+Ranno Rannikmaa What I would prefer is the 70 to hide this 7% (70/75) of the battery degradation with the hidden 5KWH. They don't change the badges so what does it mean to the 2nd hand buyer?
Matthew Williams my old comment. Things have changed. They do change the badge. It's now 60/75. I'd buy the 60. It charges harder to the end. Does not over stress the pack and will always be a 60 instead of paying a lot of more money to possibly see the battery wilting over the years.
Of course it might just be a major improvement in the software in its accuracy of measuring individual cell stack charge and therefore enabling the additional capacity as overcharge and bricking of individual stacks is avoided. In otherwords, the new software has or used more measurement points with in the battery stack.
Really insightful video, thanks. The charger availability (i.e at your office or not) ultimately makes a big impact on this, providing that the top speed and acceleration are the same. I'm hoping that by the time my Model 3 lands, the network will have gown much further...
Bjørn: the reason it would NOT be in Tesla's interest to place the upgraded fuse in every car is because the upgraded fuse uses the aeronautical-grade metal material and is extremely expensive. Now your other comments regarding how Tesla should install a larger capacity battery and then cap the use is brilliant. :-)
My guess is they lower the low voltage cutoff when discharging. From what i know, there is 7104 cells (96 in series * 74 in parallel). The full charge voltage of a lithium cell is 4.2V, which gives 403.2V at full charge. I am not sure if the 70D has the same amount of cells or lower capacity ones, but i guess they just have less cells in series. The only way to find out is to look the full charge voltage of a 70D.
2 comments on this:1, Sneaking in the new pack allows Tesla to not worry about being left with a huge stock of old cells as people only find out about the new option once the old stock has been depleted. They will introduce the 100 the same way.2, Eventually, like the 85, the 70 will be phased out, but this approach allows them to test the market (how much can they increase the price for the new entry level?) and make recent buyers of the cars feel less disappointed they didn't wait (as most recent buyers can upgrade for the same difference a new order has).
I agree with Bjorn, you get what you paid for. And is fair that they did that, just don't pay it if you don't agree. Simple as that, shouldn't get greedy.
The renting idea for added kwh capacity and ludicrous mode is interesting. They could perhaps add an on demand payment app to the MCU. Coincidentally, customers could also use this app to pay for per-use supercharger access if that becomes an option.
I'm not sure you can extract more current out of the 75D than the 70D as it has the same number of (parallel) cells. I would think the difference between 75 and 70 can be seen as a difference in state-of-charge. You make an interesting point in flipping the notion of the additional 5kWh. If we say that Tesla discounted the 70D by $3000 vs the 75D, that sort of makes sense. I still think $3K for 5kWh is steep as it would make it $600 per kWh.
I think it's great to have these options which you can also retrofit or update afterwards. That way it's easier to get the car and later on take it if you have the money to upgrade. Otherwise you would need to buy totally new car.
the blocked capacity may also have to do with the degradation and the following costs for tesla with the warranty. Higher capacity = a little more degradation = a little more costs for broken batteries.
Regarding the comment on not using a portion of the battery, The car is smart enough to dynamically use modules if it ran on a Module system as you suggested the card could cycle out modules every other charge to preserve the pack but never use all of them in tandem until the upgrade was purchased. Also the Pack self balances so I would assume it would account for that extra 5 kwh range in the balancing regardless of if purchased or not.
Wow, the 70D didn't last very long. Now the discussion is about the 60 kWh software limited version, but except for the cost of the extra 15 kWh to go to the 75, the argument is the same. We are pretty much certain that the buffer is at the top because charging doesn't slow down sharply at the high end for the 60.
+Cervelo R5 I wonder if that would require a structural change to the door. I've never seen the inner structure there but it could be a very expensive re-engineering project.
+Cervelo R5 Agree. The newer models do seem to be a lot better these days, even have more insulation. No excuse for the door pocket. People have found there is plenty of room behind. I had a nissan with door nets and in practice worked out as every bit as good.
The bare fact that Bjørn had to make a half an hour monologue about this makes it a suspicious move by Tesla. If the few people affected by this are willing to pay, then good for them and good for Tesla. I'm doubtful many of them will.
I look at this as Tesla building in an upgrade path with no charge for the path, and only a charge if I elect to take the upgrade. They are actually losing money by putting the path in the car "on the come". I'm sure there are a TON of 2014 Model S owners that wish all of the hardware for autopilot was in the car, and they could just buy the upgrade via software. I think we should all be pleased that this is a car that can be upgraded in any manner.
Imagine buying a house with certain rooms built but closed off unless you pay extra. Or buying a computer but the CPU and GPU only run at 80% efficiency unless you pay extra. Or buying a an electronic piano keyboard, but one octave is unavailable unless you pay extra. Software-disabled/downgraded hardware features is a very hard sell for most consumers. I know that small consumer items that appear to come in a variety of models, such as some printers and some digital cameras, are actually mostly the same model "under the hood". I also understand that by disabling certain hardware features via software or firmware it means that ALL the "different" models are cheaper due to simplified manufacturing. I get it. But while consumers are willing to accept this (or remain ignorant) on items costing only a few hundred dollars (and that are easy to "hack" for dedicated enthusiasts), software-disabled hardware features on expensive items seem like a really hard sell, especially once the information is public. In fact, here in Australia it might even be in breach of consumer laws, regardless of EULA signed by owners (but I am not a lawyer). :-)
Most CPUs are cut on the same die. A 4 ghz chip with 8 cores and a 3 ghz chip with 6 cores would be identical, but the 3 ghz is limited by the manufacturer. This is why over clocking was so popular. You could run a chip at its true max frequency. Manufacturers did this either because of quality, or more often because they were trying to sell to certain market segments.
I'm aware of all that, and I agree it can make sense to release otherwise very similar chips at different speeds, but as you say, it was usually because of batch quality (I know from experience that overclocking had risks! I'm old enough to remember when overclocking required hardware modification) :-) On the other hand, if CPUs and GPUs were perfectly able to run 20% faster, well within specs and stable, but were disabled from doing so only by software/firmware/BIOS settings, AND the chip makers offered to disable the firmware downgrade for a fee, I think it would be a marketing nightmare. Especially if PCs were as expensive as Tesla cars! :-D
+Skevos Mavros Then pay the full price up front...if you can afford it. You gotta pay to play as you say in America. Telsa installed the components for driver assist on all their newer cars. I guess you expect the customers to pay for that also even if they initially might not be able to afford it or not want it?
As I said, on lower priced items, like printers or even cameras, the few members of the public that are even aware of the fact that different models are actually mostly the same under the surface seem to be okay with it - either because they don't care or they know how to "Hack" the device to unlock some of the more advanced features (I did that with my Canon DSLR, essentially upgrading it for free). But on higher cost items, offering paid upgrades for hardware-firmware-software features that are already physically installed in hardware form but disabled is going to be a tough sell. I realise we're right on the frontiers of the interface between hardware/firmware/software, but that is why it's interesting - because the norms are not yet settled. I also realise that quite a lot of software already does the pre-loaded-but-disabled thing (especially "apps" on mobile devices), and I even concede that much of what we're talking about here with Tesla is just that, software upgrades. But some of it isn't just software, it's unlocking what are partly hardware features, enabling hardware that is unused or under utilised otherwise, and I think people have a different attitude on hardware. And I'm pretty sure consumer laws also regard it as a different thing. Things get even more potentially controversial if the disabled features are in any way safety-related. Imagine if non-mandatory (but potentially life-saving) side door air bags were pre-installed but disabled until you pay an upgrade fee. You think it's impossible to imagine a car manufacturer doing that? The hardware for Tesla's driver assist is pre-installed, and that feature surely makes the car safer, yet it is disabled in some models. Imagine the first injury or death in a Tesla that could have been prevented by an installed-but-disabled feature... A marketing nightmare. I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, and I can see many benefits to Tesla's approach. In fact I regard myself as a future Tesla customer! But I also think it's a debate that is far from settled.
Elder pier I think I see your point, but enabling extra streaming services on existing hardware is different to enabling new hardware-dependent features, isn't it? A better analogy would be a set top box that can record video, or accept DVD and bluray disks for playback, but those features are disabled until you pay extra. I'm genuinely conflicted on the topic, I can see many benefits to treating hardware/firmware as if it's a software service, but boy it's going to be a big change.
KingProne How was anything I said offensive? rooting a phone is not the same thing, both technically and legally. You would not use another OS. You would have to install something like a root kit virus to enable options otherwise disabled in order to circumvent required payment otherwise your modification gets noticed right away. In any case any such modification will void the warranty. If Tesla finds out you did something like that (and I'm sure they would) and they went to court about it I'm sure your argument would not hold water. However, I could be wrong. You'll know when the time comes. Since I see very slim chances of you succeeding in court I believe "good luck" is what you would need. Not in any way meant as an offense.
+Bjørn Nyland what i meant and hope to hear your thoughts. it's that in my opinion it will take at least 6 months. Why? Because I just got the 90 and would hate them for bringing the 100 the next month.
Erick G The 90 kWh battery pack has been out for a long time. I don't think it's too early. Development on EVs are going on a fast phase, unlike fossil cars.
I think they should raise the price slightly and include all the features the hardware is capable of. Otherwise you risk people not paying for the software unlocks and try and hack the system.
As to the value proposition of the upgrade ($3K for 5 KWH in US): On the one hand, it is consistent with what I recall that Tesla charged people to upgrade from 85 to 90 KWH when the 90 first became available. On the other hand, the comparison might be less favorable if you think about the price differential between models, depending upon how you weight performance versus range. When I bought my 70D, the price increase to buy an 85D would have been $10K. For that differential, I could have gotten 10 KWH of battery, plus significant increases in rated horsepower (417 vs 328), torque (485 vs 387), and acceleration (4.2 secs to 60 mph, vs. 5.4 seconds). So in theory, if Tesla sold me 15 KWH at the same rate ($3K for each 5 KWH), I would pay $9K for the battery and only $1K for the large difference in performance. But maybe that is an accurate reflection of how much a battery costs versus a motor. Interesting to think about that...
Bjorn do we even know the usable energy of 70 and 90 packs yet? Because 85 was the most common back in the day people have done the "trip meter test" where you start with 100%, drive all the day down to Charge Now. You've done a couple of those and if I'm not mistaken usable of 85 varies between 74 and 77. How about 70, 90?
Interesting stuff! If I understood this correctly then the more empty the battery is the faster it will charge. So then if the extra 5kWh is on the "deep bottom" side then when the Tesla shows 0% it should actually be at 6-7% charged + the usual brick protection. Doesn't that then mean the charging is slower from shown 0% than with a true 70 kWh given that the more full the battery gets the slower it charges?
Can you say something about the "new" 60? They said that the 60 is only an downgraded 75 because they both have the same batteries. Does that mean, that the 60 does charge as fast as the 75 until it gets his 60kwh? Are there other differences? Does it make sense to order the upgrade later?
Yes, it does charge as fast as the 75 until it hits the limit. The only case for the 75 is if you specifically need that extra range, which you might well need if you lived in a colder climate or had other special considerations. Even after the price increase, I think the 60 and 60D are create deals on a Tesla.
Another experiment,,, is it the last 10% of charging that is slow regardless of 70 75 85 or 90? Meaning it doesn't matter how big the battery it's the last 10-15% that is slow.
I wonder what will happen when a tesla is off warranty what sort of hot rodding of the battery and drive train will be hacked in. Or maybe even a car that has a salvage title. The Chevy Volt does not allow the use of nearly 1/3 of the battery.
I think this software upgrade for 3k is a bit much seeing as it can be unlocked with software. it's like buying a computer with 16 gb ram but you only have access to 8 gigs, it makes little to no sense why it should be capped by software. I get that it's smart to only produce 1 hardware spec and limit it by software, but charging money for the upgrade is only creating a market for people to jailbreak the Tesla, and that can only be a problem. And also isn't it a safety issue? or atleast a safety precaution to have that 5 KW buffer? i mean it was implemented for a reason. it seems they didn't intend on offering the upgrade from day one. And isn't it kinda already available? i've seen videos of Tesla's going under 0% and using the buffer to get to the nearest charging station. So it seems kinda 'stupid' to spend 3k on an upgrade you already have access too, but might be hidden behind a clever user interface.
Bjorn, what wil it mean - in your opinion - for the battery degradation in time if you buy an S 70, use it as such, but it's really an S 75 underneath? Or would it be an wise decision to unlock the extra capacity, when it has degraded to - let's say - 80%? . And what about the residual value after 5 years, locked or not?
+René van den Brink We don't know yet where the buffer is. But it seems like not unlocking it will force you to not charge to 100 % and therefore save the battery.
+Bjørn Nyland - Thanks for your swift answer. We bought the old S70 and are getting te new S70 next month. Thinking about unlocking; your video helps a lot but also raises questions. I think we wanna wait a bit. That's the nice thing about software ;-)
René van den Brink Yes, given that the unlock price is the same as ordering it with the car. This is not the case for neither autopilot nor high power charger.
Hej Bjorn, I have a Model-S 75D ..i wanted to upgrade to 90D...i spoke to Tesla service personnel.. and he replied that it needs a additional hardware..how expensive is it Do u have any idea
+SaturnV The 40 kWh Model S owners never received a 40 kWh battery. They received a 60 kWh that was downgraded to 40 kWh. But the acceleration and top speed was the same as the 60. So in reality they paid the same and got a better product. If it turns out that the 75 kWh battery pack delivers more power, the 70 will also get this nice upgrade. As you already know, 70D and 90D has the same motors. The reason why 90D is faster is because the battery can deliver more power.
i came up an idea that one Tesla can share energy with another Tesla, when one of them run out of juice, like energy transfer. i wonder if it is possible, or will be possible
You can read the story about the 40 kwh model S here: insideevs.com/entry-level-40kwh-tesla-model-s-cancelled-60-kwh-cars-all-get-supercharging-hardware/
But you're paying to unlock something you have already paid for, you buy the car and it's battery only to find out a part of it is locked behind a pay wall? If they are unlocking the reserves knowing it will put more pressure on the battery pack reducing its life therefore you are paying to extend the warranty that's ok, but to pay to unlock the whole battery you have already brought, that's a big no no.
Tesla may have all the reasons in the world the proceed this way, but in the end, to many customers it's always going to seem grimy. If I had a 70D for all this time and I found out that there was one line of code in the car intentionally preventing me from using all of the battery that was actually installed in the car, I'm going to be annoyed. This feels like a big corporation move and for all intents and purposes Tesla doesn't acts like a big corporation, which is one of the many reasons why people really like the company. And for those who compare this to auto pilot, it's not quite the same because the software is just as big of a deal as the hard ware is. It may even be more expensive than the actually hardware. Nothing is being "intentionally handicapped". Your simply missing the brains because you haven't bought it yet. No matter how much business sense it makes, they should stop doing this because it's always going to feel grimy to many of their customers.
+UltraStoat Then maybe you suggesting they pay up front when its new? Some might not be able to afford the extra 3k or more for other features. It makes sense sometimes to put all the items on all cars and disable certain features than to not put them in due to them not selecting that feature. Retooling cost Tesla time and money since its built to order. In the future, if the customer has more money and wants to upgrade their car, they can just get Tesla to activate the features that customer wants. Its actually smart for the company to do that. If you think they are being a scrooge, then don't buy that feature... simple.
+KingProne my point is that the capacity is there so there's no reason not to do a full charge every time. It's not like you're going to harm the battery because it's not truly a full charge.
I personally don't like this approach. It is very Un Elon Musk. If Tesla have put the battery range in the car then why limit it in a Scrooge like manner. I don't have a Tesla 70D but if I were offered an extra 5 kw for a price, I would double my use of Superchargers to bent my anger.
Stewart Mcleod well you pay less upfront if you don’t need it at the moment, and if you end up wanting more range just pay instead of getting a brand new car. Just call the service center and pay, then bam you got a 75.
Thanks for your comments. They were very helpful. And I appreciate your friendly, conversational style.
Very informative and insightful Bjorn! Looking forward to seeing which of your theories are correct.
+sebastien aubouin Thank you for the feedback :)
it is probably safer to 100% charge 70 the because of 5kwh hidden size. and therefore when you can sell it as more reliable battery
+Ranno Rannikmaa Exactly. But we don't know yet where the buffer is.
+Ranno Rannikmaa What I would prefer is the 70 to hide this 7% (70/75) of the battery degradation with the hidden 5KWH. They don't change the badges so what does it mean to the 2nd hand buyer?
For the software S 60, they change the badge when the car is upgraded to a 75.
Matthew Williams my old comment. Things have changed. They do change the badge. It's now 60/75. I'd buy the 60. It charges harder to the end. Does not over stress the pack and will always be a 60 instead of paying a lot of more money to possibly see the battery wilting over the years.
Of course it might just be a major improvement in the software in its accuracy of measuring individual cell stack charge and therefore enabling the additional capacity as overcharge and bricking of individual stacks is avoided. In otherwords, the new software has or used more measurement points with in the battery stack.
That is sooooo interresting :) You decode Tesla's strategy, well done!
Really insightful video, thanks. The charger availability (i.e at your office or not) ultimately makes a big impact on this, providing that the top speed and acceleration are the same. I'm hoping that by the time my Model 3 lands, the network will have gown much further...
+David Supple With a fast charger spread out widely, even a 60 kWh (given it can charge fast) should be enough for most people.
Bjørn: the reason it would NOT be in Tesla's interest to place the upgraded fuse in every car is because the upgraded fuse uses the aeronautical-grade metal material and is extremely expensive. Now your other comments regarding how Tesla should install a larger capacity battery and then cap the use is brilliant. :-)
+Leon Spears i think he said that reconfiguring the robots that build the cars is more expensive than leaving it alone.
My guess is they lower the low voltage cutoff when discharging. From what i know, there is 7104 cells (96 in series * 74 in parallel). The full charge voltage of a lithium cell is 4.2V, which gives 403.2V at full charge. I am not sure if the 70D has the same amount of cells or lower capacity ones, but i guess they just have less cells in series. The only way to find out is to look the full charge voltage of a 70D.
2 comments on this:1, Sneaking in the new pack allows Tesla to not worry about being left with a huge stock of old cells as people only find out about the new option once the old stock has been depleted. They will introduce the 100 the same way.2, Eventually, like the 85, the 70 will be phased out, but this approach allows them to test the market (how much can they increase the price for the new entry level?) and make recent buyers of the cars feel less disappointed they didn't wait (as most recent buyers can upgrade for the same difference a new order has).
I agree with Bjorn, you get what you paid for. And is fair that they did that, just don't pay it if you don't agree. Simple as that, shouldn't get greedy.
The renting idea for added kwh capacity and ludicrous mode is interesting.
They could perhaps add an on demand payment app to the MCU. Coincidentally, customers could also use this app to pay for per-use supercharger access if that becomes an option.
I'm not sure you can extract more current out of the 75D than the 70D as it has the same number of (parallel) cells. I would think the difference between 75 and 70 can be seen as a difference in state-of-charge.
You make an interesting point in flipping the notion of the additional 5kWh. If we say that Tesla discounted the 70D by $3000 vs the 75D, that sort of makes sense. I still think $3K for 5kWh is steep as it would make it $600 per kWh.
I think it's great to have these options which you can also retrofit or update afterwards. That way it's easier to get the car and later on take it if you have the money to upgrade. Otherwise you would need to buy totally new car.
the blocked capacity may also have to do with the degradation and the following costs for tesla with the warranty. Higher capacity = a little more degradation = a little more costs for broken batteries.
Regarding the comment on not using a portion of the battery, The car is smart enough to dynamically use modules if it ran on a Module system as you suggested the card could cycle out modules every other charge to preserve the pack but never use all of them in tandem until the upgrade was purchased. Also the Pack self balances so I would assume it would account for that extra 5 kwh range in the balancing regardless of if purchased or not.
+Andrew Jamison Exactly, there's an alternative version of Theory 1. Basically similar to what a SSD does to maximise the lifespan of memory cells.
You're a very smart man! Thank you for working out my brain.
+Mitchell Barnow Thank you for watching :)
Hewlett-Packard used to do this for ten UK pounds to allow new printers to work at all.
Wow, the 70D didn't last very long. Now the discussion is about the 60 kWh software limited version, but except for the cost of the extra 15 kWh to go to the 75, the argument is the same. We are pretty much certain that the buffer is at the top because charging doesn't slow down sharply at the high end for the 60.
If someone from Tesla is watching, put door pocket and improved fit and finish in Model S already!
+Cervelo R5 I wonder if that would require a structural change to the door. I've never seen the inner structure there but it could be a very expensive re-engineering project.
+Cervelo R5 Agree. The newer models do seem to be a lot better these days, even have more insulation.
No excuse for the door pocket. People have found there is plenty of room behind. I had a nissan with door nets and in practice worked out as every bit as good.
The bare fact that Bjørn had to make a half an hour monologue about this makes it a suspicious move by Tesla. If the few people affected by this are willing to pay, then good for them and good for Tesla. I'm doubtful many of them will.
I look at this as Tesla building in an upgrade path with no charge for the path, and only a charge if I elect to take the upgrade. They are actually losing money by putting the path in the car "on the come". I'm sure there are a TON of 2014 Model S owners that wish all of the hardware for autopilot was in the car, and they could just buy the upgrade via software. I think we should all be pleased that this is a car that can be upgraded in any manner.
+David Rowland I would gladly pay money to get autopilot on my 2013 model.
Good explanation with the buffers. So they probably have half of the buffer at top and half at the bottom?
Imagine buying a house with certain rooms built but closed off unless you pay extra. Or buying a computer but the CPU and GPU only run at 80% efficiency unless you pay extra. Or buying a an electronic piano keyboard, but one octave is unavailable unless you pay extra.
Software-disabled/downgraded hardware features is a very hard sell for most consumers. I know that small consumer items that appear to come in a variety of models, such as some printers and some digital cameras, are actually mostly the same model "under the hood". I also understand that by disabling certain hardware features via software or firmware it means that ALL the "different" models are cheaper due to simplified manufacturing. I get it.
But while consumers are willing to accept this (or remain ignorant) on items costing only a few hundred dollars (and that are easy to "hack" for dedicated enthusiasts), software-disabled hardware features on expensive items seem like a really hard sell, especially once the information is public. In fact, here in Australia it might even be in breach of consumer laws, regardless of EULA signed by owners (but I am not a lawyer). :-)
Most CPUs are cut on the same die. A 4 ghz chip with 8 cores and a 3 ghz chip with 6 cores would be identical, but the 3 ghz is limited by the manufacturer. This is why over clocking was so popular. You could run a chip at its true max frequency. Manufacturers did this either because of quality, or more often because they were trying to sell to certain market segments.
I'm aware of all that, and I agree it can make sense to release otherwise very similar chips at different speeds, but as you say, it was usually because of batch quality (I know from experience that overclocking had risks! I'm old enough to remember when overclocking required hardware modification) :-)
On the other hand, if CPUs and GPUs were perfectly able to run 20% faster, well within specs and stable, but were disabled from doing so only by software/firmware/BIOS settings, AND the chip makers offered to disable the firmware downgrade for a fee, I think it would be a marketing nightmare. Especially if PCs were as expensive as Tesla cars! :-D
+Skevos Mavros Then pay the full price up front...if you can afford it. You gotta pay to play as you say in America. Telsa installed the components for driver assist on all their newer cars. I guess you expect the customers to pay for that also even if they initially might not be able to afford it or not want it?
As I said, on lower priced items, like printers or even cameras, the few members of the public that are even aware of the fact that different models are actually mostly the same under the surface seem to be okay with it - either because they don't care or they know how to "Hack" the device to unlock some of the more advanced features (I did that with my Canon DSLR, essentially upgrading it for free).
But on higher cost items, offering paid upgrades for hardware-firmware-software features that are already physically installed in hardware form but disabled is going to be a tough sell. I realise we're right on the frontiers of the interface between hardware/firmware/software, but that is why it's interesting - because the norms are not yet settled. I also realise that quite a lot of software already does the pre-loaded-but-disabled thing (especially "apps" on mobile devices), and I even concede that much of what we're talking about here with Tesla is just that, software upgrades. But some of it isn't just software, it's unlocking what are partly hardware features, enabling hardware that is unused or under utilised otherwise, and I think people have a different attitude on hardware. And I'm pretty sure consumer laws also regard it as a different thing.
Things get even more potentially controversial if the disabled features are in any way safety-related. Imagine if non-mandatory (but potentially life-saving) side door air bags were pre-installed but disabled until you pay an upgrade fee. You think it's impossible to imagine a car manufacturer doing that? The hardware for Tesla's driver assist is pre-installed, and that feature surely makes the car safer, yet it is disabled in some models. Imagine the first injury or death in a Tesla that could have been prevented by an installed-but-disabled feature... A marketing nightmare.
I don't have a strong opinion on the topic, and I can see many benefits to Tesla's approach. In fact I regard myself as a future Tesla customer! But I also think it's a debate that is far from settled.
Elder pier I think I see your point, but enabling extra streaming services on existing hardware is different to enabling new hardware-dependent features, isn't it? A better analogy would be a set top box that can record video, or accept DVD and bluray disks for playback, but those features are disabled until you pay extra. I'm genuinely conflicted on the topic, I can see many benefits to treating hardware/firmware as if it's a software service, but boy it's going to be a big change.
Waiting for the first crack with all options enabled.....
That would be fraud.
+pcuser80 Tesla still will have control over your car and will correct the "problem". They may go further than that, mind you.
+KingProne And your statement is based on what exactly?
KingProne Good luck with that approach in court.
KingProne How was anything I said offensive? rooting a phone is not the same thing, both technically and legally. You would not use another OS. You would have to install something like a root kit virus to enable options otherwise disabled in order to circumvent required payment otherwise your modification gets noticed right away. In any case any such modification will void the warranty.
If Tesla finds out you did something like that (and I'm sure they would) and they went to court about it I'm sure your argument would not hold water. However, I could be wrong. You'll know when the time comes. Since I see very slim chances of you succeeding in court I believe "good luck" is what you would need. Not in any way meant as an offense.
90 just came out and would be a little bit fast to bring the 100 right away, so I think they are going to take a while on this one.
+Erick G Tesla did recently post a picture of a Model S with "100" written above it on the wall. So there's something going on.
+Bjørn Nyland what i meant and hope to hear your thoughts. it's that in my opinion it will take at least 6 months. Why? Because I just got the 90 and would hate them for bringing the 100 the next month.
Erick G The 90 kWh battery pack has been out for a long time. I don't think it's too early. Development on EVs are going on a fast phase, unlike fossil cars.
I understand. Just thought they would take a little bit longer, like with the 85. Regards!
I think they should raise the price slightly and include all the features the hardware is capable of. Otherwise you risk people not paying for the software unlocks and try and hack the system.
Theory 2 would also extend the battery life
As to the value proposition of the upgrade ($3K for 5 KWH in US): On the one hand, it is consistent with what I recall that Tesla charged people to upgrade from 85 to 90 KWH when the 90 first became available.
On the other hand, the comparison might be less favorable if you think about the price differential between models, depending upon how you weight performance versus range. When I bought my 70D, the price increase to buy an 85D would have been $10K. For that differential, I could have gotten 10 KWH of battery, plus significant increases in rated horsepower (417 vs 328), torque (485 vs 387), and acceleration (4.2 secs to 60 mph, vs. 5.4 seconds). So in theory, if Tesla sold me 15 KWH at the same rate ($3K for each 5 KWH), I would pay $9K for the battery and only $1K for the large difference in performance. But maybe that is an accurate reflection of how much a battery costs versus a motor. Interesting to think about that...
Bjorn do we even know the usable energy of 70 and 90 packs yet? Because 85 was the most common back in the day people have done the "trip meter test" where you start with 100%, drive all the day down to Charge Now. You've done a couple of those and if I'm not mistaken usable of 85 varies between 74 and 77.
How about 70, 90?
+Emir Tunçyürek I have done a test on 70D and measured it to be around 65 kWh. I believe the 90 has around 80 kWh available.
Interesting stuff! If I understood this correctly then the more empty the battery is the faster it will charge. So then if the extra 5kWh is on the "deep bottom" side then when the Tesla shows 0% it should actually be at 6-7% charged + the usual brick protection. Doesn't that then mean the charging is slower from shown 0% than with a true 70 kWh given that the more full the battery gets the slower it charges?
Can you say something about the "new" 60? They said that the 60 is only an downgraded 75 because they both have the same batteries. Does that mean, that the 60 does charge as fast as the 75 until it gets his 60kwh? Are there other differences? Does it make sense to order the upgrade later?
Yes, it does charge as fast as the 75 until it hits the limit. The only case for the 75 is if you specifically need that extra range, which you might well need if you lived in a colder climate or had other special considerations. Even after the price increase, I think the 60 and 60D are create deals on a Tesla.
Another experiment,,, is it the last 10% of charging that is slow regardless of 70 75 85 or 90? Meaning it doesn't matter how big the battery it's the last 10-15% that is slow.
I wonder what will happen when a tesla is off warranty what sort of hot rodding of the battery and drive train will be hacked in. Or maybe even a car that has a salvage title. The Chevy Volt does not allow the use of nearly 1/3 of the battery.
+larry Spiller I think the Chevy Volt is over-engineered to protect the battery, it continues to help out after it says it has moved to gas
Maybe they will do the same with model 3...
Also, do you know if current owners of the pre-facelift model s will be able to upgrade to the new model s?
I think this software upgrade for 3k is a bit much seeing as it can be unlocked with software. it's like buying a computer with 16 gb ram but you only have access to 8 gigs, it makes little to no sense why it should be capped by software.
I get that it's smart to only produce 1 hardware spec and limit it by software, but charging money for the upgrade is only creating a market for people to jailbreak the Tesla, and that can only be a problem.
And also isn't it a safety issue? or atleast a safety precaution to have that 5 KW buffer? i mean it was implemented for a reason. it seems they didn't intend on offering the upgrade from day one.
And isn't it kinda already available? i've seen videos of Tesla's going under 0% and using the buffer to get to the nearest charging station. So it seems kinda 'stupid' to spend 3k on an upgrade you already have access too, but might be hidden behind a clever user interface.
+WebKenth The zero mile and bricking buffer is already there. This is another buffer that is being blocked.
Will 70 RWD owners be able to upgrade?
Bjorn, do you know model 3 maybe delay again...
Bjorn, what wil it mean - in your opinion - for the battery degradation in time if you buy an S 70, use it as such, but it's really an S 75 underneath? Or would it be an wise decision to unlock the extra capacity, when it has degraded to - let's say - 80%? . And what about the residual value after 5 years, locked or not?
+René van den Brink We don't know yet where the buffer is. But it seems like not unlocking it will force you to not charge to 100 % and therefore save the battery.
+Bjørn Nyland - Thanks for your swift answer. We bought the old S70 and are getting te new S70 next month. Thinking about unlocking; your video helps a lot but also raises questions. I think we wanna wait a bit. That's the nice thing about software ;-)
René van den Brink Yes, given that the unlock price is the same as ordering it with the car. This is not the case for neither autopilot nor high power charger.
Hej Bjorn,
I have a Model-S 75D ..i wanted to upgrade to 90D...i spoke to Tesla service personnel.. and he replied that it needs a additional hardware..how expensive is it Do u have any idea
Its like the cloud.
Wow 75D. 70D is discontinued?
+Bawla187 No, not yet. Watch more of the video if you want to know more.
+Bawla187 It's an update, did you see the video?
+Erick G right after Bjorn respond to my above question...smh
If Nissan did this BS, It would be a outrageous. But its Tesla, its fine.
+SaturnV The 40 kWh Model S owners never received a 40 kWh battery. They received a 60 kWh that was downgraded to 40 kWh. But the acceleration and top speed was the same as the 60. So in reality they paid the same and got a better product. If it turns out that the 75 kWh battery pack delivers more power, the 70 will also get this nice upgrade. As you already know, 70D and 90D has the same motors. The reason why 90D is faster is because the battery can deliver more power.
+SaturnV we don't know. Stop speculating.
i came up an idea that one Tesla can share energy with another Tesla, when one of them run out of juice, like energy transfer. i wonder if it is possible, or will be possible
+daniel markiewicz From what I know, energy can only flow one way through the charge port (which is in). I think that's a safety design.
+Bjørn Nyland that is unfortunate if true. Imagine emergency Tesla service that can save you when u r empty :)
daniel markiewicz There is one way though, which is to use a Tesla to tow another Tesla. There will be some mechanical loss.
You can read the story about the 40 kwh model S here: insideevs.com/entry-level-40kwh-tesla-model-s-cancelled-60-kwh-cars-all-get-supercharging-hardware/
But you're paying to unlock something you have already paid for, you buy the car and it's battery only to find out a part of it is locked behind a pay wall? If they are unlocking the reserves knowing it will put more pressure on the battery pack reducing its life therefore you are paying to extend the warranty that's ok, but to pay to unlock the whole battery you have already brought, that's a big no no.
+Hazzer2007 It's the same story for autopilot, high power charger and for fossil engines (at some extend) as well.
What a rip off if it was 100 miles may be but $3000 for 15 is shock MPGE
Tesla may have all the reasons in the world the proceed this way, but in the end, to many customers it's always going to seem grimy. If I had a 70D for all this time and I found out that there was one line of code in the car intentionally preventing me from using all of the battery that was actually installed in the car, I'm going to be annoyed. This feels like a big corporation move and for all intents and purposes Tesla doesn't acts like a big corporation, which is one of the many reasons why people really like the company.
And for those who compare this to auto pilot, it's not quite the same because the software is just as big of a deal as the hard ware is. It may even be more expensive than the actually hardware. Nothing is being "intentionally handicapped". Your simply missing the brains because you haven't bought it yet.
No matter how much business sense it makes, they should stop doing this because it's always going to feel grimy to many of their customers.
It's only on the newer facelift ones.... Very few.
+UltraStoat Then maybe you suggesting they pay up front when its new? Some might not be able to afford the extra 3k or more for other features. It makes sense sometimes to put all the items on all cars and disable certain features than to not put them in due to them not selecting that feature. Retooling cost Tesla time and money since its built to order. In the future, if the customer has more money and wants to upgrade their car, they can just get Tesla to activate the features that customer wants. Its actually smart for the company to do that. If you think they are being a scrooge, then don't buy that feature... simple.
Seems like that update isn't really worth it.
+AnimieBahn Entertainment That's what we have to find out. But as for now, it doesn't seem like it.
Bjørn Nyland Maybe, Tesla will surprise us for another time! We'll see :D
Why not just do a full charge everytime on a 70d and pretend you have a 75d?
+KingProne my point is that the capacity is there so there's no reason not to do a full charge every time. It's not like you're going to harm the battery because it's not truly a full charge.
+KingProne True. You could be hitting zero before you should be hitting zero.
+KingProne Same principle applies with ICE vehicles. Harder/faster you drive, more gas it uses hence shorter range before fill up.
I personally don't like this approach. It is very Un Elon Musk. If Tesla have put the battery range in the car then why limit it in a Scrooge like manner. I don't have a Tesla 70D but if I were offered an extra 5 kw for a price, I would double my use of Superchargers to bent my anger.
Stewart Mcleod well you pay less upfront if you don’t need it at the moment, and if you end up wanting more range just pay instead of getting a brand new car. Just call the service center and pay, then bam you got a 75.
So... It is theoredically possible to hack your Model S for free and get more range and autopilot
Can I hack it and get the 75 and autopilot for free :D