Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[smac]

Should you be able to keep the car even though you paid $10K less than what you were supposed to?
.....
I would hope that you would not attempt such. You would not get away with it. At least not in the U.S.

Here in the UK once a good is delivered, even if mis-priced, then under the sale of goods act it is contractually binding if both parties acted in good faith. (With additional rights granted for purchases where you have not had chance to physically examine the item you are purchasing, which was the case for us UK launch car owners as there were no stores at the time),

So yes you would and indeed should "get away with it." If it had been a physical item the laws are perfectly clear in this regard.

Now personally I really couldn't care about the chargers, I don't have 3 phase at my home so it makes zero difference to me. I only realised Tesla had done this through TMC, not from actual use. I am NOT after a freebie or stealing from Tesla.

What it did do was erode a little bit of trust in Tesla that a phone call would have sorted.

Let's put it down to a difference in cultural expectations from vendors and leave it at that.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Why should they have to "talk to you" about something which belongs to them?

If your bank makes an error and puts in a $1,000.00 credit toward your bank account, should they have to "call you before they correct the error" and debit your account that $1,000.00 and take back what's rightfully theirs?

The bank would be well within their right to take back their $1,000.00 and correct your account balance.......in the middle of the night if they decided to, and then notify you later.

I think @smac is making exactly your point. Tesla thinks the fleet belongs to them, not the drivers, when it comes to enabling and disabling things through software. Their approach is consistent: silent changes whenever it feels in Tesla's interest to do so. This thread is all about that.

Bank holding money aside, I would argue the traditional approach of not being able to ship as ordered and then shipping better than ordered instead, the customer would be allowed to keep the better feature. Now software makes it easier to "take it away", but the ethics remain the same. If you are sold the same or better, I can see the ethics issue if the customer is not notified beforehand something is a loan. In this case there was no significant mistake on Tesla's part (like leaving a case of one million pounds on the back seat), that the customer could reasonably be expected to return.

Tesla could have taken the commercial way out too - refunded the second charger to early buyers of that instead. It sounds like that would have come with less potential ethical issues and made all your customers in the region happier.

That said, neither I nor @smac surely thinks the charger issue is anywhere near the same as the Countergate. It is just an interesting example of Tesla wielding their power through software again.

This may have to legislated at some point.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Wow... what a thread to catch up on!

My take FWIW is this is all the fault of falcon wing doors, (and before you all think I've lost my mind), here is my thesis:

Back in the run up to the P85D (which remember was a big secret) Tesla were having huge headaches, both with the X design but also the strain it was putting on the business's financials. They desperately needed some razzmatazz.

They had some X drive train mule cars in the R&D department had found they could get crazy 0-60 times. They also had been forced to put emergency braking on the cars (for EU crash ratings) and people had started to spot the new radar units.

What better way than to create some fantastic column inches than to make claims about the iconic McLaren F1 as a performance benchmark, as well as continue their "silicon valley heritage" narrative by exploiting the last drops out of the Mobileye kit, in a press spectacular.

Neither of these had gone under nearly enough testing, but the scene was set, and product announced as though it was ready.

From that point forward they have been chasing their tail (or should that be tale) in trying to deliver on those bold claims. Maybe with the P100D and AP2 we are finally there.

Nice theory. Certainly with the P85D HP issues. P90DL quarter mile and counter issues, and now the P100D disclaimer it is easy to see Tesla has been chasing an elusive target at their customer's expense there.

I am not sure it is just the Falcon Wings, though.

I think Tesla's constant product changes and rushed deliveries of APs, several P products, early Model X (and now again rushed 5 seater Model Xes that are a weird freak show on their own) is the result of wider issues:

Tesla is attempting to stimulate demand and quarterly growth that for whatever reason is no longer coming inherently through their no-advertising, no-discounts sales model.

Tesla seems to feel the need for constant demand and publicity levers on the product level instead of making a solid product first and then selling that for a while using traditional demand levers (advertising, price). So they end up rushing it.

Their whole quarterly sales routine, rush after rush after rush, is testament to that.

And the missed targets. (Indeed the one quarter Tesla smashed through, the Q3, they abandoned the no-discounts sales model.)

 

[smac]

That said, neither I nor @smac surely thinks the charger issue is anywhere near the same as the Countergate. It is just an interesting example of Tesla wielding their power through software again.

This may have to legislated at some point.

Glad you took my point, obviously my rambling style got confused. (For absolute clarity, no I don't think my case is anywhere near as bad as countergate.)

As for future legislation, I think so too. Especially with IoT blurring the lines between physically delivered product, and a vendors right to remotely change it's behaviour post sale. Currently this is dealt with by draconian CYA EULA's, however my thinking is consumer protection acts will come in to limit the scope of some of the disclaimers, bringing digital products more into line with physical ones.

Anyway, enough on this topic, which is clearly going off on a tangent

 

[lolachampcar]

From that point forward they have been chasing their tail (or should that be tale) in trying to deliver on those bold claims. Maybe with the P100D and AP2 we are finally there.

Permission to borrow? I love this.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Permission to borrow? I love this.

The tail/tale part was especially inspired.

 

[smac]

Permission to borrow? I love this.

Permission granted

 

[sandpiper]

Wow... what a thread to catch up on!

My take FWIW is this is all the fault of falcon wing doors, (and before you all think I've lost my mind), here is my thesis:

Back in the run up to the P85D (which remember was a big secret) Tesla were having huge headaches, both with the X design but also the strain it was putting on the business's financials. They desperately needed some razzmatazz.

They had some X drive train mule cars in the R&D department had found they could get crazy 0-60 times. They also had been forced to put emergency braking on the cars (for EU crash ratings) and people had started to spot the new radar units.

What better way than to create some fantastic column inches than to make claims about the iconic McLaren F1 as a performance benchmark, as well as continue their "silicon valley heritage" narrative by exploiting the last drops out of the Mobileye kit, in a press spectacular.

Neither of these had gone under nearly enough testing, but the scene was set, and product announced as though it was ready.

From that point forward they have been chasing their tail (or should that be tale) in trying to deliver on those bold claims. Maybe with the P100D and AP2 we are finally there.

Great assessment. I bet that this is really close to the mark. People assume it's some deliberate marketing conspiracy. I tend to think that they're running like mad, looking for opportunities where they find them, and hoping that Elon doesn't go out on stage and promise some other crazy thing than he hasn't talked to anybody about.

 

[P85DEE]

Here in the UK once a good is delivered, even if mis-priced, then under the sale of goods act it is contractually binding if both parties acted in good faith. (With additional rights granted for purchases where you have not had chance to physically examine the item you are purchasing, which was the case for us UK launch car owners as there were no stores at the time),

So yes you would and indeed should "get away with it." If it had been a physical item the laws are perfectly clear in this regard.

Now personally I really couldn't care about the chargers, I don't have 3 phase at my home so it makes zero difference to me. I only realised Tesla had done this through TMC, not from actual use. I am NOT after a freebie or stealing from Tesla.

What it did do was erode a little bit of trust in Tesla that a phone call would have sorted.

Let's put it down to a difference in cultural expectations from vendors and leave it at that.

Well, I think that the last sentence in your post above, is best, and agree with that suggestion.

And if as you say, that's a cultural difference in expectations, or even the law where you live, well then nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you say will change my mind.

So I agree that your suggestion is a good one.

 

[scaesare]

OK here's a moral conundrum...

My car came with dual chargers enabled (I only paid for single), but due to a bug in the earliest RHD firmware. Subsequently Tesla realised their mistake and remotely disabled them.

Now as the car I drove away from the lot in had them and we'd both signed off on the delivery, should Tesla re-enable them?


(** Note whilst the above is true, I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about it, I've not needed the facility in nearly 3 years, and I'll be trading the car in soon where no doubt the CPO'd version of my car will have dual chargers for the next owner)

As long as you got the capability you paid for ("X" power capability charging, as you describe in the other post), then I suppose from the "fair" standpoint, this is acceptable. They could also have conceivably accomplished this by current limiting both chargers under specific conditions, thus fixing a "bug" in the original configuration. While the end result is the same, it might "feel better" to not have a piece of hardware in the car not being used at all.

That having been said, I'd much rather see a goodwill gesture of "Sorry for the problems with our initial chargers not working correctly... enjoy your dual chargers operating at 22KW on the house!". If it's not going to cost you anything, why not delight your customer?

Now, on a related note: I'd have no problem with you rooting your car and enabling the second charger.

(also, you have a nice spare sitting there... I have it on good authority you can swap 'em if the primary dies for far less cost than to replace one)

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Unless Tesla removes the second charger at a service center visit because they feel it is theirs...

 

[smac]

Unless Tesla removes the second charger at a service center visit because they feel it is theirs...

Well ironically they have replaced both mine under warranty. Post one FW upgrade the charge rate on 22kW posts was lower than 7kW ones. My car was in for something else so they swapped both modules.

Turns out other UK users that had only paid for single charging also experienced the glitch, but their s were rectified by firmware.

Anyway enough talk of my chargers, I want to know how material countergate is. I've got a deposit down to trade my 60 in and I'm torn on whether to get another, or get the P100D....

(Or to be fair a 90D and sit on the fence!)

 

[Andyw2100]

Let's put it down to a difference in cultural expectations from vendors and leave it at that.

From reading this thread, and definitely from reading some of the older threads about Tesla's actions, it is pretty clear there are plenty of differences in vendor expectations within the same culture too.

 

[thegruf]

... I want to know how material countergate is. I've got a deposit down to trade my 60 in and I'm torn on whether to get another, or get the P100D.... (Or to be fair a 90D and sit on the fence!)

go for a 90D because if you drive the P90D too hard the P falls off

 

[TSLA Pilot]

The way things are currently being handled and the way this is playing out, bad press will not be the only negative consequence. Handled properly, this could have been a win-win for Tesla and its customers.

Yes, it could still be a win-win, but . . . why is it that Tesla needs to learn the lesson in such a public forum? The reality of "cheater" software that secretly removes performance is that they just can spin this after-the-fact.

Someone screwed up, royally, and now it's the non-statements and now the "lawyer-speak" language being added to the web page that's only digging a deeper hole for Tesla.

Crazy how such a smart company filled with great people can still screw up on something like this. SO frustrating.

Elon, it's time: MAKE US WHOLE.

Suggestions:

1. Trade-in for a replacement Tesla with substantial credit for our lost value, and/or,
2. Free "ESA's" for all of P90D L owners, and/or,
3. Something else, but SOMETHING to make up for what's been taken from us.

Take our trade ins, drop the "Ludicrous" option and remove the underline/bar from the back of the car, and turn them into service loaners or CPO cars.

No more Launch Mode, no more "Countergate" and the problem solved because everyone's happy.

Why was this not done yesterday?

 

[thegruf]

Why was this not done yesterday?

cost ... and sombody too proud to admit they screwed up

 

[TSLA Pilot]

cost ... and sombody too proud to admit they screwed up

Fine, but I'm not upset that Tesla's reach exceeded its grasp. What I'm upset about is what they do when they've screwed up.

FIRST RULE OF HOLES: When you're in one, STOP DIGGING!

Every day this continues without a resolution, as in enhanced trade in values for all of us that are rightfully pissed off, and a reduced price (or free) ESA for those that don't, is just stupid.

Tesla WILL make this right--as others have accurately posted, they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

The question is will they do it in the months and years ahead (and after a class action lawsuit that will cost much more in both real money, and massively bad press), or will they simply step up and fix it this week?

Personally, I'm just tired of Tesla's otherwise brilliant people acting stupid; they know better, much better, than to let this drag out as long as they already have.

 

[AWDtsla]

Yes, it could still be a win-win, but . . . why is it that Tesla needs to learn the lesson in such a public forum? The reality of "cheater" software that secretly removes performance is that they just can spin this after-the-fact.

Someone screwed up, royally, and now it's the non-statements and now the "lawyer-speak" language being added to the web page that's only digging a deeper hole for Tesla.

Crazy how such a smart company filled with great people can still screw up on something like this. SO frustrating.

Elon, it's time: MAKE US WHOLE.

Suggestions:

1. Trade-in for a replacement Tesla with substantial credit for our lost value, and/or,
2. Free "ESA's" for all of P90D L owners, and/or,
3. Something else, but SOMETHING to make up for what's been taken from us.

Take our trade ins, drop the "Ludicrous" option and remove the underline/bar from the back of the car, and turn them into service loaners or CPO cars.

No more Launch Mode, no more "Countergate" and the problem solved because everyone's happy.

Why was this not done yesterday?

Probably because they'd have to do the same for all the P90Dl owners before the refresh. Any idea how many of us there are?

 

[lolachampcar]

I suspect Tesla will not budge on this one, will say no more about the "counter" and will simply ride out the storm. The smart people at Tesla specifically made the changes quietly knowing only a very few would figure it out. A "fix" program with cars returning gets a lot of press. Batteries failing gets a lot of press. A few disgruntled customers that will not take legal action gets zip.

I think that is the calculus or at least it would be mine if my customers came easy and I had no moral "problems" with doing such things. (for the record, my companies have always had to work their asses off for customers and I can not look people in the face and tell them its raining when I am actually peeing on them).



thegruf,

That P falling off thing is just too funny. I swim in the performance car guys/gals circles. When you are charging a $40K premium for your bad boy, I really do not think a P falling off caveat is going to fly. I guess we will see.

 

[VikH]

Not sure if this was brought up - So if I purchase an inventory P90DL Model S or X, do I need to inquire about how many launches are left or if the power is already limited? I assume inventory cars (aka demos/loaners) have been LCed more than average.