Tech_Guy
ALWAYS IN LUDICROUS MODE! P90D>P100D Upgrade
Maybe we were wrong all along, its not a Ludicrous underline its a big minus sign....
-
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.
mattcrowley
Member
I have a 2015 (Sept) Model S P90DL and I want to help, but I can't justify logging into a 3rd party app (PowerTools) with my Tesla credentials.
Honestly, I think we are past collecting data, since we know Tesla has confirmed there is an issue here. We need a goodwill resolution from Tesla on the performance cars that were purchased prior to the recently added disclaimer. I love Tesla. I love my Model S P90DL...but this makes me pause on upgrading my Models S or going Performance on any future Model 3 reservations. Now I am worried about resale impact on my existing car.
Tesla should do right to those that spent >$10,000 purchasing performance/ludicrous upgrades to later potentially reduce their performance without an upfront disclaimer. I hope Tesla will do right here, but it needs to hurry up with a good response. Waiting on this one, will not help.
Honestly, I think we are past collecting data, since we know Tesla has confirmed there is an issue here. We need a goodwill resolution from Tesla on the performance cars that were purchased prior to the recently added disclaimer. I love Tesla. I love my Model S P90DL...but this makes me pause on upgrading my Models S or going Performance on any future Model 3 reservations. Now I am worried about resale impact on my existing car.
Tesla should do right to those that spent >$10,000 purchasing performance/ludicrous upgrades to later potentially reduce their performance without an upfront disclaimer. I hope Tesla will do right here, but it needs to hurry up with a good response. Waiting on this one, will not help.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Tech_Guy
ALWAYS IN LUDICROUS MODE! P90D>P100D Upgrade
Tesla really needs to implement the trunk-lid mounted rear-facing 17" screen. That way they could make the Ludicrous sign progressively smaller as you punch away. Sort of a reverse progress bar.
That being unrealistic, perhaps service centers could just use a saw.
That being unrealistic, perhaps service centers could just use a saw.
Always with the expensive or labor intensive solutions AR.
Simply make the bar from small sections rather than one long piece. Each section is held on with a progressively less durable adhesive.
Voila a self calibrating vehicle badging system.
For the coup de gras, just include the "P"
Always with the expensive or labor intensive solutions AR.
Simply make the bar from small sections rather than one long piece. Each section is held on with a progressively less durable adhesive.
Voila a self calibrating vehicle badging system.
For the coup de gras, just include the "P"
And the final insult is removal of the "D".
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Old Man Mike
Member
Gee, that's interesting. All the data I had for V2/V3 guys with Max Power OFF was 480 Kw. Your 450 Kw with Max Power OFF is the same as V1 with Max Power OFF. I wonder if Tesla lowered the Max Power OFF level for V2/V3 to the same as V1. Anyone else with V2/V3 seeing 450 Kw as the maximum with Max Power OFF?
And by the way, 450 Kw is right at the 1500 amp level which is an interesting limit level. You could almost believe that imposing this new level for V2/V3 instead of 480 Kw would allow fewer of the +1500 amp counter increments and therefore fewer owners to see the cutback in the near term.
Last edited:
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
n2mb_racing
Active Member
With max battery on: 490 kW @ 99% SOC and 485 kW @ 88% SOC.
With max battery off (but batteries still warm), I got 464 kW at 86% SOC.
So, about 20 kW drop turning off max battery.
With max battery off (but batteries still warm), I got 464 kW at 86% SOC.
So, about 20 kW drop turning off max battery.
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Thoughts from this morning’s bike ride.
We are here and talking because one owner experienced a 100 ampish power reduction with the roll out of a new version of firmware. How did this happen?
Tesla likely has a significant collection of MS batteries constantly undergoing long term reliability testing. The V3 (1600 ampish) battery likely showed good performance for the initial part of that lifecycle testing such that Tesla felt comfortable releasing it to production. A little later down the road, there were failures in the V3 long term testing set that were avalanche in nature, not just degradation related. These hard failures were at a statistically significant point in the battery’s 8 year warranty to be a warranty liability. As important, hard failures are bad PR.
Tesla’s solution was to roll out a counter that would chop power levels before the batteries in the field could experience a hard failure. They likely did not expect ANYONE to be anywhere near the chop point. If they did, they likely would have had a program in place to quietly address that (one that we know of) owner’s issue. “If it happens, give the owner a free 100 kw upgrade under the agreement that they keep quiet (maybe including leaving the 90 badging on the car).” Tesla did not think this far ahead and pissed the customer off. Obviously a free 100 kw battery with its associated good will is much better than forum posts about this behavior not to mention emags doing stories.
Our European friends pushed the 691 issue. We did not possess the combination of factors (regulatory support, moral outrage, insurance tied to hp figures, ??) here in the US so nothing happened. The 691 issue likely prevented a similar group of Europeans from buying the P90DL so they are not likely going to address this issue for us. I think Tesla is going to get a pass.
If for some reason Tesla is compelled to “do something” about this counter mechanism, they will only be sorry they got caught and not that they did it in the first place. The next solution will likely be much slicker; for instance-
Use your counters to give a new car a certain number of freebees. After that point, reduce broadcast available current by one amp for every two events. An event would be a max bat launch or Y number of seconds over 1400 amps.
The above approach will solve a bunch of problems. First, the demo fleet can be used to its full potential within the freebee band. You need full power to sell those performance editions. Dump them when they get close to the freebee limit. Second, most people’s butt dyno does not spot slow degradation. Only those select group of customers that record output power or use VBox or track numbers will ever have a clue. Lastly, the gradual reduction can be called normal battery degradation by Tesla and no one will be the wiser.
I bring the above up as my initial train of thought was bumming me out. I was going through the likely footprint of litigation and was coming up with models of four years and $65K to get resolution on a $30K issue. I wanted to approach the problem from a more positive direction.
One solution that struck my fancy was an owner fund where we have all Tesla’s code reversed and changes documented. We could include a few tools like update managers that eliminate the nag messages for firmware updates. It may even be possible to cherry pick changes but I’m getting ahead of myself. There would likely be unintended warranty consequences with stuff like that.
So say 1000 owners toss in $100 a year (or 100 owners toss in $1000 a year both are chump change when you consider the value of the asset) and now you have budget to reverse the more meaningful code elements on MS. The initial hit will be hard; there is a lot of work there. Afterwards, you will be working from a known code base and just documenting changes. Those that contribute would have access to source and source summary changes (likely the more interesting).
This is the only positive approach I can come up with to remain engaged with the Tesla process. Does anyone else have any ideas?
We are here and talking because one owner experienced a 100 ampish power reduction with the roll out of a new version of firmware. How did this happen?
Tesla likely has a significant collection of MS batteries constantly undergoing long term reliability testing. The V3 (1600 ampish) battery likely showed good performance for the initial part of that lifecycle testing such that Tesla felt comfortable releasing it to production. A little later down the road, there were failures in the V3 long term testing set that were avalanche in nature, not just degradation related. These hard failures were at a statistically significant point in the battery’s 8 year warranty to be a warranty liability. As important, hard failures are bad PR.
Tesla’s solution was to roll out a counter that would chop power levels before the batteries in the field could experience a hard failure. They likely did not expect ANYONE to be anywhere near the chop point. If they did, they likely would have had a program in place to quietly address that (one that we know of) owner’s issue. “If it happens, give the owner a free 100 kw upgrade under the agreement that they keep quiet (maybe including leaving the 90 badging on the car).” Tesla did not think this far ahead and pissed the customer off. Obviously a free 100 kw battery with its associated good will is much better than forum posts about this behavior not to mention emags doing stories.
Our European friends pushed the 691 issue. We did not possess the combination of factors (regulatory support, moral outrage, insurance tied to hp figures, ??) here in the US so nothing happened. The 691 issue likely prevented a similar group of Europeans from buying the P90DL so they are not likely going to address this issue for us. I think Tesla is going to get a pass.
If for some reason Tesla is compelled to “do something” about this counter mechanism, they will only be sorry they got caught and not that they did it in the first place. The next solution will likely be much slicker; for instance-
Use your counters to give a new car a certain number of freebees. After that point, reduce broadcast available current by one amp for every two events. An event would be a max bat launch or Y number of seconds over 1400 amps.
The above approach will solve a bunch of problems. First, the demo fleet can be used to its full potential within the freebee band. You need full power to sell those performance editions. Dump them when they get close to the freebee limit. Second, most people’s butt dyno does not spot slow degradation. Only those select group of customers that record output power or use VBox or track numbers will ever have a clue. Lastly, the gradual reduction can be called normal battery degradation by Tesla and no one will be the wiser.
I bring the above up as my initial train of thought was bumming me out. I was going through the likely footprint of litigation and was coming up with models of four years and $65K to get resolution on a $30K issue. I wanted to approach the problem from a more positive direction.
One solution that struck my fancy was an owner fund where we have all Tesla’s code reversed and changes documented. We could include a few tools like update managers that eliminate the nag messages for firmware updates. It may even be possible to cherry pick changes but I’m getting ahead of myself. There would likely be unintended warranty consequences with stuff like that.
So say 1000 owners toss in $100 a year (or 100 owners toss in $1000 a year both are chump change when you consider the value of the asset) and now you have budget to reverse the more meaningful code elements on MS. The initial hit will be hard; there is a lot of work there. Afterwards, you will be working from a known code base and just documenting changes. Those that contribute would have access to source and source summary changes (likely the more interesting).
This is the only positive approach I can come up with to remain engaged with the Tesla process. Does anyone else have any ideas?
n2mb_racing
Active Member
Ok, alternative optimistic way to look at it... Maybe there are counters but Tesla is not actually acting on them. Maybe Tech_guy's car is just broken? But, if that were the case, they would have just fixed it by now... Well, we can hope.
@Tech_Guy have you nearly completely discharged the battery and recharged it since this started? Maybe your power reduction is due to blown fuses, which should show up as a capacity reduction. But, it might take a full discharge / recharge cycle for the capacity meter to update.
Tech_Guy
ALWAYS IN LUDICROUS MODE! P90D>P100D Upgrade
Definitely an optimistic way to look at it though its definitely not the case. Yes I have discharged my pack as I've taken a few road trips to cover that...
But think on this why would Tesla reveal there evil master plan about launchmode counters as the reason behind my power loss and lack of functionality for the max battery power button? I think part of it is the way I was aproching it, my car was 3 months old at the time this started and lost 40 horsepower, I was expecting a warranty fix and wanted to know when to bring the car in. I guess we have to be thankful that they were at least that honest to disclose countergate. You have to also recall when they finally did reply with the bombshell it was the next month in October and at the time this was quite unknown by anyone but me and my SM after there disclosure... So unfortunately as I said up thread this is real thus the whole purpose of this thread.
Do I think a 3 month old car should loose 40 hp, hell no, and now at 6 months and over 100 hp lost can you imagine how I feel... honestly I'd love them to fix it or buy it back I don't really see any other solution as this is completely unacceptable level of performance change.
But then there's the whole issue with the v3 battery pack even if I got a new pack swapped in how long would I get before the same thing would happen again... I guess due to the disclosure I'd change my driving style and my test ride style so maybe ideally I'd get 5 months vs 3?? Who knows? And the worst part is again the lack of disclosure on what increments each of the counters. It seems avoiding launchmode isn't enough to prevent the counter from counting. Nor do we have access to these counters so that we can keep track... How bout adding a count down under the ludicrous button " you have 600 launches left" or you have "6000 passes left" etc. Still the whole idea is sickening as no one would expect these limits with a performance car, it basically makes it disposable once the limit is hit get a new one like a cell phone or something... It's like they expected the buyers to drive it like a grandma?
I don't want to go back to an ICE car but Tesla doesn't seem ready to sell a true performance car!? Just a disposable one good for 600 launches or 6000 passes assuming those are the counter numbers we get. Obviously this was not disclosed to any purchaser of the performance model.
Last edited:
I see Tesla voiding your entire warranty once you have your "open source" firmware installed. Although, there's a bunch of dumb usability things I'd love to fix, because apparently Tesla never will. If I were to own the car out of warranty, I'd be all over it.
I think P models should come with a bunch of Six Flags tickets. So, whenever we need to floor the pedal, or demonstrate the power of the car, we can go to Six Flags and just ride a rollercoaster. At least, we would know how many tickets left, to feel that powerful acceleration.
Walta
Member
I like the idea of taking control of my car's software version. As long as I am not voiding the warranty. My SA stated earlier that any performance related damage incurred would be covered under warranty. So I would assume rolling back to version 7 would allow me to race all I want ( I only do it up to the speed limit ) . And if something happens to the drive train? It would be repaired under warranty. Which I would assume would get old for Tesla, and they would eventually repair the design flaw. Which of course is what they should do in the the first place.
I am waiting on my SA to find out if he can roll me back to 7, and if not why?
As far as Tesla implementing other power reduction techniques? I think that any reduction is bad, and not the car I paid for.
It's all fun and games until one day you find out you're driving the world's first front-wheel drive Tesla.
Similar threads
