Tesla Issues Software Update To Extend Some Cars' Batteries Due To Hurricane Florence (electrek.co) 242
Tesla is temporarily enabling free Supercharging and extending the range of some cars' batteries for those in Hurricane Florence's path. "Tesla used to offer the option to buy a Model S or Model X with a 75 kWh battery pack software-locked at a capacity of 60 kWh," reports Electrek. "The option would result in a less expensive vehicle with a shorter range and the option to pay to remotely enable the longer range at a later stage."
Some owners on the Carolina Coast report that they've received a notification explaining the temporary new benefits: "We are temporarily enabling your car to access additional battery capacity, as well as free Supercharging, in preparation for Hurricane Florence. We hope this gives you the peace of mind to get to a safe location, and will notify you before returning your car to its original configuration in mid-October. Badging on your display may adjust during this period. Safe travels." From the report: This is a very cool move from Tesla. When they did it last year, it was misrepresented by many who focused on the software-limited battery packs -- saying that it means Tesla was screwing people over by limiting the battery capacity. The option was more about offering a less expensive battery pack without having to produce a different size pack, which helps streamline production. It gave buyers a less expensive option and they could always unlock the capacity later for a price. For those who decided to not unlock it, it now gives an opportunity for Tesla to let them have more range at a critical time by using Tesla's over-the-air software update capability.
Some owners on the Carolina Coast report that they've received a notification explaining the temporary new benefits: "We are temporarily enabling your car to access additional battery capacity, as well as free Supercharging, in preparation for Hurricane Florence. We hope this gives you the peace of mind to get to a safe location, and will notify you before returning your car to its original configuration in mid-October. Badging on your display may adjust during this period. Safe travels." From the report: This is a very cool move from Tesla. When they did it last year, it was misrepresented by many who focused on the software-limited battery packs -- saying that it means Tesla was screwing people over by limiting the battery capacity. The option was more about offering a less expensive battery pack without having to produce a different size pack, which helps streamline production. It gave buyers a less expensive option and they could always unlock the capacity later for a price. For those who decided to not unlock it, it now gives an opportunity for Tesla to let them have more range at a critical time by using Tesla's over-the-air software update capability.
Strange Days Indeed (Score:2)
Motive (Score:2)
Other than providing a less expensive SKU, one question I've seen is how they can afford to put a 75kWh battery in the car while only charging for 60kWh. There are a few reasons:
Same reason Intel underclocks processors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the main reason that Intel sells cheaper CPUs. Intel uses binning, where they test every CPU they make to find out what it's maximum stable clock speed is, disable any cache or sub-processors that aren't working and then sell it as model X.
In Tesla's case they have fully functional, tested 75kWh battery packs and just charge you to unlock the extra 15kWh. There is no binning, no difference between those packs and the cheaper ones, and a software upgrade is available at any time.
Law of offer/demand + market segmentation (Score:2)
Intel underclocks and locks cores because if they didn't do the practice called binning, they'd have to throw out those chips. Binned products cannot be run at full spec because of manufacturing defects. If you override that, you are taking the huge gamble that your processor will fail in odd ways.
In theory yes.
In practice : not quite.
Due to how law of offer and demand work in market segmentation, they might end up binning a little bit more thing in the lower bins, if it helps them sell more SKU at more profit. (Rather than selling all SKU at their "true capability" at a lower price)
Mostly due to the high-end SKU being targetted at :
- extreme enthusiasts (people with more money than brain and/or who'll throw any money required to get the fastest thing possible)
- big corporate customers building HPC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My thought: Even if the ORIGINAL buyer doesn't upgrade, having the bigger battery would be useful for resale. In fact, if it was a lease from Tesla, they could unlock the full capacity for "free" and resell the car at the higher capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately the software is locked down and if you try to hack it then Tesla will cut you off, disabling many of the features of your car remotely. That can include supercharging capability and telematics.
Some people have made certain mods that Tesla tolerates. In particular the "bioweapon defence mode" is just a HEPA filter and a button that puts the fans on max temporarily, so you can buy your own HEPA filter costing a small fraction of the upgrade code and just turn the fans up manually.
Re: (Score:3)
I think their motive is not unlike other companies whose product-lines have a "Good, Better, Best" structure, with pricing to match. These levels could be imposed by manufacturing yields, or by an up-selling strategy.
Sometimes a company runs out of "Good" and has to sell "Better" or "Best" in its place, in order to maintain the tier strategy. (For example, Intel may sell chips certified at lower clock-rates even though they might be overclockable.) But shipping "Best" in the first place, and enabling the ti
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is a bit strange though, because they fit a lot of hardware that isn't used to even the cheapest cars. For example the base model gets all the autopilot cameras and sensors even though they are not used. The car uses them to help train Tesla's neural nets as part of their full self driving development, but the owner can't use them and can't disable them either.
That's probably one of the biggest reasons why the Model 3 Short Range, if it ever arrives, is $35,000 when the competition has bigger batterie
Not unique to Tesla. (Score:5, Interesting)
Every engine manufacturer in the world does this. They'll have an 'iron set' which is a fixed engine block, turbo, injector, etc combination and the difference between 300 and 400 HP will be a software upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Over the air?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not unique to Tesla. (Score:5, Informative)
It is not always the identical internals.
It is. They may have 3 different iron sets to cover the full range by a liter size. But within each iron set there will be multiple horse power ratings. It was a well known truck fleet tactic to buy a lower power engine, get a good 250-500k mi out of it then repower it to sell it.
Every single flash file may contain all the rating maps and it's just toggled by a bit flip at some memory address.
Source, worked for Caterpillar writing software & calibrating their engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Source, worked for Caterpillar writing software & calibrating their engines.
Heavy duty engines are quite a bit different from other engines in that regard. Cute little automobile engines are more differentiated physically, with different equipment. The high-output version of an engine will often actually have different internal components, different turbocharger, etc. With heavy engines, the limiting factor isn't the internals, it's the cooling system or the transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
No one uses that- not even in slang. 0 google results.
Could it be that vernacular in such an oddly specific industry job doesn't have any use outside of that job?
I don't think you can do it cause you're a habitual bullshitter.
Link to any of those other bullshits?
Most have exactly ONE option and on vehicles where there's a base and a performance model,
Sold in the US, sure. Look at how many models and ratings they sell globally.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you're reading the username correctly? I don't know if I've said anything about Musk/Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should also mention that, with the Model 3, there is no official battery size specification. People have inferred that the battery in the long range model is somewhere between 73 kWh and 80kWh, but no one knows the exact number.
How does that fit into your issues with unlocking battery capacity?
Cheaper? (Score:2)
"Tesla used to offer the option to buy a Model S or Model X with a 75 kWh battery pack software-locked at a capacity of 60 kWh,"
The option was more about offering a less expensive battery pack without having to produce a different size pack, which helps streamline production.
Can somebody explain how a 75 kWh battery pack in the 60 kWh version is cheaper than the 75 kWh battery pack in the 75 kWh version? If they are both the same 75 version... how is one 'cheaper' than the other?
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers do this all the time.
Firstly, Tesla knows that some customers will upgrade.
Secondly, there is a cost saving from having fewer options to manufacture.
Let me blow your mind: every Model 3 has all the hardware required for the Enhanced Autopilot, but it is only enabled for those owners that paid for it.
Re: (Score:2)
One is 'cheaper' than the other because they decide to sell it for less money.
Oh it's also more reliable, saves on manufacturing and supply management.
Re: (Score:3)
It's cheaper in that lithium batteries last longer if you don't fully charge, or fully discharge them.
By using a big battery and then ensuring it doesn't go below 10% or above 90%, it lasts longer, which saves money on warranty replacements. Depending on ambient conditions and driving patterns one might be able to degrade the 75 kWh battery enough, fast enough that Tesla would have to replace it at their expense. Limiting it to 60 kWh makes that a lot less likely to happen, thus it's cheaper to Tesla.
What is the equivalent of a jerry can for EVs? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you could use a generator. I would love the irony of powering an all-electric car with a generator.
The issue is that batteries have a shitty energy density compared to gasoline, that's the biggest problem with EVs. A Tesla battery is about 500 kg for 400 km range. A gas car may use around 30L of fuel for that range, around 25kg, that's a factor of 20. It means you would need the equivalent of 20 jerrycan worth of batteries to match the range of 1 jerrycan of gas.
And and there is the problem of cha
hmm.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hack the software.
Did they get the idea from EA? (Score:2)
It's like on-disc DLC for cars.
Misuse (Score:2)
It's not about what you do.
It's about what you CAN do.
How long before the FBI are insisting that you silently include a way for them to do the same and bring any Tesla they want to a halt or track it's location? They're doing it for everything from ISPs to encryption, you think they never would want to stop a car? Or that they wouldn't insist you do it under a serious NDA?
I have a 2016 model Ford. I know that the car can't talk home because it just doesn't have that capability. Without the capability, i
Cylinder deactivation (Score:2)
A lot of modern ICE vehicles have cylinder deactivation, for example where a V-8 will run on only 4 or 6 cylinders to improve fuel economy.
Maybe these companies can take a page from Tesla's book, and sell their V-8 powered vehicles, but software limited so they only use 4 or 6 cylinders all the time unless you pay for an upgrade to extra functional cylinders.
Or not. Probably the buyers of normal cars and trucks are smarter than that.
Dangerous and disturbing this is (Score:2)
Think about the implications for this. If they can increase range for a natural disaster, what's to stop "them" from decreasing the range or even preventing you from driving at all for whatever nefarious reasons you can think of? Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.
It's like buying a V8 with 6 cylinders enabled (Score:2)
Re:Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:2)
And clearly some Slashdot users disagree with you and are glad they have the freedom to form and offer their opinion and not have to offer one based on how some Tesla owner feels about their purchase.
Okay, now your turn to state something obvious while phrasing it like an in-context rebuttal.
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not paying for the bar, you're paying for the drinks. Horrible analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You pay for using the bar, not the drinks inside? All the hotels I have been to were charging for the drinks, not the bar. I could put anything inside and keep it cool just fine without any extra fee.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually stayed at a hotel a while back that had a note saying they'd add a charge if you used the minibar as a fridge.
Was rather ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we stay at very different hotels. I prefer those that don't treat the guest like dirt.
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:4, Interesting)
And before that, IBM used to do it with their card tabulating machines. An upgrade often meant that a technician came in and moved a belt.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What kind of dumbass wants to pay a premium for a car that someone can just disable with an entry in a database table?
No thanks.
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:2)
You're free to rip out the radio module any time you like. Yay freedom!
Re: (Score:3)
It makes sense for software, where there is no additional cost. But if it's cheaper for the manufacturer to give someone a full pack rather than a smaller pack, then it makes no sense to even have two versions. If a customer decides to never upgrade, we're just wasting perfectly good battery cells.
It's no different than a hotel that says "sure, you can use the empty room next to you also, for a charge." Or an airline that says "sure you can use the unused seat next to you, for a charge."
If you use the room/seat, then the crew needs to come and clean/restock it. That's extra cost to them.
Re: (Score:2)
But if it's cheaper for the manufacturer to give someone a full pack rather than a smaller pack, then it makes no sense to even have two versions
It makes sense when people are willing to pay more for the "larger" pack.
Capitalism isn't about the ideal and/or fair use of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines I use let me spread out onto the adjacent seat for free if it is unoccupied. Once I was able to make a bed out of a row of 4... Best long distance flight I ever did.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's like if you buy a house with a 3 rooms but when you move in you notice there are actually 4 rooms but one of them is locked and you don't have the key. When you inquire about this fourth room from the seller he says that he can open it for you a price of course.
Seems kinda shady doesn't it?
The problem with Tesla is that obviously the price for the 75kWh battery is much higher than it needs to be if you can sell the higher battery for less money and still make a profit. The correct solution for this
Prices versus costs (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's like if you buy a house with a 3 rooms but when you move in you notice there are actually 4 rooms but one of them is locked and you don't have the key. When you inquire about this fourth room from the seller he says that he can open it for you a price of course.Seems kinda shady doesn't it?
No because there is no secret room like in your example. The owners of the cars signed a contract explicitly agreeing to the deal and the terms when they bought the title to the car. They were under no duress to agree to the deal so both parties were fine with it. So no it isn't shady at all.
The problem with Tesla is that obviously the price for the 75kWh battery is much higher than it needs to be if you can sell the higher battery for less money and still make a profit.
And what exactly is wrong with making a profit? If the buyer is willing to pay the extra amount then that is fine. Charge what the market will bear, same as literally every other company on the planet. If Tesla was asking too much then they would get more people refusing sales which is how it is supposed to work.
The correct solution for this would be to lower the price for the 75 kWh battery so that you can sell it at the actual manufacturing price but not at the fake made up price.
Your argument is based on the false notion that there is a causal relationship between costs and prices. The price ANY product is sold to you is a completely arbitrary decision made by the party selling the product. Generally it's a number larger than the cost but there is nothing that forces this to be the case for any given transaction. The seller can ask any price they want and if the buyer agrees to it then by definition it is a fair price as long as there is no coercion in the process - and nobody is buying a Tesla with a figurative gun to their head.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Nothing says fleeing from an emergency like sitting around for half an hour waiting for their cars to recharge. Can you imagine how bad the lines for charging points would look if most cars ran on electric? Most cars would probably run out waiting in line, and it's not like you can just carry a can of electricity to recharge your car.
When Elon's done we'll all be driving through tunnels. Hurricanes won't be a problem any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would current infrastructure even be able to handle the power load? I'm talking 'in the middle of nowhere' infrastructure.
Even in the middle of somewhere, the infrastructure is currently inadequate. California has rolling blackouts during peak load times not because consumption exceeds production, but because consumption approaches infrastructure capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chevy Volt and I'm sure many other EVs can be configured to only charge during certain times of the day. So you plug it in at let's say 6:00 pm when you get home but it won't start charging until 8:00 or whenever
Re: (Score:2)
If "most cars" ran on electric the infrastructure would be such that the majority of homes would have chargers as well, and whatever gas-station equivalent would be a much simpler business to run as you would just be reselling electricity -- not constrained by large fuel tanks and pumps.
But none of that changes that fact that it takes a long time to charge a battery. Without some enormous improvements in technology -- range and charging time -- a country full of electric cars is going to be a big problem when a significant disaster strikes.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of fuel stations can't manually pump out the fuel in case they run out of power?
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which... it's much simpler to make electricity than fuel.
Gas versus electric in emergencies (Score:2)
Without some enormous improvements in technology -- range and charging time -- a country full of electric cars is going to be a big problem when a significant disaster strikes.
A country full of gasoline powered cars is a big problem with significant disaster strikes. The only difference is the exact details of the problems.
Anyway I can charge any electric car with a generator OR with grid power. Good luck refueling a gasoline powered car with grid electricity if gasoline isn't available. If anything EVs are actually more resilient in this regard with a tiny amount of advanced planning. Generators can be powered with gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, etc. Plus if the po
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I'm baffled by is why EV manufacturers aren't pushing the capability of using the huge traction battery in EVs as a means to power homes in the event of a power outage
They probably don't want some idiot saying "I'm gonna stay here in the middle of this hurricane 'cause I'll have power from my car!!".
Or have people spend a day and a half powering their house, then be unable to flee when the situation changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Fine, but then they lose battery warranty.
Re:Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Reminds me of a number of incidents of downselling crippled hardware in the 20th century computer industry. Mainframes that ran with different clock speeds (model differing only by a jumper), for instance. Multi-CPU mainframes where extras served as spares and you paid for a firmware unlock, which paid for their higher risk of running out of spares if something fired and having to actually tear it open and replace a much-of-a-megabuck board.
One was a pair of 1960s IBM low-end page printers that differed only in model markings and firmware-controlled print speed. The faster printer was the same hardware, but all those moving parts wore out a lot more and needed more maintenance.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What a hypocrite.
I notice you aren't paying for the bandwidth that the physical wire is capable of, but a much cheaper software limited package.
I notice you aren't paying for a volume site license for the enterprise features of windows but are using a much cheaper software limited version.
Ever host a website? You didn't pay for the entire machine and the entire yearly wages for the people running it, but a much cheaper package again software limited to your needs.
Ever buy a VPS or scalable os host like AWS
The owners agreed to the terms (Score:3)
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Not unless they paid for the privilege. They agreed to the deal when they bought the car. If they didn't like that deal they can buy something else. And there is nothing preventing a technically competent person from taking control of the hardware and software if they decide to do so. This would obviously void any warranty support not required by law or contract from Tesla but they are free to make that choice.
The fact that they can change it any way, the fact that they can restrict your ability to change configurable settings with your device/thingy/car/anything is unacceptable.
Unacceptable to you maybe but obviously not to the people that bought these cars. I understan
Re: (Score:2)
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Of course they should. Also, pilots should be free to tinker with the flight control software in the airplanes they fly. Personal freedom should always trump public safety.
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! Sadly, today is the day I don't have mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car. The fact that they can change it any way, the fact that they can restrict your ability to change configurable settings with your device/thingy/car/anything is unacceptable. Sure put a warning on it that you may be changing things that affect the longevity of your thing. But its your decision and anyone having control of anything on someone elses thing that wasn't explicitly allowed by the owner is operating malware. Teslas come preloaded with malware that allows this.
In that case, you need to scream and yell at IBM. They have been doing stuff like that for years with their mainframes. The hardware and software are all installed, but you buy a certain level of performance and pay more when you need more.... You don't get the full woody package outright unless you pay for it.
Re:Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this (Score:5, Funny)
Not PAST safe (Score:5, Informative)
Warning: enabling this setting will allow your battery to drain past what is safe for extended lifetime of the vehicle,
Read again the summary.
The batteries are actually 75kWh batteries.
But when buying the car it's possible to ask them to be artificially limited to 60kWh and get a rebate.
Draining them to 75kWh is in no way unsafe to the batteries themselves, they were designed for that.
It's just Tesla offering to temporarily disable this agreed limitation, for free.
Whereas under normal circumstance, the user is free to ask it removed, but needs to pay (conceptually: needs to return the rebate).
It's a way to pay less now, and then get more further down the line by paying the extra at a later time.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same.
But their manufacturing costs are a lot lower if they build a lot of one model than if they design two models, build less of both, and manage more inventory items and assembly combinations. This can be enough to make a big battery pack software-crippled to 4/5ths of its potential capacity be substantially cheaper than building a 4/5th sized one to start with.
It also
Re: (Score:2)
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same.
But their manufacturing costs are a lot lower if they build a lot of one model than if they design two models, build less of both, and manage more inventory items and assembly combinations. This can be enough to make a big battery pack software-crippled to 4/5ths of its potential capacity be substantially cheaper than building a 4/5th sized one to start with.
It also means that the packs are not discharged as far, which can extend their life and reduce warranty costs.
Still better, it lets them unlock the extra capacity in emergencies and spend a little extra warranty risk to maybe save the lives, families, pets, and valuables of some customers. Even a psychopath can see the financial benefit of keeping some customers alive and happy enough with your product to buy more in the future, even if it costs a few warranty repairs later.
If it's cheaper to them why is it more expensive to the consumer? And if the unlocked battery is going to be more expensive to maintain, then why is it more expensive to buy? Also why even bother having two models using the exact same parts, just sell the one to everyone and put the price in the middle. I guess it's nice to know some benevolent overlord can give your car extra power in moments of crisis if you ignore the fact they can basically fuck with car from distance whenever they want and you're luggi
Tesla's business. (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same. If they can sell the car for $xxxx with the battery artificially limited to 60k then they can sell it for the same price without the limit.
It's a bit more complicated than that :
- market segmentation is a thing. read-up on that.
The demand/offer balance you've been hearing in school is a gross over-simplification. Items aren't simply sold at the price the market can bear.
As a company, you don't just want to sell at the perfect price point. As a company, you actually want to cover as many diverse price-points at possible. Because otherwiese you'd be still missing all the money that the "poorer" customer would be okay to throw at your product, and customer who'd be willing to pay you even more will only pay a lower price.
Thus you segment your market. You invent alternative "Deluxe" and "bagrain" offers targetting the lower end and higher end segment. And you try to make these product distinctive.
Tesla is doing that by, at one (higher) end offering bigger battery (batteries which are actually 100kWh under the hood) that they sell fur much more, and tons of high-margin options (there no way that the camera for the autopilot cost a total of 5000$).
At the other end, they also need to sell cheaper car for those who are only willing to pay less. The simplest way to do it, is to offer to limit the battery in exchange of a rebate - I works not so bad, because the potential buyer won't be feeling to be missing out by not going for the more expensive option : they can still pay at a later point to get the full battery ( <- this makes the people not wanting the expensive model even less reluctant to settle with the cheap option)
On the other hand, compared with Microsoft who is selling 20 different variations of Windows - which are all slight different configuration parameters (actually yes, just register the same DVD with a different product key and you get a different set of software based on what tier of Windows is that key for) - each sold at a different price, Tesla is pretty much tame.
- profits
Tesla isn't a government run plan to bring you the cheapest possible EV.
Tesla is acompany, and they are allowed to make money.
Even more so, if you squint a bit, you'll notice (given the invested money) that the current business of Tesla is *building manufacturing capabilities for EV*.
They are basically in the business of building factories but in order to offset the costs of the factory, they'll sell you an expensive lithium-battery, and for that price, they'll bolt a complimentary (relatively cheap) car body on that battery.
In the current phase Tesla needs as much money as possible to throw on their factory building (that's why some are accusing them of being unable to make money).
They'll do every single possible trick for that :
- they'll segement the model S market as much as possible to be able to sell even more units
- they'll currently only sell the high-end variations of Model 3, because they are a higher-margin, and only sell the cheapest variations later.
Thus make even more profits (on the cars) and get a little bit more on the precious financial ressource they need to finish building their manufacturing capability.
Once again we see money-grubbing Jews {...}
For your information, Elon Musk happens to be non-religious.
in action, always trying to squeeze the customer for more money.
a.k.a. pretty much standard variety capitalism.
If you're not happy with that, vote with your wallet, don't buy a Tesla.
Go see instead what Renault is collaborating in Portugal for a more state sponsored (more socialist / less capitalist) approach to EV. Go buy a Zoé instead.
(But beware, these only come with up to 44kWh battery with around 200-somethingish range (a.k.a. "400km NEDC"). On the other hand you don't need to buy the battery, you can also rent)
Nope (Score:2)
I'd imagine fewer warranty issues with a throttled battery
actually, nope. with the currently available numbers it seems that the battery management system of Tesla is doing a wonderful work.
even when used at 100% they age very well.
It's just that Tesla is accepting to sell at a lower margin if it can make them sell more car (more profits at the end, and they need the money badly to invest into building their manufacturing capability).
And put the software limit as a way to keep the higher-margin car more desirable.
And making it a software limit, so that users wanti
Re:Umm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
you should have full access to what you paid for
Except ... they didn't pay for it.
The buyers made an explicit choice to NOT pay for the additional range, in the full understanding that they wouldn't get that feature.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
you should have full access to what you paid for
Except ... they didn't pay for it.
The buyers made an explicit choice to NOT pay for the additional range, in the full understanding that they wouldn't get that feature.
But the customers actually have the hardware (batteries) that can support that extra range, just not software access to the extra 15 kWh -- which means Tesla is overcharging (no pun intended) everyone on the hardware - and/or that it isn't priced according to scarcity.
Re: (Score:2)
which means Tesla is overcharging (no pun intended) everyone on the hardware - and/or that it isn't priced according to scarcity.
The price of most products is only tenuously connected to the cost of production. Very few things are priced "according to scarcity".
A $300 bottle of perfume costs about 30 cents to produce ... and most of that is for the fancy bottle.
If a customer feels they are being overcharged, then they should NOT BUY IT.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that Tesla is selling a battery and a warranty. The way in which the battery is used affects the cost of that warranty to Tesla. When used as a lower capacity battery it lasts longer. The owner has the right to pay for the higher capacity. In that case, much of the extra payment goes towards replacing batteries sooner than would otherwise be necessary.
Most manufacturers would simply never reveal the higher capacity that shortens the life. That is the only reason we haven't heard of practices like thi
Jet engine analogy to a car (Score:2)
I attended a public talk by a representative of General Electric at a university. Such talks are often in connection with recruitment of graduates to work at that company.
The speaker explained warranty contracts with the airlines for jet engines that he called "power-by-the-hour." The purchase of an engine is hence not just "for an engine" but rather for a certain amount of useful life out of the engine under specified operating conditions.
The speaker further explained the concept of a "power rating"
Re: (Score:2)
and/or that it isn't priced according to scarcity.
Not at all. The charge level is priced according to scarcity and profit margin. The actual hardware doesn't need to be. People buy a combination of hardware and software. Don't believe me? Take a modern car, rip out the ECU and throw it in a bin, and then drive here and give me your complaints personally.
Telsa isn't overcharging anyone, not unless you can point to another car with identcal range, charge, shape, body and functionality for a lower price.
Re: (Score:2)
The buyers made an explicit choice to NOT pay for the additional range, in the full understanding that they wouldn't get that feature.
They just got the extra weight, which is totally in keeping with the whole efficiency theme.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they did not. They paid for a 60kWh battery, and they are getting 60kWh.
You don't get to claim they bought a 75kWh battery when the owner has no receipt for it, explicitly told the sales guy they don't want the 75kWh battery and only want to pay for the 60kWh battery, and only have a receipt for a 60kWh battery.
You are simply lying, they did NOT pay for what they don't have.
You're just a thief that wants more more more for free free free.
They said they wanted the 60 so they got the 75 that was locked to 60. If they didn't how would tesla be able to magic them extra electricity?
It's called "segmenting the market" (Score:3)
The Golden Rule of marketing is to price a good or a service at what each individual customers is willing to pay, and yes, the "options racket" is a way of charging customers different amounts for nearly the same thing.
The airlines have gone into this in a big way, not only with the system for offering cheaper tickets for advanced purchase, inconvenient times, or having to change in Atlanta, but also the upgrade fees for checked bags, extra legroom, or being the first person to exit the plane in case it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you should have full access to what you paid for
Except ... they didn't pay for it.
The buyers made an explicit choice to NOT pay for the additional range, in the full understanding that they wouldn't get that feature.
But they got the exact same hardware anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
As a buyer of a long range, affordable EV you now have a few options.
Model 3 Short Range
Hyundai Kona
Kia Niro
Bolt EV
Leaf 60 (due this year)
The Model 3 at $35,000 is by far the most expensive, but also has the lowest range and is extremely low spec and spartan. Oh, and that's list price, and Tesla doesn't do discounts.
So as a buyer you have to ask yourself why it costs so much, and the answer is that it comes with a bunch of stuff that you pay for but can't use, like the autopilot sensors. So maybe you would
Re: (Score:2)
You need to reflect on the economics of the situation. It was paid for. Certainly Tesla has charged sufficient to pay for all materials and make money by selling at the lower price point. It's *all* paid for.
Tesla offered a deal to these customers and the customers took the deal. If Tesla offered to sell the car for less money with a software-limited battery, and if the customer agreed to the deal, then it's a done deal and there is no point in you complaining about it.
I don't love artificial market segmen
Aging (Score:2)
I do still see a benefit in artificially limiting the available battery capacity. As rechargeable batteries age, they are unable to hold as much of a charge. So selling a 75 kWh battery pack artificially locked to 60 kWh should allow the car to retain the ability to recharge to 60 kWh capacity for longer than if it was a 60 kWh pack, right? Unless I misunderstand something about batteries, which is entirely possible.
In a big over simplification: yes.
Except that :
- it happens that the BMS (battery management system) of Tesla is doing a marvelous job beyond any expectations, current in the wild data seem to show that batteries haven't aged as dramatically as some have expected. (The oldest would be at 70kWh by now, still more than the 60kWh capacity)
- charging less is also a life extending feature on batteries (a battery locked to 60kWh will probably have only degraded to say 72-73kWh).
to the point that t
Re: Umm.. (Score:2)
Despite all of that, it is still, factually, a 75 kWh battery. Tesla just gave you software to access 60 kWh of it.
And since you paid for it, you own it. It is your personal property. It's your car.
People mod their cars all the time, though. That's th
Re: Umm.. (Score:2)
You paid for a 60kWh battery and got a 70kWh battery with artificial restrictions. Just wait until this bullshit comes to the medical world. Editing your DNA to give your kid blue eyes costs $150, but we also noticed he is predisposed for cancer. Editing DNA to fix that will cost $75,000 even though we use the exact same techniques and processes.
Presumably this means they're overcharging for one and undercharging for the other. Easy fix. Get the cheaper one done there, then go elsewhere for the other.
How in the world did you ever convince yourself that this would be a problem? If Ford tries to charge you $1,500 for an optional stereo system, do you throw a fit? Or do you just go to an aftermarket shop and get them to install an equally capable one for $500?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the quarterly hurricane cycle as well :-|
Re:In the news again in a positive way... (Score:5, Informative)
If I just run the battery to zero and am stranded, can I call up Tesla and ask them to unlock my extra capacity so I can drive home?
Maybe. If you have a 75kwh battery pack but only paid for 60kwh, then part of the 20% surplus is at the top and part at the bottom. So when your car is charged to 100%, it is really only charged to ~90%. When it reads 0%, you actually have about 10% left.
Is that 10% is enough to get you home?
By neither fully charging, nor fully discharging, you battery will last longer.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a useful feature. Can the owner of a 75kWh pack set it to 60 kWh ?
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting feature would be to test who actually owns that battery, fitted to the vehicle. Tesla claim to own and control it but it is in the vehicle you own and control, so what right of control can Tesla claim over it. Can you bill them for carrying around their battery, extra mass uses extra energy and they claim it is theirs. What happens if you hack it, legally demand access, in your vehicle they put it there, they gave it to you, you have to carry it around at your cost, so whose is it really.
If
Re: (Score:2)
1. It's not clear that the larger battery has an efficiency cost. The extra size comes with extra mass, but it should also come with better regeneration.
2. You bought the car with a certain specification (in terms of range and efficiency). The car meets that specification. What's your beef?
Half a battery (Score:2)
When you look at it :
- you want to use only half a battery, and you paid half a battery.
- because there's no such thing as half a battery for now, Tesla gives you actually a full battery, but you both agree that you will only use half of it and tesla will only bill you for half of it.
So basically, the battery is co-own, you own (and have paid) for your half of the battery, the half you use, Tesla owns the other half which you didn't pay for.
You can buy back the other half at a later point (great agument for
Re: (Score:2)
You can set the maximum charge state and ensure that you don't run it down to less than 10%.
Charge settings (Score:2)
That sounds like a useful feature. Can the owner of a 75kWh pack set it to 60 kWh ?
Yes. Any Tesla cars allows you to choose not to do 100% deep discharge, but only shallower cycles.
This is supposed to help even more on battery longevity.
Metaphorically, every single cars comes with a slider going 0 to 10 that sets how deep the cycle go.
Tesla can give you a rebate if you let them screw in a blot that blocks this slider going above 7.
You can metaphorically pay the rebate back if you want to be able to use all the slider range up to 10 if you end up wanting it after all.
Figuratively you can p
Re: (Score:2)
One of the more dramatic examples of Intel doing this was with the old Celeron 300 MHz. Apparently they were 450 MHz chips that may or may not have passed QC. They could be over-clocked with a mother board setting. I had one, and the over-clocked PC worked great except that occasionally the graphics card or something couldn't keep up, resulting in bit barf. You could clear it by refreshing the screen. It was cool to watch big programs compile noticeably faster. In the end, I decided to roll it back an