Tesla Boosts Car Battery Power During Irma,

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
How were they caught when they told everyone about this when the cars came out? You act like it's been some secret.

The dealership even tells you not to charge it to 100% because it will degrade your battery.

Tesla doesn't have dealerships.

There's a dealership 30 minutes from my house...

a reply to: lordcomac


I think ethanol in the gas takes away some mileage too, but it's green....lol

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: khnum

I never bought the 200mpg story.
There is only so much potential energy in a gallon of gas.
I can believe they are restricting it some but not that much.

Hard to say. I don't recall the man's name, but I remember reading a story where said man took a 70's big block Cadillac and messed with it enough to get something like 45-60 mpg.

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Edumakated


Ummm...why would an electric car company purposely undersell it's battery performance/range...?

There has to be more to this issue than charging an extra $9,000.00 for a software upgrade...

These are Lithium Ion batteries...you dramatically shorten the life of a lion battery if you totally deplete it...I imagine some of this has to do with making sure these batteries have enough extra cushion...in order to extend the life of the battery pack as long as possible...

I'm also curious if that hefty price tag has more to do with offsetting the cost of replacing the battery packs due to a shortened life span due to depleting beyond that safety cushion...

YouSir

They aren't underselling it. They are offering different specs to different classes of customers. It is far cheaper to do it the way they are doing it than to engineer a lower capacity battery pack and designing the car around it.

Tesla can offer one car with full range and performance at $120k or whatever a loaded Model S / X costs these days. However, they won't sell as many cars. This is what some of you appear to be advocating.

On the other hand, they can come in at a lower price point to get additional buyers who don't need the full performance with a simple software tweak capturing a larger share of the market. Tesla is as much of a software company as it is a car company. Electric cars are far simpler mechanically than gas cars.

In order to keep costs manufacturing costs low to accommodate the lower price point, it makes ZERO business sense to use a different battery configuration in what is essentially the same car platform. You also aren't going to sell the fully loaded car at the lower price point when consumers clearly are willing to pay a premium to have it.

Unlike a gas car, you don't need to manufacturer different engines to change performance. You can tweek performance with the software for the customer's needs and budget which is all they are doing.

It would be like if you buy an smart phone. Apple has a 32gb and 64gb. It is far cheaper to say just make all the phones 64gb. However, not every consumer is willing to pay for the 64gb. So instead of manufacturing a 32gb harddrive, you use software to limit access to just 32gb. If the consumer decides later they want more space, they can pay the costs to have the extra space unlocked.

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
How were they caught when they told everyone about this when the cars came out? You act like it's been some secret.

The dealership even tells you not to charge it to 100% because it will degrade your battery.

Tesla doesn't have dealerships.

There's a dealership 30 minutes from my house...

Tesla doesn't have independently owned dealers. Tesla sells direct to consumers through basically a retail store front. Regular car company dealerships are not owned by the manufacturer.

This is why in some states, the car dealership lobby has tried to block Tesla because they don't have dealership franchises.

People in this thread acting like Tesla has to save money somewhere with regards to batteries and software.

Musk's businesses are subsidized. Last I looked he was getting 4.9 Billion in subsidies. And the Tesla gigafactory will manufacture batteries once its finished.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Xcalibur254


Those examples are not exactly the same situation.
The cable company charges for content.
You want the extra sports package you pay for it but they pay for it too.
More cost for the cable company.
Internet companies have limits to their capacities, the price differences help them limit the usage.

The real question is if tesla represents the battery numbers as a software issue or a hardware issue.
That and we are talking about a $6k upcharge. That seems excessive.

The content for Tesla is the performance of the car. The hardware is the same. With cable TV, the hardware is your cable box. The software allows you to receive additional content for a price. The guy with 50 channels has the same cable box as the guy with 500 channels. If you don't pay for the extra contect, you don't get the channels regardless if you have the same cable box.

From a business standpoint, the cable company rather have ONE cable box that they can control versus multiply varieties for each type of consumer. Tesla is doing the same thing.

Your cable box anaology is somewhat wrong. You're paying extra for features like on demand, DVR, or simply the ability to watch in HD. If you just get the basic package, you get a dinky little box that can't DVR because its not large enough to house a storage drive. If you pay for premium, you get a fancy larger box with pretty lights, drive, etc.

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: ScepticScot

Those are all different motors are they not? 3 series 2.5liter 3 series 3.0liter. 3 series 3.0 turbo... all are straight 6's but they are not the same motor. At least that was always my undrstanding of bmw and reinforced by looking on the web as i wrote this. example 325i first number is series, second two numbers engine displacment.

The last two numbers originally related to engine size but was then changed (early 00s I think) to just denote the pecking order of engine power.

For example the current 330 has a two litre turbo engine.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Tesla boosted the range of their cars in Florida to help owners evacuate. Tesla can wirelessly upgrade their cars without the owners knowledge.

They also restrict the cars range based on how much you pay for the car.


"Owners of certain Model S sedans and Model X S.U.V.s noticed that the battery capacity of their electric cars had increased, giving them as much as 40 extra miles of range to outrun the deluge."

That sounds great at first until you realize they are holding out on the performance of the car.


"Some, though, said the company was kneecapping vehicle range under normal circumstances in pursuit of profit. Others were concerned that the magnanimous move overshadowed the troubling extent to which Tesla can command customers’ cars."

"The company began producing cars this way to streamline manufacturing; it could produce the same type of battery but provide different price points, charging customers up to $9,500 for an upgrade to full capacity."

Basically they limit the performance of their batteries based on the price of the car.
Two cars with the same battery pack have different ranges.

"Mr. Forman, who lives in Broward County, Fla., had flown to St. Louis for work on Friday when he checked his Tesla app and saw that his car, plugged in at home, had reached 242 miles of range and was still charging. He had never seen the vehicle exceed 215 miles."


I'm sure other manufacturers do the exact same thing but tesla just got caught.

This also raises the issue of manufacturers controlling their products forever. We will see licencing of products in order to use them in the future. Software companies already do this.
We will own the vehicles but will pay a fee to use the software required to run the systems.

mobile.nytimes.com... er&action=click&contentCollection=Business+Day&pgtype=article&referer=https://www.facebook.com/

I don't understand why this is an issue? Electric cars are not like gas engines. You can get more or less power simply from a software change. It makes zero sense to have two or three different battery packs from a manufacturing stand point when you can adjust range with software.

Telsa increased range of vehicles that had not paid for the increased range to be a good corporate citizen. These owners were trying to evacuate a natural disaster, so they did it to help them go further.

The only thing nefarious about this is that it shows that consumers can lose control over their cars to an unknown entity. I can think of all kinds of conspiracy scenarios where your car is turned off without your permission or other issues, but that is an entirely different topic.

Uhm?

Seriously? What ever happened to getting what you bought and honest sales? They are lying to customers telling them they come with different ranges and that can only be explained by telling the customer that they are smaller capacity batteries when they are the identical battery.

You can't get MORE from a battery than the battery holds, there is no software that is going to increase the maximum capacity of a battery.

They are selling you a battery, that you now own -- it's sitting in your garage, and then they are from their corporate building, gating the capacity of your battery. So they are literally selling you a 10,000$ flip of a switch.

And that's cool?

STFU, you and all 3 people who starred you, you don't even understand what you're talking about.

You aren't paying for increased range, you're being penalized for not paying. Do you see the difference?

Okay -- so a cell phone comes with a battery that lasts a few hours, but you need one to last a few days -- so you spend money on a much heavier thicker higher capacity battery. That's being charged for more power.

What Tesla is doing is selling you that high capacity battery for a profit on what it already costs, and then turning around and arbitrarily limiting the capacity of the battery unless you're willing to pay "X" which is upwards of 10,000$. That's theft.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Bluntone22

Probably just the new normal where no one really owns anything. My daughter has been given the opportunity to buy a house from her employer at a 10% discount. Heard my wife and her discussing it and the daughter said "well at least I'll be owning the house instead of renting". I thought, "no honey, you'll be owning a mortgage, paying rent to a bank". But I didn't say anything.

Well, I mean -- you're both right. You can always refinance and get your money back out of a mortgage. Try to borrow from your landlord and tell me how that goes.

There is tremendous value in paying the bank rent over paying a thief landlord rent [who is charging more than the bank for less of an apartment.] You heard that right -- most apartments rent costs the same as a full on home mortgage. What happens when you pay the mortgage off? You now have a piece of property worth more than you spent on it and have that equity on hand whenever you need/want it. Your house becomes instant credit, like... I think your little "honey" is smarter than you think she is.

I dont understand the issue here. Dont all cars have different trims? Basically tiers paying more gives a better/faster engine, luxury interior, leather, sound system, etc etc.

Although I will admit i find it pretty cool they all have the same battery just limited by software based on the amount paid. Its not shady, just smart tbh. I bet other car manufactures are super jealous. Imagine if they could put the same engine in all trims and just click change its performance.

A better analogy would be video games that you have to pay to unlock the DLC that is already on the disk that you own. DLC content was made after the games release and then downloaded at a later date. Once people accept this kind of capitalist bs, "they" will turn your fridge off if you don't pay the rental fee. You will not be able to own anything anymore.

I remember when antivirus programs could be bought outright instead of rented.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Funny how people are up in arms over this but have had no problem with the cable and internet companies from doing the same through their entire existence.

Yes, yes we have all been having the same complaints about those companies ever since we also found out about their capacities to do the same! In fact it is an often cited complaint in nearly any thread about the internet, telecom companies, or data plans in some way or another. Like when somebody makes a thread about the next level of G, it is a common complaint. However in this case, it is throttled on an end user product. In the ISP case, it is throttled from the source.

I will bet you anything this company will be forced to abandon this practice due to people gaining the capacity to simply open it up. However since most of the target customer base will not be buying it outright in full, they may wise up to adding lease agreements seeking financial damaged or waived and terminated leases for just such activity.

I already see the next ten years. Tesla owners will get their cars repoed . Then they end up in the used market. Suddenly there is a deluge of these used vehicles going for killer prices. Then they all start getting cracked and upgraded which increases their resale value as a used vehicle. New sales go to #, divisions have to be culled to save the admins and preserve shareholder dividends. PR spins a re branding with more "personal liberty" which simply offers a default full and equal capacity battery across the product lines and the board members and CEO have to find a new way to pay for their lavish golden toilet seats for their pansy asses!

Maybe they will team up with Michelin and Good year to offer the newest innovations in airless tires making the purchaser so much more eco conscious an green! blah blah yadda yadda etc..

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: HarryJoy
Well they may have just allowed the batteries to discharge to a deeper level than what they normally would because it's not good to discharge a battery too deeply too often so they probably just allowed it for this one time

They are ok with discharging the car battery as long as you pay them thousands of dollars extra for the convenience.

You are absolutely right they are okay with allowing the battery to be discharged to a deeper level or being charged to a higher level..... But allowing that does shorten the life expectancy of the battery pack so yes if they program it in for the battery either be discharged to a lower-level or charged to a higher level they will charge you more money because the likelihood that they will have to replace that battery under warranty is higher and by the way they do make two different size battery packs a 90 kilowatt hour and a 100 kilowatt hour that was from an article in 2016.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Edumakated

It would be like if you buy an smart phone. Apple has a 32gb and 64gb. It is far cheaper to say just make all the phones 64gb. However, not every consumer is willing to pay for the 64gb. So instead of manufacturing a 32gb harddrive, you use software to limit access to just 32gb. If the consumer decides later they want more space, they can pay the costs to have the extra space unlocked.

I believe Apple uses a different chip for 32 gb and 64 gb phones. If not they are also guilty of the same rip off as Tesla. That said I don't feel sorry for anyone who wastes their money on either overpriced product. Just scummy business practices.

if there is no additional cost to the company, there should be no additional costs to the consumer.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: TheLotLizard
How were they caught when they told everyone about this when the cars came out? You act like it's been some secret.

The dealership even tells you not to charge it to 100% because it will degrade your battery.

Tesla doesn't have dealerships.

There's a dealership 30 minutes from my house...

Tesla doesn't have independently owned dealers. Tesla sells direct to consumers through basically a retail store front. Regular car company dealerships are not owned by the manufacturer.

This is why in some states, the car dealership lobby has tried to block Tesla because they don't have dealership franchises.

There's a Tesla owned dealership.... The only difference is it's called a "store" you can walk in and buy a tesla, test drive, and browse models.

If that's not a dealership I don't know what is...

*facepalm*

a reply to: TheLotLizard
The legal distinction has to be made in some states due to some good 'ol corporate/government socialist collusion. I remember this being a matter in Texas specifically as one case. Not certain how it applied in other states.

The issue here is not that Tesla makes people pay for more range, countless companies do the same thing in some form or another and if Tesla were using batteries with different capacities no one would care. The real issue is the wireless control Tesla has over their vehicles, they act like they still own the vehicle and have the right to alter it at whim without advising the owner of the vehicle, which I'm sure if you read the fine print in the contract when you buy a Tesla it'd give them that right. But it's clearly not a smart idea because people will figure out how to unlock the extra battery capacity through a simple wireless hack.

It does suggest that the company has wireless access to their vehicles and possibly even GPS data telling them where any vehicle is at any time so that revelation is bound to cause some privacy concerns. However, what they did (this time) was in the best interests of the customers affected the intention appears honourable but not to everyone.

Let's suppose that the batteries have a discharge threshold set by default that delivers the best capacity/lifetime figures and lowering that threshold (as they did) significantly reduces the life expectancy if made permanent. Once the crisis is over they could restore the default setting so have they done a good thing or not? (perhaps their only mistake was allowing the fact to be made public)

I am a Electromotive Equipment Mechanic.
From what i know about batteries like these LiFePO4 batteries this longer range hack likely will shorten the battery life.

Doing it once will not shorten it much but if the car was reprogrammed to do it daily i would likely shorten the life by years.

The manufactures may believe that by charging more money for longer range they will profit even more on shorter battery life and replacement because the car owner does not understand how the battery works.