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 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

[John___Angela]

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
I just don't get it.......sorry......

How much does the "extra reserve" in the battery weigh? Is it an assignable penalty? Like carrying around an unemployed 300 lb brother in law?

As of yet no answer as to the significance of the "unelected" portion of the battery - is it counted and is it being used as part of the total kWh of the system but the system has charging and discharging limits?

This is the kind of information that would sway me one way or the other. Arguing over incomplete information ain't my bag. Again, sorry.

Good morning Mex. Hope you are doing well down there. Consider checking out the Tesla Forum as they can probably answer your question in a very specific manner.

Take care.

J and A

[John___Angela]

fj12ryder wrote:
FWIW I have no problems with what is done as long as people know about it and are informed about it when they purchase the car. IOW it should all be upfront, no surprises.

To me this whole thing sounds like people had no idea that the battery they have is the same as the more powerful battery, but was software inhibited.

They are not only made aware of it but costumers actually like it because it is an easy upgrade if there commute changes later and they need more range. What you may be referring to is that it was a surprize for many of the S60 owners when they went out to their cars and found they had gained about 20 percent range overnight. It actually all started with one person reaching out to Tesla asking if it was possible as he wasn't sure of the Status of the superchargers along his evac route. I have read various versions of this. Best to check it out on the Tesla Forum.

For what its worth the electric vehicle users had less difficulty with the Evac as there were no long lines for the various charge centres along the EVAC route as opposed to gas stations with long lines and no gas. It is a lesson for the future though. As EV penetration increases the build out of charging infrastructure will have to keep up, especially along evac routes from various regions states, provinces and countries.

[MEXICOWANDERER]

I just don't get it.......sorry......

How much does the "extra reserve" in the battery weigh? Is it an assignable penalty? Like carrying around an unemployed 300 lb brother in law?

As of yet no answer as to the significance of the "unelected" portion of the battery - is it counted and is it being used as part of the total kWh of the system but the system has charging and discharging limits?

This is the kind of information that would sway me one way or the other. Arguing over incomplete information ain't my bag. Again, sorry.

[SaltiDawg]

fj12ryder wrote:
...

Do you feel scammed that you weren't informed of this fact when you bought the house, or do you feel grateful that you can pay more money to get what you thought you were getting in the first place?

Oh yeah, that's analogous to buying a car with two engine options - big and small. NOT

You continue to trash talk Tesla for having a business model that may possibly save money for selecting fewer capabilities/options

What a novel concept.

[SaltiDawg]

fj12ryder wrote:
...

Are the people who paid the lower price informed that they have exactly the same battery, but software prevents them from utilizing its full capacity? Something tells me this fact is somehow omitted.

Of course they are aware in that the Battery Size Increase is an advertised post -sale option.

[fj12ryder]

FWIW I have no problems with what is done as long as people know about it and are informed about it when they purchase the car. IOW it should all be upfront, no surprises.

To me this whole thing sounds like people had no idea that the battery they have is the same as the more powerful battery, but was software inhibited.

[fj12ryder]

Suppose you bought an all-electric house with all the necessary appliances. After you've paid for it you find out that you can only run two of the appliances at the same time. You can operate any of them, but not simultaneously. Then you find out that by simply flipping a breaker you now have enough power to run everything in the house at the same time, but you have to pay several thousand dollars more to have that done. Nothing changes, just a simple flip of a switch.

Do you feel scammed that you weren't informed of this fact when you bought the house, or do you feel grateful that you can pay more money to get what you thought you were getting in the first place?

[time2roll]

My Leaf has Sirius Radio capability. Doesn't work though, because I don't pay the monthly subscription. Maybe someday I'll want it, then I'll start paying for it. Kinda cool.

And in a National emergency will Nissan/Sirius activate it for free to get emergency information?
Yea I doubt it.

And yet Tesla DID activate additional range the car owner did not pay for.
And so people a beating up on Tesla for this?

[fj12ryder]

free radical wrote:

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.

Fyi
Some GM V8 engines operate on only 4 cylinders to save fuel at high speed.
Are people getting screwed? 🙂

Are the people informed about this? IIRC this was an advertised feature.

Are the people who paid the lower price informed that they have exactly the same battery, but software prevents them from utilizing its full capacity? Something tells me this fact is somehow omitted.

[Bumpyroad]

fj12ryder wrote:
Not quite:

"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."

IOW, the batteries were the same, you paid for it, you just don't get to use it. You get cheated and thank the man for it. Wow, I just don't get it. PT Barnum sure had it right.

\
SEEMS obvious to me.and those analogies that with Dish/etc. I can add additional channels at an increase in cost are semi stupid.
bumpy

[MEXICOWANDERER]

This is the "ME" generation.
Canadian banks (especially Quebec) took it in the shorts when their heavy petroleum speculation was tempered with fracked crude. The citizens of course got to foot the bill.

When Microshaft cleverly switches to monthly subscriptions I even more cleverly regress to landlines.

Whatever happened to Musk's GRAND PLAN to cover the skies with universal wireless? Wealthy does not translate to intelligence*. His thought process is like a fart in a whirlwind.

*Tweetely Tweet tweet

[toedtoes]

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.

Those of us who grew up in the old ownership paradigm are going to be uncomfortable.

I agree that trend is going to continue. Along with this trend is that manufacturers are discontinuing the prior version very quickly. This keeps people buying the more expensive "new" item - even if they don't want all the new features they are stuck.

However, I don't think the governments up to anything. I don't think they're that clever as an organization.

[Harvey51]

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.

Those of us who grew up in the old ownership paradigm are going to be uncomfortable.

[MrWizard]

Cummins 5.9tb 190, 230, 270 HP

change the injectors, the turbo etc..

with the newer engines, its more programming and less parts changing