It is indeed possible, that he doesn't know about this. I encourage people on this thread to tweet him about this.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
It is indeed possible, that he doesn't know about this. I encourage people on this thread to tweet him about this.
I find that as unlikely as I find Elon Musk not knowing about Q3 discounting at Tesla until the second to last day of the quarter.
It may be convenient for Tesla to sometimes show a disconnect between the company and its famous leader - and I find it possible they are using that convenience when it suits them. It may or may not have anything to do with the actual inner workings of the company.
This is a possibility, not a known fact of course.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
P85DEE a number of respected folks on this forum have tried to help you understand ... you may want to heed their advice 
P85DEE ... let me give you some considered advice based on real world experience with another German car manufacturer.
The best way to get a problem fixed is to use the Sunshine Test and the power of the press to highlight the problem in a public forum.
I have been down this road with Porsche and they were forced to solve engineering defects for all owners, not just those who tried litigation.
P85DEE a number of respected folks on this forum have tried to help you understand ... you may want to heed their advice
Mmmmmm, no, FlatSix, .....I think I'll heed the advice of legal counsel if I should get hit by this. Anyone else getting hit by it may decide to heed the advice that you refer to, if they like. But I'll stick to the advice of my counsel.
I appreciate your concern though, as it was a thoughtful gesture.
Last edited:
Lawyers are a good source of counsel if a lawsuit is your preferred action and/or personal relief is your sole goal.
Others may have other motivations and thus seek different kind of counsel. For example, activist groups might be a better source of input if planning on staging a public pressure campaign for change of corporate policy. Specfic lawsuits may not be the best for that.
Then there are the rest of us for whom good quality information gathering and contribution is the main purpose. Lawyers would give terrible advice for that, as would activist groups, as would corporations or individuals with vested interests.
For objective data gathering, in the likes of @wk057 we trust.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
@P85DEE -- I have a question for you.
You and I disagreed pretty dramatically about the 691 HP issue. I may not word this perfectly, but in a nutshell I think your feelings were that Tesla was clear enough in their terminology, and that anyone who bought the P85D expecting it to make 691 HP had not done enough to educate themselves, etc., and that Tesla had done nothing wrong. If I don't have that exactly right, I apologize.
My feelings were that Tesla, intentionally or not, misled the general public with talk of "691 Motor HP" and never corrected any of the press that referred to the car as simply a 691 HP car.
In any case, my question for you is this: if it turns out that Tesla is doing with Countergate what it appears they are doing, does that in any way change your feelings--even if just a little bit--on the 691 HP issue? I am asking because in my opinion, which of course may not be yours, it shows more of a "pattern" of disregard for the customer.
I certainly understand if you see the issues as completely separate issues, and your feelings have not changed. I'm just wondering.
Thanks!
You and I disagreed pretty dramatically about the 691 HP issue. I may not word this perfectly, but in a nutshell I think your feelings were that Tesla was clear enough in their terminology, and that anyone who bought the P85D expecting it to make 691 HP had not done enough to educate themselves, etc., and that Tesla had done nothing wrong. If I don't have that exactly right, I apologize.
My feelings were that Tesla, intentionally or not, misled the general public with talk of "691 Motor HP" and never corrected any of the press that referred to the car as simply a 691 HP car.
In any case, my question for you is this: if it turns out that Tesla is doing with Countergate what it appears they are doing, does that in any way change your feelings--even if just a little bit--on the 691 HP issue? I am asking because in my opinion, which of course may not be yours, it shows more of a "pattern" of disregard for the customer.
I certainly understand if you see the issues as completely separate issues, and your feelings have not changed. I'm just wondering.
Thanks!
Well, I'm really not looking to be a crusader here. Should I be a victim in this matter, I have to look after my own interests before I can look after anyone elses.
Well for those who elect to take up that torch and travel along that route, I wish them a safe and peaceful journey.
Then there are the rest of us for whom good quality information gathering and contribution is the main purpose. Lawyers would give terrible advice for that, as would activist groups, as would corporations or individuals with vested interests.
For objective data gathering, in the likes of @wk057 we trust.
When this all shakes out, any and all that is known about it will be subject to discovery. I'm not too concerned. In fact, I am more at peace with this matter than I have been in the last few days.
I feel quite confident that as an owner I'm in the right here, if Tesla is doing what we're talking about to owners who have purchased their vehicles before, and in some cases long before, any of this ever came out.
Last edited:
Once you put two individuals on ignore then it goes from 20 messages per page to about 10. And of those 10 remaining messages about 5 are other folks banging their head against the wall responding to the other two.
That's close enough.
I believe that Tesla said "horsepower motor power". But even more importantly than that, it is not nor should it be Tesla's prerogative to "correct" the press. The "press" is at liberty to print what it likes irrespective of Tesla's use of the term "horsepower motor power".
No. See above.
This is an entirely different matter. If one did not notice, or bother to educate themselves on the fact that "horsepower motor power", and "horsepower" are not interchangeable when it comes to vehicle specs, well then the responsibility for that does not lie with Tesla.
However in this case, the owner was never presented anything to "misinterpret".
In this case, we're talking about altering a product, after the fact, and after the purchase, and through remote means, turning it into something less than what it was when it was originally sold, and against the owner's will and without his consent.
That's apples and oranges when it comes to that horsepower discussion.
I respect your perspective. If you believe that this goes to such a pattern, OK.
These are, in my opinion, completely separate matters.
Deliberately degrading merchandise that you've already sold, in some case long after the time that you sold it, is unheard of.
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I'm in your boat with a P85D upgraded to L. I do have two concerns that go beyond your points.
First, the car we have been discussing seems to have experienced a power reduction below the initial 50 kw or so. It could very well be that 1500 amp excursions have a cumulative affect that requires a counter all be it with a higher allowable count. Without complete transparency, we simply do not know.
Second, use it or not, the existence of a function that reduces power affects resale. It injects an unknown. The way Tesla is currently selling it with the upgrade to a 100 and the counter is gone most certainly disadvantages pre-100 cars. I can not imagine the P85DL, or any other L car, will not be tarred with that brush.
As always, the proof is in the future with these things and may not even be "knowable". We simply will not know how much a P85DL not subject to a counter would be worth right next to the exact same car subject to a counter. Logic and past experience with performance vehicles tells me that clouds matter.
On an unrelated note, this thread also serves as a gathering point for multiple responses from Tesla who's nature and content would otherwise not be known. Many thanks to owners that have taken the time to pass along this information. I most certainly appreciate it.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Your POV is simply wrong. It's not "did it break?", it's "did Tesla reach out and take away performance from my vehicle?". Quite a different scenario from that which you have imagined.
davidc18
Active Member
This is not good news for anyone owning or purchasing a "P" model.
Performance
Performance acceleration ratings are based on maximum battery power mode and follow Motor Trend’s test procedure of subtracting the first foot rollout time to represent drag strip performance.
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.
Performance
Performance acceleration ratings are based on maximum battery power mode and follow Motor Trend’s test procedure of subtracting the first foot rollout time to represent drag strip performance.
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.
ZeroDarkSilver
HEPA cleaning your atmosphere, you're welcome
It's not a bug. The CSS stylesheet rule governing just about every element of that page specifies "none" for "user-select":
This prevents you from using your cursor to highlight text in the page. Of course, you can use your browser's DOM inspector to delete this rule if you really want to and re-enable cursor selection.
I would not ascribe any evil intent to this, given that you can always just take a screenshot or photo of this information if you want to preserve it.
I guess the question is - Has this optimized your overall driving and ownership experience?
werd
By the way, for some reason P85DEE quotes several of @Andyw2100's messages above that claim to be quotes of my messages. They are not. I assume it is just a copy-paste-mistake in the quoting process, but wanted to point that out.
I'm doing this on my phone.
If I attributed your words to anyone else of vice versa let me know and I'll correct them.
Think I fixed it but let me know.
Thanks.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I read it as optimizing Tesla's warranty liability (at their owner's expense....).
I seem to remember having a problem with Tesla offering me $9K less than competing wholesale for my P+ on trade then refusing to let me get the $4800 of sales tax credit by doing a curtesy trade. My position was that they were using their obligation to collect FL Sales Tax as leverage to pay me under wholesale from my car. I only bring this up as I view counter gate as yet another example of how Tesla will use its position and leverage to extract an unfair financial advantage at the expense of its customers.
I remember well when you went through that.
I italicized the word because I bet 3 lawyers and 6 executives debated for two days and nights before carefully choosing it. I mean, enhance probably wouldn't be applicable here. Improve prolly not either. On the other hand, they didn't want to use spoil either...
Mike
Last edited:
Similar threads
