Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[St Charles]

I wouldn't bring it in at all, since they are likely to upgrade the car to 8.0 when you bring it in regardless of what you say.

The car has made it through one visit already without the update being applied. As long as the warranty work is small, I think I can get away with it. Either way, I'll find a way to handle it.

 

[n2mb_racing]

The car has made it through one visit already without the update being applied. As long as the warranty work is small, I think I can get away with it. Either way, I'll find a way to handle it.

Good to hear. Good luck.

 

[Pollux]

[posting this while still on page 19 of the thread, 20 more pages remain to read... but if I don't post this now, I'll forget. So apologies if this has already been covered.]

But I am doing one thing differently between my 2013 S P85+ purchase and my 2016 S P100DL purchase. Just one.

I have downloaded every single piece of the sales website that seemed relevant to me -- the order pages, the description pages, what have you. I have also downloaded the manual and every document I could think of.

For instance, my manual LACKS the recently-added warning about monitoring and self-protecting the performance version of the car. The file reports that it was modified on October 20, 2016. I downloaded it on December 8, 2016. And apparently it has been modified again, recently.

If you'd like a copy of the October 20, 2016 owner's manual, just PM me. That said, I just checked on myTesla and found that the copy of the owner's manual sitting in my repository is STILL the October 20 version. So it looks like Tesla is doing the right thing with maintaining the original owner's manual, as delivered, along with the other information it maintains on an owner's vehicle.

[You can stop reading here.] Bias: I am a big, Big, BIG fan of Tesla -- the product, the company, the sales force, the service team, and all the other teams less directly visible to a customer. I am delighted with my car every day, and every night; have owned a 2013 P85+ and now a P100DL; talk about it with anyone who will talk back or at least listen; you know my type.

Perhaps the single most painful thing for me as a customer and Tesla supporter is the recurring failure of the company to communicate about what it is that they are selling to the customer. Details that may not matter to many but always matter to some subset of people, somewhere. Horsepower, 0-60 times, quarter-mile times, and so on. It hurts inside to see these self-inflicted wounds.

I had wonderful purchasing and service experiences with that P85+ and a fabulous trade-in (of the P85+) and purchasing experience (of the P100DL) over the last couple of months. Tesla not only honored my 2013 Residual Value Guarantee in a very meaningful way, they helped me capture it when I miscalculated the end-date for the RVG and do it all in such a way that I also captured a lower total sales price for state sales tax purposes.(*)

Thanks,
Alan

(*)But I still don't like how Tesla seems to assume that the $7500 tax credit works towards their benefit rather than mine on resale. Grumble, grumble.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Tesla unilaterally and without notice reached out and removed power from one or more customer's cars.

You left that statement hanging out there by itself. The rest of your post is based on this single statement alone.

Why did Tesla do this?

Afterwards, they issue a statement saying they can and will do this. It is beyond obvious to me that Tesla will do whatever it wants whenever it wants without regard for customer's ownership rights.

Am I reading it correctly that Tesla just did this to their cars.

Why did they do this again?

 

[P85DEE]

I've emailed my service advisor and expressed my concern and asked for more clarification on the counter. I've also asked for it to be removed completely since it was not in the documents with the car that I received.

Agree with this first step.

They have no right to tamper with or otherwise alter your personal property without your permission.

A government recruited safety issue I could maybe see.

But this, no.

I've asked for them to forward my email up the chain of command to get more information.

I'd recommend that everyone also email your respective service advisors and let's try and get some more feedback. I don't think complaining on this thread will do anything. We should all contact Tesla as much as possible to express our concerns. Email, Twitter, phone, excetera...

I'm about to board a plane right now. In the TSA line as I type this on my phone. But as soon as I get home I'll be contacting my SC

 

[vgrinshpun]

Like others have already pointed out. Tesla backed out of the performance added to V2 and V3 P90DL cars after the fact. They could just as easily do this again with the P100D..

My intent in linking post detailing the patent describing architecture apparently being used in P100D battery pack was not intended as a comment on any possible limitations. I am an engineer, and though that details of the architecture and technology used in the new battery pack would be of interest to somebody who is thinking about upgrading.

Are you offering Teslas legal opinion on the matter?

Also, your example does not take into account that cable specifications are clearly stated and part of building codes and published standards. Everyone knows these things going in and can size appropriately for the needed electrical load. In the case of the P90DL, as it seems now, Tesla is attempting to change the parameters after the fact. to bring this situation into your analogy, this would be similar to enforcing a lower amperage across an already specked and installed circuit.

I am not a lawyer and was not offering legal opinion on the matter. I, however, have decades of experience, among other things, in sizing and specifying electrical materials and equipment. So my reading is based on purely technical considerations. Word continuous has very specific and prominent meaning in electrical engineering, and my interpretation is based on this meaning. I believe that this wording originates from engineers, not lawyers.

As far as the Codes and Standards are concerned, they are settled and well known for things that are in use for very long time. When one considers new technology, availability of standards is very limited, but their absence does not eliminate first principles. The basic one for electrical equipment that it is often sized based on thermal considerations of the materials involved (very often electrical insulation materials) as their properties often define technical limits for an application. This is fundamentally different from ICE drivetrains, which are mostly limited by mechanical structural properties of materials. This is IMO is fundamental root of the problem.

If your intent was to dismiss my reasoning based on the fact that cable applications are established in the standards, I do not buy it. Tesla Model S drive train is rated according to the available standard on the subject, ECE R85. This, however, did not prevent an outrage from many owners which interpreted these ratings differently.

In terms of P90DL counter, so far we do not have clear picture of how it actually works, since available information is contradictory (Tesla statements, experience of Tech-Guy, experience of TRC, etc.). From my perspective the limitation based on use was actually part of the design, but perhaps was judged by engineering as not being reasonably expected to have impact for "usual" service, and therefore was not a first priority for incorporation into the code. My gut feeling that this counter is not as restrictive as many owners believe, and I am not excluding possibility of an error in the Code (we have seen very many of those: weird routing of the Nav, not so smart "smart preconditioning" etc.) That is why I advocate confronting Tesla to get more specific information on the subject. Knowing background is key to a successful negotiation.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I don't think you can assume the word "continuous" means track use. It could mean for example that you launch every Saturday at the drag strip and continue to do that for several months.

Well, in my post above I explained basis of my interpretation of word continuous - it is based on technical considerations.

As far as your example of concerned, going every Saturday to the drag strip, it seems to me word repeated would be better suited in describing it.

 

[Garlan Garner]

My intent in linking post detailing the patent describing architecture apparently being used in P100D battery pack was not intended as a comment on any possible limitations. I am an engineer, and though that details of the architecture and technology used in the new battery pack would be of interest to somebody who is thinking about upgrading.





I am not a lawyer and was not offering legal opinion on the matter. I, however, have decades of experience, among other things, in sizing and specifying electrical materials and equipment. So my reading is based on purely technical considerations. Word continuous has very specific and prominent meaning in electrical engineering, and my interpretation is based on this meaning. I believe that this wording originates from engineers, not lawyers.

As far as the Codes and Standards are concerned, they are settled and well known for things that are in use for very long time. When one considers new technology, availability of standards is very limited, but their absence does not eliminate first principles. The basic one for electrical equipment that it is often sized based on thermal considerations of the materials involved (very often electrical insulation materials) as their properties are very often define technical limits for an application. This is fundamentally different from ICE drivetrains, which are mostly limited by mechanical structural properties of materials. This is IMO is fundamental root of the problem.

If your intent was to dismiss my reasoning based on the fact that cable applications is established in the standards, I do not buy it. Tesla Model S drive train is rated according to the available standard on the subject, ECE R85. This, however did not prevent outrage from many owners which interpreted these ratings differently.

In terms of P90DL counter, we do not have clear picture of how it actually works, since available information is contradictory (Tesla statements, experience of Tech-Guy, experience of TRC, etc.). From my perspective the limitation based on use was actually part of the design, but perhaps was judged by engineering as not being reasonably expected to have impact for "usual" service, and therefore was not a first priority for incorporation into the code. My gut feeling that this counter is not as restrictive as many owners believe, and I am not excluding possibility of an error in the Code (we have seen very many of those: weird routing of the Nav, not so smart "smart preconditioning" etc.) That is why I advocate confronting Tesla to get more specific information on the subject. Knowing background is key to a successful negotiation.

Very well iterated from a legal and technical viewpoint.

I totally agree that @TechGuy has a different ( more serious ) problem - probably not associated with LaunchMode.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I don't think complaining on this thread will do anything. We should all contact Tesla as much as possible to express our concerns. Email, Twitter, phone, excetera...

I agree with you 100000% AS LONG AS....there is indeed a problem concerning the LaunchMode Counter bringing the P90D below specs. @Tech_Guy and a few others have essentially dropped off the radar of this issue as it appears that something else entirely different is going on with their cars.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I totally agree that @TechGuy has a different ( more serious ) problem - probably not associated with LaunchMode.

I am actually agnostic on this for now - not enough information for a verdict. It might be another problem, or a result of bad coding.

 

[Tech_Guy]

As I stated yesterday I have reached out to Tesla, they told me to expect a response on Thursday... currently my cars power levels put me between a non Ludicrous p85d and a Ludicrous p85dl... its like I paid 10k to have the button in my car that doesn't do anything might as well change it to insane now and change the badge on my car as well don't need that underline anymore either...

 

[St Charles]

My intent in linking post detailing the patent describing architecture apparently being used in P100D battery pack was not intended as a comment on any possible limitations. I am an engineer, and though that details of the architecture and technology used in the new battery pack would be of interest to somebody who is thinking about upgrading.





I am not a lawyer and was not offering legal opinion on the matter. I, however, have decades of experience, among other things, in sizing and specifying electrical materials and equipment. So my reading is based on purely technical considerations. Word continuous has very specific and prominent meaning in electrical engineering, and my interpretation is based on this meaning. I believe that this wording originates from engineers, not lawyers.

As far as the Codes and Standards are concerned, they are settled and well known for things that are in use for very long time. When one considers new technology, availability of standards is very limited, but their absence does not eliminate first principles. The basic one for electrical equipment that it is often sized based on thermal considerations of the materials involved (very often electrical insulation materials) as their properties are very often define technical limits for an application. This is fundamentally different from ICE drivetrains, which are mostly limited by mechanical structural properties of materials. This is IMO is fundamental root of the problem.

If your intent was to dismiss my reasoning based on the fact that cable applications is established in the standards, I do not buy it. Tesla Model S drive train is rated according to the available standard on the subject, ECE R85. This, however did not prevent outrage from many owners which interpreted these ratings differently.

In terms of P90DL counter, we do not have clear picture of how it actually works, since available information is contradictory (Tesla statements, experience of Tech-Guy, experience of TRC, etc.). From my perspective the limitation based on use was actually part of the design, but perhaps was judged by engineering as not being reasonably expected to have impact for "usual" service, and therefore was not a first priority for incorporation into the code. My gut feeling that this counter is not as restrictive as many owners believe, and I am not excluding possibility of an error in the Code (we have seen very many of those: weird routing of the Nav, not so smart "smart preconditioning" etc.) That is why I advocate confronting Tesla to get more specific information on the subject. Knowing background is key to a successful negotiation.

I like how you vomited words as a way of disagreeing. Clearly the above is part of the Horsepower argument which I had no part in.

If you think it is reasonable from an engineering perspective, sure, i'll drink to that. Let's try a different direction. My concern, and I believe the greater concern in this thread, is whether it is reasonable to reduce power output to a system without notification to the consumer post purchase. Keep in mind that these terms were not disclosed at the time of purchase. Is that reasonable to you?

 

[Tech_Guy]

For those interested I'm at 8.0 (2.36.108). And got a software update notice this morning that I won't be applying, I'd rather roll back to 7.1 if I had a choice...

 

[P85DEE]

I do very much agree with you. I do not see even a battery upgrade in the near future. I think currently, I am likely to stay on 7.1 until this gets resolved or I am forced to go to the service center for warranty repair. Luckily, the only warranty action I have so far is the driver seat. I'll need to make myself crystal clear that I do not want a firmware upgrade performed on the car.

If only there was a way to disable upgrades semi-permanently without rooting the vehicle. It would be nice to not have a silly pop up reminder every morning.

They have no right to tamper with your property without your permission.

The more I think about this the more I dislike it.

As far as we know, it doesn't affect other non P90D owners.

But you gotta know that anybody who is currently in warranty and who owns a car with launch mode, might end up being fair game for the same thing.

I intend to let Tesla know in no uncertain terms that I do not want the power to my P85DL cut for any reason nor through any means nor mechanism.

I shouldn't have to do this but it appears that I may need to and thus I will.

The warranty which was in place when I bought the car had no stipulation about my power being cut for any reason. Not to save parts nor for any other reason.

Had I known that my warranty requirement would change to require me to accept a decrease in power in order for it to remain in effect, I would have bought another car.

Furthermore, if my permission was not asked for before you cut my power, well then why wasn't it asked for?

Because you knew I would not have consented to it.

 

[Tech_Guy]

Very well iterated from a legal and technical viewpoint.

I totally agree that @TechGuy has a different ( more serious ) problem - probably not associated with LaunchMode.

I have to disagree... my data and response from Tesla and private discussions with multiple members on here that lead to the start of this thread. It's Tesla's answer to my prodding that my car was effected by this. Its not like I saw this thread and decided that's what happened to me...

 

[azdryheat]

Good idea to engage Tesla, but what exactly do you want them to fix? Does your car have power output limited? Do you launch using "launch mode"?

I want them to remove any possible restriction in my car since they did not disclose that before I purchased and it was a significant issue. Or they can refund my Ludicrous upgrade and make my car a insane car.

 

[Tech_Guy]

Tesla sells these P cars as performance models but then adds a disclaimer that continuous performance driving will reduce your power.... so I guess they are not performance models after all rather just a way for Tesla to make more money off the customers... Tesla should remove the performance models or any mention that the P cars are performance models as they clearly are not... I love the electric car I've been singing is praises but if this is the ugly truth then I should have gotten a TRUE performance model from another manufacture like Porsche Panamera Turbo, Mercedes AMG, BMW M, or Audi RS ...

 

[azdryheat]

Much to my Dismay...

I do think it's possible on a hot day with no regard for the general health of the car, and a light driver I want to say Dragtimes has a V2 car that posted a 10.99 not too long ago.

10.999 (Tesludi) on Drag Times is a V3 car,

 

[GMDC]

Dear all, I have a bigger concern and If you think this should have its own further along the line, please say so, but for the moment, please allow me to correlate this problem with a bigger picture: After the car is delivered to the owner, any change (future updates) should be treated in the same way as expected in this thread and since different people would look for different things, I think only a FULL disclaimer of the software changes coming with a new version is the only way you could really trust/accept and upgrade. A while ago with one of the new autopilot changes, I saw a note in the lines of "and other 200 changes not worth writing about" (not an exact quote). Now imagine this new counter and power restriction was coming as part of this 200 changes that Tesla decided are not worth noting... get my point?
When you get notification of a new SW, there should be a summary and a link to the full list of changes.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I have to disagree... my data and response from Tesla and private discussions with multiple members on here that lead to the start of this thread. It's Tesla's answer to my prodding that my car was effected by this. Its not like I saw this thread and decided that's what happened to me...

I wonder why your car keeps getting depleted of power when you are not using LaunchMode.

I was thinking that the LaunchMode and the counter was suggested as the problem with your car by Tesla.