Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[AnxietyRanger]

I found some useful information today. I stopped at a local service center and asked "How many more launch modes do I have in my P85DL before you reduce the power?" I was escorted to the service manager who initially said 625 runs(but could not substatinate it) were needed before power reduction. Then he looked into the computer using my vin to find out. There was apparently a lot of vins listed randomnly but he concluded that my information was not available to him.

He did inform me that there are 2 separate counters, 1 for launch mode and the other for full pedal. He did not know how long the full pedal had to be pushed or if the 2 counters were additive. As far as the P100D the battery is ok but drive train can still be damaged resulting in power cutbacks. Other P models can suffer battery and drive train damage. Then he proceded to read from the official line in the computer which basically said that drive train damage is to be expected from abuse and is common with other manufacturers. It was obvious that Tesla is now aware of the turmoil and has published guidelines for service.

The above helps explain Teslas response to Tech_Guy that a P100D is the answer but left out the part that the drive train could still suffer damage even if using full pedal only.

Well, there we go.

It is not just Launch Mode, but two counters, as we have been pondering. It is not just P90DL, it is at least P100D too. Maybe P85DL as well.

And Tesla conveniently left this completely out of their initial public response - as they did the fact that all power, not just Launch Mode power, is cut.

Absolutely disgusted by the actions, but feeling good about our ability to read through Tesla's vague statements on TMC. I think this forum has improved in leaps and bounds in its capacity as a service to the owners.

We basically predicted almost all of the above on this thread, instead of taking Tesla's vague PR word at it, which seems to be worth pretty much nothing these days. We are learning, guys.

 

[Matias]

I tweeted about this. I recommend others to do the same.

Jarkko Kuoppala on Twitter

 

[GMDC]

He did inform me that there are 2 separate counters, 1 for launch mode and the other for full pedal.

This is even more concerning that before. Although Tesla talks about "performance cars" in their ordering page disclaimers, I see no reason why a full pedal counter could not potentially apply to ALL models.
Before is time for my delivery and payment I will ask if this may apply to my S90D.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This is even more concerning that before. Although Tesla talks about "performance cars" in their ordering page disclaimers, I see no reason why a full pedal counter could not potentially apply to ALL models.
Before is time for my delivery and payment I will ask if this may apply to my S90D.

All cars probably have the counters. Whether or not Tesla employs limiting controls is a separate question, of course, and may change over time. It seems the 8.0 update is the one that introduced the limiting controls in P90DL. So, if this precedence holds, and warranty statistics so require, Tesla might limit any car later on.

This is probably the most important reason why checking this behaviour now is paramount, before it gets even worse over time.

 

[xborg]

I found some useful information today. I stopped at a local service center and asked "How many more launch modes do I have in my P85DL before you reduce the power?" I was escorted to the service manager who initially said 625 runs(but could not substatinate it) were needed before power reduction. Then he looked into the computer using my vin to find out. There was apparently a lot of vins listed randomnly but he concluded that my information was not available to him.

He did inform me that there are 2 separate counters, 1 for launch mode and the other for full pedal. He did not know how long the full pedal had to be pushed or if the 2 counters were additive. As far as the P100D the battery is ok but drive train can still be damaged resulting in power cutbacks. Other P models can suffer battery and drive train damage. Then he proceded to read from the official line in the computer which basically said that drive train damage is to be expected from abuse and is common with other manufacturers. It was obvious that Tesla is now aware of the turmoil and has published guidelines for service.

The above helps explain Teslas response to Tech_Guy that a P100D is the answer but left out the part that the drive train could still suffer damage even if using full pedal only.

Just vow!
So, they've realized that most of the warranty motor replacement cases are caused by instant acceleration. So instead of testing their cars properly and fixing their design, they've decided to limit power of the owner's cars who are accelerating quickly.(which is what Tesla's marketing based on).

I've upgraded to P90DL, knowing that the tech difference doesn't worth the £30.000 difference between 90D, just the rear motor is slightly more powerful, but Tesla is also charging this money for possible warranty issues, since they are pushing the limits of the hardware. But, removing the power of the car to get away with it and expect drivers to not notice that reduction is not acceptable.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I agree that would have been more sensible.

However (IMHO) the target was set for a reason and that was to gain column inches by besting the 911 Turbo S. (Thereby claiming P90D in ludicrous mode is the "fastest accelerating car on the market", something they later had to water down to "fastest accelerating sedan on the market".) That is why the tenths were so important to them.

TBH As a potential buyer it is important to me too. I already have a fast ICE for track work, and for day to day the 60 is more than fast enough for my city commute. To get me to buy a P car (for a HUGE premium most of which goes straight into GM) it needs to have that badge of honor (meaningless as it is without a timed strip). I'm embarrassed to admit it, but it's a vanity thing.

I agree this was their goal. The quickest production car and all that jazz. I guess it makes all of this even worse, because their motivation was so vain - basically marketing at their customer's expense.

Now instead of making it right, they are limiting the customer's cars after getting their maketing gain.

Of course I don't think they planned it this way originally, but the precedence is clear whether it is HPs, Quarter Miles or even pack kWhs, Tesla has decided to time and time again put out unrealistic numbers for their Performance models - and gotten in trouble afterwards. Because they started doing it with the 85 kWh pack originally, then the P85D, they have been laying the groundwork layer after layer of the problem of their own making - how to improve on the previous misleadingly high performance figures...

Here's an alternate history: What if they've just been the world's quickest production sedan... 11 second quarter mile instead of 10.9... or a 500 HP P85D instead of "691"... 80 kWh pack instead of "85"... Those would still have been massively impressive figures for a 7-seater sedan/hatchback of this size and Tesla could have provided them with the full backing of a warranty and meeting (or exceeding as the case may be) those specs in public testing.

All of this could have been avoided unless Tesla thought they needed those headlines, they needed that demand lever on the product level... for whatever reason that's what they seem to have thought and that's the goal that seems to have been set. And here we are. How sad.

There is another similar precendece: the Tesla Time. I don't think they started out making unrealistic schedules in public. But once they started and saw they were getting away with bait and switching the schedule, that's what they are doing now. They should know by now better than to be so optimistic, but still they persist...

Even if it started out as unintentional, by now this policy does seem intentional and not merely corporate tendency. It is so formulaic.

 

[bhzmark]

But it looks to me like the P100D has brake lights coming on in many of the races before it gets to the finish line. For example, take a look at the race that starts at about the 8:00 mark. It looks like the brake lights come on a couple of times a few seconds before the finish line. Was this because the driver was afraid of beating his index time, so he purposely let off the accelerator? His index time was his personal best (he had included that notation with the time slip earlier), so I kind of doubt that was it.

Thanks to anyone who wants to take the time to explain.

Brake lights a few seconds before the finish line is because the race is an 1/8 mile and the finish line you are seeing is the 1/4 mile.

 

[lolachampcar]

Anyone that owns any PD variant just had a bucket load of money pulled directly out of their pocket. In one respect, it is a shame this loss will be felt by everyone at different times (resale) as I am almost certain that, had it happened in one short defined period of time, we would all be banding together to do something about it.

For the record, I've reverse engineered several other OEM's performance ECUs to gain access to their calibration data (for tuning). NONE have used a "counter" to permanently modify calibration data (timing, boost set points, torque limits, knock margin) to reduce power for the remainder of the car's life. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, this is ANOTHER Tesla fabrication to justify doing something wrong. I DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING so I am only speaking from my personal experience about what other OEMs do.

 

[sandpiper]

@AndyW

"
First they came for the 691hp, and I did not speak out—
Because I had not paid for 691hp.

Then they came for the 10.9s, and I did not speak out—
Because I had not paid for 10.9s.

Then they came for the launch mode, and I did not speak out—
Because I had not paid for launch mode.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
"

 

[bhzmark]

I'll stick to waiting for evidence rather than generating outrage based on FUD.

Evidence so far:

TRC has lots of runs. And no problems.

And still no one other than Tech guy has alleged any power cuts. And his seems to be weird case.

And written statements from Tesla so far indicate power limit only during the LM use and triggered by LM use.

Is there any evidence that the full pedal counter is used to limit power in a permanent way and for nonLM use?

Waiting for evidence rather than FUD.

Edit to add re below: still no facts/evidence/data.

 

[lolachampcar]

bhz,
Evidence, Tesla is doing more, and bolder, things behind our back. I give the benefit of the doubt when it is earned. Likewise, I am skeptical when it is earned.

To all
Misc. musings on the way back from dropping my daughter off at school this morning.

Tesla holds itself out as a beacon of honesty and integrity when comparing itself to other OEMs and their dealer network. Tesla makes up stories about other OEM's nonexistent performance counters to justify doing something crappy to their customers.

I use the right pedal on both my ICE sports car and my PD. The sports car guys/gals pick on the PD as being a gimmick while I defend the car as having higher daily driver right pedal utility than the ICE sports car. I no longer feel that way as there is no counter on my ICE and now I get to think about the counter on my PD every time I drive it and press on the right pedal. Did I press too hard? Did I use up a "count". Was that really a several hundred dollar ding on resale?

I must live under a lucky star and thanks are really due here. Thank you Tesla for feeling no need to address the HP claims you used to sell me my PD. Had you felt any guilt, responsibility or other ownership of that issue, I would have traded my P85DL for a P100DL and would be a further $50K into this pile of dung that is countergate. Thank you for saving me from myself.

 

[msnow]

I'll stick to waiting for evidence rather than generating outrage based on FUD.

Evidence so far:

TRC has lots of runs. And no problems.

And still no one other than Tech guy has alleged any power cuts. And his seems to be weird case.

And written statements from Tesla so far indicate power limit only during the LM use and triggered by LM use.

Is there any evidence that the full pedal counter is used to limit power in a permanent way and for nonLM use?

Waiting for evidence rather than FUD.

TRC has a lot of runs but I doubt he's got 625 (assuming that's a real number).
Agree that @Tech_Guy seems to have another or additional issue but if your expecting some sort of mea culpa announcement wth detail from Fremont it's likely not going to happen. I'm pretty sure their legal team finds comfort in their position as is.
I realize you want to view Tesla in the best possible light as do I but I think they are a much different company from an ethical perspective than they were when I bought my car.

 

[Andyw2100]

Brake lights a few seconds before the finish line is because the race is an 1/8 mile and the finish line you are seeing is the 1/4 mile.

Thank you.

I'm sure that is what it I was seeing. I just went back and watched a 1/4 mile race thst started at around 6:45, and there were no early brake lights.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And written statements from Tesla so far indicate power limit only during the LM use and triggered by LM use. ... Waiting for evidence rather than FUD.

Not true.

Tesla added this written disclaimer to the P100D order page during this ordeal, which makes no mention of the launch mode but "continuous high-performance driving" instead and refers to "limiting controls" being employed.

As it happens, this disclaimer is quite in line with the alleged "FUD" @NSX1992 was able to uncover from the helpful SC techie.

Performance versions of the Model S and Model X are high-performance vehicles. As with other vehicles, continuous high-performance driving will stress the vehicle's components and may result in premature wear or failure. To help protect the performance and longevity of the powertrain, Performance versions of the Model S and Model X continually monitor the condition of various components and may employ limiting controls to optimize the overall driving and ownership experience.

Also, historic data suggest, deep analysis and gathering of anecdotal evidence on TMC trumps trusting Tesla PR messages. Unfortunately. I know which side I believe here, Tesla's lauch mode PR or TMC... The thing is, in cases where the company stonewalls, all we will ever have are unofficial, anecdotal data points. That doesn't mean they aren't true, like we learned in the case of Eds and Model X delays.

Waiting for conclusive evidence only and in the meanwhile trusting Tesla's PR message 100% does not seem like the realistic approach to me. Conclusive evidence is hard or impossible to come by, while trusting a partial source (their PR no less) blindly, with this history, is likely not accurate either. There is a middle ground that is very likely more useful and accurate.

 

[St Charles]

Thank you.

I'm sure that is what it I was seeing. I just went back and watched a 1/4 mile race thst started at around 6:45, and there were no early brake lights.

As others have said. Index and bracket racers can't break out or they risk losing. So if a car is far enough ahead or they really think they are going to break out then you'll see brake lights.

 

[St Charles]

I'll stick to waiting for evidence rather than generating outrage based on FUD.
Is there any evidence that the full pedal counter is used to limit power in a permanent way and for nonLM use?

I think this is the entire problem. We don't know what is really going on and humans are REALLY GOOD and filling in gaps with imagination.

We found out about all this in the worst way possible, by someone having trouble with their car. I'll be honest that if I were @Tech_Guy, I would have left the car at the service center whether they wanted to accept it or not and started forcing the issue. It seems clear to me that something is wrong and it's far more likely that the SvC hasn't done any real troubleshooting to determine the fault.

We have only one example of power limitation which is much more severe then any documentation would lead us to believe. In fact, the difference is so big that there is no reasonable connection. It's time to pull out of this nose dive and figure out what's going on.

Lets start with a thought exercise:
Occams Razor - the simplest answer is often correct.
Hanlons Razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

What is more likely:

A: Tesla, as a measure to limit performance related warranty claims, silently implement limitations that limit the car to less than 90% of it's peak performance, permanently. Tesla refuses to disclose this information, even to their service centers and refuses to respond to additional information requests.

B: An owner is having legitimate problems with their car and service center incompetence has lead down a troubleshooting rabbit hole.

IMO, there is still a decent chance that whatever limitations are small enough to be irrelevant. Rather than continue to spiral out of control. we, as a community, should start gathering information from each other and attempt to get visibility to what is or is not happening. I'd like to know if TRC has seen any differences for all the racing abuse he has put his cars through.

 

[Lump]

Green Car Reports...
Tesla quietly limits lifetime full-speed launches via over-the-air update

 

[lolachampcar]

St Charles,
We know there are counters on the diag screen.
Tesla has said they are limiting power based on counters.
Tesla has added language to their web site informing customers that they may limit power based on usage.

Your summary and two options make sense in the absence of the above. In the presence of the above and the knowledge that Tesla implemented the counter power reduction before telling anyone, I would have to go with A.

This assumes the listing above is unassailable.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Lets start with a thought exercise:
Occams Razor - the simplest answer is often correct.
Hanlons Razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

In general I agree with these tools, though I am not sure I would agree with your application of them.

A: Tesla, as a measure to limit performance related warranty claims, silently implement limitations that limit the car to less than 90% of it's peak performance, permanently. Tesla refuses to disclose this information, even to their service centers and refuses to respond to additional information requests.

B: An owner is having legitimate problems with their car and service center incompetence has lead down a troubleshooting rabbit hole.

IMO, there is still a decent chance that whatever limitations are small enough to be irrelevant. Rather than continue to spiral out of control. we, as a community, should start gathering information from each other and attempt to get visibility to what is or is not happening. I'd like to know if TRC has seen any differences for all the racing abuse he has put his cars through.

Some issues with this:

1) What makes you think a significant issue with battery and/or drivetrain wear could be solved by a "small enough to be irrelevant" adjustment downwards - especially if it is done after a certain amount of full wear and not from the get go? A very simple answer would IMO be the adjustment would likely have to be more than irrelevantly sized at that stage.

2) Even if we assume @Tech_Guy's car is experiencing additional issues, the notion that power will be limited after certain counters have been reached, has been confirmed through many avenues. The fact that so many techies are either avoiding this issue or offering quite frank insights as to @NSX1992 suggests there certainly is something there. As does Tesla's new P100D disclaimer.

What makes you think that this something there would - as the simplest answer - be "small enough to be irrelevant". I mean, sure it is possible if that acknowledgement is what you are after, but I would hardly say it is the Occams Razor.

The simplest answer IMO to such measures is that Performance models have been suffering significantly costly wear and tear - and Tesla decided to act in a manner sufficiently effective to curtail that. No way IMO does the simplest answer entail that these adjustments necessarily were small, their size at the very least is unknown and the one case we know of is not flattering.

I can see small adjustments from the start helping, but not so easily late in the game. But the simplest answer there is: Tesla can't make the adjustments from the start, because they have made promises (they have a hard time keeping) regarding the car's performance. Oh and also, marketing.

As for Hanlon, I don't think Tesla meant it this way from the start. They just overshot. That's the incompetence part. But now it is becoming such a pattern that reasonably they should know better...

 

[Walta]

I was concerned that we would get to this point ( having 2 counters ). With LM and pedal mashing (PM) getting equal performance results, but Tesla only implementing a LM counter did not make much sense. I can imagine the algorithm being designed to handle these counters. We saw earlier what determined a LM counter increment... what increments the PM counter?
LM counter increments when:
1. LM enabled ( Max Battery and Ludicrous assumed ? )
2. SOC > 85 %
3. No slipping at take off

So what about PM?
PM increments when: ?
1. LM NOT enabled ( Max Battery and Ludicrous assumed ? )
2. SOC > 85%
3. No slipping at take off

Will there be partial increments ( like a +.5 ) if 2 out of the 3 are met ?


I was driving into work this morning after reading about the PM counter. I started thinking about the Seinfield episode with Elaine running out of contraceptive sponges, and she was wondering when to use them and with who. She would have to decide if the person was "sponge worthy". I was pulling onto the highway and a new red ferrari was taking off ahead of me... I thought OK that is "PM worthy".