"but range will be software limited to 40 kWh"
DRM in my car that will leave me stranded by the side of the road. Wow, this is a new low even for DRM.
No thank you.
Tesla, you were kinda cool.
DRM in my car that will leave me stranded by the side of the road. Wow, this is a new low even for DRM.
No thank you.
Tesla, you were kinda cool.
Even an on the spot upgrade can't put more juice into the pack.
[1]: very easy to do in software and batteries last longer when they are not charged to full capacity. If they would charge over 40kWh, people would pay for electricity that they then couldn't use; that seems very unlikely.
Even still, as a consumer I find it offensive when the same resources are consumed to produce something and then crippled just to sell at a lower price. It's a sign of market inefficiency.
For pure software, it's different because the per-unit cost of production approaches zero.
But batteries are literally massive objects, and their capacity-per-mass is the major factor of their value. So if your car still has to accelerate and decelerate all the mass of a 60KWh battery yet its capacity is artificially limited to 40KWh, your vehicle is not only range-limited, it's heavier and less efficient.
Do you yell at your network hub because it's capable of 150M down but you've only paid for 30?
Do you freak out when you see people in VIP areas at events that you've paid general admission to enter?
Tesla is being smart by constraining the number of products that they have to produce. Removing complexity directly translates to cost savings which go straight to the company's bottom line. It also helps eliminate decisions that a potential customer has to make.
I'm willing to bet that a much higher percentage of 40KWh customers will convert to 60KWh now that they have the capability built in. It's smart no matter how you look at it.
No. I decided cable TV wasn't a good value and canceled it years ago.
> Do you yell at your network hub because it's capable of 150M down but you've only paid for 30?
No. My switch is 1 Gb.
> Do you freak out when you see people in VIP areas at events that you've paid general admission to enter?
No.
Would you buy a car that had 250 kg of lead weights bolted into the frame such that you had to pay the car dealers extra to remove it?
Other commenters have already pointed out that there's no weight difference between the 40 and 60KWh models, and that you get the benefit of a greater top speed.
If Tesla wants to fashion its pricing model after cable television companies they're free to do so. But they should expect customer satisfaction to follow.
> Other commenters have already pointed out that there's no weight difference between the 40 and 60KWh models
Obviously there's no weight difference between the 40 KWh and 60 KWh models because they're physically identical.
Various estimates on the web seem to suggest that the battery pack makes up about 1000 of the 4647 lb car. Since 1/3 of this capacity is unusable, this has a similar effect as 300 lbs of intert lithium in the passenger seat.
> and that you get the benefit of a greater top speed.
So for the efficiency hit of 300 lbs of dead weight you get a top speed of 120 mph (190 km/h) instead of 110 mph (180 km/h). [Wikipedia]
And I decided not to get a driver's license because having a car is pretty useless. Obviously this means your argument is invalid.
If I'm to believe reports from 60kWh and 85kWh owners, the cars weigh essentially the same. It's not clear what they do with the smaller battery packs, but it doesn't seem to have much effect on weight.
If you read the news release, the 60kWh pack actually has better acceleration than the (theorethical) 40kWh pack.
I'm not sure I agree on market inefficiency, it's maybe inefficient, but it is a completely rational decision. Presumably, the cost to develop a 40kWh pack was higher than to just equip all 40kWh preorders with 60kWh packs.
For example, a pet shop: "Sorry, someone else already adopted that three-legged dog we advertised on discount to a good home. But we can give you one of our regular puppies at the same price. Of course, we'll have to 'adjust' it first ..."
Yes, it's a perfectly rational decision of the kind which gives MBAs a bad name.
Your view gives two possibilities:
1) Lose money on the 40kWh model by investing millions in production equipment for a product that almost no one wants
2) Lose money on the 60kWh model by selling it for less than it costs to produce
None of these are viable. As far as I can tell, Tesla has chosen the best option here (given that they want to keep the 40kWh model on the market, which for marketing purposes I am pretty sure that they will).
Tesla's obligation was to deliver cars at least as good as were pre-ordered at at least as good a price.
Tesla has chosen your option (2) here, shipping the heavier 60 kWh battery for the 40 kWh price. They have chosen this option because it benefits them economically.
However, to ensure that it does not benefit the customers who preordered the 40 kWh battery, they are artificially restricting the capacity. As a result, the customers who ordered a 40 kWh battery are receiving a heavier car with no additional range to account for it.
"DRM" has generally referred to limitations that prevent you from transferring media from one device to another, preventing both illegal and legal uses of that media. The obvious alternative is to let people transfer the media freely. People hate DRM because it's an annoyance that doesn't prevent people from pirating things, but interferes with legitimate uses.
In this case, however, there's no media involved. Furthermore, it seems pretty obvious that allowing anyone to modify the battery controller software willy-nilly would be a bad idea, unless you like watching cars explode. The complaint seems to be mostly that Tesla is disabling functionality the car has, but in software. However, the only obvious alternatives are to charge everyone more to be able to manufacture and stock a greater number of models, or to eliminate the 40-Wh battery option entirely. Out of these three options, it seems obvious that the one that Tesla chose is the best for the consumer.
CPU cores are basically software, whereas battery weight is generally proportional to its capacity and would seem to have a big effect on the efficiency of an electric vehicle.
I also assume tesla went to some trouble to reduce the weight of the car too. With makes unused battery capacity even more nuts.
If you are going green, you do not want un-utilised or dead weight. End of. There is literally no argument there.
So "Actual customers", who presumably know something of the subject, should be interested and question this set up.
Or is this the knee jerk we love Musk thread there no one is allowed to point out potential flaws or silliness, and if any one does say anything critical, then any old excuse will do? Must we really exaggerate with words like "disturbed"?
So yeah, I can't say I see what the giant fuss is about, and for the record, you may see everyone here as Musk "lovers" incapable of seeing his selfishness and wastefulness (i think?), while some would say you seem a Musk "hater" incapable of letting reason invade your opinion of the man. But you know, to each his own.
Edit: Grammar
It's exactly like how solid state hard drives are labeled 256GB but are actually 240GB if you account for the space reserved for wear leveling.
If anything Telsa is in fact more honest than the SSD market.
The extra capacity would help spreading out the thermal loads with charging / discharging so it should also beable to charge in a shorter amount of time.
What I would expect is that 4% of their customers will be reminded that their car is artificially limited whenever they need to travel more than 160 miles (260 km) and have to pull over early to recharge a battery that is actually capable of 230 miles (370 km).
When you get to the end of the charge on your 40kwh model, you know that the car is capable of 50% more - but you are not allowed to because you haven't paid Tesla an extra $10k.
It's similar to airline pricing. It makes rational sense to sell early seats at lower cost, and increase prices as the plane gets closer to selling out, effectively auctioning off seats. But people hate it. The guy sitting next to you is getting the exact same service as you, but might have paid 3x less.