Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[St Charles]

I assume @lolachampcar was not talking of what is right, but what is the expectation of non-racers when they see a number 10.9. I agree, I would assume many to expect 10.9000 or at least 10.9499 or less.

Not going back to the right or wrong disagreement, just offering a view what the average car buyer might assume...

Tesla NEVER stated the P90DL was capable of a 10.900. Tesla stated the car P90DL was capable of a 10.9. If someone tries to attach significant figures to that measurement then that someone is incorrect.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

At any rate, I said a long time ago that Tesla would take steps to protect itself against warranty claims in cars which may have been beaten on, flogged or tracked.

AND:

In the court of public opinion, making a programming or software move to protect the company from potential warranty claims arising from abuse in a 6 figure vehicle may or may not cause much of an uproar.

Wow.

Look, I know you're trying to help, but I think you're waaaay off base here.

Elon himself promoted the Ludicrous mode option, a $10k stand-alone option on top of the extra $30k to $40k just to get into a "P" model in the first place.

Last time I checked, I can select "Ludicrous" via the central display--I paid for it, and there were no limits posted on it's use. It's safe to assume that if there were stated limits, the take rate for this option would have fallen substantially. (And I'm not talking about occasional performance degradation caused by extreme ambient conditions--a lot of brands do that when they under-engineer something. What we're talking about is a permanent reduction in performance, a surprise that no one outside of Tesla knew of until this thread.)

For you to call it "abuse" and make references to cars being "beaten on, flogged or tracked" is remarkable. I can only assume that you're not writing a $2k+ check every month for a P90D because if you were it's likely your perspective would be a bit different.

 

[P85DEE]

Then you and Tesla may be getting a small taste of what the expectation of the average Joe may be. If the racing lingo is cause for conversation on an enthusiast forum, quite a technical forum too, the thoughts of the regular car-buying folk are even more far removed from the world of racing.

It might be wise to have a sensibility about this.

That's a big part of why I leave it alone now.

St. Charles is his own man, and he can of course do as he wishes, but my unsolicited advice to him would be to leave this matter alone based upon my own experiences attempting to explain it.

I even used examples in bracket racing, a type of competition where his point holds exactly true, in an attempt at o explain it but was argued down too.

But the point is some of the comments on the 10.9 vs 10.999x matter are not coming from people with a familiarity with drag racing norms, mores, decorum.

Thus leads to a sharper bite of criticism when it comes to the 10.9 matter.

By that, I mean that to a person with a drag racing background like St. Charles, a 10.999 means that the car has run the Spec.

To a person without such a background, it means that the car is up to .099 or still a full tenth of a second shy of the spec.

That second person's criticism in the 10.9 matter is liable to be sharper because he is not familiar with the concept that drag racing results, i.e. results that have been obtained on a drag strip, are not rounded up.

It's not usual nor customary to round up Elapsed time or ET results obtained on a drag strip, which is where the reported results among owners are primarily being obtained. Nor are rounding up of any of the other splits on a drag strip time slip rounded up.

 

[St Charles]

As a non-drag racer, that was exactly what I thought before reading stuff here on TMC, in those oldert threads, that set me straight. I just assumed, apparently incorrectly, that for Tesla to meet the 10.9 spec, the car would have to run 10.900 or better. Again, I understand now that that is not the convention. But your description above is exactly what I thought before learning on TMC what the convention was.

This. This right here is what a reasonable person should do. Making an assumption, realizing the assumption is incorrect in light of additional information and then adjusting the assumption is a reasonable course of action.

This is why I get all bent out of shape about the 10.9 argument. Tesla only gave us 3 significant figures. It is not appropriate to add significant figures and equate the measurements. It doesn't matter what someone thinks, it is incorrect.

 

[GMDC]

Is there a "derailed" button? To signify the status of a thread
I keep looking back a the first post and some posts I've highlighted.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is a bit off-topic, but yes, you can add posters to an ignore list, and then you won't see posts from that poster unless you take them off your ignore list, or use TMC without logging in. To add someone to your own, personal ignore list, hover over your icon (the left-most icon) at the top right of the page, and then select "People You Ignore." You will then be able to add users to your ignore list.

Off topic, but if you see a person you want to ignore from a certain thread, you can just click their profile page. Then near the top right corner there is "Report Ignore Follow". Just click ignore. This is easier than adding manually.

 

[P85DEE]

Wow.

Look, I know you're trying to help, but I think you're waaaay off base here.

Elon himself promoted the Ludicrous mode option, a $10k stand-alone option on top of the extra $30k to $40k just to get into a "P" model in the first place.

Last time I checked, I can select "Ludicrous" via the central display--I paid for it, and there were no limits posted on it's use. It's safe to assume that if there were stated limits, the take rate for this option would have fallen substantially. (And I'm not talking about occasional performance degradation caused by extreme ambient conditions--a lot of brands do that when they under-engineer something. What we're talking about is a permanent reduction in performance, a surprise that no one outside of Tesla knew of until this thread.)

For you to call it "abuse" and make references to cars being "beaten on, flogged or tracked" is remarkable. I can only assume that you're not writing a $2k+ check every month for a P90D because if you were it's likely your perspective would be a bit different.

I'm going to make this one short.

Tesla has no dedicated racing program.

Many other auto manufacturers do.

Chevy will deny warranty coverage on a Z06 if they find out you're tracking it or anything otherwise that they would consider beating on it.

Ask me how I know. And there's a car built for the track if ever there were one.

Indeed we've had a peripheral discussion about this in another thread.

To some degree, Tesla relies on the exploits of private owners word of mouth and YouTube videos to bolster the car's performance rep.

Most performance car manufacturers will not cover damage, be it immediate or what they consider to be cumulative, as a result of "off road" use, or even on road "abuse", "racing" and the like.

They do this to protect themselves from warranty claims arising from such use. They have no intent of sponsoring anyone's private racing program, nor covering anyone's issues which they deem to be the immediate or cumulative effect of what the consider to be abuse.

At least two persons in here made an inquiry with regard to their (Tesla's) position regrading on track mechanical damage or failures and warranty coverage.

I was one of them.

Different answers were given. My answer was that they "would know" when, where and what the car was doing when a failure should occur.

They were non commit all as to if I would be covered in event of an on track mechanical incident and I understand that.

The other guy said that they actually encouraged his track efforts in part for some of the reasons I stated earlier.

My point then as now, auto manufacturers can be expected to take steps to insulate themselves from covering warranty claims related to what "they" consider to be abuse.

The important word here is "they".

Most of the methods are "reactive", the manufacturer denying the claim after it is presented, on the grounds of abuse.

However on the surface, this move by Tesla, if it is what it appears to be, then it seems to be proactive.

In other words, if you have a pattern of driving which could, or would, leave them prone to exposure for a later warranty repair either as a result of an immediate circumstance, or as a result of cumulative effects from driving in such a manner, , they seem to be taking steps which would lessen their exposure to that by making less power available.

You don't use launch mode to take off from your driveway or in rush hour traffic from a stop light.

So it doesn't take much to know that anyone using it a certain number of times, whatever that is, is most certainly flogging the car.

There is no "nice" or "gentle" way to extract the quickest ET from a car.

When I say flogging, I know what I'm talking about. As a former frequent drag racer, primarily in Vettes, every car I owned and put on the track I was trying to beat/ the best time out of it that I could when running time trials and attempting to set new bests, which is what most people in here using launch mode are running and where they are using launch mode.

Otherwise I saw little point in going to the track unless I was going to drive it like I stole it.

I bust something doing that, even if the car is "supposedly" marketed in such a manner, then it's liable to be on my own dime.

If this is what's going on here, Tesla permanently cutting power in cars already sold, in order to protect themselves from warranty claims, well then it's an ethically questionable approach indeed.

 

[St Charles]

I'm going to make this one short.

LOL. Please put this in your signature

 

[P85DEE]

LOL. Please put this in your signature

Ha. I'm glad you saw the humor in that.

 

[lolachampcar]

!

 

[stopcrazypp]

The P85D 3.2 seconds was in its own league of bad because it was presented the same way as all the other Tesla models, including previous Performance models, none of which had used the 1-foot roll out. That is just changing the metric without telling anyone and presenting these different metrics side by side no less...

It would be similar to using different rounding/cropping rules in different car model's acceleration times. I wonder if Tesla has been more consistent in rounding/cropping their acceleration times?

As far as I know, the acceleration times any of the non-P models have always been underestimated (particularly the S60 had always had a big difference and performs far better than Tesla estimates). This had nothing to do with roll out (the numbers are too far different for rollout to be the main factor). And I think it is fair game, because the advertising standard is simply for a particular model to perform at or better than advertised, not that all models/trims must be under the same test conditions (which is not always possible anyways esp with different model/trims added at rapid pace by Tesla given Tesla doesn't have traditional model years). What is not fair game is overestimating performance.

That's why I don't think the 0-60 number is an issue (because it can be achieved with roll-out), but the 1/4 mile number is (it appears some pack versions can't achieve 10.9). There's other more nuanced things like base configuration (for example, pano roof and other weight adding options can make a difference), but I think that is fair game if there is one configuration of the car that can hit 10.9.

And to bring this back on topic. If Tesla can still meet the 10.9 spec after this change, then I would have less issue with this. However, the issue is it appears the cars can't hit 10.9 and this change makes the matter worse.

And like others, I'm beginning to believe the limitation is not tied to launch control as the counter, but rather something like current draw and impact on the battery. This is because according to Tech Guy, the limiter is on for all modes afterwards, with launch control being irrelevant. If this change is solely to address extra wear from launch control, then other modes should work and the limitation should only apply to launch control.

 

[CuriousG]

I'm going to make this one short.

tl;dr
I'd hate to see the long answer.

 

[P85DEE]

tl;dr
I'd hate to see the long answer.

You did.

I was just joshing about making it short to start people reading it.

 

[bhzmark]

Do you find any difference launching with hill hold and without? I wasn't sure if it would release the brakes fast enough.

I haven't specifically checked. I didn't notice an issue. I only use it so that a slight grade or wind doesn't push me across a light.

 

[McRat]

Chevy will deny warranty coverage on a Z06 if they find out you're tracking it or anything otherwise that they would consider beating on it.

Ask me how I know. And there's a car built for the track if ever there were one.

...

I'll bite. How do you know? When the clutch hyd failed on our '10 ZR1 during track events, not only did GM cover it, they sent me a letter covering it for 10 years.

Ditto for the Camaros: Yes! Chevrolet Will Honor Your Camaro's Warranty If You Take It to the Track

Note: if you modify the car, you are out of luck. But that sort of goes without saying.

Yes, there ARE brands that will not cover closed course usage. Chevrolet is perhaps the most lenient.

So that makes me wonder why you say Chevrolet instead of BMW/Nissan/Ferrari/Subaru who have very strict 'closed course not covered' policies.

Is it just the Evil GM thing?

BTW both our 2000 Camaro and 2002 Z06 were warrantied when items failed. And they knew I tracked them, so it's not a new policy

 

[P85DEE]

I'll bite. How do you know? When the clutch hyd failed on our '10 ZR1 during track events, not only did GM cover it, they sent me a letter covering it for 10 years.

Ditto for the Camaros: Yes! Chevrolet Will Honor Your Camaro's Warranty If You Take It to the Track

Note: if you modify the car, you are out of luck. But that sort of goes without saying.

Yes, there ARE brands that will not cover closed course usage. Chevrolet is perhaps the most lenient.

So that makes me wonder why you say Chevrolet instead of BMW/Nissan/Ferrari/Subaru who have very strict 'closed course not covered' policies.

Is it just the Evil GM thing?

BTW both our 2000 Camaro and 2002 Z06 were warrantied when items failed. And they knew I tracked them, so it's not a new policy

Blew out a rear end drag racing. Wheel hop on a 1-2 shift. No drag radials, stock rubber.

Was flat bedded from the drag strip to the dealership.

Was straight up with them and told them what had happened. Chevy fought me tooth and nail but I eventually got them to meet me half way.

I only mentioned Chevy and not BMW etc, because that's who I have had experience with.

 

[fiksegts]

there is no rounding in racing! except in the olympics I guess... was interesting to see how swimmers can tie, while the timing systems were capable of more accuracy, the pool could never be constructed to be 'perfect' so they allow for a couple mm of error...

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'll bite. How do you know? When the clutch hyd failed on our '10 ZR1 during track events, not only did GM cover it, they sent me a letter covering it for 10 years.

Ditto for the Camaros: Yes! Chevrolet Will Honor Your Camaro's Warranty If You Take It to the Track

Note: if you modify the car, you are out of luck. But that sort of goes without saying.

Yes, there ARE brands that will not cover closed course usage. Chevrolet is perhaps the most lenient.

So that makes me wonder why you say Chevrolet instead of BMW/Nissan/Ferrari/Subaru who have very strict 'closed course not covered' policies.

Is it just the Evil GM thing?

BTW both our 2000 Camaro and 2002 Z06 were warrantied when items failed. And they knew I tracked them, so it's not a new policy

From your article:
"The policy doesn’t apply to all versions of the car, but Autoblog added that GM will extend it to the Camaro 1LE and ZL1 as well as the expected Z/28."

The ZR1 clearly is covered, and probably the Z06 since they are track optimized, but the base models likely are not (this may also only apply to certain years/generations also). A quick google says that the standard Corvette warranty has a provision to void it if used for racing or other competition:
"Damage Due to Accident, Misuse, or Alteration The New Vehicle Limited Warranty does not cover damage caused as the result of any of the following:
...
Misuse of the vehicle such as driving over curbs, overloading, racing, or other competition. Proper vehicle use is discussed in the owner manual."
What is the Official 2016 Warranty and Maintenance - CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion

This provision is used by dealers to deny warranty claims from track use (there's been a few cases from a Google of "Z06 void warranty track").

 

[St Charles]

there is no rounding in racing! except in the olympics I guess... was interesting to see how swimmers can tie, while the timing systems were capable of more accuracy, the pool could never be constructed to be 'perfect' so they allow for a couple mm of error...

Is it really rounding or do both swimmers get the faster recorded time? I ask because I really don't know.

EDIT: I found a TIME Magazine article that discusses this

While all this technology can break down the seemingly intuitive performance of athletes into hard numbers, there are limits to the power of statistics. The clocks, for example, can technically slice time down to one-one millionth of a second, but many sports federations, including swimming’s FINA, consider one-one hundredth of a second a tie. Why? Because at that level of precision, you have to be certain that the pool is built exactly symmetrically so that every lane is the exact same length down to fractions of millimeters. And even at one one-thousandth of a second, there can be no more than 1.7mm leeway difference in length — and pools are typically built to specifications that are within centimeters. Other sports allow greater precision — in sliding events and track cycling, for example, athletes are timed down to the thousandth of a second. But in a pool, “how can you guarantee that each lane is measured precisely to fractions of a millimeter?” says Peter Heurzeler, the past president of Omega Timing who recently retired after clocking athletes at world championships and Olympics since 1969.

So it is a matter of precision. Omega can't guarantee exact lengths of each lane so they only time to a level of certainty which pool construction tolerances allow. This seems reasonable to me. I very much doubt they round the hundredths digit up or down, however.

 

[P85DEE]

Yawn.

That's exactly the reason why you didn't get it the last time it was discussed, and you got held back twice in school and needed two remedial courses and a summer session..... and still need to brush up on it.

You were sleeping in class.

Oh well, at least you were bigger than all of the other kids.