Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[stopcrazypp]

I think they knew almost immediately that this was going to be a problem. So they shipped what, 8 months of P90Dl's before shipping an upgraded 90 pack? Sometime in the middle of which they shipped software that started populating usage counters? Then another several months after the V2 pack released software that started active limiting? That's way too long for "oops we made a mistake". It would be nice if someone with all that facts could put down a hard timeline.

This is why anyone who buys another P car now deserves what they get.

I think the timeline largely depends on how this counter affects things (any effect under 1500A). 1600A capability was not even a thing until v2. 1600A essentially is an unofficial power upgrade that Tesla can't necessarily be held to (there is the side tangent about the 1/4 mile times, but that is indirect).

As for the counters, they may not necessarily have been developed specifically for this issue. It may have been there previously as part of a whole bunch of readings the car collects.

 

[Andyw2100]

1600A capability was not even a thing until v2. 1600A essentially is an unofficial power upgrade that Tesla can't necessarily be held to.

But without 1600A, the car couldn't run a 10.9 second quarter mile, right? That is a specification that Tesla --CAN-- and should be held to.

 

[AWDtsla]

I think the timeline largely depends on how this counter affects things (any effect under 1500A). 1600A capability was not even a thing until v2. 1600A essentially is an unofficial power upgrade that Tesla can't necessarily be held to (there is the side tangent about the 1/4 mile times, but that is indirect).

See this is where I start getting really angry. 1600A was necessary to deliver the 10.9 spec they announced in July of 2015, and started deliver cars with shortly thereafter. Of course it's unannounced because "Oh 8 months of cars didn't meet spec" isn't very good for PR.

 

[davidc18]

I just stopped at the supercharger and filled up to 90% and did a few runs with power tools. Without Max Battery, 468 - 487 with. No way this car will do 10.9.

 

[stopcrazypp]

But without 1600A, the car couldn't run a 10.9 second quarter mile, right? That is a specification that Tesla --CAN-- and should be held to.

I added that in parenthesis later. However, that is only indirectly related, as all the usually caveats about configuration (weight) and test procedures will apply. This is further complicated by the fact that v1 P90D does not have 1600A capability (if I recall correctly).

The power drop from 1600A to 1500A is much easier to substantiate, but Tesla had only explicitly promised 1500A publicly.

 

[AWDtsla]

I added that in parenthesis later. However, that is only indirectly related, as all the usually caveats about configuration (weight) and test procedures will apply. This is further complicated by the fact that v1 P90D does not have 1600A capability (if I recall correctly).

The power drop from 1600A to 1500A is much easier to substantiate, but Tesla had only explicitly promised 1500A publicly.

They promised 10.9 publicly. Current is just what we "enthusiasts" are using the validate if the car can actually do it. at 1500 it can't.

 

[St Charles]

I just stopped at the supercharger and filled up to 90% and did a few runs with power tools. Without Max Battery, 468 - 487 with. No way this car will do 10.9.

True. To date, no Tesla under 500kW has broken the 10 second barrier. The closest is 11.03

 

[JRP3]

I expect what Musk is saying is that 0-60 in 2.34 seconds might be achievable in the "Special" (spec) Motor Trend car that Tesla rigged up "specially" (spec) for Motor Trend.

So did Elon just admit they gave MT a special car? Or are they going to release a new Motor Trend spec edition?

 

[Matias]

So did Elon just admit they gave MT a special car? Or are they going to release a new Motor Trend spec edition?

He is probably referring to one foot rollout.

 

[fiksegts]

no, I just tested two P100Ds with 1ft and not even close to 2.34.....

He is probably referring to one foot rollout.

 

[OnlyDataNoBS]

Tech Guy, if Tesla refuses a warranty fix on your issue, can you please ask them how much it would cost to fix out of pocket - in a formal quotation as a "Service Invoice" - and which parts would need to be replaced? Even if they can refuse warranty treatment they cannot refuse to fix your car for a price.

It would 1) place a firm $$$ figure on the cost of the issue, and 2) give concrete information on which parts are the weakest links. Having read through nearly 2000 posts it's frustrating that I still don't know my potential future financial exposure to repairs related to this issue as a Ludicrous owner.

Thanks

Basically on the newest firmware in a p100dl if you press and hold Ludicrous button you get the star field after 5 seconds like always but then you get that disclaimer that unlocks ludicrous + and 2.4 to 60 but also warns of damage...

Here's drag times video

 

[msnow]

Not a "letter on high". Your agenda shouldn't distort the fact that we only suggested getting a service invoice, specifying customer concern and Teslas resolution. The ordinary way to handle and document these issues.

I don't have an agenda in fact I agree that there appears something else may be going on here. I was just pointing out that you spun the facts to meet your own narrative. You just overdid by a few hundred decibels. . "Letter on high" = your requirement for a letter from Fremont.

 

[msnow]

But without 1600A, the car couldn't run a 10.9 second quarter mile, right? That is a specification that Tesla --CAN-- and should be held to.

You could be right but I thought the 10.9 claim was on the original P90DL car. Was that 1600 AMPS?

 

[Andyw2100]

You could be right but I thought the 10.9 claim was on the original P90DL car. Was that 1600 AMPS?

The original 10.9 claim --was-- on the original P90DL. My understanding is that the V1s maxed at 1500 Amps, so the first P90DLs never had a shot at the 10.9 second quarter mile.

 

[stopcrazypp]

They promised 10.9 publicly. Current is just what we "enthusiasts" are using the validate if the car can actually do it. at 1500 it can't.

But what I'm getting at is that to dispute a 1/4 mile time, you use a time slip (which I believe for v1 is 11.22 with pano, so probably without pano a 11.1x is possible). If you go to a service center for a car (any car, not necessarily a Tesla) and complain about being 0.2 seconds off in the claimed 1/4 mile, I'm not sure you get much of a response other than something akin to YMMV.

It's not as straightforward as if Tesla promised 1600A or 510kW of power. They explicitly promised 1500A and on power it was ~400kW at the shaft for battery limited P90DL. These are things that Tesla will be using to justify their actions.

And I want to once again remind that at the moment, we do not know concretely if the effect ends at 1500A (or higher or lower) given the low sample size. The analysis obviously changes depending on this.

 

[AWDtsla]

But what I'm getting at is that to dispute a 1/4 mile time, you use a time slip (which I believe for v1 is 11.22 with pano, so probably without pano a 11.1x is possible). If you go to a service center for a car and complain about being 0.2 seconds off in the claimed 1/4 mile, I'm not sure you get much of a response other than something akin to YMMV.

It's not as straightforward as if Tesla promised 1600A or 510kW of power. They explicitly promised 1500A and on power it was ~400kW at the shaft for battery limited P90DL. These are things that Tesla will be using to justify their actions.

And I want to once again remind that at the moment, we do not know concretely if the effect ends at 1500A (or higher or lower) given the low sample size. The analysis obviously changes depending on this.

NO.

 

[n2mb_racing]

I just stopped at the supercharger and filled up to 90% and did a few runs with power tools. Without Max Battery, 468 - 487 with. No way this car will do 10.9.

You should get just above 490 at 99% SOC. I got 485 kW at 90% SOC. Seems about right for a V2 car. Agreed, that might not get a 10.x time, though.

 

[smac]

LCC,

Similarly I appreciate your comments. There is too much fire and brimstone in some quarters of this debate, and I think it takes away from the issue.

Your points are 100% valid, and I agree with all of them. I've certainly had some issues with Tesla as well - although less that yours. I guess my view is tempered by my own personal experience. As a business owner, engineer, and a person who's led a (much smaller!) business through a period of rapid growth, I project and extrapolate from my own experience onto what I see happening at Tesla. And I am in absolute awe as to what they are accomplishing.

The issues that they're having look to be the product of an insane growth curve, dire financial necessity, and inevitable engineering issues that crop up with ANY new product. What they're doing is, I think, unequalled on the planet, and I don't think that we outsiders have ANY concept as to the chaos that is unfolding ( and being fairly successfully managed) within that organization. I suspect that if we had a chance to sit in the senior management meetings for a week, we would walk away with a lot more sympathy for the human beings that are trying to create this enormous enterprise under incredible pressure.

Anyway... I'm not claiming that Tesla is handling things perfectly or even particularly well in some cases. We all have to choose whether we cut them slack or try to burn them for it. Neither is right or wrong; it's a personal preference. I choose to cut slack.

If Solar City hadn't happened I'd agree, but frankly that and looking at Kimbal's insider trades just makes me think the Musk clan are laughing all the way to the bank.

I now view Tesla the same as any other car company, not as some charitable crusade. In fact one steeped in a nepotistic mission of family enrichment.

So as far as I am concerned we should hold them to the same standard we would if this had been Ford or GM

For what its worth I'd feel the same way if their share price was $1, $100 or $1000.

I want to see the end of air quality problems as much as the next guy. But my view is that the ends don't justify the means.

 

[smac]

He is probably referring to one foot rollout.

No apparently the Namibian Motor Weekly uses 10ft rollouts in their tests, from now on this is what the * relates to.

 

[winfield100]

1.25% is not a crash

it depends on POV and basis
{ FCAU did crash a bit this am tho }