Tesla’s $10k-Cheaper Model S, X Are Software Locked for Less Range: Report
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
This seems like something we should have regulations to protect against. Bad for the environment and bad for the consumer.
On a safety-critical, public-endangering, federally-protected vehicle? Good luck with that attitude.
But the reality is that they aren't.
If you're already paying 80 or 90k for an electric car, does making it $10k cheaper make much of a difference to you? Range is almost incidental; probably most Tesla owners most of the time (I would guess) won't miss that extra range.
At the very least, it will be a good test of the price sensitivity of Tesla buyers. If they are looking to ship more units, this is a good way to figure out how to do it. My guess is it won't really matter much.
This does make sense however, if the range of the car can later be upgraded, and, it still uses the entire battery, and just cuts out at a higher % charge than the full range battery would as that'll make it last even longer.
Also, many people are surprised to know that even a full range tesla does not use 100% of their pack capacity. It always leaves some in reserve for the sake of prolonging battery life, so this move really isn't too strange, and the benefit of manufacturing a single battery pack likely drives costs down more than having to manufacture bespoke battery packs for each and every variation.
Economics say we can't do that.
People will continue to buy Veblen goods because people have been tricked into thinking it will raise their social status.
... oh, you're serious.
OK, this is categorically untrue and observably so. 1) One could write a book on consumers buying things or entering into deals that are long-term bad for them but have some combination of short-term convenience / affordability vs. long-term ill effects.
2) In this specific instance it's bad for consumers because Tesla is buying the same amount of raw materials, driving those prices up, and then not actually making them accessible to the user.
3) This assumes that other products that "don't do that" will be available, rather than a common pattern of Vendor A doing a consumer hostile thing, and then all other vendors following suit. I'd point to airlines as exhibit A in this regard. Sure, if Delta does something crappy people might look to Southwest instead ... until Southwest copies Delta due to shareholder demand that they extract maximum profit.
There are reasons that it's bad, but I don't see how it's bad for consumers. They just get increased optionality, which is almost never a bad thing. If the alternative were just lowering prices on the S and X then I guess it's bad relative to that, but we don't really have any reason to believe that Tesla would do that if this weren't an option.
I don’t generally like subscriptions on hardware features, I wouldn’t get one and I worry about what they’ll do in the future if this test goes well. But the “hardware I own” is not any more restricted than it was before they started the subscription option.
I would never buy hardware from a company that locks the capacity down with software, so a Tesla (nor BMW) is not the car for me.
> But if you don't want that to happen, you can just pay for the full-priced version.
Consumers should have full access to their hardware, limiting that is limiting consumer rights. It's also bad because it encourages other companies to do the same and soon people will be left with no options.
I get it, but too few people sell for what they need to, they sell for what they CAN. if there was more competition, that would force telsa to eat into this profit margin. Same goes for all businesses and industries.
I think the bigger issue though is the hypocracy. A large part of Tesla's marketing is based on pretending to care about the environment.
With this car, 100% is actually 73%, so you can safely charge to 100% daily.
IOW, pretty much every EV on the road is driving around with about 20% of "wasted" battery.
Having a quick look, it seems that it's roughly linear, but slightly in favour of lower discharge?
One spec sheet I saw said 80% dod had 2500 cycles, and 50% dod had 5000 cycles, which means you get more "lifetime capacity" with a 50% dod compared to 80%?
We can change things for something with different but lesser problems. And anyway, can you 100% vouch that the gas car manufacturing apparatus has zero child labor as well?
If you paid for capacity that you don't need then yeah, I'd say you at the very least made a bad purchase.
I appreciate that it rankles the hacker in most (myself included) when Intel blows a fuse or Tesla flashes firmware to price discriminate.
But the math on whether more or less EVs get sold because the high-end subsidizes the mid-range, how that affects consumers and the environment, where this all sits legally?
Almost certainly complicated AF. It seems a bit hasty to consider just one data point out of that insane Pareto topology and call it good.
It's good for cost-sensitive short-range drivers because they're no longer subsidizing warranties for long-range drivers. You'll have to do the math for yourself to see if it's good for you.
There's a design trade-off between price, warranty, and how (much) a battery is (dis)charged. When they don't give you options like this it's because they've made that choice for you.
It’s a shame. I was really hoping to migrate away from my ICE vehicle (now 6-7 yrs old). Going to stick with it until it becomes financially unfeasible to repair (Fortunately no major repairs yet, only scheduled maintenance and replacement of worn down parts like tires, car battery, wipers, …).
I guess I shouldn’t be too eager to migrate. Especially with the advances in battery tech (“solid state” batteries from Toyota) and significantly improved range over lithium ion batteries.
Just hope this trend of locking down features doesn’t become widespread by the time I need to switch
Furthermore it's not like he's going to dispose his older car, it's going to go to somebody else who might have an ever older, more pollutant car.
It'd be pretty easy/interesting to compare the charge curves & find out what part of the curve it looks like versus a regular capacity model.
This sort of cost-unrelated rent keeping keeps growing. Intel selling you a chip then having the vendor either one time fee or subscription based unlock any of the half dozen different accelerators is another stunning example. That one's even weirder to me, in that it's unlikely people will bake in support for these special features to common software systems, if they don't have access!
LFP batteries are recommended to charge to 100% every time, where as NCA / NCM are both what we traditionally think of when discussing lithium batteries.
I imagine for LFP they will keep it as full as possible, and hard cap the other types to 70%.
More reading here: https://history-computer.com/which-batteries-is-tesla-using/
if you wanted to protect the life of your LFP battery, don't charge it to 100% every day, just every week or two so the BMS knows what is going on.
1: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anupam-Parlikar/publica...
This one actually seems more straightforward to me? It's hard to design chips so it's easier to use a common wafer and then cut features to tier the product.
and in 5-10 years your range may match your neighbors with the expensive one.
And I see it as a net win for the customer. I get the car I want with only the usable battery capacity that I need for a lower price, and that battery will get less wear and tear over its life. If I want to upgrade to the larger battery down the road then it's an OTA purchase. That's far better than having to take it down to the dealership and have them install the extra battery packs, or for them to just tell me it's not possible.
I wonder if they're auto-replying with a poop emoji when the press reaches out.
Here's a video going into it - https://youtu.be/RVmk-N7yqqo
Now, if it wasn't somehow just software locked, and they were cutting off access to the cells (so they really would be dead weight), then that would be really bad.
If true, I think this is a great business move. Theoretically increases the lifespan of the car/battery, would allow the user to actually charge to "100%" on a regular basis without damaging the battery, and it allows Tesla the option to let customers upgrade later if necessary or when the consumer can afford it. Plus it allows more people to get into an awesome car for $10k less.
It's just wins all around. Makes me want one of these "standard" range versions even more.
If there's someone out there who's considering another car that's a bit cheaper but would be willing to pay for a model X at this $10k-discounted price, they're getting a sale that they otherwise wouldn't get (albeit with lower margins). Meanwhile, people who aren't price sensitive will probably just buy the regular-priced one. They're presumably working on the assumption that profit from additional sales to people who would otherwise go with something else will outweigh any cannibalization of people who would pay for the higher-priced one taking the discounted one instead.
The first car out of the factory cost billions to make. The next one a bit less, and so on.
In this case, it's likely cheaper to make 1 battery and use it everywhere than it is to save a little on cells but have to manufacture a dozen or so bespoke batteries for all of their offerings.
It's possible to adopt EVs without needing to worry about hanging out at DC fast chargers regularly. DC Fast charging is necessary for road trips, but again, the average American drives 40 miles a day.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-ev-lying-range-much-wo...