Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Issues Software Update To Extend Some Cars' Batteries Due To Hurricane Florence (electrek.co)

Tesla is temporarily enabling free Supercharging and extending the range of some cars' batteries for those in Hurricane Florence's path. "Tesla used to offer the option to buy a Model S or Model X with a 75 kWh battery pack software-locked at a capacity of 60 kWh," reports Electrek. "The option would result in a less expensive vehicle with a shorter range and the option to pay to remotely enable the longer range at a later stage."

Some owners on the Carolina Coast report that they've received a notification explaining the temporary new benefits: "We are temporarily enabling your car to access additional battery capacity, as well as free Supercharging, in preparation for Hurricane Florence. We hope this gives you the peace of mind to get to a safe location, and will notify you before returning your car to its original configuration in mid-October. Badging on your display may adjust during this period. Safe travels." From the report: This is a very cool move from Tesla. When they did it last year, it was misrepresented by many who focused on the software-limited battery packs -- saying that it means Tesla was screwing people over by limiting the battery capacity. The option was more about offering a less expensive battery pack without having to produce a different size pack, which helps streamline production. It gave buyers a less expensive option and they could always unlock the capacity later for a price. For those who decided to not unlock it, it now gives an opportunity for Tesla to let them have more range at a critical time by using Tesla's over-the-air software update capability.

8 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Same reason Intel underclocks processors by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they made more 75kWh batteries than 60kWh ones and rather than sit on them put them in cheaper vehicles.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  2. Re:Correction: Nothing cool about this by raftpeople · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly some Tesla owners disagree with you and are glad they have the freedom to choose based on their own opinion and not based on some poster on slashdot's opinion.

  3. Re:Umm.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you should have full access to what you paid for

    Except ... they didn't pay for it.

    The buyers made an explicit choice to NOT pay for the additional range, in the full understanding that they wouldn't get that feature.

  4. Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the same thing software and hardware vendors have been doing for decades, including additional capabilities that can be unlocked with configuration. It's no different than a hotel that says "sure, you can use the empty room next to you also, for a charge." Or an airline that says "sure you can use the unused seat next to you, for a charge."

  5. Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this by Known+Nutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The mini bar would be a better analogy. It's already there in the room you paid for. It's up to you whether or not you use it and pay the charge.

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
  6. Re:Correction: Nothing cool about this by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People escaping from a hurricane, apparently.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. Re: Correction: Nothing cool about this by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're not paying for the bar, you're paying for the drinks. Horrible analogy.

  8. Prices versus costs by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No it's like if you buy a house with a 3 rooms but when you move in you notice there are actually 4 rooms but one of them is locked and you don't have the key. When you inquire about this fourth room from the seller he says that he can open it for you a price of course.Seems kinda shady doesn't it?

    No because there is no secret room like in your example. The owners of the cars signed a contract explicitly agreeing to the deal and the terms when they bought the title to the car. They were under no duress to agree to the deal so both parties were fine with it. So no it isn't shady at all.

    The problem with Tesla is that obviously the price for the 75kWh battery is much higher than it needs to be if you can sell the higher battery for less money and still make a profit.

    And what exactly is wrong with making a profit? If the buyer is willing to pay the extra amount then that is fine. Charge what the market will bear, same as literally every other company on the planet. If Tesla was asking too much then they would get more people refusing sales which is how it is supposed to work.

    The correct solution for this would be to lower the price for the 75 kWh battery so that you can sell it at the actual manufacturing price but not at the fake made up price.

    Your argument is based on the false notion that there is a causal relationship between costs and prices. The price ANY product is sold to you is a completely arbitrary decision made by the party selling the product. Generally it's a number larger than the cost but there is nothing that forces this to be the case for any given transaction. The seller can ask any price they want and if the buyer agrees to it then by definition it is a fair price as long as there is no coercion in the process - and nobody is buying a Tesla with a figurative gun to their head.