Coming from the perspective of someone who has been on the receiving end of these types of customer communications, the letter posted is not conducive to a quick response.
Comments like
The fact remains, though, that many Tesla P85D customers have not received everything they have paid for.
and
Tesla did not correct these stories. Tesla allowed the world, and more importantly Tesla customers to believe the P85D would make 691 HP.
imply fraud on the part of Tesla which opens all sorts of good things from regulatory review to class-action lawsuits and is going to likely cause this to be routed to the legal folks. Their goal in life is not to provide you with a quick response but to protect the company. As this is all unfolding in a very public forum it severely restricts how the company can engage.
Ironically, the argument hinges on two pieces of empirical data which would have been easy to prove/disprove without the above complications:
- the power at the wheel measurements from VBOX
- the power number reported by the streaming telemetry feed
IMO, I don't think the VBOX measurements are any kind of smoking gun--as has been discussed before, you are essentially measuring horsepower at the wheel, while manufacturers typically report power at the shaft before its subjected to the vagaries of the transmission and the tire-to-road interface.
I think the most interesting questions that came out of this thread is related to the "power" value from the ST interface. What is it actually reporting? Is it working properly? If so, why the discrepancy between reported and expected values?
Any kind of response if going to involve Legal and Communications providing an initial assessment, engineering pulling the data, test results, etc, communications drafting a response, and legal reviewing the response, with all this work getting prioritized against all the other things the company is working on. As they are presumably in the midst of the ramp up for the MX launch, some patience may be in order.