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.
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.
What a strange age we live in...
Other than providing a less expensive SKU, one question I've seen is how they can afford to put a 75kWh battery in the car while only charging for 60kWh. There are a few reasons:
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
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/
Every engine manufacturer in the world does this. They'll have an 'iron set' which is a fixed engine block, turbo, injector, etc combination and the difference between 300 and 400 HP will be a software upgrade.
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.
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.
Don't forget the quarterly hurricane cycle as well :-|
If I just run the battery to zero and am stranded, can I call up Tesla and ask them to unlock my extra capacity so I can drive home?
Maybe. If you have a 75kwh battery pack but only paid for 60kwh, then part of the 20% surplus is at the top and part at the bottom. So when your car is charged to 100%, it is really only charged to ~90%. When it reads 0%, you actually have about 10% left.
Is that 10% is enough to get you home?
By neither fully charging, nor fully discharging, you battery will last longer.
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.
But the customers actually have the hardware (batteries) that can support that extra range, just not software access to the extra 15 kWh -- which means Tesla is overcharging (no pun intended) everyone on the hardware - and/or that it isn't priced according to scarcity.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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."
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Fine, but then they lose battery warranty.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
Yep, good point, that's a better one.
What a hypocrite.
I notice you aren't paying for the bandwidth that the physical wire is capable of, but a much cheaper software limited package.
I notice you aren't paying for a volume site license for the enterprise features of windows but are using a much cheaper software limited version.
Ever host a website? You didn't pay for the entire machine and the entire yearly wages for the people running it, but a much cheaper package again software limited to your needs.
Ever buy a VPS or scalable os host like AWS, Google domain for business, or any other service? You certainly are not paying for the exobytes of storage on the platform but just the space memory and bandwidth you need.
You make the same choices that tesla owners make yet it's great when you do it and horrible when anyone else does. Hypocrite.
Until you chalk up the billions of dollars a month to pay for the entire resources available to you that you use *against your will* like you are demanding, you can fuck off.
I will choose to buy and not buy what I please, and pay as much as I choose to pay as I please, and don't give a fuck what you want to force me to do against my will.
You'll have to do better than hypocrite-bitch and whine on an internet fourm than that.
Come and make me, and I'll show you what I think about you wanting to force things upon me against my will.
Tesla is among many options for transportation. Buy another vehicle if don't like their software terms. Consumers should have ability to put their own software on hardware they buy. Warranties can be voided but options should exist. Pricing should separate much like the scams telcos did with long term service contracts locking devices.
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.
No, they did not. They paid for a 60kWh battery, and they are getting 60kWh.
You don't get to claim they bought a 75kWh battery when the owner has no receipt for it, explicitly told the sales guy they don't want the 75kWh battery and only want to pay for the 60kWh battery, and only have a receipt for a 60kWh battery.
You are simply lying, they did NOT pay for what they don't have.
You're just a thief that wants more more more for free free free.
Would current infrastructure even be able to handle the power load? I'm talking 'in the middle of nowhere' infrastructure.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
If "most cars" ran on electric the infrastructure would be such that the majority of homes would have chargers as well, and whatever gas-station equivalent would be a much simpler business to run as you would just be reselling electricity -- not constrained by large fuel tanks and pumps.
But none of that changes that fact that it takes a long time to charge a battery. Without some enormous improvements in technology -- range and charging time -- a country full of electric cars is going to be a big problem when a significant disaster strikes.
not to mention that the more conservative charge cycles extend the life of the battery
love is just extroverted narcissism
And before that, IBM used to do it with their card tabulating machines. An upgrade often meant that a technician came in and moved a belt.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
"You void your warantee if you root/fix your phone/fail to say three 'Hail Apples' every night" is one of the most enduring myths I've seen. Apple cannot "void your warantee" for anything they want, believe it or not, we even have laws that prevent it right here in the Banana Republic States of America. Alright, they're hardly ever enforced, so you can be forgiven for not knowing that they exist, but for what it's worth, Apple is violating the law by doing this, and the FTC is at least starting to pretend like they are going to do something about it. https://www.theregister.co.uk/... https://motherboard.vice.com/e... https://www.cultofmac.com/5407... https://venturebeat.com/2018/0... "But. but, it's a free market! Apple should be able to stick a three-foot long kilbasa in your rectum as punishment for not bricking your phone within 3 days of their releasing an update! What, you think you're special? If you don't update, you might get infected, and then infect others, so it's your obligation to brick your phone like everyone else because a working phone can be compromised! You owe it to them! It's right there on page 27 of the fine print! You agreed to it so you have to do it! You agreed to it! You agreed to it of your own free will! In a free market no less! A free market!" The "free market" hasn't devlolved quite that much yet, but give it another couple of years and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
And that's exactly why it shouldn't be done.
What kind of dumbass wants to pay a premium for a car that someone can just disable with an entry in a database table?
No thanks.
In fact, they actually get a 60kWh storage with 15 kWh worth of standby cells. They get something MORE valuable than a straight 60 kWh battery.
The batteries will last a longer than a true 60 kWh battery because should various cells fail, the 15 kWh can be used.
(And reading stories suggests that the charge time for that 15 kWh is so long that, in practice, the 75 kWh isn't that much more useful than 60 kWh.)
And clearly some Slashdot users disagree with you and are glad they have the freedom to form and offer their opinion and not have to offer one based on how some Tesla owner feels about their purchase.
Okay, now your turn to state something obvious while phrasing it like an in-context rebuttal.
which means Tesla is overcharging (no pun intended) everyone on the hardware - and/or that it isn't priced according to scarcity.
The price of most products is only tenuously connected to the cost of production. Very few things are priced "according to scarcity".
A $300 bottle of perfume costs about 30 cents to produce ... and most of that is for the fancy bottle.
If a customer feels they are being overcharged, then they should NOT BUY IT.
You're free to rip out the radio module any time you like. Yay freedom!
Except that Tesla is selling a battery and a warranty. The way in which the battery is used affects the cost of that warranty to Tesla. When used as a lower capacity battery it lasts longer. The owner has the right to pay for the higher capacity. In that case, much of the extra payment goes towards replacing batteries sooner than would otherwise be necessary.
Most manufacturers would simply never reveal the higher capacity that shortens the life. That is the only reason we haven't heard of practices like this before.
How is this different from cars which have governors? If you remove the governor, you void the warranty,,, for good reason. The car will be able to go faster,,, for a while.
No one uses that- not even in slang. 0 google results.
Could it be that vernacular in such an oddly specific industry job doesn't have any use outside of that job?
I don't think you can do it cause you're a habitual bullshitter.
Link to any of those other bullshits?
Most have exactly ONE option and on vehicles where there's a base and a performance model,
Sold in the US, sure. Look at how many models and ratings they sell globally.
But the customers actually have the hardware (batteries) that can support that extra range, just not software access to the extra 15 kWh -- which means Tesla is overcharging (no pun intended) everyone on the hardware - and/or that it isn't priced according to scarcity.
The price of the hardware is rarely the issue. Pick any car on the market which has a base price of $30,000 and then add all the optional features; you'll hit a price tag of $45,000+. The hardware for those features does not cost $15,000. Nor does the laber to install it. If you get an aftermarket shop to do it you can likely have all $15,000 worth of stuff for $5,000. If you get the hardware and install it yourself you can probably do it at under $3,000.
Companies charge more for the extra features because they know that the customers who want them are willing to pay a premium. This increases the profit margin on those vehicles tremendously, which offsets the much lower margins on the basic models. The result is that those who can afford it pay a lot more, while those on a budget pay less. The alternative would be charging "fair" prices on all features and bumping up the cost of the low-end models to compensate.
Tesla has basically done the same thing. They have three options:
1. Sell only one model with the same battery capacity for everyone. This eliminates the high-end surcharge but also increases the cost of the base model.
2. Make two physically different batteries and sell them for two different prices. This lets them maintain different tiers like they do today, but also increases manufacturing costs which would mean one or both models would end up being more expensive.
3. Offer identical hardware, but charge extra to unlock the full capacity of the battery. This keeps manufacturing costs down while allowing you to maintain different tiers. It also allows current low-end owners to later "upgrade" without requiring a costly shop visit. And as a side benefit it allows you to give them extra range in an emergency.
#3 seems like a clear winner to me. Not sure why anyone would argue against it.
You paid for a 60kWh battery and got a 70kWh battery with artificial restrictions. Just wait until this bullshit comes to the medical world. Editing your DNA to give your kid blue eyes costs $150, but we also noticed he is predisposed for cancer. Editing DNA to fix that will cost $75,000 even though we use the exact same techniques and processes.
Presumably this means they're overcharging for one and undercharging for the other. Easy fix. Get the cheaper one done there, then go elsewhere for the other.
How in the world did you ever convince yourself that this would be a problem? If Ford tries to charge you $1,500 for an optional stereo system, do you throw a fit? Or do you just go to an aftermarket shop and get them to install an equally capable one for $500?
It makes sense for software, where there is no additional cost. But if it's cheaper for the manufacturer to give someone a full pack rather than a smaller pack, then it makes no sense to even have two versions. If a customer decides to never upgrade, we're just wasting perfectly good battery cells.
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."
If you use the room/seat, then the crew needs to come and clean/restock it. That's extra cost to them.
You're not paying for the bar, you're paying for the drinks. Horrible analogy.
Reminds me of a number of incidents of downselling crippled hardware in the 20th century computer industry. Mainframes that ran with different clock speeds (model differing only by a jumper), for instance. Multi-CPU mainframes where extras served as spares and you paid for a firmware unlock, which paid for their higher risk of running out of spares if something fired and having to actually tear it open and replace a much-of-a-megabuck board.
One was a pair of 1960s IBM low-end page printers that differed only in model markings and firmware-controlled print speed. The faster printer was the same hardware, but all those moving parts wore out a lot more and needed more maintenance.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same.
But their manufacturing costs are a lot lower if they build a lot of one model than if they design two models, build less of both, and manage more inventory items and assembly combinations. This can be enough to make a big battery pack software-crippled to 4/5ths of its potential capacity be substantially cheaper than building a 4/5th sized one to start with.
It also means that the packs are not discharged as far, which can extend their life and reduce warranty costs.
Still better, it lets them unlock the extra capacity in emergencies and spend a little extra warranty risk to maybe save the lives, families, pets, and valuables of some customers. Even a psychopath can see the financial benefit of keeping some customers alive and happy enough with your product to buy more in the future, even if it costs a few warranty repairs later.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"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."
Can you imagine if a real automotive manufacturer pulled this shit? Imagine if Ford, for example, offered to sell you an F150 with a 32 gallon gas tank, but had built-in software in the Engine Control Computer Module that would cut off the fuel pump and shut down the ignition system whenever it detects only 6 gallons of fuel, or less in the tank, in the hopes that you'll get good and sick and tired of the reduced range, call them up, and pay them some more money so they will remotely change the software so that you're able to drive until the fuel is literally completely exhausted?
Meanwhile, the whole time you're driving this thing around, you're carrying around a bunch of dead-weight, (which sounds, in the case of the "Tesla" car, something like 20% of the battery's not-insubstantial-weight,) which you can't access without coughing up extra money. In the meantime, the extra weight means your car uses more energy per unit distance traveled, extra wear and tear on your "car's" bearings, wheels, brakes,... basically the entire suspension, propulsion and braking systems, making it harder for you to stop, (increasing the odds of a front-end collision, by the way,) just to fuck you for a little more money.
What a great way to screw and nickel-and-dime your customers. Remind me never to buy one of their piece of shit cars. They're basically overpriced toys with Bonus, Premium 'DLC'.
Fuck 125% of that shit.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
You need to reflect on the economics of the situation. It was paid for. Certainly Tesla has charged sufficient to pay for all materials and make money by selling at the lower price point. It's *all* paid for.
Tesla offered a deal to these customers and the customers took the deal. If Tesla offered to sell the car for less money with a software-limited battery, and if the customer agreed to the deal, then it's a done deal and there is no point in you complaining about it.
I don't love artificial market segmentation like this, but I understand it. Tesla had a higher cost of materials when they sold a 75 kWh battery pack as a 60 kWh pack; but they saved on not having to manufacture two different sizes of pack, and it allowed them to offer a lower price to some customers. And they knew that some nonzero number of customers will pay later to have the extra capacity unlocked.
It's no different from Microsoft selling Windows at different price levels, even though all the R&D work was already all done. Microsoft's cost of goods is the same for different levels of Windows Server, and the different versions are literally some registry settings apart.
It's no different from Intel selling two different CPUs for two different prices, and under the hood they are the same CPU design with a fuse blown to disable features.
Actually, the software locked battery is different from the above scenarios in two ways: 0) the customer can pay Tesla an upgrade fee and get the battery unlocked, and 1) A software-locked "60 kWh" battery that's really a 75 kWh battery can be charged to 100% every day without harm. (Tesla recommends charging to no more than 90% level on a daily basis, so an actual 60 kWh battery pack is treated as a 54 kWh pack most of the time.)
This is simply Tesla puffing smoke and twisting mirrors to pretend that these are different products when they just are not. I'm simply not believing that there's any real R&D in the charging software to justify a price difference based on the software load. It's simply an *artificial* limitation.
I've never seen Tesla make any claims that R&D costs or any other costs justify this. They offered a lower price if some of the battery was disabled, full stop. (By the way: they don't do it anymore. They only offer two battery pack sizes now, and both are sold only at their actual capacity.)
If one came featureless and the other with navigation software and maps - that's also materially different and worthy of a price option.
But if both cars had the hardware to run the navigation software, then by your own logic Tesla should throw in the software for free, since the car owners already paid for the hardware and Tesla's R&D on the software is complete. It's the exact same argument. How dare Tesla choose to sell a car without the nav software and maps installed, when it wouldn't cost them any extra to just throw those in! Well, I consider it reasonable that Tesla want to get paid for the software, to help cover the costs of the R&D at Tesla (for the software and/or anything else). Similarly, I consider it reasonable that Tesla tried to get as much money as a customer is willing/able to pay by offering different levels of battery pack size, even if the lowest level was software locked.
Are you upset that every Tesla doesn't come with "Autopilot" enabled? Every new Tesla (all the latest Model S and X and every single Model 3) comes with the hardware for "Autopilot" but Tesla charges thousands of dollars to enable it. Do you think that Tesla should throw in the "Autopilot" software for free since the hardware was already paid for?
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
That sounds like a useful feature. Can the owner of a 75kWh pack set it to 60 kWh ?
"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,"
The option was more about offering a less expensive battery pack without having to produce a different size pack, which helps streamline production.
Can somebody explain how a 75 kWh battery pack in the 60 kWh version is cheaper than the 75 kWh battery pack in the 75 kWh version? If they are both the same 75 version... how is one 'cheaper' than the other?
Despite all of that, it is still, factually, a 75 kWh battery. Tesla just gave you software to access 60 kWh of it.
And since you paid for it, you own it. It is your personal property. It's your car.
People mod their cars all the time, though. That's the great thing about owning your own car. You can do what you want with it. You can't mod a rental car. Well, you can but I wouldn't recommend it.
Let's say you really want a Ferrari, but you're just too poor to own one. One day you pass a guy selling his Farrari, and you stop and admire it, but explain to him that you can't afford it.
"Hey", he says, "I'll tell you what ... I'll sell you this car for 1/10th the price, so long as you don't drive it over 60 Mph ... "I mean, I want your money, I want you to have a Ferrari, but I don't want you to get the enjoyment out of it that a wealthier person would."
Homeboy plunks down the cash and drives off. He gets on the freeway and proceeds to floor it.
According to you, the guy is a thief. The cool thing about opinions is that everyone gets to have one of their very own. Even if they promise others that they won't have one. You're entitled to have one anyway.
And dude is entitled to drive his car anyway he wants (well, within the traffic laws at least). Upon spotting him doing 70 in the fast lane, the seller could sue him (you can sue anyone for anything), but he's not going to get arrested for theft.
Why?
Because even he may be a theif to you, but the law doesn't agree with your opinion. When you're Anonymous Coward, it rarely does.
Kudos for not putting your ID next to that little diatribe. That one I agree with you on.
An interesting feature would be to test who actually owns that battery, fitted to the vehicle. Tesla claim to own and control it but it is in the vehicle you own and control, so what right of control can Tesla claim over it. Can you bill them for carrying around their battery, extra mass uses extra energy and they claim it is theirs. What happens if you hack it, legally demand access, in your vehicle they put it there, they gave it to you, you have to carry it around at your cost, so whose is it really.
If I was carrying it around at my expense, I would sue for access to it or sue to bill them for that cost.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Something that you can simply put into the trunk (or frunk if you will), or something that you can pass to driver in need who ran out of electricity. Does something like that exist? If no, why not?
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
You can set the maximum charge state and ensure that you don't run it down to less than 10%.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
1. It's not clear that the larger battery has an efficiency cost. The extra size comes with extra mass, but it should also come with better regeneration.
2. You bought the car with a certain specification (in terms of range and efficiency). The car meets that specification. What's your beef?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Really? You pay for using the bar, not the drinks inside? All the hotels I have been to were charging for the drinks, not the bar. I could put anything inside and keep it cool just fine without any extra fee.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of fuel stations can't manually pump out the fuel in case they run out of power?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The airlines I use let me spread out onto the adjacent seat for free if it is unoccupied. Once I was able to make a bed out of a row of 4... Best long distance flight I ever did.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same.
But their manufacturing costs are a lot lower if they build a lot of one model than if they design two models, build less of both, and manage more inventory items and assembly combinations. This can be enough to make a big battery pack software-crippled to 4/5ths of its potential capacity be substantially cheaper than building a 4/5th sized one to start with.
It also means that the packs are not discharged as far, which can extend their life and reduce warranty costs.
Still better, it lets them unlock the extra capacity in emergencies and spend a little extra warranty risk to maybe save the lives, families, pets, and valuables of some customers. Even a psychopath can see the financial benefit of keeping some customers alive and happy enough with your product to buy more in the future, even if it costs a few warranty repairs later.
If it's cheaper to them why is it more expensive to the consumer? And if the unlocked battery is going to be more expensive to maintain, then why is it more expensive to buy? Also why even bother having two models using the exact same parts, just sell the one to everyone and put the price in the middle. I guess it's nice to know some benevolent overlord can give your car extra power in moments of crisis if you ignore the fact they can basically fuck with car from distance whenever they want and you're lugging extra weight so they can save a few bucks and charge you some extra down the road.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
But they got the exact same hardware anyway.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
No, they did not. They paid for a 60kWh battery, and they are getting 60kWh.
You don't get to claim they bought a 75kWh battery when the owner has no receipt for it, explicitly told the sales guy they don't want the 75kWh battery and only want to pay for the 60kWh battery, and only have a receipt for a 60kWh battery.
You are simply lying, they did NOT pay for what they don't have.
You're just a thief that wants more more more for free free free.
They said they wanted the 60 so they got the 75 that was locked to 60. If they didn't how would tesla be able to magic them extra electricity?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
As a buyer of a long range, affordable EV you now have a few options.
Model 3 Short Range
Hyundai Kona
Kia Niro
Bolt EV
Leaf 60 (due this year)
The Model 3 at $35,000 is by far the most expensive, but also has the lowest range and is extremely low spec and spartan. Oh, and that's list price, and Tesla doesn't do discounts.
So as a buyer you have to ask yourself why it costs so much, and the answer is that it comes with a bunch of stuff that you pay for but can't use, like the autopilot sensors. So maybe you would prefer a car that gives you more usable stuff for your money.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
that's what i really hate about this, you already have the hardware, but it is restricted through software..
Warning: enabling this setting will allow your battery to drain past what is safe for extended lifetime of the vehicle,
Read again the summary.
The batteries are actually 75kWh batteries.
But when buying the car it's possible to ask them to be artificially limited to 60kWh and get a rebate.
Draining them to 75kWh is in no way unsafe to the batteries themselves, they were designed for that.
It's just Tesla offering to temporarily disable this agreed limitation, for free.
Whereas under normal circumstance, the user is free to ask it removed, but needs to pay (conceptually: needs to return the rebate).
It's a way to pay less now, and then get more further down the line by paying the extra at a later time.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
What? And I just took the bath. Was I not supposed to when they asked if I wanted to take one?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Whether its using the full 75kwh or software throttled to 60kwh, its still the same battery and Tesla's manufacturing cost is exactly the same. If they can sell the car for $xxxx with the battery artificially limited to 60k then they can sell it for the same price without the limit.
It's a bit more complicated than that :
- market segmentation is a thing. read-up on that.
The demand/offer balance you've been hearing in school is a gross over-simplification. Items aren't simply sold at the price the market can bear.
As a company, you don't just want to sell at the perfect price point. As a company, you actually want to cover as many diverse price-points at possible. Because otherwiese you'd be still missing all the money that the "poorer" customer would be okay to throw at your product, and customer who'd be willing to pay you even more will only pay a lower price.
Thus you segment your market. You invent alternative "Deluxe" and "bagrain" offers targetting the lower end and higher end segment. And you try to make these product distinctive.
Tesla is doing that by, at one (higher) end offering bigger battery (batteries which are actually 100kWh under the hood) that they sell fur much more, and tons of high-margin options (there no way that the camera for the autopilot cost a total of 5000$).
At the other end, they also need to sell cheaper car for those who are only willing to pay less. The simplest way to do it, is to offer to limit the battery in exchange of a rebate - I works not so bad, because the potential buyer won't be feeling to be missing out by not going for the more expensive option : they can still pay at a later point to get the full battery ( <- this makes the people not wanting the expensive model even less reluctant to settle with the cheap option)
On the other hand, compared with Microsoft who is selling 20 different variations of Windows - which are all slight different configuration parameters (actually yes, just register the same DVD with a different product key and you get a different set of software based on what tier of Windows is that key for) - each sold at a different price, Tesla is pretty much tame.
- profits
Tesla isn't a government run plan to bring you the cheapest possible EV.
Tesla is acompany, and they are allowed to make money.
Even more so, if you squint a bit, you'll notice (given the invested money) that the current business of Tesla is *building manufacturing capabilities for EV*.
They are basically in the business of building factories but in order to offset the costs of the factory, they'll sell you an expensive lithium-battery, and for that price, they'll bolt a complimentary (relatively cheap) car body on that battery.
In the current phase Tesla needs as much money as possible to throw on their factory building (that's why some are accusing them of being unable to make money).
They'll do every single possible trick for that :
- they'll segement the model S market as much as possible to be able to sell even more units
- they'll currently only sell the high-end variations of Model 3, because they are a higher-margin, and only sell the cheapest variations later.
Thus make even more profits (on the cars) and get a little bit more on the precious financial ressource they need to finish building their manufacturing capability.
Once again we see money-grubbing Jews {...}
For your information, Elon Musk happens to be non-religious.
in action, always trying to squeeze the customer for more money.
a.k.a. pretty much standard variety capitalism.
If you're not happy with that, vote with your wallet, don't buy a Tesla.
Go see instead what Renault is collaborating in Portugal for a more state sponsored (more socialist / less capitalist) approach to EV. Go buy a Zoé instead.
(But beware, these only come with up to 44kWh battery with around 200-somethingish range (a.k.a. "400km NEDC"). On the other hand you don't need to buy the battery, you can also rent)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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?
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. 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.
I'd imagine fewer warranty issues with a throttled battery
actually, nope. with the currently available numbers it seems that the battery management system of Tesla is doing a wonderful work.
even when used at 100% they age very well.
It's just that Tesla is accepting to sell at a lower margin if it can make them sell more car (more profits at the end, and they need the money badly to invest into building their manufacturing capability).
And put the software limit as a way to keep the higher-margin car more desirable.
And making it a software limit, so that users wanting to pay less are less reluctant to pick the cheaper variant, because they know they can reverse at later point of time by paying (conceptually, returning back the rebate they have)
Basically :
Tesla : here's this car, it cost XXX ...but we can make you a deal. You pay for half a car now (as long as you promise to use it only as a half car), and you pay the other half later (when you feel like using it fully)
User: Hum, it's expensive. Can you sell me only half a car for less ?
Tesla : Well, we can't make only half a car...
User: bummer!
Tesla :
(except that, given the money involve, it's actually a battery you're buying from Tesla, with a cheap complimentary car body bolted-in on the top)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I do still see a benefit in artificially limiting the available battery capacity. As rechargeable batteries age, they are unable to hold as much of a charge. So selling a 75 kWh battery pack artificially locked to 60 kWh should allow the car to retain the ability to recharge to 60 kWh capacity for longer than if it was a 60 kWh pack, right? Unless I misunderstand something about batteries, which is entirely possible.
In a big over simplification: yes.
Except that :
- it happens that the BMS (battery management system) of Tesla is doing a marvelous job beyond any expectations, current in the wild data seem to show that batteries haven't aged as dramatically as some have expected. (The oldest would be at 70kWh by now, still more than the 60kWh capacity)
- charging less is also a life extending feature on batteries (a battery locked to 60kWh will probably have only degraded to say 72-73kWh).
to the point that the "lock" is a user-accessible setting. Any user can decide to only use 50kWh of their battery if they want - only the max ceiling is artificially limited for some.
Metaphorically:
every car comes with a slider going 0 to 10 deciding how much deep you'll discharge a battery (for battery longevity purpose).
If you let Tesla screw a bolt that blocks the slider going higher than 7, they'll give you a rebate.
If you want to unscrew the bolt, you return the rebate.
(If you only want to use half of the battery, you're allowed to pay only half for now. Pay the other half to use the rest).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
That sounds like a useful feature. Can the owner of a 75kWh pack set it to 60 kWh ?
Yes. Any Tesla cars allows you to choose not to do 100% deep discharge, but only shallower cycles.
This is supposed to help even more on battery longevity.
Metaphorically, every single cars comes with a slider going 0 to 10 that sets how deep the cycle go.
Tesla can give you a rebate if you let them screw in a blot that blocks this slider going above 7.
You can metaphorically pay the rebate back if you want to be able to use all the slider range up to 10 if you end up wanting it after all.
Figuratively you can pay for only half a battery if you want to only use half a battery.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
When you look at it :
- you want to use only half a battery, and you paid half a battery.
- because there's no such thing as half a battery for now, Tesla gives you actually a full battery, but you both agree that you will only use half of it and tesla will only bill you for half of it.
So basically, the battery is co-own, you own (and have paid) for your half of the battery, the half you use, Tesla owns the other half which you didn't pay for.
You can buy back the other half at a later point (great agument for those customer who were reluctant to only have a real half-battery).
During huricanes, Tesla happily lend you their half for free.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yep. Nothing says fleeing from an emergency like sitting around for half an hour waiting for their cars to recharge. Can you imagine how bad the lines for charging points would look if most cars ran on electric? Most cars would probably run out waiting in line, and it's not like you can just carry a can of electricity to recharge your car.
When Elon's done we'll all be driving through tunnels. Hurricanes won't be a problem any more.
No sig today...
Intel underclocks and locks cores because if they didn't do the practice called binning, they'd have to throw out those chips. Binned products cannot be run at full spec because of manufacturing defects. If you override that, you are taking the huge gamble that your processor will fail in odd ways.
In theory yes.
In practice : not quite.
Due to how law of offer and demand work in market segmentation, they might end up binning a little bit more thing in the lower bins, if it helps them sell more SKU at more profit. (Rather than selling all SKU at their "true capability" at a lower price)
Mostly due to the high-end SKU being targetted at :
- extreme enthusiasts (people with more money than brain and/or who'll throw any money required to get the fastest thing possible)
- big corporate customers building HPC centers (entity with enormous budget, who won't shun throwing a bit more money to buy the best hardware they can - specially given that this price isn't that much impressive when compared to the support contracts, operating costs, etc.)
So lowering the price of the high-end SKU might make Intel lose on the extra money they could make of that market, which is where mostly this SKU are sold.
From that point, they could :
- trade out the unsold extra high-end SKU on special market (mostly education : such as universities building HPC centers. You know, you need to hook them while they are still young^H doing their PhD, so you give them their first shot free^H give them their first HPC cheap.) (Then they'll insist to having the same toys once they graduate and start working in the corporate world)
- put a bit of the extra unsold extra high-end SKUs in the lower bin right underneath. They'll still make a magrin on them, just a lower than the high-end high -margin one.
i.e.: keep artificial scarcity to rake up artificially keep the price, if the end result is that they'll make more money this way, rather than lowering the price to sell more units.
Thus, unlocked and overclocking is also an extra gamble : maybe, you processor was a "down-binned" one and you can overclock it beyond madness.
Back in the Celeron era, it was popular to buy a bunch of CPUs, to find the overclocking unicorn hidden in the middle and return the remaining to get your money.
That is different from Tesla because they don't bin their battery packs, in fact you can pay the more money later and unlock the higher capacity.
Same with the mad overclockable Intel CPUs, except Intel doesn't ask you any money for that.
It would be like buying a three-cushion sofa recliner, but you can only use it as a non-reclining love seat until you pay either the reclining fee or the third-cushion-unlock fee.
...in a context where the furniture manufacturing plant is unable to make sofas without the recliner part for technical reasons (would be to expensive to have it installed optionnally on demand, rather than on every product).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Speaking of which... it's much simpler to make electricity than fuel.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Not unless they paid for the privilege. They agreed to the deal when they bought the car. If they didn't like that deal they can buy something else. And there is nothing preventing a technically competent person from taking control of the hardware and software if they decide to do so. This would obviously void any warranty support not required by law or contract from Tesla but they are free to make that choice.
The fact that they can change it any way, the fact that they can restrict your ability to change configurable settings with your device/thingy/car/anything is unacceptable.
Unacceptable to you maybe but obviously not to the people that bought these cars. I understand your objections and I support free software too but part of freedom is having the right to make bad choices too. There is no bright line distinction between having the ability to enable/disable features remotely versus doing so by flashing firmware without a network connection by a dealer during service. It's the same action at the end of the day and the car maker isn't allowed by law to change things you didn't explicitly agree to in a contract. You didn't decide what the engine mappings were for the car you are driving now are and that's no different. You can change them yourself if you want to but the maker of your car is under no obligation to support that decision or the consequences of it. Tesla sold a vehicle with a particular feature set. You can change it if you want but Tesla is only going to support the vehicle under the terms they sold it. The buyer of the Tesla agreed to these terms at time of purchase.
But its your decision and anyone having control of anything on someone elses thing that wasn't explicitly allowed by the owner is operating malware.
It was explicitly allowed by the owner when they bought the car. You can be 100% certain that they signed a document agreeing to those terms.
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.
I attended a public talk by a representative of General Electric at a university. Such talks are often in connection with recruitment of graduates to work at that company.
The speaker explained warranty contracts with the airlines for jet engines that he called "power-by-the-hour." The purchase of an engine is hence not just "for an engine" but rather for a certain amount of useful life out of the engine under specified operating conditions.
The speaker further explained the concept of a "power rating" of a jet engine, stating that "the pilot doesn't get to do just anything with the throttle levers." It was explained that a key wear and maintenance item in an engine is the first row of turbine blades exposed to the most heat, and the maximum power used on takeoff exposes them to heat that expands them to wear against their casing. A specified "rating" instructs the pilot to advance the throttles to no more than an upper level of a temperature gauge or RPM reading, essentially giving the amount of thrust intended to operate the particular aircraft. The same engine on a heavier version of the aircraft may be assigned a higher rating that puts more stress on the engine, but the airline pays more money to operate the engine in that service.
I interpret this to mean that in an emergency, a pilot may "firewall" the throttles to exceed the rating and void the warranty or perhaps incur contractual penalty payments to the airline, but when life and property is in danger, you don't worry about the extra expense.
It may seem like it complicates operation of an airplane that the crew needs to observe an "engine rating" and not operate the engines past the redline for the contracted service condition -- the pilot is supposed to worry about terms of a financial contract with the airline when flying the airplane? But that is the "culture" of aviation -- the pilot is trained to fly the airplane according to the handbook and manufacturers instructions but there are no governors or restrictors or limiters -- the pilot can exceed those limits if emergency conditions warrant -- like Kirk ordering Scotty to go faster when the Klingons are chasing them.
That could be the situation with Tesla, only Tesla and not the driver is enabling operation past the limit. On the other hand, it could be like the jumper on the 1970's era mainframe computer, where you paid serious money for a technician to unplug the jumper and give you a higher clock rate.
Without some enormous improvements in technology -- range and charging time -- a country full of electric cars is going to be a big problem when a significant disaster strikes.
A country full of gasoline powered cars is a big problem with significant disaster strikes. The only difference is the exact details of the problems.
Anyway I can charge any electric car with a generator OR with grid power. Good luck refueling a gasoline powered car with grid electricity if gasoline isn't available. If anything EVs are actually more resilient in this regard with a tiny amount of advanced planning. Generators can be powered with gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, etc. Plus if the power goes out I can (in principle) actually use my EV to power my house or equipment for a substantial period of time. Gasoline powered vehicles are generally less helpful in this regard.
One thing I'm baffled by is why EV manufacturers aren't pushing the capability of using the huge traction battery in EVs as a means to power homes in the event of a power outage. I get there are some technical and legal challenges but these are comparatively minor and easily overcome. My Chevy Bolt EV has a 60kWh batter which could power my house for several days in a power outage if I had a means to do connect it. I would think this would be a HUGE marketing advantage over gasoline powered cars. I'm mildly surprised Tesla hasn't worked this angle yet.
Given that this is a story about the hurricane and the need to evacuate, it is a good time to bring up something I've pondered.
For those people saying the future is self-driving ride shares such as Uber/Lyft, etc. How would those get allocated when evacuating an area due to a hurricane.
That would give a whole new meaning to "surge pricing".
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car.
Of course they should. Also, pilots should be free to tinker with the flight control software in the airplanes they fly. Personal freedom should always trump public safety.
The 75k version is more expensive because it puts more wear and strain on the cells, which has implications on maintenance and warranty. Batteries really start to degrade when your charge them above 80% or discharge them below 40% of physical cell capacity. The 60k and 75k use a different definition of 0% and 100% of capacity visible to the user.
Would current infrastructure even be able to handle the power load? I'm talking 'in the middle of nowhere' infrastructure.
Even in the middle of somewhere, the infrastructure is currently inadequate. California has rolling blackouts during peak load times not because consumption exceeds production, but because consumption approaches infrastructure capacity.
It's like on-disc DLC for cars.
The Golden Rule of marketing is to price a good or a service at what each individual customers is willing to pay, and yes, the "options racket" is a way of charging customers different amounts for nearly the same thing.
The airlines have gone into this in a big way, not only with the system for offering cheaper tickets for advanced purchase, inconvenient times, or having to change in Atlanta, but also the upgrade fees for checked bags, extra legroom, or being the first person to exit the plane in case it catches fire after landing.
Oracle is moving towards segmenting the market for the Java JDK/JRE, where it remains free if you are on the treadmill to use only the latest version with security updates (and no more 32-bit X86 either), otherwise you pay. And there are no posted prices as you are supposed to call Oracle to be asked, "How much are you willing to spend?"
You could say that the 15K for the basket of options is "pure profit", but how do you know that the 30K for the baseline car is offering the car "at cost"? Running a car company, you basically are paying salaries, hourly wages, fringes and money to suppliers of parts, your factory and insurance utilities, and then you have money coming in from the sale of cars along with income streams from your captive leasing and financing subsidiary for customers not paying in cash up front. If the money coming in exceeds the money going out, you are "cash flow positive" and you are running "a going concern."
But what if the stamping presses need to be changed because after a couple years your car "is stale" to your customers and you need to "freshen it" by changing a few curves in the car's outline? What if government emission regulations will require major engineering changes to your powertrain by 2025? How are you going to pay for that -- take out loans that require interest payments? Sell more stock to investors expecting either cash dividend payments or a level of paper "returns"?
So you don't really know what it "costs" to build the base car let alone the "options." If no customer bought the 15K options package that costs you little to add on, is your company going to "go under" in a few years for the reasons given above? So maybe the 30K base car is "sold at a loss" to the cheapskates who forgo the "extras", but it "segments your market" and maximizes revenue from your line of cars?
This is the dilemma that Tesla is in especially because they or no one else really knows what it costs to make their cars, especially when they are incurring heavy "cap-ex" spending to grow their production of cars to meet burgeoning demand. The cash coming in from all of those Model 3's rolling of their line, however, will have to pay off the large amount they owe suppliers along with some big loan payments coming due, and if they don't synchronize the march of money in the door with money going out the door, poof!, Chapter 11 bankruptcy and that 40-50 billion dollars in share holdings at around $300/share last time I checked vanishes.
But no one really knows what it "costs" to make a Tesla -- it is all accounting formulas, that is, until they stiff someone they owe a large payment and the whole thing collapses, or they squeak through and they dominate the world automotive market.
It's not about what you do.
It's about what you CAN do.
How long before the FBI are insisting that you silently include a way for them to do the same and bring any Tesla they want to a halt or track it's location? They're doing it for everything from ISPs to encryption, you think they never would want to stop a car? Or that they wouldn't insist you do it under a serious NDA?
I have a 2016 model Ford. I know that the car can't talk home because it just doesn't have that capability. Without the capability, it can't be made to do anything, by anyone. Nobody can remotely apply its brakes or disable its engine. It just doesn't have that level of technology.
Hell, there's an option. I could buy a 3G dongle and connect it to the net and that might well let it talk home and thus be able to do those things. But why would I? And why would I have that dongle all ALL THE TIME?
Like with government controls, ID cards, etc. etc. it's not what you ARE doing, it's what you COULD do if you so desired, and hence what - say - a dictator, rogue intern or enemy state could do if they wanted. Your girlfriend works for the FBI or Tesla? Better hope they don't allow her to see the map data that rats you out, or cut your braking power remotely.
If you don't have the CAPABILITY to do things like that, they can't be misused.
A lot of modern ICE vehicles have cylinder deactivation, for example where a V-8 will run on only 4 or 6 cylinders to improve fuel economy.
Maybe these companies can take a page from Tesla's book, and sell their V-8 powered vehicles, but software limited so they only use 4 or 6 cylinders all the time unless you pay for an upgrade to extra functional cylinders.
Or not. Probably the buyers of normal cars and trucks are smarter than that.
and/or that it isn't priced according to scarcity.
Not at all. The charge level is priced according to scarcity and profit margin. The actual hardware doesn't need to be. People buy a combination of hardware and software. Don't believe me? Take a modern car, rip out the ECU and throw it in a bin, and then drive here and give me your complaints personally.
Telsa isn't overcharging anyone, not unless you can point to another car with identcal range, charge, shape, body and functionality for a lower price.
The buyers made an explicit choice to NOT pay for the additional range, in the full understanding that they wouldn't get that feature.
They just got the extra weight, which is totally in keeping with the whole efficiency theme.
Thank you! Sadly, today is the day I don't have mod points.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
One of the more dramatic examples of Intel doing this was with the old Celeron 300 MHz. Apparently they were 450 MHz chips that may or may not have passed QC. They could be over-clocked with a mother board setting. I had one, and the over-clocked PC worked great except that occasionally the graphics card or something couldn't keep up, resulting in bit barf. You could clear it by refreshing the screen. It was cool to watch big programs compile noticeably faster. In the end, I decided to roll it back and run at 300 though, to extend the life of the hardware.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Owners should have complete control of their software/hardware even if it is a car. The fact that they can change it any way, the fact that they can restrict your ability to change configurable settings with your device/thingy/car/anything is unacceptable. Sure put a warning on it that you may be changing things that affect the longevity of your thing. But its your decision and anyone having control of anything on someone elses thing that wasn't explicitly allowed by the owner is operating malware. Teslas come preloaded with malware that allows this.
In that case, you need to scream and yell at IBM. They have been doing stuff like that for years with their mainframes. The hardware and software are all installed, but you buy a certain level of performance and pay more when you need more.... You don't get the full woody package outright unless you pay for it.
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
But there are well known peak consumption times (afternoons on hot days) and those times are not when most car charging is happening (overnight). Depending on where you live, you can pay lower rates for electricity during off peak hours and electric cars are set up to take advantage of that.
The Chevy Volt and I'm sure many other EVs can be configured to only charge during certain times of the day. So you plug it in at let's say 6:00 pm when you get home but it won't start charging until 8:00 or whenever the cheaper rate kicks in.
lol wut?
I think we stay at very different hotels. I prefer those that don't treat the guest like dirt.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I actually stayed at a hotel a while back that had a note saying they'd add a charge if you used the minibar as a fridge.
Was rather ridiculous.
Think about the implications for this. If they can increase range for a natural disaster, what's to stop "them" from decreasing the range or even preventing you from driving at all for whatever nefarious reasons you can think of? Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.
And then the manufacturer saying "hey we can toggle this bit here to turn on 2 more cylinders for the tidy sum of $5k". Very scammy for this, for locked cpus, gpus and basically anywhere where this mechanism is allowed and implemented
But if it's cheaper for the manufacturer to give someone a full pack rather than a smaller pack, then it makes no sense to even have two versions
It makes sense when people are willing to pay more for the "larger" pack.
Capitalism isn't about the ideal and/or fair use of resources.
Are you suggesting that Tesla is endangering the public safety by allowing these people to use more of their battery?
Except ... they did pay for it. It is right there in the car they bought, inaccessible only due to an artificial lockout.
The price of a good or service only has a tenuous relationship with the cost to make that good or service. The price is primarily what people are willing to pay.
If you'd like an example of this working in the opposite direction, virtually every new generation of game console is sold at a price below what it costs to make the console (As time passes the production costs go down so eventually Microsoft and Sony make money on later hardware sales).
People who want the shorter range are willing to pay enough to cover the cost of making the longer-range battery.
People who want the longer range are willing to pay even more.
Capitalism isn't about the ideal and/or fair use of materials.
A Cadillac _____ is identical to a Buick _____ which is identical to a Chevrolet ______.
Each step in that chain is more expensive, yet the cost to make the car is virtually identical.
Or to keep it tech-related, a high-end i7 chip is the same physical object as a low-end i7 chip. They cost exactly the same to manufacture. But Intel charges more for the fast one, even though the slow one may not have any defects that prevent it from running fast.
The cost of an item at retail only has a slight connection to the manufacturing cost of the item. People assume it's tightly coupled because we inherently understand manufacturing cost, but the effects of marketing on consumers is not easy to see.
Because the buyer said they could when they signed the contract to buy the car.
ah the good old days.
Don't give them ideas. Luggage used to be free too. And sodas. And full leg room (which is now "premium" leg room).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'll be staying at a beachhouse in october.
Use of the complex pier to fish is extra. I can fish from the shore for free.
Tiered pricing has been a thing for two generations. I don' t know why people are pretending they never heard of it now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I love Japanese cars and am going to buy maruti suzuki celerio in red, I think it looks spectacular. This car is not too big, but the interior is comfortable and the characteristics suit me. At the price it turns out quite profitable, especially since Japanese cars are long and do not require constant repair.
Of course not. Of course, your comment is a blatant strawman, as the comment I was responding to said that car owners should have COMLETE CONTROL over their car's hardware and software. Affecting how much of the battery gets used is a far cry from complete control.
Battery capacity is somewhat nebulous. Operating the battery at a lower capacity extends operating life
Yeah, I totally agree with that. (And Tesla apparently have settings allowing the and user to artificially limit the battery to shallower cycles to extend their life).
But the parent AC poster was saying that forcing a 60kWh vehicle to pack 75kWh was pushing it past what is safe for extended lifetime of the vehicle,.
Whereas 75kWh on these vehicle is still safe. They weren't limited to 60kWh for safety issue. They were limited for rebates.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Well, you still paid for and own a 75kwh battery, but with the vendor only having unlocked 60kwh of it.
If you can get 75kwh out of your 75kwh battery, more power to you.
Pun intended.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife