Apr 18, 2014
Andrew I posted this a few pages back, but nobody really responded so I want to bring it up again.
I was specifically told we'd have 90kW for our car before we purchased (Delivery March 8, 2013). "Up to half a charge in 30 minutes" was the way they worded it, if I remember correctly. If I'm not sharing a Supercharger, I can get that rate. I got exactly what I paid for and was promised, and I'm not upset with having an A battery.
So here's my question: Are there any "A" pack owners who were told they'd have 120kW charging (or "50% in 20 minutes") before they purchased?�
Apr 18, 2014
tenstringer009 These excerpts are directly from Tesla press releases.
24-Sep-2012:
30-May-2013:
Tesla was talking about 120kW charging when they first introduced the Supercharger network. Then, on 30-May-2013, they said that the 120kW charging capability would be rolled out to customers and that it will allow the Model S to be charged at 120kW. Maybe it's just me, but 'rolled out' strongly suggests that only a software update would be needed to take advantage of this, and there was no mention of it only working on future Model Ss or that it would only work on Model Ss with certain hardware.
Two more points that have been rehashed many times before. 1) There is a considerable number of people that were given an 'A' pack well after the 'B' packs were being produced/installed. 2) Some of those people also purchased the extended service agreement which promises 'hardware upgrades'. I feel like this would classify.
I think when you look at all of that combined, it's reasonable for people to expect that their Model S should be able to charge at 120kW.�
Apr 18, 2014
Norbert Those points were already discussed, and I don't think that's what Andrew was asking for. The 24-Sep-2012 release is about the Supercharger technology in general, and any car purchased on or after the 30-May-2013 release is 120 kW capable (as far as I know).
In any case, I wouldn't consider any of those an actual promise, to owners that their previously purchased Model S (without a future battery upgrade, which of course will not be covered by the service agreement, surely costing more than $10k) would take more than "almost" 100 kW. I'd agree that the 30-May-2013 could give you *hope* that it would apply too all Model S, but if you read with anything else than wishful thinking, you'll notice, for example, that it speaks about "beta testing", and the fact that this term is used means that nothing can be taken for granted, yet.
Nevertheless, I agree with those who think that Tesla should offer new battery pack upgrades, as soon as cell supply exceeds demand. Don't expect them to be free, but I'd hope that A-pack owners would receive them at an discount versus the official price.�
Apr 18, 2014
dsm363 The wording Tesla used was certainly vague (maybe on purpose or maybe they simply didn't know if they could technically roll out 120 to all customers) but not something in a contract. I certainly thought the 120 kW would apply to my car given the wording in those press releases but they were written in a way that looking back with what we know now it wasn't an iron clad promise to all customers. Sucks but that's is where we are now.�
Apr 18, 2014
AmpedRealtor I think the main crux of this issue isn't regarding cars manufactured after May 30th, 2013. It has to do with the fact that cars manufactured prior to May 30th, 2013 received a mix of A and B packs. As an owner, you had no idea what pack you would get and had no idea that one would charge at 90 kW and the other at up to 120 kW. Then, after the 120 kW superchargers roll out, we find out that some people who received their cars prior to May 30th are able to go to 120 kW while others who bought in the same time period cannot.
I can understand this. If I received my car today and you got yours next Friday, wouldn't you be irked if I could charge at 120 kW and you, who received a later vehicle, could only charge to 90 kW? That's what happened here.�
Apr 18, 2014
Norbert That certainly isn't the main crux, and it is not even an issue at all, since as far as we know, there were only B-and-later packs after May 30th 2013.
Although, we still don't seem to know the differences between B, C and D packs. And maybe some would be irked if they did. (Perhaps also having a not-in-chronological-sequence version.)�
Apr 18, 2014
tenstringer009 I agree that what I pointed out didn't really address Andrew's question. However, I do have a couple of comments on your statement.
1) I still struggle to believe that the 'A' battery pack folks are really asking for an battery upgrade when some of them just want the packs that the people who bought their cars a month before them got. I'd agree with you if the 'A' packs were asking for batteries of larger capacity that came out later or something, but that's not the case. Those who received their cars in late March-ish received vehicles that were less capable than the ones built before it. The argument could be made that there are other aspects of the Model S that are the same way (i.e. the removal of the teeth from the cupholders), but the battery is the most expensive component of the vehicle, so to get one that's less capable without having it be acknowledged at the time just doesn't feel good. To be honest, I don't believe Tesla knew about this limitation initially, and I do believe they will come through with some sort of program to help the 'A' packs out, but I think it was a misstep on their part. They did not manage expectations very well in this case.
2) The 30-May-2013 press release. Yes, I suppose Tesla could point to the 'beta' caveat of their announcement, but, think of it this way. For all those people who purchased their Tesla's after 30-May, I'd bet they'd be really ticked if their Tesla never reached 120kW charging. Again, Tesla could claim the 'beta' argument, but I'd doubt that'd fly very well with customers.�
Apr 18, 2014
apacheguy @Norbert - Regarding this "beta testing" theory of yours...
So, as it turns out, TM is beta testing firmware 6.0 in anticipation of a wider rollout. Now, wouldn't it be great if, upon release, we found out that any vehicle manufactured before 2014 was incompatible because these cars had hardware chipset Rev. A, whereas Rev. B was required to run 6.0? Nobody could possibly be upset at Tesla because, well that's how beta testing goes. Aferall, nobody signed a contract promising them 6.0, right?�
Apr 18, 2014
invisik Don't get us all worked up yet on some unknownMy guess is if there was a situation like that they'd have the software identify what revision the battery pack was and apply the corresponding limits to it. I'd be extremely surprised if everyone can't go to 6.0.
-m�
Apr 18, 2014
Norbert Probably a crucial point is that in my understanding, although products in general (including the Model S) tend to get better over time, it is quite often the case that announced new versions of a product, as well as unannounced changes, are not necessarily for the better. It is not uncommon that problematic features are removed or replaced with non-equivalent functionality, or that specific problems (due to changes in components) exist only with certain ranges of serial numbers, for example, and that these ranges don't start with zero. I never had the impression that customers have (or should have) special rights in such situations, unless the problem has an impact on the product functioning as advertised (at the time of purchase), and that's what Andrews question was about. (As I understood it.)
Of course companies should avoid such situations, but that is quite often not possible.�
Apr 18, 2014
dsm363 Anything is possible but Tesla has explicitly promised software updates. Even if your scenario Tesla could swap out this proposed chip for much less than an entirely new battery pack. I seriously doubt this will happen.�
Apr 18, 2014
tomas Methinks you do not understand the point of the hypothetical analogy set out there by Mr. Apacheguy. Please re-read in context! Not everything is meant literally!�
Apr 18, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
The analogy is clear to everyone I'm sure. At some point this may actually be the case but almost zero chance right now. A 2012 Model S couldn't handle version 12 or something of the software without a hardware update in the future for example. It's not like your car would stop working with version 11 just like an old iPhone that isn't supported with the latest iOS release doesn't stop working but might not gain new features. Tesla can't support all cars forever that but that a strong incentive you support old cars as long as possible even if they had to pay for minor hardware upgrades themselves.�
Apr 18, 2014
Norbert Exactly that happens with old computers: At some point they cannot run the latest software anymore, and that information is usually not part of the initial product announcement. But in this case, it wasn't the Model S that got improved, it was the Superchargers, and that had benefits for all Model S owners, including those with A-packs: when the Superchargers are shared. In that (common) case, it probably makes a larger difference than in the single-car-per-charger case.�
Apr 18, 2014
Panacea I feel for all the A pack owners. I put a deposit on my car Dec 2012 and took delivery May 2013, solely due to the fact that I had chosen MC red. I am sure that if I had wanted another color, I'd have an A pack now.�
Apr 18, 2014
jerry33 I also placed my order in December and picked it up in early March. I got a B pack.�
Apr 18, 2014
tomas I know you mods gotta speed read, but I don't think you got it. I really don't think he was suggesting this would happen. Not literal. Just trying to convey what it feels like to have an A.�
Apr 18, 2014
apacheguy ^This. Thank you.�
Apr 18, 2014
dsm363 I realize it wasn't a serious example like Tesla would tell everyone prior to 2014 that they wouldn't get 6.0 but I was trying to point out even it is is 7.0 or 8.0 it isn't the same in cost or scope as the battery pack. I have an A pack so I do know what it feels like.�
Apr 18, 2014
apacheguy Ok, that's reasonable. But, in the end, I think we also agree that:
A) The announcement was misleading. After all, you stated earlier that you had every expectation that your car would be compatible with the supercharger update.
B) There should be some upgrade path offered. Granted, maybe a chipset upgrade (as in my analogy), would be included in the service plan as a hardware upgrade. I concede that it may not be feasible to do so for an entire HV battery pack.
However, we now have a statement from Tesla that they intend to provide such an upgrade at a reasonable (i.e. not market) price so I realize that we have to be patient. The intention of my hypothetical analogy was merely to place the naysayers in our shoes and then perhaps they would understand why we are upset.�
Apr 18, 2014
dsm363 I agree that the announcement was misleading. I'm not sure it was intentional as some believe but we will likely never know. If they do provide a below market price upgrade for A pack owners then that would be a reasonable solution.�
Apr 18, 2014
dirkhh How many threads and how many thousand posts have we had on this topic now?
Summary: it sucks to have an A battery. It would be nice if Tesla gave people with an A battery a discount if and when they make battery upgrades available (with change in rules for zero emission credits I doubt we'll see a battery changing station any time soon and therefore am less optimistic we'll see a "market offering" for battery swaps).
But bigger picture this is not the huge deal that some people are trying to create out of it. As happens so often with Tesla the language was misleading, the announcements were overly optimistic and lacking some small print. But would you rather drive an ICE? Or a Leaf? No. So let's relax.�
Apr 18, 2014
Cosmacelf I have an A battery. The one time I did an extended trip in my car and used Superchargers (4 of them), I didn't have to wait a single extra minute to charge. I was either eating, taking breaks or talking to people while the car charged. Not a single minute was spent waiting for the car to finish charging (of course, I never charged to full capacity at a Supercharger either, didn't need to).
Now, YMMV, but really, this is pretty minor.
I understand that they promised 120kW charging, but I chalk that up to a chaotic startup mentality. Thankfully, Tesla doesn't have a cumbersome product management process to introduce new changes. The good is that we have product changes quickly, the bad is communication issues.
There are a LOT of improvements from the early cars to the latest ones. The battery is just one of the many differences.�
Apr 19, 2014
Musterion Actually matches my timeline and color exactly and I received the A pack. So ironically (see jerry33 post and wiki), in that time frame you might have been more likely to receive the B pack with a different color and earlier delivery. I.e. You got lucky!�
Apr 19, 2014
tezco I'm more concerned about the possibility of a sudden failure of the contactors in my A pack.�
Apr 19, 2014
tomas Plz elaborate.�
Apr 19, 2014
AmpedRealtor What is the reason for the concern?�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman This in no way stops them from releasing only 5.9.a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h (i.e. < 6.x) firmware updates for every car that has been delivered to date. Using the same logic that has been applied to the A/B pack discussion.
- - - Updated - - -
Just some polite feedback: I suspect your intent was to motivate people to "relax" but what you've said here provokes the exact opposite response from me. Take from that what you will.
Telling people what is a huge deal (to you) and what should or shouldn't be a huge deal to them is, IMO, "unhelpful" at best.
It's kind of like telling your significant other that he/she shouldn't be upset. It triggers a visceral "you don't own my feelings" response but very rarely worded as such.�
Apr 22, 2014
WarpedOne There is one simple way how tesla could resolve this 'issue': Step back to 90kW supercharging for all cars.
Dress it in "fair treatment of customers and improved battery lifetime" and all will be happy.
Or not?�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman While I don't think they should do this (I'm not into "make it suck for everyone, equally" race-to-the-bottom solutions), it would be amusing to see how the "A Angst Critics" react after a month of 90 kW limited charging (and the same taper that A packs are seeing).�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 Well the make everyone happy solution at this point is offering all A pack owners a free upgrade to B packs or above. I'm not sure that is practical at this point regardless of how Tesla worded their Supercharger upgrade roll out. Those words have already been gone over multiple times. Tesla knows people are concerned about this and if a software update can't fix this issue for A packs then we can only wait and hope Tesla offers that proposed below market rate trade in program for A packs.�
Apr 22, 2014
rlang59 Sorry but I disagree with that. The upgrade shouldn't be free, there should be some prorated cost for mileage and I'm not sure that anyone would reasonably argue with that.�
Apr 22, 2014
tomas Anyone needing a free and/or immediate upgrade to be happy is destined for a long stretch of unhappiness. I do not think most A owners have this expectation. The reason this topic always draws a barrage of bitterness is the communications issue, because it's a violation of principles. Having said that, if I were in Tesla's shoes, not sure how I'd play it differently. Start up company needs to sell cars to survive, not attract bad press with a parts drama. If they had formally communicated the slight difference, every hater out there would pick it up, exaggerate, and magnify.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 I agree I was just saying the only solution that would make everyone happy. If it's not free, someone will complain.
A program where the people are really bothered by it for whatever reason where they can turn in their old pack and buy the new one for some prorated amount would be a fair option. I'm not sure how Tesla should have communicated it differently either. Let's assume they didn't realize the difference until production of B packs had started but they still have a few hundred A packs left. Do they announce this and write off a few million dollars in packs? Do they give option of an A pack but a discount which would make others angry? Do they announce the B pack and then have people refuse delivery if their car arrives with an A pack? I agree they might have handled this better but not exactly sure how. If they already had a grid storage portion of the business up and running to battery swap going they might have been able to just use them there but they don't. I doubt Tesla would have knowingly continued to produce A packs once they knew the difference unless they had a few million dollars in cells that were already purchased and they couldn't return.�
Apr 22, 2014
rlang59 I was pointing out that if it is free for some then those that don't get a free battery will complain. Probably won't find a solution that makes everyone happy.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 In this case all A packs would get replaced if the customer wanted it but then you'll have people with old B packs and some degradation complain that someone got a free upgrade in range. You're right, they can't win here.�
Apr 22, 2014
apacheguy FWIW, I think many of us would accept refurbished packs, as opposed to new. That should help Tesla make the business case and it would also eliminate their supply constrained argument.�
Apr 22, 2014
roblab The problem seems to me that everyone is simply assuming that B packs are better because they are able to charge at 120 kW for a few minutes every month.
No one knows if that is better, or not. Probably Tesla is still collecting data.
There are other parameters. While doing our charge off, it seemed that the B packs went up to 120 for a short while and then began to taper off, dropping to lower charge rate than the A packs. It seemed that the A packs charged at a higher rate for almost half the time, although never enough to catch up to the quick charge jump that the B packs got. That's why the A packs were able to keep from losing more minutes than they did.
But obviously there are a lot of A packs out there where the owners are not upset enough to demand a new pack. We do not know whether the A packs will degrade more slowly, thereby lasting longer before needing replacement. We do not know if A packs are more robust in other ways, or not. We are just assuming that B packs must be better, simply because you can save a few minutes on a Supercharger a few times a month.
I would not jump at a chance to trade, because I don't know what I'm getting in return.
I'm willing to wait and see. Tesla is not some sleazy auto company who is only out to take your money. They are out to change the world, and usually seem to try to make things right. Sure, they screw up, the communication is a problem, but really, the company is only a couple years old. I want to give them the benefit, at least until we know a little more.�
Apr 22, 2014
WarpedOne This communication thing ... it is not up to what owners wish for, but still there IS at least some communication.
How much communication you get from Porsche, BMW, Nissan about your current vehicle and available improvements, variations in production etc?
In my previous car they could not even say what disk-brake set fits my car without tearing it apart ...�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 I agree. Let this play out over time and once we know more, those that are really concerned about a few extra minutes during a supercharge will be better informed and can ask for what they think is fair. Tesla would likely be less battery constrained as well. I have an A pack and unless Tesla just decided to give a free upgrade I doubt I'd pay for the upgrade. I don't Supercharge enough to make even a ten min difference worth it for me personally. Years from now if a 110kWh pack was available that also have 135kW charging then I could see paying for that.�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman They do this anyway. There are haters for tank mode as well, when all signs point to this being an all-positive result for current and future owners.
If Tesla uses "someone might say something bad about us" as a reason to degrade (or not improve) the communication with owners, then they are destined for failure because they would have to stop communicating almost entirely (beyond what's legally required).
- - - Updated - - -
Here's where I think some disagreement comes into play among TMC members.
I believe:
1. The underlined is true and we have an abundance of supporting evidence.
2. Tesla had the option to go public about A vs. B after the discovery and before new A cars were delivered to owners. Instead, they chose to quietly ship A cars after discovering the issue.
3. The not underlined part is irrelevant w/r/t not informing current and future owners openly and quickly, rather than having owners discover it on their own and then respond to inquiries so poorly.
Paraphrasing:
We did something bad because ___.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm confused by this statement. Being able to charge at a higher charge rate is better by definition. It's one of the key parameters of the Tesla driving experience that separates it from other EVs.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 So if Tesla had $40 million in A pack cells they couldn't return they should just trash them? It's not like they were producing packs that didn't work or that violated the sales agreement. Have you found any contract saying the car would be delivered with 120kW charging capability? I agree the communication wasn't great but what would you have done since you are upset about this?�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman I'm going to start using a "few extra hours during a trip" since that's a better capture of the real problem for me, and somewhat avoids the trivialization of the issue.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
During a trip maybe. During a day even a 15 min difference would only be 45 min during a 1,000 mile a trip assuming 250 mile legs and three stops and leaving with a full charge and charging at your destination. How many people make regular 1,000 mile day trips? Yes 45 min is 45 min but to throw out millions of dollars of product maybe on this makes little sense for a small company.
I didn't say this side was trivial for some but again what would you have Tesla do assuming they had many A cells already purchased and no way to get rid of them (we don't know this to be the case)?�
Apr 22, 2014
Lloyd I've expressed my opinion before, and I believe I am one of the few that has had both an "A" pack and a "B" pack. IMO: It's not that big a deal. 4 minutes is pretty much correct in the difference, although I did not have both side by side for comparison.�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman Extremes are the only options? I'm surprised you didn't say "should they just crush the already-produced-but-not-delivered A cars EV-1 style".
There are many options with dealing this situation. Some obvious examples are listed below.
There's a lot of things Tesla has promised that aren't contractually captured. And, no, I haven't been spinning my wheels trying to get search engines to improve for simple time-filtered queries.
There's a lot of things they could have done. Some off the top...
- Clearly indicate on the paperwork for all vehicles with B+ packs which version of the battery pack they have.
- Set new-but-not-installed A packs aside for supercharger solar storage and (maybe) swapping.
- Use new-but-not-installed A packs in vehicles that are put directly into the loaner fleet.
- Reserve new-but-not-installed A packs for replacements of already delivered A cars.
- Expand in-house battery testing program with the new-but-not-installed A packs; I'm sure they still have plenty to learn on the way to Gen 3 (and beyond) about battery technology.
- Be open and straightforward on the supercharging page, like they were on the frunk page with the VIN # cutoff and on the information about the child seats VIN cutoff.
- Have a conversation with owners with social media or otherwise to take their input on the situation.
- Have a frank conversation with owners with social media or otherwise that (a) they are adding logic in the firmware to limit A packs and (b) explain why this is the case -- preemptively, before delivering a single B vehicle and before touting 120 kW on the website.
- Formally connect a price shift with the introduction of the B packs, rather than (as it seems) do it subtly (some would use a harsher word).
There's a lot of things they could (and, in some cases, definitely should) have done better. I don't buy the "other car companies do shady things too" argument. Many of us "bought into" the "Tesla is different" sales pitch from Roadster owners -- the company not the cars. This issue (and others) has(/have) led to trust erosion.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
We don't have the details. It could likely have been the case that holding all A packs aside would have led to a big stoppage of production since not enough B packs were produced. We don't know. Why are you surprised I didn't say they should just crush them like EV1s? Really?
A VIN cutoff might not as been as clean as you would want. There were obviously some cars mixed in with A or B packs.
Bottom line is we don't know when Tesla figured out there was a major difference (in your opinion), how many cells or A packs were waiting to be installed, how quickly they could make B packs to make up for all the A packs they produced in order to not halt Model S production...etc.
Again, how does the difference in charging speed lead to hours and hours of difference during a trip? Was your Signature car instantly made worse when Tesla announced the 120kW charging or did it charge like if did before?
They have 40,000 cars driving around now so get plenty of data from that already. If they had a few hundred A packs (we don't know again) pulling them from production might not add much.�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman Suppose I grant this.
What is their excuse for having no public statement or web page commentary on the fact that there are packs limited to < 120 kW supercharging, and they've been limited like this for months? I can find no official public statement from Tesla that even acknowledges this issue. For a company that I'd like to trust, I find this upsetting.
At best it's confusing, but it's more easily painted as deception.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
Maybe they simply didn't think it was a big deal. Who knows. They've stated their intended use of the Supercharging network is charging to 80% then heading to next Supercharger (I realize some need 100% charge). Assuming that then the 4 min charging difference might not have set off alarm bells for them sufficient enough to ditch, find alternative uses for or do whatever with the X number of A packs they had already produced. We just don't know.
Again why are you surprised I didn't suggest Tesla just crush the A packs like the EV1? It may be easier to paint this as deception or a conspiracy but that doesn't make it any more accurate. Again, we simply don't know so you are speculating as to motivations and facts as much as I am.
And again, how does this difference cause hours of delay during a trip when it is at most an hour during a very long day of driving?�
Apr 22, 2014
dirkhh Hey brianman... you really shouldn't feel so strongly about being told how you should feel...
/me gets popcorn�
Apr 22, 2014
Norbert I don't think they will make a statement about this that would be more public than Jerome's (VP), as it isn't something that has an effect on what you can or can't do with the car (unlike, for example, range). Charging does take longer, but specific charging times cannot be guaranteed in any case (as when there are 2 cars at a Supercharger, for example, when B, C or D packs don't get 120 kW for each, either). Perhaps that changes when they are able to offer battery replacements. Perhaps not.
I expect they will start shipping E, F and G packs as silently as they started shipping B, C and D packs (unless perhaps range will improve noticeably).�
Apr 22, 2014
qwk So what about people with B-D 120kw capable packs without any(even 90kw)superchargers near them? Should they whine too?
FWIW, I have a B pack, but have yet to supercharge. 17k miles, and 14 months of ownership. 90kw would be light speed compared to the RV parks I visit.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 It's a problem with continual improvement and no traditional model years. If they pre-announce a change from D to E pack that will allow 135kW charging for example they risk future sales or angering people who are currently in production or even A pack owners maybe. They also aren't able to dump off last year's model on dealerships and have them deal with the pain of discounting cars to move old product. Every new feature they come out with will piss someone off. Do we really want them to stop innovating out of fear they might anger someone who already owns the car? When they have something concrete to offer other than 'sorry, we could have been better with our communication but the A packs still work fine' then I'm sure they'll do that.�
Apr 22, 2014
apacheguy No problem with innovation - just be upfront about it and don't set false expectations. I'll give you an example:
JB has said that Tesla is targeting a 5 minute recharge time for the Model S, which I think is great but I sure as heck don't ever expect my car to be compatible with it. 120 kW was billed as a firmware driven change compatible with all cars. Simple as that.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
Agreed. Messaging was flawed. Some who are upset had their cars for months before this possible firmware update was announced so their car didn't change. There was no bait and switch for people like me. If you bought the car specifically on the 120kW promise then I can understand being upset about the vague implied promise.�
Apr 22, 2014
Norbert Unless your car is compatible with upcoming battery exchange stations. (Which Tesla might not know yet.)�
Apr 22, 2014
AmpedRealtor This is what Tesla should have done in the first place and never announced 120 kW supercharging. Any upgrades to the supercharger hardware would be invisible and behind the scenes. There would have been no outcry, and no disappointment. Nobody would have known anything different than 90 kW supercharging and all would have been fine with the world.
- - - Updated - - -
Using this same logic, shouldn't B pack owners be upset by A pack owners getting a free upgrade? What's to stop them from demanding a free upgrade to C or D packs? It's a slippery slope that I'm sure Tesla is going to avoid at all costs.�
Apr 22, 2014
apacheguy Good point. If my MS isn't compatible with the super swapper then the s will hit the fan because I specifically purchased an Tesla with a swappable pack. That has been in the specs since the beginning.�
Apr 22, 2014
Norbert I think Elon said multiple times they will build it between SF-LA and extend it based on customer reception of the technology (perhaps as part of "forward looking statements"). So there you already have "small print" that it might not come anywhere else, if for some reason customers don't fully accept the technology as implemented.�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman I think you underestimate how many supercharging sessions you can fit in 24 hours.
- - - Updated - - -
If it's not clear to Tesla by now that this is a big deal to some of their owners and still haven't officially and publicly addressed the topic then they have more than just a communication problem.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't characterize a private e-mail to a handful of owners a "public statement". They don't advertise 120 kW only in private e-mail.�
Apr 22, 2014
AmpedRealtor Why do you assume that if Tesla is not commenting, then it's either not clear to them or that it is a communication problem? There is another option - they simply don't wish to address this issue because they do not see it as an issue. That doesn't mean it's "not clear to Tesla", it simply means that in their opinion there is no issue to address. Why do you presume that your position is the only correct position, and that any other position (i.e., Tesla's position) is incorrect and flawed or uninformed?
What is a big deal to some of the owners - and I believe it's 20-30 who have banded together to push this issue - is not a big deal to most owners. There will always be issues for some people. That doesn't obligate Tesla to respond to every unhappy person and to formulate a public communications strategy surrounding what it is that made a small minority of owners unhappy.
Cue the bashing...�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 I don't. You said to not use extreme examples though. How many people Supercharge 6 times in a day during a trip would you guess (a 1,200 mile trip at least with 5 Supercharges or a 20 min delay if going to 80% or maybe a 75 min delay for range charging which isn't always necessary between Superchargers) ? Yes, this entire situation is not ideal but you bought your car knowing 90kW charging was there, right? Then they seemed to promise 120kW after you got your car but then backed off that promise. Was the car as delivered harmed in any way? Sure 120 and 135kW charging would be awesome if we could get it but it looks like we can't at this point.
If Tesla had promised 120kW charging with delivery in writing and then backtracked to delivered with 120kW charging and then degraded it to 90kW then you'd have a strong case. As it is, your car was delivered with 90kW charging and that has not changed.
I'll ask again: How does the difference in charging speed lead to hours and hours of difference during a trip? Was your Signature car instantly made worse when Tesla announced the 120kW charging or did it charge like it did before?�
Apr 22, 2014
Norbert Not really, but it is a sort-of-official response which they likely expected to be posted on social media (like here). My point though is that I don't expect anyone from Tesla to do more than that. If someone asks this question in public Q&A, they may respond by pointing out that the 120 kW Superchargers reduce the charging time for all Model S when they are shared between multiple cars. At the scale at which Tesla is growing and innovating, they can't alway exclude having to make a step back before making two forward, and they want to talk about what they intend to do without confusing the public (and themselves) with lots of details (which would lead to lots of misunderstandings), especially when those details may include information about suppliers that is often treated as confidential.�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman You're reading way more into what I said than what I said.
- - - Updated - - -
You're trying to argue multiple points at once, so I've trimmed out the extraneous distractions to focus on the question I was addressing.
The term "minutes" is thrown around relative to a charging session to imply it's trivial. I used the term "hours" in conjunction with "trip" to try to get across that it's not trivial.
Regarding charging sessions in a day... For me a trip worthy of calling a trip is rarely done in one day. In fact, if there's only one charging sessions I don't really even call it a trip typically. A "trip" for me typically involves at least 2 days (typically more) and at least 3-4 charging sessions. "Oh that's only 4x4... 16 minutes slower than 120kW." No, no it's not. Not even bad math and approximation makes it only a 16 minute difference.
Sidenote: I don't understand phrases like "hours and hours". It's just extra words that mean the same thing as "hours" but perhaps with "<add dramatic flair>". I don't think I've ever used that phrasing in speech or typing, other than to quote it like here. (FWIW I'm not a fan of multiple characters of punctuation to end a sentence either unless it's for trailing off, but we digress....)�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363
For a single charging session it is measured in minutes. Whether that's 4 min difference to 80% or 15min or so to 100%. How is that hours again?
Since you only responded to a few parts of a few sentences in the post to them I'll ask again:
Yes, this entire situation is not ideal but you bought your car knowing 90kW charging was there, right? Then they seemed to promise 120kW after you got your car but then backed off that promise. Was the car as delivered harmed in any way?
No one is arguing 90kW charging is slower. Whether is 16 min for 4 charges to 80% as Tesla says or an hour, that still doesn't qualify as 'hours' in my mind as that would imply more than one hour to most people. If you are doing a range charge for every single stop then yes, it will take longer. I always though 4x4=16 so I might have misunderstood what you are trying to get across. So your trip in one day with two supercharges takes 30 min longer than the new standard. Did the time it takes to charge your car degrade from what it was delivered as meaning does it charge slower than it used to or only in relation to the newer cars?�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman I didn't say it was.
- - - Updated - - -
Actually yes, I believe it has. But that's a different discussion, unrelated to A vs. B+.
- - - Updated - - -
(a) This matches your recollection and interpretation, but it doesn't match mine. And no, I don't want to play "internet link or it didn't happen game" again today.
(b) I don't recall saying it was (at least not w/r/t A vs. B).�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 I must have misunderstood this:
Yes, you are talking about a 'trip' but you said 'a few extra hours during a trip' and then later gave an example of a two day trip with 4 supercharges. That would imply that measuring a single Supercharger stop in minutes is wildly inaccurate since a few extra hours is added during a trip.
It shouldn't come down to recollection. If you have something in writing from Tesla (contract or agreement) that states you as a Signature costumer would be getting 120kW charging please post that. I don't understand what you are upset about then in terms of your ability to travel or charge (not what Tesla implied wrongly on their website). Your car functions exactly as it always has after delivery and changes to other cars and Supercharging infrastructure has not negatively impacted your ability or speed to Supercharge (might even improve it with 120kW split among 2 cars).�
Apr 22, 2014
brianman If that's the bar for what we should expect from Tesla going forward, then Roadster owners led us astray. I don't plan to ask Tesla to put everything they promise in writing; I expect them to stand behind what they say in an official capacity. Apparently you expect it to be scribed on tablets or "not count". I think we just won't see eye to eye on this ever. We're just too far apart.
- - - Updated - - -
I think so. I probably should have said "my understanding of the real problem" instead of "real problem for me".
My point was that the real issue is for the impact on a "trip" (i.e., where multiple charging sessions are involved) the "mere minutes" are not single digit minutes and they add up quickly. This gets further exacerbated when my minutes delay someone else's charges, thus impacting their minutes, etc.
Generally speaking, I don't feel like I'm losing years of my life bored senseless waiting at superchargers. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
A slight tangent: I don't expect it to be too long before the "charging etiquette" threads start suggesting that 90kW-limited owners should let the 120+kW owners go first when there is a line.�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 Not sure blaming Roadster owners is appropriate. I expect Tesla to follow through when they promise something as well but don't have a guarantee unless it is in writing. Tesla didn't from what I remember explicitly state 'all customers will be gaining the ability to charge at 120kw'. You even state
Tesla said they had 'plans' to roll this out. If Tesla is never allowed to aggressively pursue goals and fall short then Tesla is in trouble. I'm sure they intended to roll this out to everyone but can't for whatever reason (technical or business case). Sometimes companies plan things that don't work out. That sucks and I'm disappointed I'm not going to get 120kW charging at this point but it really doesn't make the Model S any less of a car as delivered. That still doesn't change the fact that 90kW was promised for sure and the car was delivered with that capability. That hasn't changed no matter what they had to retract or modify.
Elon also had other factually incorrect information a year before launch. The blog said
"He also announced that a performance-tuned Model S will launch at the start of production, traveling from 0 to 60 mph in an incredible 4.5 seconds" when it was actually 4.2 seconds. We need to look at statements from Tesla after the car was finalized and people started taking delivery. Promises while the car was in beta are nice but no one was locked into the car at that point.�
Apr 22, 2014
apacheguy Yes, that's correct. I live in So Cal so arriving at a super swapper won't be much of an issue. If, however, we find out that not all Tesla's are compatible with the technology then Tesla will have a serious issue on their hands since they have promised from day one that all MS's come with a swappable pack.�
Apr 22, 2014
dirkhh My understanding is that with the rule change to the zero emission credits Tesla no longer plans to build a battery swapping station.
But I was trying to find the source where I read that and my Google-Foo appears to be lacking. Can't find it anymore. So I'm not sure.�
Apr 22, 2014
Musterion Tesla to Get Fewer Eco Credits as California Tweaks Rules
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-04/tesla-to-get-fewer-eco-credits-as-california-tweaks-rules.html
As I understand it, in principle the battery swap would allow Tesla to regain the new "rapid charge" credits that replace the current ones, but:
Quote from article re: battery swap:
"While Tesla has proposed opening battery-swap stations to let its drivers exchange depleted packs with fully charged ones within a minute or two, none have opened. When they do, the proposed change also requires detailed documentation of how much they are used, in order to get the maximum credits."�
Apr 22, 2014
Norbert That's not my recollection. Early concept papers and webpages did include a general notion of battery swap. However at the time Model S production became real, I think word from Elon was that the cars would be built with the intention of allowing battery swap, but that it might be used only for servicing the cars, and that it wouldn't be clear if they would actually build swap stations (and to which extent), and that it would depend to some degree on what customers ask for. (Speaking of before they demoed a working swap station.)
Speaking in general, there seems to be the danger of mixing Tesla talking about future technology they are working on (for example Elon in shareholder meetings), with actual product announcements referring to the car as you order it.�
Apr 22, 2014
apacheguy Ok, well, first off by your definition a Nissan Leaf has a swappable pack. That is clearly not true.
Believe me, it was abundantly at the time I placed my order for the car that the Model S was going to be swap compatible. I remember that fact very clearly because it was something that really intrigued me. Swap stations themselves were never promised, but the promise was that if they were to ever exist that I could take my MS and swap out the battery pack. There's no two ways around it this time.
Ah, found one source (2009 article):
REPORT: Tesla Model S was designed with battery swaps in mind�
Apr 22, 2014
dsm363 Yes. Tesla said the Model S was battery swap capable from the beginning but as you said, no explicit promises a network of swap stations. I don't think anyone is arguing that at the moment. That is a separate issue form the A pack issue anyway.�
Apr 22, 2014
Norbert 2009 was part of the concept phase I talked about (production started in 2012). I agreed that it was talked about very early. But not promised at production time to be usable with a network of stations. I'd very much expect that they do their very best to make any swap stations, that they might build, compatible with all cars. But if that turns out not to be practically possible, then it isn't. (for example I was always wondering how many swaps the bolts and nuts might endure). And if they can't make it work, then that should not forbid them to try a new mechanism that makes it possible.�
Apr 22, 2014
apacheguy Norbert is, ahem, arguing that issue. But yes, we have digressed.�
Apr 22, 2014
Norbert No, I agree with the way dsm363 put it.
However it seems that for both of these features, a fair amount of the expectations came from the early concept phases (or perhaps later development-level intentions), rather than from promises at production time.�
Oct 15, 2014
apacheguy Coincidence that the battery swap stations are slated for a December opening, just before 2015? Perhaps this is one way they can address the A pack issue and give us a hardware upgrade discount?
Tesla's battery-swap stations will finally arrive in December�
Oct 15, 2014
TexasEV The article said in the next few months. Don't know where the headline writer got December from, but it's unlikely anyone from Tesla said anything that specific. And we all know what in the next few months could mean.�
Oct 15, 2014
tomas It would be grossly inequitable to provide this sort of back door upgrade to a pack owners in CA but not elsewhere. I'd go ballistic, but not worrying until we see if/what actually happens.�
Oct 15, 2014
gaswalla Road trip!!�
Oct 15, 2014
apacheguy Right, which is why it would just be one of the methods they could employ. It would enable them to reduce labor costs to $0 for a sizable fraction of all A packs in the wild. They would have to think up something fair for others outside of CA.�
Oct 15, 2014
mknox Agreed. I'm only mildly perturbed, but perturbed nonetheless that my March 2013 car came with an A-pack while two individuals I know who have February cars have B-packs. To me, it's a bit different than the issue of dual-drive/autopilot coming out right after someone ordered and received a car without the features because I got a car with earlier technology after cars with the newer technology were being delivered.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét