Trust me if my $155k p100d gets noticibly hit any time soon tesla will be doing something about it or having to defend themselves in court or arbitration. But if the algorithms over the course of 3 to 5 years adjust accordingly to my driving habits and effect less than 5% of power output to protect my vehicle and make sure it lasts well past the 80k mile warranty period.... I personally would find this reasonable wear and tear and in line with what elon musk said about wanting the powertrain to last a million miles.
-
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.
Trust me if my $155k p100d gets noticibly hit any time soon tesla will be doing something about it or having to defend themselves in court or arbitration. But if the algorithms over the course of 3 to 5 years adjust accordingly to my driving habits and effect less than 5% of power output to protect my vehicle and make sure it lasts well past the 80k mile warranty period.... I personally would find this reasonable wear and tear and in line with what elon musk said about wanting the powertrain to last a million miles.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Do not worry.
Do not fret; you will get your wear and tear reduction in power. As batteries degrade (calendar and cycle life), capacity falls and voltage sag under load increase.
What Tesla is doing here has noting to do with normal wear and tear and everything to do with an engineering miss and its associated all out pack failure PR problem (my opinion here).
The examples here of people willing to accept this because Tesla is taking care of them should be part of the consideration for anyone thinking about litigation. It may be cut and dried to you but times they are a changing. You may find your opinion is the minority one.
(and I'll be right with you to commiserate
)
Do not fret; you will get your wear and tear reduction in power. As batteries degrade (calendar and cycle life), capacity falls and voltage sag under load increase.
What Tesla is doing here has noting to do with normal wear and tear and everything to do with an engineering miss and its associated all out pack failure PR problem (my opinion here).
The examples here of people willing to accept this because Tesla is taking care of them should be part of the consideration for anyone thinking about litigation. It may be cut and dried to you but times they are a changing. You may find your opinion is the minority one.
(and I'll be right with you to commiserate
)Do not worry.
Do not fret; you will get your wear and tear reduction in power. As batteries degrade (calendar and cycle life), capacity falls and voltage sag under load increase.
What Tesla is doing here has noting to do with normal wear and tear and everything to do with an engineering miss and its associated all out pack failure PR problem (my opinion here).
The examples here of people willing to accept this because Tesla is taking care of them should be part of the consideration for anyone thinking about litigation. It may be cut and dried to you but times they are a changing. You may find your opinion is the minority one.
(and I'll be right with you to commiserate
But again there is only 1 person effected so far. Tesla obviously knows about this forum, and many owners including myself that have pushed and made our opinions know to tesla that we will not accept artificial power reductions. I don't think at this point they will drop the hammer on the rest of us. I think they are already aware the blowback on them will be worse than any extra warranty claims they need to make on failed part resulting from leaving power where it is. Manufactures perform pcm and ecm updates all the time that adjust throttle response and things like that. I do believe if aything more than 2-3% in reduction of power was taken, owner approval should be required before performing update. Owner should also have option to acknoledge and deny the update. Instead only be made aware by declining update it could effect long term reliability of the vehicle but not effect warranty.
Hence the reason I clicked "no I want my mommy" instead of taking the more power with ludacrous +
Last edited:
Some might argue going to represent yourself through a lawyer is a fools errand when joining a class action is also available...
Actually I'd say that.
However not seeking a judgment because a class action is unavailable isn't necessarily a good move either.
Indeed they do.
Class actions also often result in the lawyers making large sums and members of the class individually ending up with a pittance.
Sometimes however, believe it or not, it's not necessarily the size of the potential personal monetary benefit which consistently motivates many people.
Indeed they might.
And then, one such as yourself, may feign interest in the "greater good" above his own situation, in a thinly veiled effort to curry the favor of total strangers and win acceptances on an internet message board.
That's apparently important to some people. That need for approval and acceptance. Even from strangers.
People on the internet who portray an altruistic image, are typically anything but.
Nice try with the above jab though and I'd give you an "A" for effort.
But while that might work on someone else, that technique won't work on me.
Last edited:
davidc18
Active Member
If the car "breaks" during normal use that is an engineering mistake, not an owner mistake. Tesla, not the owner, needs to be held accountable for their mistake.
I KNOW my counter numbers and by 25k-30k miles, my car will be burned out. I drive normal. This will affect you.
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.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Anon,
Would you be kind enough to recap your miles, counter values, counter limits and driving style for us?
Would you be kind enough to recap your miles, counter values, counter limits and driving style for us?
Number of launch mode applications and mean time to failure and amp output (and many others) are engineering metrics to be managed with trade offs by hardware and software design choices.
Management by software allows the novel (to car buyers) design of changing the tradeoffs over time based on use and projected fatigue and time to failure. Welcome to disruption and bleeding edge.
I'd be a lot more concerned if TRC and others who obviously flog their cars more than 99% of other buyers reported problems. That they don't, suggests to me that tech guy is in the 99.9% or thereabouts percentile of floggers. Or something else is wrong w with his car. More specifics on the single case that generates 100 pages of anger, tears and (amusing) threats of litigation would greatly inform the discussion.
I do concede that a clear statement from Tesla would also inform things. That we don't have one suggests to me that they are considering refining their software design choice and the waiting to refine that and rollout and then describe what it is. But I concede that is total speculation and I do eagerly await their explanation -- and response to my own inquiries about my car.
Why didn't it affect the TRC cars do you think?
Are you launching more than the TRC cars? And more than lots of other p90dls that have well exceeded 25k and never reported a problem here? Or do you think perhaps you need more information to be certain of your conclusion?
Last edited:
One week ago today, I learned this bombshell. I have 5,000 miles and I drive totally normal. No launch mode. Some spirited merges. Occasional demo to prospective Tesla curious folks:
Service advisor just gave me credible info.
3 counters
One for Launches/WOT over 1500 amps. (I have 92 and have never used launch mode)
One for rolling mashes that are hard but under 1500 amps (mine is 134)
One for "mixture" (mine is 311.6)
They are protecting wire bonds.
625 is hard cut for Launches.
Rolling mashes counts towards mixture. Cut is 3068 for Mixture limit.
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Thank you!!
back of the napkin calc
625/92 * 5,000 miles is a little under 34,000 miles
The "warranty" from Tesla is 8 years unlimited miles.
back of the napkin calc
625/92 * 5,000 miles is a little under 34,000 miles
The "warranty" from Tesla is 8 years unlimited miles.
By definition speculation is what you do when you don't have all the facts. Once you have the facts, no need to speculate...
But I take your intended point that speculation on incomplete facts is mostly a fruitless exercise that can generate unnecessary drama and upset and tears. . . and nearly all of this thread.
My burn rate is likely faster than that. Delivery in June. Out of country most of July and August.
I drove 3 nice weather months and 2 crap weather months.
I missed the bulk of nice driving season.
I drove 3 nice weather months and 2 crap weather months.
I missed the bulk of nice driving season.
@P85DEE
You don't know me and I don't know you so let's drop the armchair psychology. I can only go by what you say motivates you and so I have. I would appreciate similar courtesy.
I am not just trying to be altruistic either, though I admit certain amount of hating wrongs go unfixed is in my blood. I also do not think it is in the community's interest (mine included) that Tesla should just be forced to solve this in some individual cases and not change direction otherwise.
I think solving this for all - and for good - is in our interests who would prefer to stay vested in Teslas, unless of course one just wants cash and out of Teslas entirely.
Getting this fixed for one car helps zilch if the next Tesla has the same issue again.
You don't know me and I don't know you so let's drop the armchair psychology. I can only go by what you say motivates you and so I have. I would appreciate similar courtesy.
I am not just trying to be altruistic either, though I admit certain amount of hating wrongs go unfixed is in my blood. I also do not think it is in the community's interest (mine included) that Tesla should just be forced to solve this in some individual cases and not change direction otherwise.
I think solving this for all - and for good - is in our interests who would prefer to stay vested in Teslas, unless of course one just wants cash and out of Teslas entirely.
Getting this fixed for one car helps zilch if the next Tesla has the same issue again.
Very informative summary. Thank you.
Did they say if launched and mixture had individual or combined hp penalties? I.e. is reaching both worse than just reaching one?
Also. Either way. This is not good at all...
No, you most certainly do not know me. If you did, then you'd know that the passive aggessive approach doesn't work with me either. It's not always what you say, but how you say it.
OK.
That sentiment is duly noted, and I've listened to you state it, and I have filed it in what I believe to be the appropriate bin.
If it should come to pass that this matter is solved for all, then I don't think that anyone in here, myself included, would be against such an occurrence.
Your effort, to imply that I would not welcome such an instance, can be seen a mile away. And I can tell you for a fact, that it won't stand without response.
Of course you'd know that, if you knew me.
If this matter is addressed for all, well then great.
However, when the final chapter on this matter is written, should it come to pass, that it's only addressed for some, well then that's better than a scenario where it's addressed for none.
Again with the passive aggressive. You tend to speak in generalities quite often, I've noticed.
I'm going to throw this out there .
Unless "one" wants to "pretend" that "one" is on some sort of crusade for the greater good, and by extension, somehow standing on "higher moral ground" than another, well then I see no point in "one" continuing this type approach in "one's" exchange with me.
Have you considered writing a letter to your congressman?
Oops, sorry. I meant to say has "one" considered writing a letter to "one's" congressman.
How about going on a hunger strike?
Last edited:
There was nothing on the screen that detailed limitations nor consequences. Only the counters and the limits on 2 out of the 3 counters.
As I inquired further it turned into the stock answer many have received about car performing as designed and protecting itself.
As I inquired further it turned into the stock answer many have received about car performing as designed and protecting itself.
Similar threads
