Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Discontinuing Model S With 60 KWh Battery (electrek.co)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: April 16th, 2017 will be the last day to order the Model S 60 and 60D. The vehicles were the least expensive models that customers could purchase from Tesla -- starting at $68,000. The Model S 60 and 60D were equipped with 75 kWh battery packs software-locked to 60 kWh. Owners were able to unlock the remaining 15 kWh through a software update for a fee at any time after the purchase if they decided that they wanted more capacity. Tesla says that they are making the change because most customers ultimately end up upgrading to 75 kWh and they want to streamline the ordering process. It comes as Tesla is preparing to launch the Model 3, which should start at $35,000, but higher performance versions are expected to be offered at higher prices closer to the price of the Model S. It would make sense for Tesla to try to create a bigger gap between the two vehicles.
To actively provide less value, as in crippleware, is an immoral act. It's a real shame that IP laws actually make it a crime in some cases to use one's own property as one sees fit. I won't buy a Tesla until there's a way to jailbreak it.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
"Owners were able to unlock the remaining 15 kWh through a software update".
What'd happen if it was hacked - explosions? Fires? Crashes?
Owners were able to unlock the remaining 15 kWh through a software update for a fee at any time after the purchase if they decided that they wanted more capacity.
I guess you really don't own the car then.
And you're not allowed to use them. That seems like a waste of energy and very irresponsible of MR. MUSK. Why does MR. MUSK hate the environment so much?
It would make sense for Tesla to try to create a bigger gap between the two vehicles.
Would it? While the S and 3 are both electrics, the S and 3 are not the same size, do not have the same amount of interior volume, do not have the same maximum seating configuration.
I can see a family, wanting seating for six including a couple of kids, not being able to afford the Model S 75 or 75D, and not finding the Model 3 acceptable in any configuration. I can see some taller or otherwise bigger people not being comfortable in a Model 3 but fitting into a Model S.
For a long time, automakers sold high-end, mid-line, and low-end vehicles in all of their chassis configurations. Sometimes they had different makes to achieve this, and sometimes they had more than one model built on a given "body", and sometimes both. Chrysler had the New Yorker and Newport, Dodge had a Monaco and a Polara, and Plymouth had the Fury and the Savoy in various years, and at other times they had other models like the 300, the Town and Country, the Custom, and the 880. All of these vehicles, for a given model year, were on the same "C-Body" platform, and a platform sharing a lot similarity was used for the even higher-end Imperial line.
If Tesla wants to be a volume manufacturer (and this is admittedly not knowing if they want to or not) then they will need to figure out how to cater to those buyers that aren't going to be able to afford the higher-end cars but still need cars that are bigger than their smallest ones. That doesn't mean that there's no room for increased cost for the bigger chassis, but it needs to be affordable in its lowest trim.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So lovely from an illegal alien Afrikaner Apartheid Man.
Ha ha
The fact that the ability to hold more of a charge is something merely unlocked via a costly software update means Tesla sold you a 75kWh capable battery all along but gimped it artificially.
From the strict sense of "getting X when you pay Y amount", that makes perfect sense. (Tesla is essentially giving you a price break on a Model S60 or 60D by selling you the same car they normally charge a higher price for, and letting you pay the difference when you want to unlock that extra charging capacity.)
BUT .... when I buy something as expensive as a new car? I guess I expect all the physical equipment I get in it to fully function. Tesla is treating all of this like a computer on wheels that you buy and do various software upgrades to.
From Tesla's standpoint, I can't imagine they're actually losing money on every S60 or 60D sold, with the hopes those owners will eventually buy the software upgrade that forces them to pay back the rest of what the car was actually worth. The fact they offered these tells me that they can, indeed, sell the car at a reasonable profit with the 75kWh battery in it, but at the S60 or 60D price. Then, the rest is pure profit when those customers opt for the upgrade.
In the auto industry, the usual situation is -- any time a manufacturer artificially holds back some capability of a vehicle, the aftermarket finds ways to offer relatively low-cost ways to remove those restrictions. (Custom tuning of factory ECUs and transmission control units is a HUGE business.)
I'm wondering when we'll start seeing performance shops offering their own, cheaper unlock/re-flashes for Teslas?
This is standard procedure in the computer industry and has been since forever. I've driven Teslas for four years and I describe the car as a computer with wheels as peripherals. I'm convinced that this is the future of the auto industry so this will become standard practice. It's just much simpler from the software point of view to have a single code base.
I expect that the 75kWh battery constrained to 60kWh max discharge lasts a lot longer that way
I work on consumer products and batteries are complicated. If you can't use all of the capacity at each charge cycle, you will get more life.
So Tesla gives you extra life for free up front and the flexibility of an upgrade without needing to take the car in. They save on logistics, win on economies of scale and reduce their battery warranty costs and pass some of those costs (+ profit) on to you.
If you choose more run time, you trade off life, and increase Tesla's battery warranty costs. For this you pay their extra cost (+ profit).
The only people who lose are those who normally have a short commute, but occasionally need to do a longer trip that would require one less charge if they had a higher pack. These folks would normally not cost Tesla any additional money in battery warranty costs and either lose out or have to pay extra for a benefit they rarely use.
A more complicated scheme that more closely captured the true cost to Tesla would involve buying the car and renting the battery based on usage but some people would see this as rent-seeking. There really is no way to keep everyone happy, so the best approach is that Tesla does whatever they need to cut their costs and figures out a way to appropriately distribute their costs (which is what they seemed to have done).
Sooner or later, they are going to have to bring out a minivan or similar. I
They already have a minivan. They call it the Model X.
I know I know they call it an SUV. An SUV that cannot go off road. An SUV I can't put anything on top of like a kayak, surf-board, or hang glider. It has no place on a farm or a construction site. An SUV that will run out of charge when you get to a remote site.
Great for soccer moms. Good for executives to drive clients around in. But it is not an SUV it is a minivan.
I'm a big fan of Musk's SpaceX work, which is NOT "subsidised" but is competeing for (and winning) competative contracts for cargo delivery.
Tesla, on the other hand, is a producer of impractical and uneconomic Luxury products aimed at the wealthy who want to advertise their faux moral superiority while getting it subsidized by various "green" tax credits. The people getting the breaks are those least likely to need them (not disabled vets or single moms etc, but rather wealthy people for whom the Tesla is generally one of several cars).
It's just an additional insult that some of the phoney "green" qualities are artificially held back unless an additional ransom is paid.