Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[P85DEE]

If you use Launch mode, you may lose your Ludicrous Upgrade.
Clear?

Did they tell you that?

Show us where they did.

Oh I know what they're writing on heir page now. But did they tell you that applies to your car. And can you show where they've done that, taken away your Ludicrous mode, to you?

Have you had this happen?

Only person in here so far with seemingly the strongest case is Tech_Guy. He's the only one who can actually "show" what he describes as damage to his property.

 

[lolachampcar]

Then bhz there is nothing here for you........


BTW, I do not use LM either but I do care about the behavior as an owner and investor.

 

[xborg]

Did they tell you that?

Show us where they did.

Oh I know what they're writing on heir page now. But did they tell you that applies to your car. And can yo show where they've done that to you?

Have you had this happen?

Only person in here so far with seemingly the strongest case is Tech_Guy. He's the only one who can actually "show" what he describes as damage to his property.

I refer you to my previous post Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
And I stop replying you as you are being non sense. Go outside, get some fresh air, release your stress. If you don't have a P90DL, you don't have anything to worry about, so move on, nothing to see here.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

If you use Launch mode, you may lose your Ludicrous Upgrade.
Clear?

Don't use LM.
Clear?

That is assuming only Launch Mode is causing the power limitations to occur. And that it has not already happened to one's car. (And that one would find such a compromise reasonable.)

Given Tesla's reluctance in being forthcoming pre-emptively on these matters, I am not sure we 100% know yet it is limited to just Launch Mode use. The latest disclaimer covers a wide range of uses and Tech_Guy is reporting further power degradation even after stopping Launch Mode use and being limited by it. Also, does it really not apply to P85DL too? P100D?

I would say we don't know the extent of the issue yet.

 

[P85DEE]

I refer you to my previous post Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

For anyone having done so, reading that rubbish the first time was a mistake and a waste of time that no one in here will ever get back.

And I stop replying you as you are being non sense. Go outside, get some fresh air, release your stress. If you don't have a P90DL, you don't have anything to worry about, so move on, nothing to see here.

Not from you anyway.

 

[P85DEE]

That is assuming only Launch Mode is causing the power limitations to occur. And that it has not already happened to one's car. (And that one would find such a compromise reasonable.)

Given Tesla's reluctance in being forthcoming pre-emptively on these matters, I am not sure we 100% know yet it is limited to just Launch Mode use. The latest disclaimer covers a wide range of uses and Tech_Guy is reporting further power degradation even after stopping Launch Mode use and being limited by it. Also, does it really not apply to P85DL too? P100D?

I would say we don't know the extent of the issue yet.

Good points.

 

[OnlyDataNoBS]

I read through several dozen posts but found few numbers. My P90DL X is producing max of 497kW with max battery as reported by Power Tools. Reports same 497kW regardless of whether it's 90% or 100% charge.

What numbers do others see? Please post data not "my car feels slow" or "my car feels fast".

Am I being limited at 497kW?

 

[lolachampcar]

497 KW is about 663 hp. I dream of being limited to 663 hp

 

[winfield100]

First of all, please don't make this personal.

My concern--my whining, as you call it--is because I see what Tesla is doing as being wrong. Just wrong. They sold people one car, and then because of data they gathered after the fact, decided to limit the cars' capabilities. If you can not see why that is wrong our views differ so much that there just isn't any more to discuss.

It is not personal, it is a differant POV.
From my POV, It's Tesla expected, apparently unreasonably, for all owners to act like responsible adults with these very powerful vehicles, so there was no need to say "please act and drive responsibly", initially.
Yes they accelerate "like a bat outa hell" and some may do this, way too often
Is it responsible driving?
Is it responsible use of the capabilities?

It's not quite, but close, to the point of,

"because mom/dad are the responsible ones and we have to say so before you destroy/break an expensive piece of equipment that mom/dad have to pay for at least part of due to irresponsible actions of the users"

Tesla expected responsible use and acted accordingly initially, only to be disappointed by irresponsible use by some, so many suffer due to actions of a ?few?

I had to tell my kids to slow down before they rolled the car, just driving around and around in circles as fast as they felt safe, testing the cars and tires limits

 

[St Charles]

It is not personal, it is a differant POV.
From my POV, It's Tesla expected, apparently unreasonably, for all owners to act like responsible adults with these very powerful vehicles, so there was no need to say "please act and drive responsibly", initially.
Yes they accelerate "like a bat outa hell" and some may do this, way too often
Is it responsible driving?
Is it responsible use of the capabilities?

It's not quite, but close, to the point of,

"because mom/dad are the responsible ones and we have to say so before you destroy/break an expensive piece of equipment that mom/dad have to pay for at least part of due to irresponsible actions of the users"

Tesla expected responsible use and acted accordingly initially, only to be disappointed by irresponsible use by some, so many suffer due to actions of a ?few?

I had to tell my kids to slow down before they rolled the car, just driving around and around in circles as fast as they felt safe, testing the cars and tires limits

You are making a lot of assumptions on how and where these capabilities are being used. Additionally, the limitations are not enforced around the concept of 'responsible driving' but a blanket action affecting the capabilities at all times.

By silently altering performance characteristics of the car as a measure to limit warranty claims after the sale, Tesla is acting unethically. If this hurts your precious stock price then maybe Tesla will change their behavior and act more like the "Mommy and daddy" car companies they wish to compete with.

 

[fiksegts]

that's what my P90DL X makes as well.... just under 500kW....

I read through several dozen posts but found few numbers. My P90DL X is producing max of 497kW with max battery as reported by Power Tools. Reports same 497kW regardless of whether it's 90% or 100% charge.

What numbers do others see? Please post data not "my car feels slow" or "my car feels fast".

Am I being limited at 497kW?

 

[winfield100]

You are making a lot of assumptions on how and where these capabilities are being used. Additionally, the limitations are not enforced around the concept of 'responsible driving' but a blanket action affecting the capabilities at all times.

By silently altering performance characteristics of the car as a measure to limit warranty claims after the sale, Tesla is acting unethically. If this hurts your precious stock price then maybe Tesla will change their behavior and act more like the "Mommy and daddy" car companies they wish to compete with.

Who said anything about Stock price? not me. you did.
why the comment "your precious stock price" unless you are a secret, hurting troll? (+$10.00 just yesterday)

My point is and has been, Tesla seemed to unfortunately believe that owners would drive responsibly and reasonably, knowing that, like children, some would occasionally abuse launch or ludicrous or whatever name you gave it, but revert to responsible drivers, eventually.
Apparently some have not, and some choose to post here
.
additionally, a suspicious, cynical person, like myself, might even suspect that there are subtle trolls here from Seeking Alpha, inciting negativity (A big shout out to "ralp wiv" from SA, and maybe even MS) since lurkers report back and perhaps engage in "disinformation" at best

 

[jeffro01]

It is not personal, it is a differant POV.
From my POV, It's Tesla expected, apparently unreasonably, for all owners to act like responsible adults with these very powerful vehicles, so there was no need to say "please act and drive responsibly", initially.
Yes they accelerate "like a bat outa hell" and some may do this, way too often
Is it responsible driving?
Is it responsible use of the capabilities?

It's not quite, but close, to the point of,

"because mom/dad are the responsible ones and we have to say so before you destroy/break an expensive piece of equipment that mom/dad have to pay for at least part of due to irresponsible actions of the users"

Tesla expected responsible use and acted accordingly initially, only to be disappointed by irresponsible use by some, so many suffer due to actions of a ?few?

I had to tell my kids to slow down before they rolled the car, just driving around and around in circles as fast as they felt safe, testing the cars and tires limits

You're completely and totally missing the point here... So much so it's hard to even figure out a way to explain it to you... I'll try though...

You bought a car with X specifications that it met when you bought it, no issues. You were not told in any way, shape, or form, that there were any limitations to your use of the car. Sometime after the purchase the cars software is updated to impose limits that didn't exist when you bought it. Those limits were not agreed upon by you, you didn't ask for them, the manufacturer simply dropped them on you without notification, explanation, or reasoning. To add more insult to injury, you didn't even find this out from the manufacturer, you had to read about it online. These limits were imposed upon you in an attempt to save the manufacturer money on warranty claims/bad PR for said warranty claims. Again, at NO time were you EVER given the option to opt out, consent, even be notified that anything was changed.

How could anyone possibly argue that's "acceptable" or "the right thing to do"??? Don't give me this BS about "responsible driving"... Responsible to who? The owner or the manufacturer? That's so completely and highly subjective that it's not even worth trying to make an argument out of but that's what you've chosen to do...

What Tesla is doing here is WRONG, there is no other way to describe it. It's simply wrong. It's also likely illegal as well should anyone try to push this from a litigation standpoint. What Tesla SHOULD do is publicly admit they did this, why they did it, who EXACTLY it affects (model/battery/whatever), and then REFUND those owners ludicrous upgrade charges (I don't know what cars are affected as I haven't read the entire thread so I'm not sure if it's only those who upgrade post delivery or whatever), plus something else for being lied to and deceived.

I don't have any issue with Tesla doing this from a technical standpoint. My issue comes from how they chose to do it, chose to attempt to hide it, chose to deceive the owners.

I just don't understand how ANYONE could DEFEND Tesla here, their actions are indefensible. I get called a fanboy all of the time here, and I defend Tesla quite regularly, but I simply cannot in good conscious defend this...

Jeff

 

[AWDtsla]

additionally, a suspicious, cynical person, like myself, might even suspect that there are subtle trolls here from Seeking Alpha, inciting negativity (A big shout out to "ralp wiv" from SA, and maybe even MS) since lurkers report back and perhaps engage in "disinformation" at best

Oh here we go... Seeking alpha is too stupid to be in a topic this technical.

Of course it's unthinkable that actual owners may have a problem with unethical actions by Tesla, it must be some troll conspiracy.

edit - and I have one of the older P90Dl's, which will never meet the performance specs I bought it under, regardless of "abuse". I must be a troll too.

 

[trils0n]

Oh here we go... Seeking alpha is too stupid to be in a topic this technical.

Of course it's unthinkable that actual owners may have a problem with unethical actions by Tesla, it must be some troll conspiracy.

edit - and I have one of the older P90Dl's, which will never meet the performance specs I bought it under, regardless of "abuse". I must be a troll too.

In addition, lots of the members that are posting their displeasure at Tesla's unethical behavior are long-term, respected members, not some 2-post-chump from seeking alfalpha.

 

[JRP3]

Who said anything about Stock price? not me. you did.
why the comment "your precious stock price" unless you are a secret, hurting troll? (+$10.00 just yesterday)

My point is and has been, Tesla seemed to unfortunately believe that owners would drive responsibly and reasonably, knowing that, like children, some would occasionally abuse launch or ludicrous or whatever name you gave it, but revert to responsible drivers, eventually.
Apparently some have not, and some choose to post here
.
additionally, a suspicious, cynical person, like myself, might even suspect that there are subtle trolls here from Seeking Alpha, inciting negativity (A big shout out to "ralp wiv" from SA, and maybe even MS) since lurkers report back and perhaps engage in "disinformation" at best

You're way out of line here. Fact: Tesla sold a product capable of "X". There was no warning that "X" would be remotely lowered by Tesla for any reason. Tesla remotely lowered "X" without warning.
Replace "X" with any feature you personally might find valuable and maybe you'll understand the issue.

 

[P85DEE]

Did they tell you that?

Show us where they did.

Oh I know what they're writing on heir page now. But did they tell you that applies to your car. And can you show where they've done that, taken away your Ludicrous mode, to you?

Have you had this happen?

Only person in here so far with seemingly the strongest case is Tech_Guy. He's the only one who can actually "show" what he describes as damage to his property.

Should read "what could be described as damage to his property".

 

[bhzmark]

Open requeatTesla if there is

You're way out of line here. Fact: Tesla sold a product capable of "X". There was no warning that "X" would be remotely lowered by Tesla for any reason. Tesla remotely lowered "X" without warning.
Replace "X" with any feature you personally might find valuable and maybe you'll understand the issue.

X=powertrain that handles enthusiastic 0-60 stresses with longevity well past warranty period

Y=a gimmicky and fussy launch mode that actually doesn't provide any speed benefit but does stress the powertrain.

In order to preserve X they disincentivize, and remediate as necessary, use of Y.

Welcome to complex engineering, always about trade-offs.

 

[msnow]

After learning more about the launch mode restriction, I find sufficient basis to understand why they did it in this narrow circumstance -- which is easily avoided. At least by those who know about it. I see no need or basis to extrapolate that because they did this, they MIGHT do things that actually affect me (this does not since I only ever used LM a few times, hearing here, and confirming for myself, that it provides zero benefit).

Better wld be for them to simply pull back LM on the basis that it provides no benefit and may create unnecessary stress on powertrain.

But meanwhile I'm not going to upset myself with future imagined injustices that haven't occured and show no real sign of occuring.

The trade-off of participating in the bleeding edge of technology is that we ride the rollercoaster of trial and error with its ups and downs. The ups are massive. The downs, so far, are very very minor.

I can't find a basis for generating the outrage that others have seemed to muster on this issue -- that so far has seemed to affect exactly ONE person that we know of.

So can we assume if they offered you some sort of settlement to make up for this "imagined injustice" you will turn it down?

 

[bhzmark]

So can we assume if they offered you some sort of settlement to make up for this "imagined injustice" you will turn it down?

Can we assume that you can see that the answer to your question is irrelevant to the substance of the issue being discussed?

Instead, can you state clearly and precisely (or at this point even confusingly and erratically) the injustice you are suffering?