Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[msnow]

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?

My car isn't in scope yours is so I don't have a horse in this race except as more disappointing examples of Tesla's ethical issues. So with that said are you going to show your integrity and publicly state here that you will refuse any settlement?

 

[OnlyDataNoBS]

At what kW or HP level would a P90DL X be considered "limited" due to this issue? Has it been quantified?

My best 0-60 run, as reported by Power Tools, is 3.5 seconds. Car empty, 100% SOC, max battery enabled. 22" F1 Asymmetrics. 70F temp.

A little disappointing. Have folks with a similar set up turned in better times?

Would love to see data from a similar setup with 20" Latitude Sport 3's.

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

 

[bhzmark]

I ask for the fourth time, exactly what lost functionality or performance is anyone other than @Tech_Guy suffering?

The only thing I can see is that continued use of LM may decrease power output. Solution it seems is to use slip start instead and go faster anyway.

The remedy for all cars, including Tech guy, is to simply remove the worthless Launch Mode and thus need no need for the LM counter or any other limit. I won't be surprised if they do that eventually. And meanwhile it is painfully easy to simply not use it.

 

[St Charles]

I ask for the fourth time, exactly what lost functionality or performance is anyone other than @Tech_Guy suffering?

The only thing I can see is that continued use of LM may decrease power output. Solution it seems is to use slip start instead and go faster anyway.

The remedy for all cars, including Tech guy, is to simply remove the worthless Launch Mode and thus need no need for the LM counter or any other limit. I won't be surprised if they do that eventually. And meanwhile it is painfully easy to simply not use it.

Rhetoric aside, this is a pretty legitimate question. Do we have any other examples? What @Tech_Guy is experiencing is very severe but it's been postulated many times that something else may be legitimately wrong with his car and the new limiting code is going haywire. Personally, I've never known dealership-style service techs to be any good at troubleshooting.

 

[P85DEE]

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.

Well put and I agree wholeheartedly JRP3. Well said.

But until they actually lower one's X by Y amount, thus making the product that they originally sold not continue to have "X" capability, but instead "X-Y" capability, it's liable to be tough to establish any injury.

Unless ones argument that Tesla having a mechanism in place for at will remotely reducing "X" to something less than "X", is an invasion of privacy, I don't see how much there is to gain unless and until they actually adversely or without permission, affect someone's bought and paid for property.

And even is there any expectation of privacy?

With products such as OnStar already in the scene long before Tesla, one already knows that Tesla is privy to a significant amount of information from the car and at any time. And anyone having had a remote update already knows that Tesla can push information to the car.

This isn't like putting a camera into a workplace bathroom.

Arguing that one is "distressed" just by the launch mode counter being there and expecting a remedy for that is Ludicrous.

Pick up on that TSLA pilot.

 

[JRP3]

I ask for the fourth time, exactly what lost functionality or performance is anyone other than @Tech_Guy suffering?

The only thing I can see is that continued use of LM may decrease power output. Solution it seems is to use slip start instead and go faster anyway.

You understand the power decrease seems to be permanent, right? And you do understand that since Tesla didn't tell anyone that using LM might lead to permanent power loss that people may have used LM past the cutoff point, right? And that demo cars may have been launched a number of times and then sold without the new owner being aware of the power limitation?

The remedy for all cars, including Tech guy, is to simply remove the worthless Launch Mode and thus need no need for the LM counter or any other limit. I won't be surprised if they do that eventually. And meanwhile it is painfully easy to simply not use it.

And how does that apply to all the examples I posted above?

 

[JRP3]

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.

No, X= a specific level of performance in this case. Y= may indeed be as you described, but it was still installed by Tesla with no warnings from Tesla as to it's use, and then customers were penalized for it's use, by reducing the value of X. If LM caused the problem the solution would seem to be to disable launch mode, not limit power. The problem seems to be that LM causes such increased wear and/or damage that the vehicle can no longer be allowed to put out "X" amount of power.

 

[bhzmark]

No, X= a specific level of performance in this case. Y= may indeed be as you described, but it was still installed by Tesla with no warnings from Tesla as to it's use, and then customers were penalized for it's use, by reducing the value of X. If LM caused the problem the solution would seem to be to disable launch mode, not limit power. The problem seems to be that LM causes such increased wear and/or damage that the vehicle can no longer be allowed to put out "X" amount of power.

Those familiar with algebra or logic or engineering will be comfortable with me assigning X to be whatever I say it is to make my point. Others will apparently miss the point and remain unable to respond coherently.

 

[Andyw2100]

Those familiar with algebra or logic or engineering will be comfortable with me assigning X to be whatever I say it is to make my point. Others will apparently miss the point.

Tell us, please @JRP3 , what functionality have you or those other than tech_guy lost?

Watching bhzmark challenge JRP3 this way is like watching someone bringing a knife to a gunfight. I'm going to enjoy this!

 

[lolachampcar]

bhz,
I'm an engineer and, if I have a problem with LM and implement a counter, I will disable LM when the counter clicks over to disable the thing I have a problem with. Tesla says they have a LM counter yet they are permanently pulling power. That is crap to use engineering parlance. Given the BS JB blog post explaining the "is" of 691 hp, I no longer believe Tesla when they are telling me it is rain I'm feeling running down my back.

Excuse their behavior all you like using some sort of engineering practice logic. Engineering for customers requires an element of ethical behavior. Remember engineering ethics or was that after your time? I'll summarize; if it is unethical you do not do it even if it makes engineering sense.

 

[winfield100]

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.

pardon me, but I was directed to this specific TMC forum by Keef Wivanoff/Ralph Vader from SA. He explicitely referenced this TMC forum to push how bad Tesla is.
you folks are being used by SA

 

[thegruf]

pardon me, but folks here can have an educated and informed discussion, unless those two witless clowns you mention.

 

[P85DEE]

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

You touched on all of the important points.

Perhaps none more important than just which owners are affected by it, or have suffered any adverse alterations to their vehicles as a result of it.

At this point and having just one example, we don't even know just which other cars are affected or even which cars even have this "counter" in them.

Thus far the only person that we know of who has been affected and has been told by Tesla that he has been affected by this matter by having his power cut due to a counter is Tech_guy.

What, if anything, was there which caused his P90DL car to be one in which launches are counted and powered pulled?

Was it his build date? Battery part number? What?

We don't know.

Until we see another case or a "pattern", we don't have much. Yet.

Sadly, this is going to have to happen to someone else.

Otherwise some of us well could have cars the same model as his that launches aren't being counted in and powe not being pulled.

What I'm saying is, before anyone starts talking about loss of enjoyment as a result of this, as TSLA pilot was, they first need to determine or get confirmation from Tesla as to if if they're affected by it, or at risk for it.

By a show of hands, who among us has done that?

 

[Walta]

You touched on all of the important points.

Perhaps none more important than just which owners are affected by it, or have suffered any adverse alterations to their vehicles as a result of it.

At this point and having just one example, we don't even know just which other cars are affected or even which cars even have this "counter" in them.

Thus far the only person that we know of who has been affected and has been told by Tesla that he has been affected by this matter by having his power cut due to a counter is Tech_guy.

What, if anything, was there which caused his P90DL car to be one in which launches are counted and powered pulled?

Was it his build date? Battery part number? What?

We don't know.

Until we see another case or a "pattern", we don't have much. Yet.

Sadly, this is going to have to happen to someone else.

Otherwise some of us well could have cars the same model as his that launches aren't being counted in and powe not being pulled.

What I'm saying is, before anyone starts talking about loss of enjoyment as a result of this, as TSLA pilot was, they first need to determine or get confirmation from Tesla as to if if they're affected by it, or at risk for it.

By a show of hands, who among us has done that?

Just to give an update - I am still waiting on a definitive response from my service agent. I asked if not using launch mode is a guarantee that my power will not be reduced.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

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?

So why does my '15 P90 DL power meter barely hit 400 kW?!?

Next time I see a car magazine report a Tesla acceleration test I'm going to ask them to take pictures of the battery label, and download the Power Tools app, so we can see if they're all getting ringers while the rest of us chumps are buying the real deal and getting a lot less than is being "sold" via Twitter, media, etc. . . .

 

[AWDtsla]

pardon me, but I was directed to this specific TMC forum by Keef Wivanoff/Ralph Vader from SA. He explicitely referenced this TMC forum to push how bad Tesla is.
you folks are being used by SA

Well if you troll long enough, you might accidentally report a real fact. If the game is to hide all problems from "the news", then I'm not playing.

How could this play out?
1. Everyone sees trolls reporting this, dismisses it garbage (like everything else they report).
2. It starts making real headlines, people believe it, forces Tesla to take proactive action without me personally having to do things like file a lawsuit, or go into a service center stand on my soap box and demand action. Who wants to be that guy???
3. ???

 

[Walta]

So why does my '15 P90 DL power meter barely hit 400 kW?!?

Next time I see a car magazine report a Tesla acceleration test I'm going to ask them to take pictures of the battery label, and download the Power Tools app, so we can see if they're all getting ringers while the rest of us chumps are buying the real deal and getting a lot less than is being "sold" via Twitter, media, etc. . . .

Are you getting the ~400kw power level, by using the power tools app? With the usual prerequisite Max Battery Ready and a SOC 100 ish ? If so... ouch. The V1 battery should yield ~450kw ( as you already know ). Is this a new issue with your car? Like since version 8 firmware? I am wondering if you are the second owner that has had their power reduced?

 

[Impulse20110]

I own a P100DL Model S.
I Contacted tesla today to see if I was affected.
Here is Tesla's response after making them.them aware of which model I have

"Using Launch Mode places an increased stress on the entire powertrain accelerating aging and fatigue of various components. The computer systems automatically track Launch Mode usage and continually estimate fatigue damage. Depending on how Launch Mode is used, the computer may eventually limit the available power during Launch Mode to protect the powertrain. Note that this is a common strategy also employed in other high performance cars."

So it looks as if P100DL models may also be affected. I have a detailed list of questions sent after this that have been unanswered in this thread I am awaiting a response on right now. Will report back then.

 

[TSLA Pilot]

Well put and I agree wholeheartedly JRP3. Well said.

But until they actually lower one's X by Y amount, thus making the product that they originally sold not continue to have "X" capability, but instead "X-Y" capability, it's liable to be tough to establish any injury.

Unless ones argument that Tesla having a mechanism in place for at will remotely reducing "X" to something less than "X", is an invasion of privacy, I don't see how much there is to gain unless and until they actually adversely or without permission, affect someone's bought and paid for property.

And even is there any expectation of privacy?

With products such as OnStar already in the scene long before Tesla, one already knows that Tesla is privy to a significant amount of information from the car and at any time. And anyone having had a remote update already knows that Tesla can push information to the car.

This isn't like putting a camera into a workplace bathroom.

Arguing that one is "distressed" just by the launch mode counter being there and expecting a remedy for that is Ludicrous.

Pick up on that TSLA pilot.

You are again missing the point.

Car was sold with no information re: a launch counter.

Hitting the arbitrary (and secret) counter limit PERMANENTLY limits performance.

Here's a metaphor: I am making huge payments on a car with a burning fuse and once the fuse hits some magic number, the car's performance is PERMANENTLY degraded.

Queries to Tesla Service have been, effectively, ignored as they simply provide the legal, boilerplate BS that says nothing. (It's "circle the wagons" time at Tesla because they know that legally, they have nothing to back up their position.)

How do you not understand this?

I am so infuriated that I am very close to dumping the car at Tesla's absurd trade in value ($11k in "reconditioning" for a 14-month old car with under 10k miles? $42k in total lost value? Wow, just wow.)

 

[JRP3]

Those familiar with algebra or logic or engineering will be comfortable with me assigning X to be whatever I say it is to make my point.

Yes, and I assigned it to something relevant to make a better point.

Others will apparently miss the point and remain unable to respond coherently.

Indeed, you missed the point and failed to be coherent.