Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits

[P85DEE]

Obviously I do.

I quit reading what you wrote at the above point.

The rest of what you wrote, well, ..... the travesty, which is the time wasted writing it, can only be surpassed by the travesty which would be the time wasted reading it.

 

[FlatSix911]

I'm glad to see that it's finally starting to sink in that this is where we are.

We're in a fight here folks. And if we don't all wake up and recognize that, then we're going to get our asses kicked.

This isn't about "air filters" and such and never was. It's a shame that anyone in here would try and put this on par with that. This is much bigger than that.

It's time to quit hollering and or otherwise taking the position and influencing others that professional legal help is not needed not warranted in this specific case or in similar cases. Nothing short of that gives us the best chance should this hit one of us next.

PeeDee, are you representing yourself, or going with outside counsel

 

[P85DEE]

PeeDee, are you representing yourself, or going with outside counsel

No, I would not represent myself. Generally speaking, the man who represents himself in a court of law, has a fool for a lawyer and that lawyer a fool for a client.

If it should ever come down to it, no way I'd represent myself in a court of law for even a speeding ticket.

 

[AWDtsla]

Again, the record for a v1 car in the wild was 11.22 with the stock 21 inch tires and wheels and pano roof.
Honest P90D(L) Quarter Mile Performance

I would venture to guess that car was not at 100% SOC and max battery when it went off the line during that run. If those conditions were satisfied, the car was not optioned as a pano roof, I'm not seeing how a new wheel/tire package (grip/weigh/rolling resistance/aero optimized) and perhaps a weight reduction package can't address a 0.2 second difference. These are solutions Tesla can offer to address the deficiency, not necessarily a power increase.

It's not like it's a second off and it would be impossible for anything but a power increase to address.

Car pictured by motortrend about P90D doing 10.9 shows a pano roof.

*mic drop*

 

[lagomorph]

This is my car. Max Battery was "Ready" and SOC was around 95%.

Again, the record for a v1 car in the wild was 11.22 with the stock 21 inch tires and wheels and pano roof.
Honest P90D(L) Quarter Mile Performance

I would venture to guess that car was not at 100% SOC and max battery when it went off the line during that run. If those conditions were satisfied, the car was not optioned as a pano roof, I'm not seeing how a new wheel/tire package (grip/weigh/rolling resistance/aero optimized) and perhaps a weight reduction package can't address a 0.2 second difference. These are solutions Tesla can offer to address the deficiency, not necessarily a power increase.

It's not like it's a second off and it would be impossible for anything but a power increase to address.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Car pictured by motortrend about P90D doing 10.9 shows a pano roof.

*mic drop*

This is incorrect. They had two cars. A blue one with pano (and other options) was used for street photos:

The red one used for instrumented testing at the track did not have a pano roof:

Their gallery function sucks, but if you click "show more" near the bottom of the article, you can see the pictures of the red car.
Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is my car. Max Battery was "Ready" and SOC was around 95%.

Thanks for the info. From the power chart gathered by Mike, it looks like you lose about 5kW at 95% SOC vs 100% SOC.
Max Power vs State of Charge and Temp

 

[AnxietyRanger]

No, I would not represent myself. Generally speaking, the man who represents himself in a court of law, has a fool for a lawyer and that lawyer a fool for a client.

If it should ever come down to it, no way I'd represent myself in a court of law for even a speeding ticket.

Some might argue going to represent yourself through a lawyer is a fools errand when joining a class action is also available...

Class actions have immensely more pressure power than an individual case in making a wholesale right. Of course one may feel differently if it is just about maximizing a personal solution as you said you are.

 

[WattsThatGrin]

I wonder if Tesla has considered what happens when their other "protection" mechanisms are made a matter of public record?

Exactly. How many of us know about 'Topspeedgate'?

 

[WattsThatGrin]

Tesla loves the free media coverage with every update, sells to us for huge premiums and shortly after castrates the performance because they KNOW the tech is sub-par from the start and only good as a party trick for a limited time.

 

[winfield100]

"Sharper than a serpents tooth, is a thankless child"

 

[TSLA Pilot]

This is incorrect. They had two cars. A blue one with pano (and other options) was used for street photos:

The red one used for instrumented testing at the track did not have a pano roof:

Their gallery function sucks, but if you click "show more" near the bottom of the article, you can see the pictures of the red car.
Newer P90DL makes 662 hp at the battery!!!

I think we all remember F= MA from physics, but this is NOT a Pano/No Pano Roof issue--it's about POWER, or lack thereof. For P85DL and P90DL buyers, our "F" is too damn small based upon what was promised both on the website and through Tesla's "advertising."

Thus, I suggest new name for this problem: "Countergate 691/762"

Here's why the title needs the supplement. Tesla has a BIG ethics/legal problem here:

1. Tesla provided P90DL's to both Car and Driver and MotorTrend, two of the biggest, most respected names in the automobile review business, among many others.

2. Comparing their test results to many owner's real world, instrumented, test results, the magazines tested what appear to be "ringers" (modified with special chassis, battery/powertrain, firmware/software, etc.) that were NOT representative of what was actually being sold to us, "Joe Consumer."

3. Worse, both magazines (and many other media sources) repeated the "misunderstanding" regarding 691 and 762 HP.

4. By nature of their responsibilities, pretty much everyone at Tesla HQ, to include the CEO and direct reports, all read, or should have read, said magazine reviews YET THEY DID NOTHING TO CORRECT OR AMEND THOSE PUBLISHED ERRORS re: 691/762 HP.
​

That's just another problem if Tesla lets this escalate into a class action--discovery is going to get friggin' ugly because looking under the rocks will expose a lot of email traffic which will very likely indicate they knew about the "691/762 problem" yet choose to do nothing about it for a very, very long time.

As a perhaps-too-large TSLA shareholder, and a P90DL owner, this is becoming a double "Ouch" moment.

Let us all hope the SpaceX launch goes well today and that Elon's focus shifts back to Tesla for few microseconds; this problem needed CEO-level attention more than a few months ago.

First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, STOP DIGGING.

*********************************************************************************************

Tesla doesn't "advertise" but they have a relationship with the media which suggests "vetting" and more gravitas, not "puffery." So when I read articles like this, I assumed them to be more accurate and have a modicum of journalistic truth, and then, like so many here, we paid six-figures for a P90DL without ever having driven one. But it turns out there were mistakes/shortages of the truth, yet Tesla did not mention that to the publishers for later correction. My "butt dyno" was right all along: Based on the ~450 kWh (~603 HP) I'm getting in our P90DL (as discovered via the PowerTools app I purchased just for this reason), a judge is likely to find that it wasn't just an "oops" moment, it was fraud.

This is a very big problem and Tesla needs to make the problem go away by inducing us to trade in our P85DL and P90DL's at well above market rates, encourage us us to buy new Teslas, and then, using their magic software tools, convert those trade-ins back into emasculated, NON-Ludircrous CPO's and Service Loaners. The Ludicrous underlines can be melted down and recycled. It's a win-win for Tesla: no more warranty risks for the 8-year/infinite-mile warranty, and their best customers are happy (but still mildly pissed off that they had to go through all this hassle in the first place).

They need to do this NOW because discovery, in addition to being an expensive and huge time sink, is going to have them looking unbelievably bad based on what else is found.

Read it and weep:

Tesla Loses Its Freaking Mind, Introduces 762-hp Model S, Ludicrous Mode, New Base Model

Key quote for P85D buyers: If they decide to upgrade anyway, however, they’ll get 253 miles of range and a mind-bending total of 762 horsepower.

Big Problem: It was not true, and Tesla did nothing to correct.

2015 Tesla Model S P90D w/Ludicrous Upgrade First Test

Key quote for P90DL buyers: The P90D starts life as an already-insane Model S P85D but with the P85D’s 221-hp front and 470-hp rear (691 hp combined) motors swapped for a front motor that makes 259 hp and 244 lb-ft of torque and a rear motor that produces 503 hp and 469 lb-ft of torque. Total output is 762 hp and 713 lb-ft of torque.

Big Problem: It was not true, and Tesla did nothing to correct.

And there are probably going to be more "Big Problems" found in discovery.

Elon: Do NOT go there. We love you and you are doing great things, to include saving the entire planet for future generations. We are trying to help, BUT this was a major screw up. The entire episode is creating a completely avoidable black mark on Tesla's reputation and pissing off your best customers. Make us whole by taking our cars in trade, putting us in new ones, and then move this chapter into the rear view mirror. Stat.

 

[lolachampcar]

Again, the record for a v1 car in the wild was 11.22 with the stock 21 inch tires and wheels and pano roof.
Honest P90D(L) Quarter Mile Performance

I would venture to guess that car was not at 100% SOC and max battery when it went off the line during that run. If those conditions were satisfied, the car was not optioned as a pano roof, I'm not seeing how a new wheel/tire package (grip/weigh/rolling resistance/aero optimized) and perhaps a weight reduction package can't address a 0.2 second difference. These are solutions Tesla can offer to address the deficiency, not necessarily a power increase.

It's not like it's a second off and it would be impossible for anything but a power increase to address.

You spend a lot of your time seeking accuracy and correcting others when they are less than precise.

In this post, you speculate about dropping quarter mile times by .2 seconds using wheels and optimization (yep, I summarized just to get to my point).

If you care for accuracy, I would recommend a conversation with Fiks prior to the above post as you may find you are way off base.

You may find a hint to this conundrum in the power increase from the P90DL V1 initial production to the V3 which finally ran faster than 11.0. That is what it took the manufacturer to achieve the advertised goal.

As for the MT car, I could care less about the blouse (up top), I want to peak under the skirt and find out what battery was used

Please feel free to accurate up my post.

 

[yak-55]

Tesla has a VPN link to the car, as well as root access. Technically than can read everything that's part of the car computer/management systems over the air, provided they opt to open an individual session with a car.

Now, as to if the service folks can do this, as opposed to Tesla HQ, I don't know. It's unclear if this is information that is part of the logs (I suspect not, based on some posts above), or must be individually probed/read.

I also believe that Tesla's service system aggregated data that is collected on each car. I tend to suspect such data would include firmware revision levels, hardware status, last errors noted, mileage, perhaps SoC, etc... In one case when I asked about my nav map revision level, the service folks looked at their computer console, and were able to get that info pretty quickly... it didn't seem as if they were initiating a remote session with the car, so I think that is part of ongoing car data they maintain at their end. I don't think we know if this counter data is collected within that.

Given the technical and policy response visible so far, I am quite confident they are monitoring these figures quite closely for *a lot*, if not all, cars. Potential warrantee replacement of battery packs is not being taken lightly. At this point, there is no reason to believe Tesla is in any way ignorant of the situation with our cars. Their willingness to use that information in anything but a customer hostile way is also clear to me.

 

[Impulse20110]

Has anyone thought we may just be blowing this out of proportion? And if it happens to you are you seriously going to miss that tenth of a second missed in 1/4 mile or to 60. Probably not unless you are using the car for like kid on tesla racing channel. The customer service rep verbally told me the chances of this happening to me are slim and the average spirited driver would never see these power reductions. Likely, if they did it would be an almost unnoticeable reduction in power. It's the guy that's doing wot runs back to back to back all the time he says will eventually get hit hard. Which I agree would be considered abuse. Remember guys this IS a luxury performance sedan.

Now I agree and forsee a class action lawsuit if MANY tesla owners experience drastic power reductions in excess of .5 Dec off 60 times or something crazy. If more than lets say 5% of P owners that can't be proven to have abused their vehicle are hit like that then there is a design flaw. But again only 1 out of 1000s of P vehicles has been proven to be effected so far right?

Tech Guy, can you please provide your driving habits? How many miles driven and time owned? Try to be realistic and accurate in explanation as possible.

That's what I was told on my phone call as well... they had the engineers check my car again and they said that the car is doing what its designed to do... and the the car is operating as designed... its very depressing and give us no more clarity on what really causes these limits or how to avoid them, I pressed back on that and hope to have more information end of next week..

 

[scaesare]

Given the technical and policy response visible so far, I am quite confident they are monitoring these figures quite closely for *a lot*, if not all, cars. Potential warrantee replacement of battery packs is not being taken lightly. At this point, there is no reason to believe Tesla is in any way ignorant of the situation with our cars. Their willingness to use that information in anything but a customer hostile way is also clear to me.

Ya, they may indeed be collecting it.

Part of my consideration is that wk057 has been digging for this data, and he found a couple of the counters buried in the BMS, and by following the trail, surmises that reached limits may represented by a bit position in a specific CAN msg.

I would have assumed that if these were captured somewhere in the "normal" logging that the car does and/or Tesla collects, then it would hav been more noticeable there. Of course, wk may have disabled much of that...

 

[lolachampcar]

Impulse,
Aside from individual exposure to an issue, should Tesla be doing this in the first place? If they should be doing it, should they not be calling it a partial warranty void and notifying you of their intended action(s)? I agree that the counter => reduction prior to hard battery failure is a better approach when compared to hard battery failure being an abuse/warranty denied function. To take this approach, you really do need customer notification if not buy off least you leave all your performance customers wondering about what has been done and if it impacts you.

I'm not completely convinced reduction on counter is a bad idea. It is everything else surrounding the idea that has me scratching my head.

 

[yak-55]

That's what I was told on my phone call as well... they had the engineers check my car again and they said that the car is doing what its designed to do... and the the car is operating as designed... its very depressing and give us no more clarity on what really causes these limits or how to avoid them, I pressed back on that and hope to have more information end of next week..

The wagons are tightening the circle ...

 

[Impulse20110]

Impulse,
Aside from individual exposure to an issue, should Tesla be doing this in the first place? If they should be doing it, should they not be calling it a partial warranty void and notifying you of their intended action(s)? I agree that the counter => reduction prior to hard battery failure is a better approach when compared to hard battery failure being an abuse/warranty denied function. To take this approach, you really do need customer notification if not buy off least you leave all your performance customers wondering what about what has been done and if it impacts you.

To try and be specific, I do not agree with tesla artificially taking anything more than probably 10% power. It's understandable for the manufacture to try and protect its name and reliability against abusers but they can only take that so far without abusing their customers. I don't think they should notify customers if the changes are MINOR OR LESS than 5% because because they are Suttle and very time. It would create even more mutiny with current and potential owners when MOST would not notice or even miss that 3% reduction anyways. For all we know every single one of us as been hit already for 1% or 2% and still don't realize.

 

[lolachampcar]

So it is ok to take away power without notice provided you do so in a way that is not likely to be noticed by your customer.

Ok, I get it.

This would be in line with my one amp per two "events" reduction so that owners would be much less likely to catch Tesla in the act.