Tesla Battery Gossip cut n paste

[MEXICOWANDERER]

As Florida residents fled Hurricane Irma over the weekend, some Tesla owners got a little surprise from the auto maker to help them get out of the danger zone.

On Saturday, Tesla began pushing a software update that increased the battery capacity of some Model S sedans and Model X SUVs. All the cars that received the update belonged to those living in what emergency officials had identified as the evacuation area.

The real-time update extended the range of the cars by unlocking previously inaccessible battery power, meaning the vehicles could now go farther on a single charge. The change will not be permanent; Tesla said the temporary upgrade will be reversed on Sept. 16, presumably once the immediate danger has passed.

The decision reflects a key distinguishing feature of Tesla's business, one that could divide consumers as they think about the future of car ownership.

The Model S and Model X vehicles updated on Saturday were all built with a 75 kilowatt-hour battery. At full capacity, that's enough for a Model S to travel roughly 250 miles.

When those cars were first sold, Tesla gave customers the option of a lower-capacity battery at a more affordable price, and some decided to take the savings rather than purchase the full, 75-kWh battery.

But downsizing didn't mean replacing the big battery with a physically smaller one; it just meant using a bit of computer code to restrict how much of the battery the car could access. If they wanted, they could later have Tesla lift the software lock by paying an additional fee, which can run into the thousands of dollars.

[Bumpyroad]

I would like to see some actual numbers, real data if you will, of how much it will lessen the life and cost if the full potential of the batteries is available instead of cutting it in half. not some technical mumbo jumbo,, how much will it really affect the warranty and replacement costs.
years back when honda came out with their first hybrid I asked the salesman how much replacement batteries would cost. he said he didn't know for sure but that it would be expensive.
bumpy

[MEXICOWANDERER]

The man did not ask the correct question...



"I've asked the Tesla rep several times regarding the replacement cost of a Model S battery . . . he keeps saying $12,000 . . . which IMHO is more than reasonable. However, I've noticed on various other posts that the battery cost was more like 1/2 the cost the the car. I'm starting to wonder if the $12,000 that he quoted me was future replacement expected cost (i.e.. in 10 years after construction/production of the Gigawatt Factory). I just want to know that if I damage my battery today, what it would cost to replace it. Thanks all . . .


Out-the-door, what will a battery replacement cost me?

There is labor, there is a "handling charge" SURPRISE! on the battery and a puny eight percent tax is = NINE HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS

(Smile showing 39 teeth). Extracts 10" cigar from mouth, brushes off his violet herringbone jacket and says "Now this baby is special! It was owned by (a member of a prominent religious order) and driven only to the Whole Foods Store on Saturdays. Then it went home and was promptly plugged-back-in" The salesman desperately tries to keep the young couple's attention diverted while Sammy-The-Programmer slips away after hacking the odometer on yet another driven-only-on-Saturday-Special.

I'm glaaaaad I'm old and won't have to run this gauntlet - the one where the DW drags herself back through the front door and announces something that takes on a whole new meaning "Honey the car we bought last month won't go"

[free_radical]

Harvey51 wrote:
A line is being crossed with this action and some others happening now. Farmers are finding that when a combine or tractor breaks down and they run to town to get a part, rush back to the field and replace the broken part - the machine will not work until a manufacturer's tech appears in the field to tell the machine's computer to accept the replacement. That will be $500, sir.

I'm not sure what to call this trend where owners are losing part of their ownership to manufacturers. We have grown used to paying the cost of making a car plus a reasonable markup, then being able to do whatever we like with it. Over the last decade cars have been made so owners find it increasingly difficult to do maintenance and repairs on vehicles they "own". If the trend continues having a car will be more like renting it while the manufacturer retains the ability to charge for an increasing number of things whose costs have already been collected from the customer at the time of "purchase".

In most countries electric cars are heavily subsidized. Are the governments just using tax money to save the planet or do they have something else in mind?
In Canada the provincial governments most eager to subsidize essentially own the electric power grid. Their subsidies and promotions discourage people from going off grid. That suggests to me that they wish to control more than our household power use and add another means of collecting our hard earned money for their next move.

With 100 watt solar panels seling for 200$ nowadays,one can make their own power pretty cheap..even sell it back to the power company,many people do it already..
my electric bill is not too high yet otherwise Id put bunch of panels on my roof too

[toedtoes]

RCMAN46 wrote:

wa8yxm wrote:

Bumpyroad wrote:
so Tesla is basically cheating the owners by not doing this permanently for all vehicles??
bumpy

Uh NO.

Rechargeable batteries. have a "Minimum state of charge" now you can discharge PAST this point. but you should not because the overall life of the battery goes down much faster at lower State of Charge.

Tesla calculated this point for their batteries and programmed it in.

BUT.. in an emergency.. Well you do what you have to do and if another 10 or 15% of the state of charge makes the difference between the BATTERY dying a bit sooner than expected.. and YOU dying sooner than expected.... Well the battery is way, way, way easier to replace.


If I wanted to make more profit I would let you run the battery down so far you needed to replace it 2 or 3 times as often as I need to replace mine Tesla is not doing that.. Except in emergencies.

This is what I said many posts ago and I agree with your analysis.

I use Lithium Poly batteries in my model airplanes and have found this characteristic of lithium batteries to be true.

"Lithium ion batteries can be discharged below a design voltage but the battery may insure damage that may shorten the life of the battery.

Three things that can shorten the life of a lithium ion battery.

1. Very large discharge rates.
2. Very large charge rates.
3. Discharging below design voltage.

I suspect the added range was achieved by lowering the cut off voltage which as I previously stated may possibly result in a shorter battery life.

I also suspect Tessa will take care of the Tessa car owners if this does result in a shorter battery life. "

By this I mean Tesla took it on their own to help these people and I am almost sure Tesla will honor any warranty on the batteries.

I agree. And I think Tesla deserves a bit of credit for it rather than an accusation of cheating customers.

[RCMAN46]

wa8yxm wrote:

Bumpyroad wrote:
so Tesla is basically cheating the owners by not doing this permanently for all vehicles??
bumpy

Uh NO.

Rechargeable batteries. have a "Minimum state of charge" now you can discharge PAST this point. but you should not because the overall life of the battery goes down much faster at lower State of Charge.

Tesla calculated this point for their batteries and programmed it in.

BUT.. in an emergency.. Well you do what you have to do and if another 10 or 15% of the state of charge makes the difference between the BATTERY dying a bit sooner than expected.. and YOU dying sooner than expected.... Well the battery is way, way, way easier to replace.


If I wanted to make more profit I would let you run the battery down so far you needed to replace it 2 or 3 times as often as I need to replace mine Tesla is not doing that.. Except in emergencies.

This is what I said many posts ago and I agree with your analysis.

I use Lithium Poly batteries in my model airplanes and have found this characteristic of lithium batteries to be true.

"Lithium ion batteries can be discharged below a design voltage but the battery may insure damage that may shorten the life of the battery.

Three things that can shorten the life of a lithium ion battery.

1. Very large discharge rates.
2. Very large charge rates.
3. Discharging below design voltage.

I suspect the added range was achieved by lowering the cut off voltage which as I previously stated may possibly result in a shorter battery life.

I also suspect Tessa will take care of the Tessa car owners if this does result in a shorter battery life. "

By this I mean Tesla took it on their own to help these people and I am almost sure Tesla will honor any warranty on the batteries.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

NAHHHHHHHHHH......

Engineer a computer code and sell it to OEM combustion engine car manufacturers. Either take the vehicle into the dealer for periodic "servicing" or an LED dashboard number activates showing you how many engine starts you have left before the car gets towed to the dealer. "You can take it to the dealer now or get it towed later".

That's the new mentality. George Orwell, where are you?

[wa8yxm]

Bumpyroad wrote:
so Tesla is basically cheating the owners by not doing this permanently for all vehicles??
bumpy

Uh NO.

Rechargeable batteries. have a "Minimum state of charge" now you can discharge PAST this point. but you should not because the overall life of the battery goes down much faster at lower State of Charge.

Tesla calculated this point for their batteries and programmed it in.

BUT.. in an emergency.. Well you do what you have to do and if another 10 or 15% of the state of charge makes the difference between the BATTERY dying a bit sooner than expected.. and YOU dying sooner than expected.... Well the battery is way, way, way easier to replace.


If I wanted to make more profit I would let you run the battery down so far you needed to replace it 2 or 3 times as often as I need to replace mine Tesla is not doing that.. Except in emergencies.

[Jarlaxle]

fj12ryder wrote:
Wow, congratulate someone for admitting to scamming the customer. What a deal.

When was the last time you bought a V8 engine that only operated on 6 cylinders? Or a 6-speed transmission where you could only use 4 speeds? Or a 4 door sedan that had the rear doors permanently locked so you couldn't use the rear seats?

Accepting the fact you're getting screwed doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Actually, many trucks and buses were built with Allison transmissions that had sixth gear locked out.

[JaxDad]

Bumpyroad wrote:

JaxDad wrote:


Can you explain how you think Ford would have a greater exposure for warranty costs or claims by giving you a 1,000 mile range tank instead of a 500 mile range tank?
.

I suppose this made sense when you typed it????????
bumpy

I did exactly that, in the second sentence.

Tesla gives a warranty on the (very expensive) battery. The rigorously you work that battery the more likely there is to be an issue that Tesla needs to fix, for free likely.

This is a pretty straightforward concept that is well know to the vast majority of the RV crowd, run your batteries to 6 volts a few times and see how long they last.

On the other hand the chances of Ford needing to make a warranty repair to a gas tank based on how far you drive is pretty remote, even if its capacity were doubled.

[Bumpyroad]

JaxDad wrote:


Can you explain how you think Ford would have a greater exposure for warranty costs or claims by giving you a 1,000 mile range tank instead of a 500 mile range tank?
.

I suppose this made sense when you typed it????????
bumpy

[JaxDad]

Bumpyroad wrote:
I thought of an analogy for a gas fueled vehicle. say ford offered a mustang that gave a 500 mile range. for $1000 more you could get the mustang with a 1000 mile range.
seems that all they did was put the same gas tank in both, and put the pickup point half way up the tank so it was only 25 gallons of usable space, but for $1000 they would move the pick up point to the bottom of the tank and get full use out of it. no real cost to ford, but if they did it to me I would feel like I was taken.
bumpy

Can you explain how you think Ford would have a greater exposure for warranty costs or claims by giving you a 1,000 mile range tank instead of a 500 mile range tank?

It sure seems to me like a greater capacity on exactly the same battery would expose the manufacturer to greater potential costs, for which they'd be entitled to ask for more compensation.

[pnichols]

SidecarFlip wrote:
I see Elon is proposing rocket travel from city to city in the future at commercial air fare rates. Either the guy is a visionary or he's wacko.

There's a sucker born every minute whether it be rocket taxies or an EV for everyone .... so that means there's going to be plenty enough fanboys around at all times to label him as a visionary.

I used to be an EE so I love electricity, but .... electrical storage capacity per cubic inch and speed of replenishment still has a long way to go before I become a fanboy. Lithium is a big step in the right direction, but something more in storage technology is still needed before electric vehicle batteries are ready for prime time. I'll bet that's why on-going battery research is such a big deal these days.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

Ooooooo. Your official state scan card says you is a Kilowatt hawg...

If you think this isn't coming, inhale deeper and hold longer...

You're on a trip, a car hits a power pole. Bring a lunch?

No thanks. What Gates is trying to do with Macroshaft* is a vertical learning curve.

*I was laughing too hard earlier to see the obvious variation improvement. Scuzzame..."

[time2roll]

Bumpyroad wrote:
I thought of an analogy for a gas fueled vehicle. say ford offered a mustang that gave a 500 mile range. for $1000 more you could get the mustang with a 1000 mile range.
seems that all they did was put the same gas tank in both, and put the pickup point half way up the tank so it was only 25 gallons of usable space, but for $1000 they would move the pick up point to the bottom of the tank and get full use out of it. no real cost to ford, but if they did it to me I would feel like I was taken.
bumpy

Tesla fully disclosed the fuel pick-up placement. Don't remember the price but closer to $10,000+.
So you want it or you don't? Your call.

[toedtoes]

Bumpyroad wrote:
I thought of an analogy for a gas fueled vehicle. say ford offered a mustang that gave a 500 mile range. for $1000 more you could get the mustang with a 1000 mile range.
seems that all they did was put the same gas tank in both, and put the pickup point half way up the tank so it was only 25 gallons of usable space, but for $1000 they would move the pick up point to the bottom of the tank and get full use out of it. no real cost to ford, but if they did it to me I would feel like I was taken.
bumpy

That's assuming that there is no additional cost for running the battery at the higher capacity. Without knowing that, then we can't really say if it's being "taken".