staggered wheels and put the suspension back to "standard" ?.

Tesla have done a great job getting something to market quickly, in effect outsourcing a portion of development and testing to clients. However in some ways I hope they become a little more measured in their testing and release strategy, at least for the hardware, because it is much harder to fix once out in the wild. This seems to be the root cause of this particular situation, i.e. some insufficiently tested piece of hardware that can't easily be fixed on all vehicles, hence the firmware mitigation which can easily be rolled out.

 

[TIppy]

Launch mode provides optimum acceleration. It has said that in the owners manual all along.

And other car makers require a launch mode to access the best acceleration.

I suppose those who don't read the owners manual, or are not familiar with other performance cars, might be surprised. They should get over it and enjoy their car.

Launch mode hasn't been in the manual all along.

Launch mode in other cars doesn't surreptitiously increase the horsepower to an unsustainable level to fake their performance stats. These stats are not the goal unto themselves. They are an indication of the performance of the vehicle. Telsa has falsified the performance of the p90dl by using power levels that the car can't sustain under normal driving conditions.

Launch control in other vehicles just sets up the best conditions to optimize the standard performance of the engine for max acceleration. It's the same thing test drivers do when they try different rpms to launch with until the find the best one, along with trying different shift points.

 

[bhzmark]

The problem is not that they require launch mode to achieve the maximum acceleration. That is fine if they want to do that for cars going forward. The problem is that they retroactively DOWNGRADED the performance of our cars AFTER purchase. That's what I'm pissed about. My car could get 490 kW whenever I floored it, from a roll, when I first bought it. After the latest firmware update, now I can only get 465 kW. And, I can only get ~480 kW now with launch mode. They have further reduced even launch mode by about 1-2 %

I hear you. But what power tools reports isn't a spec.

If the 1-2 percent is real (not clear that it is) and results in not meeting specs (no evidence of that yet) then you'd have a cause for complaint and to seek a remedy --- pointing to not meeting the specs as your problem, not pointing to a change in power tools data reports.

 

[n2mb_racing]

I hear you. But what power tools reports isn't a spec.

If the 1-2 percent is real (not clear that it is) and results in not meeting specs (no evidence of that yet) then you'd have a cause for complaint and to seek a remedy --- pointing to not meeting the specs as your problem, not pointing to a change in power tools data reports.

The 1% reduction seems to have been observed by several people, not just me. Regardless, the 25 kW reduction without using launch mode is real and noticeable. Less battery kW = less HP at the motors. It does cause a measurable change in 0-60 times and 45-65 passing times.

But, I agree. Their advertised specs were conservative, so they might be able to get away with it. It's a small change, but it is frustrating. It's annoying to know that I bought the car with a given level of performance, drove it that way for 6 months, then they cut back the power without notifying or compensating me in any way. It sets a bad precedent as well. How can I know they won't knock the power level down further?

I hoped for better from Tesla and I'm disappointed that they won't just fix the problem. Instead, they are hiding and covering it up.

On the plus side, I test drove a P100D this weekend and the power reduction there is the same ~20 kW amount if you don't use launch control. That makes it a smaller percentage of the total, and not quite as bad. It is still very fast both with and without launch control. But, there is no way to be sure that they don't downgrade it 6 or 12 months from now if the P100D batteries start failing...

 

[TIppy]

The 1% reduction seems to have been observed by several people, not just me. Regardless, the 25 kW reduction without using launch mode is real and noticeable. Less battery kW = less HP at the motors. It does cause a measurable change in 0-60 times and 45-65 passing times.

But, I agree. Their advertised specs were conservative, so they might be able to get away with it. It's a small change, but it is frustrating. It's annoying to know that I bought the car with a given level of performance, drove it that way for 6 months, then they cut back the power without notifying or compensating me in any way. It sets a bad precedent as well. How can I know they won't knock the power level down further?

I hoped for better from Tesla and I'm disappointed that they won't just fix the problem. Instead, they are hiding and covering it up.

On the plus side, I test drove a P100D this weekend and the power reduction there is the same ~20 kW amount if you don't use launch control. That makes it a smaller percentage of the total, and not quite as bad. It is still very fast both with and without launch control. But, there is no way to be sure that they don't downgrade it 6 or 12 months from now if the P100D batteries start failing...

But you don't need the extra power that ludicrous+ added to the p100d to attain their advertised specs. You do need need 1600 amps to attain the advertised p90dl specs.

 

[n2mb_racing]

But you don't need the extra power that ludicrous+ added to the p100d to attain their advertised specs. You do need need 1600 amps to attain the advertised p90dl specs.

Agreed. But, I think we can still get 1600 amps with launch mode, but not without it.

 

[TIppy]

Agreed. But, I think we can still get 1600 amps with launch mode, but not without it.

But they are cheating by using more power than the car can reliably provide to make their advertised claims. Would it be ok now for them to set the max current to 1100 amps without launch mode since they can very briefly and not very often use 1600 amps to do a 10.9 sec 1/4 mile? A P car wouldn't give you any more performance in your daily driving, but infrequently you could do a 10.9 1/4 mile. You would not be getting the daily performance that a 10.9 sec 1/4 mile implied.

 

[n2mb_racing]

But they are cheating by using more power than the car can reliably provide to make there advertised claims. Would it be ok now for them to set the max current to 1100 amp without launch mode since they can very briefly and not very often use 1600 amps to do a 10.9 sec 1/4 mile?

I agree with you. That's why I'm annoyed.

 

[bhzmark]

they are cheating by using more power than the car can reliably provide

Reliability isn't binary. It's a trade off for a matter degree. Maybe you will understand it better in a formula or function?

Is the P100D Easter egg, which claims that it's use will "cause accelerated wear" cheating? Do you see why it doesn't matter. Both give owners the choice to cheat or not, cause additional wear or not.

And also understand that if you engage in more WOTs that will cause more wear. And if you open and close your door a million times that will cause more wear.

Wear, and resulting failure risk is a function of use. Shouldn't be a surprise to people and as Tesla learns what use patterns cause what sort of wear, they are updating the car to limit and manage that wear while still providing advertised specs.

A P car wouldn't give you any more performance in your daily driving

Power available without launch mode will still beat anything else on the road. But it won't give you much performance for daily driving while in the service center.

 

[n2mb_racing]

Won't give you much performance for daily driving while in the service center either.

Sure, then fix it. Replace the bond wires or whatever is failing too early with a better design and be done with it.