Tesla Temporarily Boosts Battery Capacity For Hurricane Irma (sfgate.com)

Slashdot reader mikeebbbd noticed this in the AP's Florida hurricane coverage: Electric car maker Tesla says it has temporarily increased the battery capacity of some of its cars to help drivers escaping Hurricane Irma. The electric car maker said the battery boost was applied to Model S and X cars in the Southeast. Some drivers only buy 60 or 70 kilowatt hours of battery capacity, but a software change will give them access to 75 kilowatt hours of battery life until Saturday. Depending on the model, that could let drivers travel about 40 more miles before they would need to recharge their cars.

Tesla said it made the change after a customer asked the company for help evacuating. The company said it's possible it will make similar changes in response to similar events in the future.

Comments

Uh huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe Tesla could just stop artificially crippling the batteries?

Re:Uh huh...

[iCEBaLM]

You act like they're the first people to do this.

The amount of people who do it doesn't make it right.

Re: Uh huh...

[dbialac]

Go sign up for a cell phone service that doesn't force you into arbitration. Wait, there aren't any.

Re:Uh huh...

[barc0001]

> If Tesla can sell the same hardware at different price points and still make a profit then the higher price point is simply profiteering.

Is it? Is it really? Is it not possible that Tesla can sell that lower price point car at the price it can because the cost is partly offset by the full range buyers? By your logic if I made a thing that cost me $9 and I sold it for $10 partly limited in some way and fully open at $20 for the "high end" version that was unlimited, then on the high end model I am profiteering to the tune of $11 per unit and am a bad person and should probably be lined up against a wall or something. But what if I then shared that I sell 2500 $10 units a month and 300 $20 units a month, and my staff costs on top of the $9 material and build cost are $3000/month. So what's the solution? Market research has shown that if I have just the premium model as the only model and sell it for $12, I won't sell 2800 units a month any more, I'll be moving 1000 if I'm lucky. So I'm supposed to work for free? My investors are supposed to get nothing?

Pricing in tiers like this is a highly complex subject and way more nuanced than "ZOMG - ripoff!" binary responses. There are some people who wouldn't have been able to afford a Tesla at all if the software limited battery pack wasn't an option, so it works to create more options for people. Same with iPhones for example. Apple could just make one size and say "$1000 on the table right now, or no iPhone for you." But they don't because they want additional market penetration across all classes of consumer.

Re:Uh huh...

[TheRaven64]

The battery comes with an 8-year warranty. If they discharge to 60%, then it will last for longer than if they discharge to 50%. Battery failures are not 100% predictable though, they're statistical. The extra 10% capacity translates to a higher probability that the battery will fail under warranty. The price of the increase is designed to compensate for this.

Batteries that aren't full-cycled last longer

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello,

    With Lithium-Ion batteries, they last longer if you don't take them from 100% capacity to 0% capacity all the time. If instead you charge/discharge them from 80% to 40%, they last a lot longer.

    I think it's likely that Tesla limits the batteries for lifetime purposes. And that this temporary software change is trading a little battery life, for, well, maybe saving the life of the Tesla car owner by getting him out of dodge?

-

Re:Batteries that aren't full-cycled last longer

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think the decision to get oneself out of dodge on the cost of some of the car's service life should belong to the owner and not to the manufacturer?

Re:That's disgusting

[ShanghaiBill]

Obviously they can afford to ship those batteries at the lower price point

Why is that "obvious"? The people that pay a premium for extra capacity are subsidizing those who don't. That doesn't mean Tesla would make money on the batteries if no one paid the premium.

My wife has a Tesla with a 240 mile range instead of the 300 mile range. That was our choice. No one "cheated" us. Whether it is more cost effective for Tesla to make two different battery configurations, or to make one with a artificial limit, is their choice. Neither option is more "moral" than the other.

Re:Before jumping to conclusions

[DarkOx]

It might not be quite so simple as a pure money grab on Tesla's part. Many battery designs will last longer if you don't cycle them quite a deeply and if capacity does diminish but still is greater than what you paid for you'll never know and Tesla does not have to replace it.

Given they grantee the batteries for a period of the time the extra cost for the 'higher capacity' version might essentially be what amounts to a pre-paid insurance policy for the battery by actuarial spreading the cost of the increased likelihood the batters used at higher capacity will need replacing under warranty among the buyers of the higher capacity.