Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[Walta]

This. They likely never tested rolling back and so it would be an unsupported config and they won't do it. Too many things likely changed in a major update (DB structures, storage and memory allocations, etc) to allow a stable revert. Also, 3rd party software changes over time and Tesla needs to update their software to comply. For example, Google is constantly changing their interface into Google Maps. If you reverted (or never updated), things like streaming music, google maps, etc would one day stop working. That list would also likely include the Tesla mobile app.

This is the down side of a connected car. If you're fine w/ a Garmin on your windshield and not using Internet radio (though you could stream through your phone I guess) then go for it. But if you like the benefits of a connected car you're stuck w/ letting Tesla mess with it whenever they want.

True that sometimes software updates have coupling with other applications. Usually in the case like with Tesla, since your software update might cause a serious negative problem , like with autopilot for instance... they really need to make the software updates a standalone option. Such that the entire image can be refreshed if they had to roll back to a safer version. So I am expecting that they "can" do it, but will not roll it back for me. Stating warranty issues etc. That is when I will play the "not what I paid for" card, and see what that gets me.

 

[Walta]

Yeah, it seems that max battery power behaves differently across models.
What power are you seeing these days? And what firmware version are you on?

I am on version 2.50.114 at the moment.
My last power tools testing on 12-30-2016, I was getting 497kw with a SOC 83% and MBR.

 

[AWDtsla]

They could claim but the law still says the burden of proof is on the manufacturer.

The law says a lot of things, but as we've covered ad nauseam in this thread, how much traction are you going to get with Tesla before having to bring in the lawyers?

 

[davidc18]

They can do it, they wont want to do it. We have zero obligation to ever update the firmware. I will disconnect mine as soon as I can either do it, or pay someone to do it. The downsides to letting tesla have unfettered access to my car is simply to great.

 

[AWDtsla]

and my bet is the next "fix" will more closely mimic degradation so as to make the two indistinguishable.

Take bets as to when the power output is fudged in the API?

 

[smac]

They could claim but the law still says the burden of proof is on the manufacturer.

I'm not sure. At least here (and I appreciate our laws have diverged even if sharing a common ancestry) if you were to reject a firmware then you would be seen to be jeopardising the other parties opportunities to rectify the situation.

Playing devils advocate. Let's say Tesla issued a fix to the chargers firmware in 7.5 that prevented premature wear (WITHOUT changing their performance). Any problem caused by your refusal to upgrade _could_ be seen to have exacerbated the problem which Tesla had in all good faith attempted to head off.

TBH This is all going to go down a rats nest of legal arguments and counter arguments.

 

[sorka]

@sorka @MarcG - So you guys have P85DL's ? Is this another step Tesla made to reduce power on the P90DL's ? When I did my MB testing... it was on a P90DL V3. I ran it cold ( after a night of 40AMP charging to 90% SOC ). Then without warming it up - ran a 484kw with MB ON ( but not READY ) - then turned MB OFF - next run I got 464kw.

If true, then Tesla added something to the V2/V3 versions that require max battery on as a setting to get 1600 amps. The thing that changes based on temperature is the voltage drop. The warmer the battery, the less the voltage drop. It's going to pull 1600 amps regardless so somebody needs to CANBUS this and see if they're NOT pulling 1600 amps on a V2/V3 battery when max battery is off. If turning it off immediately results in less than 1600 amps, then the setting simply being on or off does effect maximum power. This test obviously won't be valid on a V2/V3 car that has already been permanently and forever power reduced.

 

[sorka]

The law says a lot of things, but as we've covered ad nauseam in this thread, how much traction are you going to get with Tesla before having to bring in the lawyers?

If it's in California, you have many options LONG before you have to hire legal council. Ask me how I know

 

[smac]

If it's in California, you have many options LONG before you have to hire legal council. Ask me how I know

Clearly not as many as are available in Norway

 

[Fiebrudo]

Apologies in advanced. Too lazy to read the 80+ pages so far in this discussion.

1. Please define for me what constitutes a hard launch that counts for the limiter to take effect. Is stomping hard on the accelerator from a complete stop count as 1?

2. Is the P85D-L included in this hardware limitation?

Thanks in advance and forgive my laziness

 

[Andyw2100]

and my bet is the next "fix" will more closely mimic degradation so as to make the two indistinguishable.

This may be the scariest thing I've read in this thread. I'm not disagreeing at all. Just pointing out how scary this is. And how ridiculous it is that we need to be scared!

 

[AWDtsla]

This may be the scariest thing I've read in this thread. I'm not disagreeing at all. Just pointing out how scary this is. And how ridiculous it is that we need to be scared!

No the scary thing is how over-leveraged Tesla is on "benefit of a doubt". You don't know where to stop taking them seriously anymore.

 

[smac]

@AWDtsla: Re your benefit of the doubt comment.

For the last 16 years I have run a "generational style" software business (founded by myself). Completely self-funded, re-investment through retained earnings, 99+% customer retention, 30% YoY growth, zero debt, cash rich, etc. etc. We would bend over backwards to make it right.

I sold the business last year for a significant sum to a large US VC backed firm, and had to walk away after a few months.

Fundamentally money takes over, customers become a number, and running the business for "optics" becomes far more important than running the business for sustainability. Customer loss is simply attrition. You can hide it behind slick presentations and lots of media, but it is always there.

This ethos comes from the top and it flows down. Tesla are simply running into this as they scale IMHO.

 

[azdryheat]

If it's in California, you have many options LONG before you have to hire legal council. Ask me how I know

How do you know.

 

[lolachampcar]

No the scary thing is how over-leveraged Tesla is on "benefit of a doubt". You don't know where to stop taking them seriously anymore.

I just want to make sure you folks know that is NOT how I do things...... I've just watched the company over the last three and a half years and there is a consistent thread. They will not make the same mistake (on the technical side that results in getting caught) twice.

 

[St Charles]

I just want to make sure you folks know that is NOT how I do things...... I've just watched the company over the last three and a half years and there is a consistent thread. They will not make the same mistake (on the technical side that results in getting caught) twice.

 

[Tech_Guy]

hmm will they call me as promised today.... my bet is on NO but I want to be wrong....

 

[P85DEE]

see Tesla voiding your entire warranty once you have your "open source" firmware installed.

And that's why it's a bad idea.

 

[P85DEE]

They can't void the entire warranty. Only those things that were broken because of the change you made. If you root your car and have a wheel bearing....

Not concerned about a wheel bearing. $5000 worth of chargers or $25k or whatever it is for the drive inverter, etc, sure.

Exactly.

It's the big things that you'd need your warranty for which would have coverage denied.

But they could claim they have fixed something in firmware that was a contributory cause. So much of the car is controlled by it, from chargers to tailgate lift motors, that you'd end up down a rabbit warren of legal nonsense.

They could claim but the law still says the burden of proof is on the manufacturer.

And if they can meet that burden?

Bottom line, is any owner in here willing to bet a that they can't meet it? Or that it's even worth the risk or the potential ensuing fight.

 

[Andyw2100]

I just want to make sure you folks know that is NOT how I do things......

This was one disclaimer that was, unlike the one Tesla recently added to their website, completely unnecessary!