Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[lolachampcar]

Wow. With all respect, I think you fellows are blowing this up into something much bigger than it is.

5 years ago, there wasn't a car on the planet that was even close to what we're driving, in terms of technology and capability. Okay, okay, Tesla's arguably guilty of overselling a bit. But this is the auto industry; that's been happening since... well, forever. And yes, Tesla is slowly figuring out the limitations of the vehicles as they go, and it's led to a few bumps in the road, while they try to stay solvent.
Perspective!!!

Sandpiper,
I'm a big fan of perspective and I know I am finicky about performance cars. My solution was to exchange performance for range and see if I still felt the practice was wrong.

Tesla advertises 300 miles rated
I drive correctly and achieve that 300 miles rated
My daily drive loop has me using almost all of that 300 miles rated so it was a good thing that I bought the correct Tesla MS version
One day I magically click over the number of allowable times to use my 300 mile range
I now have, as a function of Tesla's software changing the available number, 270 miles of range

Tesla learned that, if you used the full 300 miles of range too much, there would be hard failures that would damage Tesla's reputation and cost a lot of money on the warranty side. The solution was to reach out, without permission or notification, and take away some range for those that use the full advertised 300 miles.

Was this ok?

 

[AWDtsla]

Although Tesla could easily provide that "Readouts" screen to any model, if they were to provide it for those of us with non-100 PLs, it would be much easier to see if and when they limit our power. So as much as I'd like to see that screen, even without any Ludicrous + associated with it in my P85DL, I'm guessing it's not going to happen.

It would be dumb for them not to give it every P/L owner. But we're in this thread because of dumb things Tesla has done...

 

[u00mem9]

Part of the problem is that once Tesla and Musk started the exaggeration it became hard to stop. Every new model had to improve on the last, so the exaggeration had to continue.

That's common with ALL lies.

 

[lolachampcar]

How about instead of childish taunting, they put on the enable screen you have used X number of events out of an allowable Y. Exceeding Y will permanently reduce battery power by Z.

Funny how they can put all kinds of very specific warnings in to CYA on AP stuff yet all you get with Ludi+ is a taunt.

 

[P85DEE]

Part of the problem is that once Tesla and Musk started the exaggeration it became hard to stop. Every new model had to improve on the last, so the exaggeration had to continue.

A lot of people in this thread, myself included, marvel at how Tesla can treat buyers of their flagship vehicles in such a manner.

I think I may have finally figured out why.

These more expensive cars went a long way toward the development of the Model 3.

It's that market that they want.

When it hits the market, there will be several of those cars sold vs every one top of the line performance Model S they sell.

It's that segment of the market which is crucial to them. Not us. Performance S buyers will be the small minority. And owners of "old" Performance S Models an even smaller group. A year from now the P90DL will be a dinosaur.

FWIW, I've already seen a couple of people in here who will be sitting out the performance version next time around. That's if there's a next time.

I'd bet that they treat Model 3 owners better than they treat us. Can't afford not to as they will make up a much larger percentage of purchasers and represent a much more competitive market.

Expect them to readily address warranty matters in those cars. At least early on.


The demands to meet the delivery and service concerns of those cars is going to be significant.

They can't afford bad reviews from CR or anyone else. Can't afford poor customer experiences. And certainly can't afford a backlog of broken Model 3 cars, waiting for warranty repairs.

It's probably a little harder for them to avoid that if they're covering warranty claims from matured Model S Performance versions that people have beaten on.

Every "old" Model S performance version they have to take care of as a result of hard use, uses a myriad of resources, manpower, bay space, etc., which could have gone towards keeping a new Model 3 on the road and its new owner satisfied.

Finally I predict the reaction of future Model 3 owners toward the plight of owners of older Performance Model S cars to be somewhere between partial and total apathy.

Think about it. Even now you don't see a lot of support for owners of the Performance versions at risk, nor outrage from owners of say Model S 60 and Model S 70D cars on this matter.

You'll see even less support and outrage over it from on new and excited Model 3 owners a year from now.

So no, I think that Tesla fully feels that they'll get away with this.

 

[Walta]

How about instead of childish taunting, they put on the enable screen you have used X number of events out of an allowable Y. Exceeding Y will permanently reduce battery power by Z.

Funny how they can put all kinds of very specific warnings in to CYA on AP stuff yet all you get with Ludi+ is a taunt.

Yes... if we could see the events, we could test it out. Then find out based on how we like to drive, and drive aggressively, if it is easy to increment the counters? This knowledge could drastically change my opinion on this power reduction issue. Since we only have one owner impacted at the moment, and since it impacted @Tech_Guy so quickly - we are all assuming the worst. Maybe @Tech_Guy's situation is radically different from what the norm will be? Instead we find out that it is VERY difficult to trigger the power reduction. So rare as to not be doable in an average lifetime of the car?

I know... I can hear you already.... Wishful thinking!

But... would be so cool if that were the case.

 

[Andyw2100]

So no, I think that Tesla fully feels that they'll get away with this.

And why shouldn't they? (Feel that way, not get away with it.)

They have gotten away with almost everything that has come before.

 

[Andyw2100]

Since we only have one owner impacted at the moment, and since it impacted @Tech_Guy so quickly - we are all assuming the worst. Maybe @Tech_Guy's situation is radically different from what the norm will be? Instead we find out that it is VERY difficult to trigger the power reduction. So rare as to not be doable in an average lifetime of the car?

I know... I can hear you already.... Wishful thinking!

But... would be so cool if that were the case.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that Tesla could change things up at any time.

We could find out that for now it takes 10,000 launches and 25,000 WOT events to wind up with just 50 fewer amps. That doesn't mean, though, that Tesla couldn't, completely unilaterally, change those numbers in six months or a year to 100 launches, 250 WOT events, and a power reduction of 200 amps.

What I am getting at is that it is the principle that matters here, and not the actual numbers.

The idea that it is OK for Tesla to remove power from our cars to protect their own interests is sickening.

 

[Walta]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that Tesla could change things up at any time.

We could find out that for now it takes 10,000 launches and 25,000 WOT events to wind up with just 50 fewer amps. That doesn't mean, though, that Tesla couldn't, completely unilaterally, change those numbers in six months or a year to 100 launches, 250 WOT events, and a power reduction of 200 amps.

What I am getting at is that it is the principle that matters here, and not the actual numbers.

The idea that it is OK for Tesla to remove power from our cars to protect their own interests is sickening.

Agreed.

 

[Andyw2100]

So just as I finished my last post, I received a call from my service center. It was unrelated to this. Yesterday the car had shown an alert that "Car Needs Service", or something close to that. The alert had cleared on its own (I was parked at home at the time.) I called roadside assistance anyway, to see what they could tell me about it, but since the alert had cleared, they said they could not see anything. They told me I could safely drive the car if there were no current alerts, and that they would have my service center check the logs, and call me. The person who called me just now said he could not see anything in the logs, which to be honest, I don't really understand, but OK. Since I had him on the phone anyway, I decided to ask about my counters.

I explained that I had read that there were now counters that counted launches and wide-open throttles, and that the car's power, on at least some P Ludicrous models, could be limited, based on the counters. I asked if he could tell me what my counters were up to.

The rep said he had not heard much about this, went to check with someone else, and came back with the answer that they were just learning about this, and would have more information in the future.

So the bottom line is I really did not get much information at all. If nothing else, at least I put it out there that one more P Ludicrous customer knows about this, and is interested in finding out more.

 

[mattcrowley]

The Drive article 1/11/2017: "Tesla May Reduce Vehicle Power After Too Many Ludicrous Mode Engagements"

This needs to get resolved soon. Too many days are passing and it is hurting my customer loyalty. I don't like the feeling. And of course...this morning my back right door handle failed...

 

[xborg]

The Drive article 1/11/2017: "Tesla May Reduce Vehicle Power After Too Many Ludicrous Mode Engagements"

This needs to get resolved soon. Too many days are passing and it is hurting my customer loyalty. I don't like the feeling. And of course...this morning my back right door handle failed...

This article is just too wrong. It says that Ludicrous mode is something like Launch mode. oh god, people don't read anything at all.

Also, people just read the first message of the thread,
mods, would it be possible to update the first message with up-to-date information? I know iw is not possible for a user to edit the message, but maybe you can at least add some edit notes?

 

[lolachampcar]

This is why I started the (hated by at least one) thread over on TM. I could edit the OP and update it. I tried to only reference what owners have been told by Tesla or what Tesla has said themselves. At least that way people can form their own opinions based on first hand hearsay

 

[davidc18]

+1

 

[P85DEE]

And why shouldn't they? (Feel that way, not get away with it.)

They have gotten away with almost everything that has come before.

I tend to believe that they are using a variant of a divide and conquer approach here.

By this I mean that when this all shakes out, the people who are most like to get the legs cut out from under them are the V2 and V3 owners. The 1500+ amp P90DL crowd.

They may, and probably do, make up the the smallest segment of non P100DL Ludicrous equipped cars.

Many of these owners will never be hit during their ownership periods, having not tripped the counters.

Others will be hit and never even know it. Never find out that they've been hit.

And a few others will be hit and will know it.

It's that last group which would likely concern Tesla most.

And they no doubt feel that they can handle that group.

 

[bhzmark]

The lack of focus on determining exactly what circumstances have exactly what effects is mind boggling.

Just three months of use for @Tech_Guy ? And in that time period he triggered multiple counters ? Really? While the TRC cars didn't? And zero other reports? No one else?!

Something else is likely going on with his car. @Tech_Guy needs to get more info on his precise situation. Leave service order stating decreased power and see how they handle.

And we need to recognize that we need to increase our sample size beyond one -- 1! In order to have any real info on what is going on.

Tesla is far and away the most aggressive performance focused car company. Nothing comes close. Balancing performance with longevity is done all the time. And Tesla has to do that.

Charging the battery to full capacity, and running it down to zero, repeatedly, and doing other things that stress the battery, does in fact wear down the battery and decrease its range. That was an engineering tradeoff. Its happens to have been done (I guess?) by the hardware, but it could have been done by software too -- perhaps to preserve the longevity of the battery.

I'm sure that there are lots of tradeoffs between performance and longevity -- so far Tesla has certainly done a good job in maximizing the performance side of that, and I certainly hope that they haven't sacrificed too much longevity -- especially for those of us that intend to keep the car well pass the 50k miles general and 8 year powertrain warranties. By preserving longevity and increasing Mean Time To Failure rates, they aren't just managing their own warranty costs, they are also managing our post-warranty costs. They better do that.

So far, still the only written communication from Tesla refers only to limits for Launch Mode and based on Launch Mode uses. Service Advisors and their managers routinely get all kinds of information wrong, so I still have to discount the info that was told to, I think it was, NSX1992.

Why not just take a breath and wait for Tesla to regroup figure out what exactly their software currently does and doesn't do, and what changes they might be contemplating, and answer the many emails and tweets we sent them with their specific information about what happens and what doesn't happen, and under what conditions. We need more facts.

 

[Andyw2100]

Something else is likely going on with his car. @Tech_Guy needs to get more info on his precise situation.

He's been trying to get more information for quite some time. Tesla promised him they'd call yesterday. They didn't.

 

[Az_Rael]

So far, still the only written communication from Tesla refers only to limits for Launch Mode and based on Launch Mode uses.

The written disclaimer on Tesla's website is much more generic and doesn't reference launch mode.

 

[St Charles]

The lack of focus on determining exactly what circumstances have exactly what effects is mind boggling.

Just three months of use for @Tech_Guy ? And in that time period he triggered multiple counters ? Really? While the TRC cars didn't? And zero other reports? No one else?!

Something else is likely going on with his car. @Tech_Guy needs to get more info on his precise situation. Leave service order stating decreased power and see how they handle.

And we need to recognize that we need to increase our sample size beyond one -- 1! In order to have any real info on what is going on.

Tesla is far and away the most aggressive performance focused car company. Nothing comes close. Balancing performance with longevity is done all the time. And Tesla has to do that.

Charging the battery to full capacity, and running it down to zero, repeatedly, and doing other things that stress the battery, does in fact wear down the battery and decrease its range. That was an engineering tradeoff. Its happens to have been done (I guess?) by the hardware, but it could have been done by software too -- perhaps to preserve the longevity of the battery.

I'm sure that there are lots of tradeoffs between performance and longevity -- so far Tesla has certainly done a good job in maximizing the performance side of that, and I certainly hope that they haven't sacrificed too much longevity -- especially for those of us that intend to keep the car well pass the 50k miles general and 8 year powertrain warranties. By preserving longevity and increasing Mean Time To Failure rates, they aren't just managing their own warranty costs, they are also managing our post-warranty costs. They better do that.

So far, still the only written communication from Tesla refers only to limits for Launch Mode and based on Launch Mode uses. Service Advisors and their managers routinely get all kinds of information wrong, so I still have to discount the info that was told to, I think it was, NSX1992.

Why not just take a breath and wait for Tesla to regroup figure out what exactly their software currently does and doesn't do, and what changes they might be contemplating, and answer the many emails and tweets we sent them with their specific information about what happens and what doesn't happen, and under what conditions. We need more facts.

You have some valid points. We only know of one confirmed case. The problem is to the lack of communication and lack of service to the affected owner. If this is something that could be fixed, why hasn't @Tech_Guy not received anything from Tesla regarding the issue?

 

[smac]

He's been trying to get more information for quite some time. Tesla promised him they'd call yesterday. They didn't.

They will know about this thread, especially as the Drive article links to it and they offered an official response.

Surely someone at Tesla could get their f@#$ing act together and give @Tech_Guy a call?!

It's pathetic really.