That isn't an explanation. That is just a foot stamping assertion with no reason or facts or evidence or intelligent analysis.
The change is only "worse" if you look at the single dimension of power output under certain circumstances as the only dimension. And even that is relatively minor negative change.
The change was probably "for the better" if you look at other dimensions such as Mean Time To Failure, expected owner costs for maintenance and repairs post-warranty, owner time lost and inconvenience for leaving cars at service centers for work that could have been avoided if power output was managed differently. Looking at those dimensions and many other dimensions, the changes are for the better. In the aggregate the change is a trade-off.
What is the specific advertising (screen shot or quote) that is at issue that you claim was deceptive? or made deceptive by the software changes to power delivery?
It is a fair point that Tesla must comply with federal
Truth In Advertising | Federal Trade Commission and equivalent state laws -- knowing a bit about that, and without getting into details, I'm comfortable that they have complied.
Making engineering trade-offs that limit performance (or its accessibility) in relatively minor ways while still meeting the actual published marketing specs =/ deceptive advertising
There is a vigorous and aggressive plaintiffs bar that enforces that area -- especially with autos -- and I don't see a significant risk of noncompliance or liability exposure. Just as with product liability claims though there may eventually be a nuisance suit which will be dismissed or settled by buying off the attys.
But someone who feels strongly that they have been seriously deceived and thereby harmed (what are the damage$?) and are truly suffering from a product that doesn't meet promised advertising and marketing claims, I would encourage to engage an atty to educate them on these issues.
I don't see a basis to attribute ill-will or evil intention to the Tesla engineers and their software design choices for the updates. They will make mistakes, or, put another way, find a better way, to implement improvements. And overall the changes have been vastly for the better.
This what it is all about it. How they implement this is what causes debate. More information as to what exactly is the wrong thing, and at what dose/use level would be more helpful for Tesla to share.
No. Mine is still as fast as ever. Says power tools and buttmeter. But I didn't use LM more than a couple dozen times, and not use MBP more than ~100.
I tried not to redline my ICEs much either. Or push the nitrous button too often. Seems like the same common sense to me.
There is this interesting trend where in some cases ET goes down as SOC goes down. Suggesting something may be off with that big SOC/power chart that suggests otherwise.
I wonder if has to do with an increasing batt temp from earlier runs heating you the batt above mere MBP level but not yet to where the batt cooling kicks in. And it is enough to make up for the lower SOC and allows even faster runs at lower SOC.
