[Upper5Percent]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/tesla-flips-switch-increase-range-232915375.html

Tesla flips a switch to increase the range of some cars in Florida to help people evacuate
Greg Kumparak,TechCrunch


Tesla has pushed an over-the-air update to some of its vehicles in Florida that lets those cars go just a liiiittle bit farther, thus helping their owners get that much farther away from the devastation of Hurricane Irma.

Wondering how that's even possible?

Up until a few months ago, Tesla sold a 60kWh version of its Model S and Model X vehicles — but the battery in those cars was actually rated at 75kWh. The thinking: Tesla could offer a more affordable 60kWh version to those who didn't need the full range of the 75kWh battery — but to keep things simple, they'd just use the same 75kWh battery and lock it on the software side. If 60kWh buyers found they needed more range and wanted to upgrade later, they could... or if Tesla wanted to suddenly bestow owners with some extra range in case of an emergency, they could.

And that's what's happening here.

As first noticed by Tesla owners on Reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotor...due_to_the_hurricane/?st=j7dx6h74&sh=4e9028ba ), the company has pushed a "temporary update" to vehicles within the evacuation zones that bumps the 60kWh models up to 75kWh.

On the road, according to Elektrek ( https://electrek.co/2017/09/09/tesl...es-for-free-in-florida-escape-hurricane-irma/ ), this battery bump works out to about 30 miles of additional range on a full charge. If that little bit of range helps even one person avoid injury or get their loved ones out safely, I'd say its worth whatever work this required.

Alas, the upgrade won't stick around forever — Tesla generally charges at least $5,000 for the permanent equivalent. Members on the Tesla Motors Club (https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/model-s-60d-upgraded-for-free-to-75.97765/ ) fan forum report that the temporary update will be reversed on September 16th.

 

[sosmerc]

The tech behind all of this is pretty amazing and I believe that was a very smart move on Tesla's part. I hope that some "happy endings" will result from this and that we all get to hear about them.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Quite a backlash amongst non Tesla owners about this.

Imagine this - GM sold a Volt with 2 battery options - a 10KWH battery, and an "extended range" 20KWH version.

But on the manufacturing line, ALL Volts actually got the 20KWH battery installed but the people that didn't pay the extra $5000 price tag for the "Extended range" option simply had that extra 10KW disabled by software.

That's effectively what Tesla is doing here. No, this newfound range is not the batteries "buffer" (IE, like the Volt utilizes to ensure battery longevity), this is simply capacity that came with the car that Tesla effectively crippled via software.

I'm sure that Teslas fanboy crowd won't care, but as someone else looking in...this would piss me off.

 

[supchrgamx]

kind of like the wild west , at first
gm kind of did the same thing with gen1 to gen2 cars

 

[!arry4pyro]

Tesla may be trying to reduce the backup that's sure to have existed at Supercharging sites along the evacuation routes. If you think getting gas was bad, just think of the problems Tesla owners must have had in this mass evacuation.

 

[Mister Dave]

Tesla may be trying to reduce the backup that's sure to have existed at Supercharging sites along the evacuation routes. If you think getting gas was bad, just think of the problems Tesla owners must have had in this mass evacuation.

+1 and I'm not sure 30 more miles is going to make a whole lot of difference if I'm running to Atlanta from Miami.

 

[jcanoe]

Tesla may be trying to reduce the backup that's sure to have existed at Supercharging sites along the evacuation routes. If you think getting gas was bad, just think of the problems Tesla owners must have had in this mass evacuation.

Assuming the Tesla owner sets out with a full charge and plans their route accordingly they should be fine as long as the power is not out at the Supercharger stations. They can also choose to charge at one of Tesla's Destination Charger locations or any Level II location with a Tesla J1772 adapter. Also, crawling in traffic along th evacuation route at 10 - 25 mph in any EV means that the actual EV range should be much higher than when driving at normal highway speeds. One Tesla range estimator shows that a Tesla Model S75 that can travel an estimated 230 miles at 70mph (AC on, outside temp. 86F) can travel almost 400 miles at 45mph (AC off, outside temp. 86F.) At lower speeds you could run the AC intermittently and still exceed 400 miles of EV range.

 

[supchrgamx]

+1 and I'm not sure 30 more miles is going to make a whole lot of difference if I'm running to Atlanta from Miami.

rather have it then not have it

 

[11715]

Quite a backlash amongst non Tesla owners about this.

Imagine this - GM sold a Volt with 2 battery options - a 10KWH battery, and an "extended range" 20KWH version.

But on the manufacturing line, ALL Volts actually got the 20KWH battery installed but the people that didn't pay the extra $5000 price tag for the "Extended range" option simply had that extra 10KW disabled by software.

That's effectively what Tesla is doing here. No, this newfound range is not the batteries "buffer" (IE, like the Volt utilizes to ensure battery longevity), this is simply capacity that came with the car that Tesla effectively crippled via software.

I'm sure that Teslas fanboy crowd won't care, but as someone else looking in...this would piss me off.

Why is there a backlash by non tesla owners?

 

[BAZINGA]

Brilliant PR move and think of the press they will get.

 

[supchrgamx]

point and case for over the air updates

 

[rdunniii]

point and case for over the air updates

Agreed. Wouldn't it be nice in emergency situations to have the entire battery capacity of the Volt rather than less than 75%?

As for backlash I don't see a Tesla owners backlash against GM for allowing less than 75% of the battery's capacity be available in the Volt (it was 65% in gen1) with zero chance of that being changed.

 

[saghost]

Tesla may be trying to reduce the backup that's sure to have existed at Supercharging sites along the evacuation routes. If you think getting gas was bad, just think of the problems Tesla owners must have had in this mass evacuation.

Actually, the TMC members that posted during the evacuation consistently described and showed pictures of nearly empty Superchargers along the evacuation route and had no problems charging. I'm not sure if that's because there weren't many cars evacuating or the roads were so tied up that no one could get to the stations, or what.

Presumably it will be different when EVs own a large portion of the market, but aside from Florida, Tesla (or Bolt EV) range is ample for the typical evacuation without charging anyway.

Quite a backlash amongst non Tesla owners about this.

Imagine this - GM sold a Volt with 2 battery options - a 10KWH battery, and an "extended range" 20KWH version.

But on the manufacturing line, ALL Volts actually got the 20KWH battery installed but the people that didn't pay the extra $5000 price tag for the "Extended range" option simply had that extra 10KW disabled by software.

That's effectively what Tesla is doing here. No, this newfound range is not the batteries "buffer" (IE, like the Volt utilizes to ensure battery longevity), this is simply capacity that came with the car that Tesla effectively crippled via software.

I'm sure that Teslas fanboy crowd won't care, but as someone else looking in...this would piss me off.

Okay, what am I missing here? In your hypothetical example, GM gave you exactly what they promised you. Then, in an emergency, they gave you something extra, to help you with the emergency.

So what are you complaining about here? The fact that the hardware is capable of more than what you paid for, and they didn't give the rest of that to you for free?

Is that somehow different from car companies giving an engine several different levels of performance via tuning, and not automatically upgrading you to the highest tune?

Do you feel you're somehow entitled to more than what you paid for simply because the hardware is capable of it? Does being given that capability as a gift in an emergency somehow change your opinion of this?

 

[PrivatePilot]

gm kind of did the same thing with gen1 to gen2 cars

The batteries are different. The unused battery buffer in Volts is there for longevity and can't be unlocked by someone willing to give GM a few thousand dollars for a "premium" range that their car already actually has, but they were software unlocked from being able to utilize.

Why is there a backlash by non tesla owners?

Get off the EV centric forums and read about it. Non EV owners are wigging out about how Tesla has basically castrated their own cars in the name of profit, which is exactly what this is.

Positive press for Tesla? Yeah, not so much.

It would be like GM selling two versions of the Corvette, but the expensive "Premium" model makes 750HP, but the cheaper one, despite having the exact same engine and drivetrain, only makes 300HP because they've programmed the computers to castrate it.

 

[Mister Dave]

Actually, the TMC members that posted during the evacuation consistently described and showed pictures of nearly empty Superchargers along the evacuation route and had no problems charging. I'm not sure if that's because there weren't many cars evacuating or the roads were so tied up that no one could get to the stations, or what.

Or they left them behind?

 

[PrivatePilot]

Do you feel you're somehow entitled to more than what you paid for simply because the hardware is capable of it? Does being given that capability as a gift in an emergency somehow change your opinion of this?

I think Volt owners are confusing the buffer on our cars with the equivalent on a Tesla.

Look at my Corvette example above as it's the closest analogy that makes sense for some people.

The cheap(er) Teslas that are being "unlocked" with extra range have a software crippled battery that SHOULD actually be providing far more range than Tesla has them programmed for. This is not buffer, this is usable battery capacity that they normally charge around $10,000 for the "privilege" of unlocking on an S60. The car comes with a 75KWH battery (That would yield it's full 75KWH usable if you paid for a S75 vs the cheaper S60) but you're only allowed to use 60KW of it.

Right from Tesla:

"To provide customers even more flexibility over time, Model S 60 and 60D owners may later choose to upgrade their vehicles to a 75kWh battery with a software update, should they want to add to their car's battery capacity in the future."

Yeah, those 15 Kilowatts are there and should be useful, but because you "Cheaped out" and only bought the S60, well, you don't get to use it.

If GM Sold the Volt with a "Poor mans battery" with 60 miles of range (for example) and a "Rich mans battery" with 90 miles of range, but people discovered the batteries were actually identical and the 60 mile car actually had the capability to drive 90 miles (but it was locked out with just software) people would be rightfully pissed. This is exactly what Tesla is doing.

Some reading here:

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/06/the-new-tesla-model-s-has-a-software-locked-battery/

 

[saghost]

Or they left them behind?

Well, there's been a lot of discussion on TMC about whether to take an ICE or the Tesla when evacuating. The consensus seems to be running towards the Tesla, but there are certainly several members who chose the ICE instead. I have no way of knowing what all the owners that didn't post chose, of course.

 

[Mister Dave]

Well, there's been a lot of discussion on TMC about whether to take an ICE or the Tesla when evacuating. The consensus seems to be running towards the Tesla, but there are certainly several members who chose the ICE instead. I have no way of knowing what all the owners that didn't post chose, of course.

Being fair and all, I'd expect a pro-take-the-Tesla response on a Tesla forum as I would expect the same for a Bolt here. Kudos to the pragmatists who went against the popular opinion expectation. The superchargers may have been open but there's no way to know that in advance. And then there's the issue of returning home and not knowing what will be working.

 

[saghost]

It would be like GM selling two versions of the Corvette, but the expensive "Premium" model makes 750HP, but the cheaper one, despite having the exact same engine and drivetrain, only makes 300HP because they've programmed the computers to castrate it.

Or like Intel selling several versions of the exact same chip at a wide variety of price points with different clock speeds and multipliers, including a fancy version which is unlocked and allows you to set the multipliers and overclock it for twice as much as the cheapest version of the same chip?

Yeah, that'll never work and everyone that buys the cheap chip will be pissed...

Again, why should you feel entitled to more than you paid for, just because the hardware is capable of it?

 

[saghost]

Being fair and all, I'd expect a pro-take-the-Tesla response on a Tesla forum as I would expect the same for a Bolt here. Kudos to the pragmatists who went against the popular opinion expectation. The superchargers may have been open but there's no way to know that in advance. And then there's the issue of returning home and not knowing what will be working.

Actually, Tesla has had real time status on all the Superchargers within range for a few months now - a couple button clicks on the navigation screen in the center console would tell you how many stalls were in use at the moment. Of course, it can't predict the future (yet. We actually expect Tesla to do some predicting down the line based on what is in all the cars' collective Navigation systems...)