GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
2016 Volt Premier, delivered Oct/15
Joined
·
637 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Just read that Tesla is charging $9k for a software update that will give and extra 40 miles range. No hardware changes. Sound like gouging to me.....hope GM doesn't even consider this tactic for their electric cars. Wonder if all they are doing is allowing the bottom end and top end cushion on the battery to be smaller?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Something is wrong.

AFAIK, the price on the other versions went up slightly.

You don't ship a car with $7k worth of gold bullion in the trunk, and hope they buy a trunk key in the future. Crazy.

This is a not a CAD system or other software project. This is hardware, and expensive hardware at that.

That being said, the S 60 is a best bargain so far from Tesla, but I doubt they are making money on it without creative accounting coming into play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
You have to understand that Tesla has a very high profit margin on their cars.

Also, this is not new, the Autopilot is a $2.5k software option, hardware is in all cars. What is worse is it is cheaper if you buy it at build time. Part of the reason Tesla on average are about $100 ;)

I imagine it costs Tesla less to give the 75 kWh battery than to build a 60 specifically for the car. They are charging $600/kWh for the upgrade when their costs are likely $150 / kWh, so even if only 1 in 5 buys the extended range option they are coming out ahead. My guess is many more than that will opt for 75 kWh.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Interesting move for a company which claims it is production limited! :)

Fair question about whether it makes sense. My guess is that it depends on how many buyers upgrade. Making all the cars the same should help with production costs. That seems like a more cost effective solution than re-engineering the battery pack and related systems. No doubt an established manufacturer wouldn't do it this way. It would simply make the decision at the point of production. Tesla may not have the same ability and fooling with the battery pack would likely require much higher volumes.

Tesla may also be positioning at a lower price point to fend off new entrants which will be entering the market in the next few years. That's not a bad idea.

But it is interesting and the new model is definitely the best value out there. For less money you're getting a nice buffer that protects you from battery degradation. Forty miles is not a big deal, and after a few years I doubt the range will be that different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
You have to understand that Tesla has a very high profit margin on their cars.

...
Tesla reports that they make 20% on each car. Yet as production numbers climb, so do losses.

Unless things change, Tesla will be out of cash this time next year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
my question would be even though it is a software limit... would they really see less degrade? that's assuming they are still charging evenly across the 75 Kwh battery and you just never are dipping into that upper range. Could they have isolated the a 15Kwh block so that module isn't getting energized/discharged in regular use?

If it's not isolated, if there was battery degradation (that is masked). When they offer the upgrade at a discount or someone just opts for it in 3-4 years and their 15Kwh upgrades doesn't actually yield another 15Kwh. I would imagine there would be some upset buyers in that scenario. If it is isolated, then users may want to manage their battery upper/lower limits like the Tesla owners today do AFAIK.

Above my skill set of knowledge and likely speculation at this point, but perhaps how the limit works is exactly known and I'm way off base where...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,156 Posts
Could they have isolated the a 15Kwh block so that module isn't getting energized/discharged in regular use?
If you turned off a block then you'd end up with mis-matched modules, with the unused modules having more capacity than the more heavily used one. Not good. Plus implementing this would be messy. So much easier to just limit the discharge window.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
This method of sales (charging extra for a software upgrade to utilize hardware that is already present) is not new. in the 1970's I worked with a UNIVAC 1110 computer system. This was one of the old behemoths that filled a ballroom sized room. I forget the exact size of the core memory cabinets, but they were about 0.5 Mb in a cabinet that measured about 4x8'!!. If the memory failed, the repair tech just threw a switch that activated another 0.5Mb in the same cabinet. If you had lots of dough, you could pay a premium and he could activate both segments and give you 1.0Mb without making any hardware upgrades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
This method of sales (charging extra for a software upgrade to utilize hardware that is already present) is not new. in the 1970's I worked with a UNIVAC 1110 computer system. This was one of the old behemoths that filled a ballroom sized room. I forget the exact size of the core memory cabinets, but they were about 0.5 Mb in a cabinet that measured about 4x8'!!. If the memory failed, the repair tech just threw a switch that activated another 0.5Mb in the same cabinet. If you had lots of dough, you could pay a premium and he could activate both segments and give you 1.0Mb without making any hardware upgrades.
While not new in the computer industry, it is relatively new in the automotive sector (to market pre-installed capability as upgradable for $$$ ). The latest advances in cars (BEV's) are blurring the line between a Desktop computer and the new (On Highway) computer.
From my view it seems if the capability is already in the car, then I must have paid for the hardware in the purchase price and therefore should have access to it, (unless they are selling it at a loss) and gambling there will be enough takers to reach at least break even. The automotive buying public at large might not take kindly to purchasing "hobbled" cars and being forced to pay more to get a capability that in the minds of many was already there on the day of purchase.

Guess we'll have to see how it plays out,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
One of the classic cases in recent times were the CPU Wars between Intel and AMD.

To make a cheaper version of the chip, the microcode and a pin disabled 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores on 4 or 6 core masks. Ditto for the clock speeds.

The hot ticket was to buy the engineering samples which had unlockable cores and clock mulipliers, or buy clever mobos that would trick a retail chip into unlocking cores.

BUT for cars, it's probably a lot less scientific.

Somebody smart should correct me, but IIRC, State Of Charge Windows are based on voltage alone. A "fooler" circuit that reports a false number for the voltage would allow more charging and discharging before it reported as full or empty.

Or am I missing something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
Just read that Tesla is charging $9k for a software update that will give and extra 40 miles range. No hardware changes. Sound like gouging to me.....hope GM doesn't even consider this tactic for their electric cars. Wonder if all they are doing is allowing the bottom end and top end cushion on the battery to be smaller?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/
You are funny.
Tesla is charging less for their RWD 60kWh than they did when it was last available.
If you want an upgrade to 75, you can buy it.
As an added bonus, you can also choose to get that update at a later time if you want.

If you feel it is price gouging, don't buy the upgrade. To me it sounds like a lot of flexibility for the customer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
Just read that Tesla is charging $9k for a software update that will give and extra 40 miles range. No hardware changes. Sound like gouging to me.....hope GM doesn't even consider this tactic for their electric cars. Wonder if all they are doing is allowing the bottom end and top end cushion on the battery to be smaller?

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/
You got it backwards.

They are charging about $15K less for a 75kWh battery than they were last month and locking off 15kWh of it with software, and then if you want the extra range they are only charging you $9,000 to have access to it.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,782 Posts
One of the classic cases in recent times were the CPU Wars between Intel and AMD.

To make a cheaper version of the chip, the microcode and a pin disabled 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores on 4 or 6 core masks. Ditto for the clock speeds.
The de-clocked chips were ones that wouldn't pass the normal clock speed. Yep, it's the same chip, but, not the same spec. Basically, they test all chips and relegated iffy ones to lower clock speeds. I suspect that de-cored ones had a defect in a core and they disabled it. They therefore have a larger percentage of 'good/serviceable' chips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
I expect they will do the 60kWh limit the same way they did the 40kWh limit on the S40's... they will leave the lower SOC limit the same and they will limit the upper SOC (in this case) to 80% of the safe max SOC (75kWh X 0.8 = 60kWh).

Only being able to charge to 80% will limit already negligible battery degradation. Tesla has an 8 year unlimited mile warranty on the battery. The other advantage is that charging a 75kWh battery to 80% will be much faster than charging the old school S60 (that actually had a 60kWh battery) to 100%.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
The de-clocked chips were ones that wouldn't pass the normal clock speed. Yep, it's the same chip, but, not the same spec. Basically, they test all chips and relegated iffy ones to lower clock speeds. I suspect that de-cored ones had a defect in a core and they disabled it. They therefore have a larger percentage of 'good/serviceable' chips.
Actually if they produced 100,000 chips and only had orders for 30,000 of the top level chips they would test chips until they had 30,000 that passed the tests to run at full speed, and then sell the other 70,000 at the slower clock speed. After they reached the production goal of 30,000 top of the line chips there was no need to spend time and money testing more chips, even if most of them would have passed the testing to run at top of the line clock speed. I loved buying cheap CPU's and then ramping them up until I reached their limits... most of them ran at more than the rated clock speed of the top of the line chips.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Actually if they produced 100,000 chips and only had orders for 30,000 of the top level chips they would test chips until they had 30,000 that passed the tests to run at full speed, and then sell the other 70,000 at the slower clock speed. After they reached the production goal of 30,000 top of the line chips there was no need to spend time and money testing more chips, even if most of them would have passed the testing to run at top of the line clock speed. I loved buying cheap CPU's and then ramping them up until I reached their limits... most of them ran at more than the rated clock speed of the top of the line chips.

Keith
Yes. Depending on the market, you might get a primo CPU with budget badging on it. In fact, it was really common.

At one point, nearly all dual core AMD chips were stable running 4 cores. And lots of Xeons with low clock speeds would run blinding fast. 2.66's running on air at 4.1 at 100% load 24/7/365 (Folding At Home).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,520 Posts
I expect they will do the 60kWh limit the same way they did the 40kWh limit on the S40's... they will leave the lower SOC limit the same and they will limit the upper SOC (in this case) to 80% of the safe max SOC (75kWh X 0.8 = 60kWh).

Only being able to charge to 80% will limit already negligible battery degradation. Tesla has an 8 year unlimited mile warranty on the battery. The other advantage is that charging a 75kWh battery to 80% will be much faster than charging the old school S60 (that actually had a 60kWh battery) to 100%.

Keith
The warranty is not against degradation, it's against failure. _Abnormal_ degradation would be a failure, I guess.

Tesla's idea here seems to be to try to keep the buyers who would be most likely to wait for the Model 3. Rather than producing 60kWh batteries they simply updated the firmware on a 75. So, they have a different product available without development cost, which makes sense, because this is a temporary measure.

A fake 60 is a better car (in terms of utility) than a real 60 because it has faster Supercharging than a 60 would have. Plus, with the battery never charged to 100%, there should be lower degradation.

Although there's hardware that they're now not getting money on, they will be able to get at least some money back in the future if it is _ever_ upgraded, whether as a CPO, by the original buyer or a later buyer, so the money isn't fully sunk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,340 Posts
Entry price gets people to buy the car. Then make upgrades later. Lower car payment for the loan, and when the $7500 tax credit comes, they can dump it with some cash to upgrade the battery, AP, or onboard charger.

If a customer never upgrades that 75kWh battery from the 60 it starts with, they'll trade it in later and Tesla unlocks the rest of the battery for resale as a 75. That "60" battery will have some of the lowest degradation, as well due to the big buffer not being used on the top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,661 Posts
Entry price gets people to buy the car. Then make upgrades later. Lower car payment for the loan, and when the $7500 tax credit comes, they can dump it with some cash to upgrade the battery, AP, or onboard charger.

If a customer never upgrades that 75kWh battery from the 60 it starts with, they'll trade it in later and Tesla unlocks the rest of the battery for resale as a 75. That "60" battery will have some of the lowest degradation, as well due to the big buffer not being used on the top.
And most likely will not reach the "tapering" speed when charging like the full unlocked batteries face as they approach 80% capacity.

It's a brilliant marketing tool.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top