Apr 1, 2014
joefee I've had several back and forths with Tesla re: "A Pack" Upgrades/Battery Swap. Here is the latest FYI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thank you for your message and your interest in upgrading your battery pack.
Please note that we remain constrained in our capacity to produce batteries. We will not be able to offer replacement packs for several months. Until then, we also need to sort out the business case.
Thank you for your understanding, your patience, and your continued support. Best regards,
Jerome Guillen VP, WW sales and service
www.teslamotors.com"�
Apr 1, 2014
AmpedRealtor Where is the news?�
Apr 1, 2014
Trnsl8r Sounds like an official no answer to me...�
Apr 1, 2014
Vger Well, it is somewhat news that Jerome is holding himself to "several months." This means that if we get to 2015 and there is no offer of upgrades, Tesla will be in bad faith on this point. Respectfully...�
Apr 1, 2014
Shumdit I say don't hold your breath on this one....�
Apr 1, 2014
gaswalla the official answer is that there is no official answer
thanks for getting this from the source�
Apr 1, 2014
dirkhh What makes you think that "several months" means fewer than, say, 60? How long have you tried to parse "Tesla time"?�
Apr 1, 2014
Cosmacelf I have an A pack and I'm fine with it. Literally a few minutes more worst case, no change in time if the supercharger is busy? Not worth worrying about.�
Apr 1, 2014
apacheguy Not to mention that it can be up to 15-20 minutes slower per charge and there are concerns regarding faster degradation and reliability.�
Apr 1, 2014
Doug_G "Business case" - so this is about a paid-for update, then? Doesn't sound cheap!�
Apr 2, 2014
Cosmacelf Concerns, but no hard data. Proof?�
Apr 2, 2014
essaunders I'll bet they would tie this in with the battery swap option to keep the new battery. I believe that model was to charge for the delta value in the pack capacity (degradation). The business case is how much (if any) discount to offer "A" pack holders when they get a newer pack.�
Apr 2, 2014
AnOutsider business case could also mean: "would the cost of doing the swap be worth it if it built good will? Could we do it, and only charge labor fees?" etc.�
Apr 2, 2014
Todd Burch Tell me again why any A pack owner feels entitled to an upgrade? Yes, I have an A pack. No, I don't feel we're entitled to an upgrade. Tesla owes us nothing.�
Apr 2, 2014
dsm363 Agree. If they provide the option to upgrade at a fair price and people really want to do it then that's a win/win but the A packs still work.�
Apr 2, 2014
brianman Let me simplify that theory for you...
This has not been the case for anything regarding Model S. I'm not clear where people see the precedent, evidence, or supporting material for such assertions these days.
- - - Updated - - -
It's been discussed many times and you can read the relevant threads as well as I have.
In short: Tesla indicated as early as 2011 (read: before anyone took delivery of Model S) that the vehicle would support 120 kW supercharging -- without any hardware changes to the vehicle. When that later proved to be incorrect, they were at best shady about not coming clean with the failure to follow-through. There were several points along this timeline that Tesla could have corrected course rather than letting owners discovered that they were sold something different than they actually got.�
Apr 2, 2014
Todd Burch Tesla also told me I could store music on the on-board hard drive. Can't do that either. How is this different?�
Apr 2, 2014
dirkhh It is not. But what does that have to do with @brianman's point?�
Apr 2, 2014
joefee This issue has been covered extensively here http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/24799-Older-Teslas-limited-to-90kW-Supercharging
Let's not do a rehash on this new thread. What is new: The timeline, upgrade business case in progress, and IMO the lack of mention of "Battery Swap" as a solution.�
Apr 2, 2014
teslasguy This sounds like the response I got from him when I asked him if Tesla would honor George Bs commitment to retrofit our cars with lighted vanity mirrors. His response was that 'unfortunately this is not on the current product calendar'. Has anyone seen lighted mirrors yet? I would much rather see just a yes or no to such questions.�
Apr 2, 2014
brianman I would agree this is another area where they failed to deliver what was promised.
As for your question on the difference, generally...
There isn't one. People are still unhappy about this, just less vocally. Also, there isn't an "A" and "B" car situation regarding the media storage so that component of the discussion isn't present (yet?).
As for your question on the difference, personally...
Music storage wasn't a critical aspect of either the vehicle behavior or what I wanted out of it. XM radio is another thing on my "barely care" list.
The performance of the vehicle (motor/battery), range (battery), and recharge rate (battery/chargers/etc.) are primary aspects of the vehicle.
Furthermore, I can workaround the storage problem with USB keys and so forth. I can't just insert something in my frunk that will give me 120 or 135kW supercharging. It's a pretty significant difference.
Since someone mentioned it, I'll just add...
Vanity mirrors, sunshade, etc. These are slightly different as these were "promised" verbally at various venues and via email. They were never documented as features on the web site, part of the ordering process web pages, etc. As such, I always considered them vaporware until proven otherwise. But features that were listed on the product pages at the time the vehicle was ordered and were never officially cancelled are, IMO, at best "legally problematic" for Tesla if they continue with this pattern.
Examples that were published but vanished include more USB ports, "car as wifi hotspot" feature. Sadly, Audi (and others) are bringing this to market before Tesla. If I were Audi (and others), I'd rub that in Tesla's face a bit in their advertising (if they aren't already).�
Apr 2, 2014
David99 I remember seeing the actual graph (people here posted it) of the charging progress at a Supercharger. Over a period of 40 min it only hits 120 kw for about 10 min. The rest is ramping up at the beginning and then it starts to taper already. If your battery is hot/cold or your state of charger is 30% or more the time you have full power is even lower or you actually never get 120 kw. I'm not saying it's irrelevant, but in many real world situations the difference between 90 kW and 120 kW is not significant.
As for lighted mirrors: It will come with the next firmware. As you open the mirror the main screen will switch to white and set the brightness to 100%. That should do the trick
�
Apr 2, 2014
brianman Others have shown that in many real world situations it is significant. Further, some have shown that in most of their personal situations it's significant.
What you've said is kind of like saying "many numbers are even, so let's ignore the odd". I never recommend ignoring the odd. You get into all kinds of trouble that way. (Never ignore the even either. They can sneak up on you like a quiet neighbor that has a lot of weaponry in the basement.)�
Apr 2, 2014
Zextraterrestrial I have a new pack and will be hitting the Grants pass SC on Friday Sat & Sunday. In February I recorded a couple of data sets from my A battery at this SC and will get some more to compare the 2 batteries on the same car at the same charge spot.�
Apr 2, 2014
AmpedRealtor Hate to put such a fine point on this, but no, your car does not suddenly charge any "slower" than it did before. Your car charges exactly the same as it always did, and takes the same amount of time as it always did. The fact that the new superchargers are faster is a completely different point. You are not slower, you are the same. Newer cars may charge faster if they are the only car charging, but that's not the intent behind raising the supercharger limit. Tesla has already stated that upgrades to 120 kW and higher are for to allow more cars to be charged in a day, not necessarily for a single vehicle to charge faster. The faster superchargers are able to provide a higher charge to each vehicle in congested situations, and that is the reason behind the upgrades. The reason is not so that an individual car, at an otherwise empty supercharger, can charge at a full 120 kW or 135 kW.
With regard to "concerns regarding faster degradation and reliability", please point to any hard facts that you have to support this issue. Otherwise you are just spreading misinformation and trying to scare other owners. Version 5.9 of the firmware resolved most, if not all, range drop issues. I personally gained 23 miles at a 50% SOC, but nothing was wrong with my battery because I've charged to 301 miles before on a full charge.
Be happy. Your car works as designed and has all the features that Tesla represented to you at the time you bought it. If you felt that Tesla promised 120 kW supercharging to you AFTER you bought your car, well, that happened AFTER you bought it. You can't go back in time and pretend that a promise made after you purchased your vehicle would have changed your decision to purchase the vehicle, and before that particular promise was ever made.�
Apr 2, 2014
FlasherZ I've read most of the other thread, so apologies if there's a pointer in there already... can you provide me with a link to where that was said? I only recall a statement that the cars could do Supercharging, not any specific numbers.
When I did have an "A" pack, I did not believe that I had any particular entitlement to 120 kW, because I have no recollection of 120 kW ever being promised to me. I certainly don't recall anything being said in 2011. I do recall Elon saying during the launch event in 9/12 that Supercharging would be at 90 kW initially and that the technology had the potential to reach 120 kW, but he did not say that all cars had the capability. If there is an indication out there, I might consider the "promises left unkept" angle -- but right now I don't believe there was any promise.
(Yes, I realize that with my pack replacement I have mooted any issue for me personally. That said, even when I had an "A" pack I didn't have any level of furor over it.)�
Apr 2, 2014
mknox My car has the wiring harness for the lighted vanity mirrors behind the microphone grille (plan to use it for my dash cam) but no lighted mirrors. I understand newer cars no longer have the 12v wiring harness up there any longer, so I'd say the chances of lights are close to zero.
- - - Updated - - -
While true, one of the other things I bought from Tesla was the pre-paid Service Plan which claimed (at the time) was the only way to get software and hardware upgrades. Since lots of folks without the Plan are getting smaller hardware upgrades anyway (door handles, defroster grilles) I thought I might be entitled to some of the more significant upgrades as per my Plan.�
Apr 2, 2014
brianman I'm having trouble with my search engines today. Apparently they all suck with doing date-specific criteria.
The closest I got on a short search regarding supercharger references in 2011 is this:
Tesla announces Model S performance version
So supercharging was being discussed at least that early. And the announcement from Oct 2nd was referenced in the 2nd video here
Revealing Model S Beta | Blog | Tesla Motors
where he talks about "yesterday" announcing the performance vehicle.
My recollection is that even in those early discussions of the 90kW supercharging capability, Elon continued to emphasize plans to move to 120kW and that no physical changes would be required on the cars. Elon's "magic of OTA updates" reminds me of Gates's "magic of software" phrase that sounded sparkly once or twice, but after a while begins to dull.
Generally, though, we probably have similar recollections FlasherZ but I don't give them leeway on this one as much as you seem to. They are continually relying on "loose promises" with "unresolved delivery" of those promises. I don't want that from Tesla. I can get that from used car dealerships on every street corner.
Promise crisply, and deliver. I shouldn't need a lawyer to parse the language every time Tesla has something cool to tell me about.
More specifically: Can you recall a single official announcement that makes it unabashedly clear that at least one customer Model S is not capable of 120kW supercharging? No. Why is this? Is it because Tesla is hiding it? Is it because they are ashamed to admit that the bold proclamations of the website have an invisible asterisk ("only some cars")? Be open, be clear; stop screwing around.�
Apr 2, 2014
bluetinc Flasher, Elon promised 120kW to be rolled out to "all customers" during a number of speeches. There have been a number of arguments on TMC over the exact definition of "all" and "customers"...
Taking the exact specs of 120kW vs 135kW etc. out of the discussion... I did have many conversations about the time it takes to Supercharge and that it was taking longer than was originally talked about. I was told that Tesla was working on a remedy to that that would be a software upgrade. The exacts of that, 120kW vs. a modified taper curve were a little fuzzy, but the implication was that my car would be a part of this update. My service center believed it would be a part of this update months after the update came out....
I continuously get asked how long it takes to fill up my car. My answer now is, about an hour for 200 miles, from 0. I don't believe that anyone with a B battery feels like charging theirs from 0 to 200 and then letting me know that they consider the extra time they would have to hang out to hit the hour mark is insignificant...
�
Apr 2, 2014
FlasherZ I'm looking for a documented promise. I don't recall one and I've followed it closely. Do you have a link to a speech where it has that documented process?�
Apr 2, 2014
apacheguy Disagree on all points.
A) My car charges slower compared to what was originally promised.
B) Nobody has data to support the claims of faster degradation and reliability. That's why I said "concerns" and did NOT make a factual statement. No, I'm not scaring other owners since no new cars ship with A packs. Please see this thread in which I have documented a number of early production/Sig cars that have had failed A packs:
Main Battery Replacement
Failure rate among Sig owners alone is > 1%, and quite possibly much more considering many are not members of TMC or choose not to report their pack failure.�
Apr 2, 2014
dsm363 If you want to parse words 120kW charging is being rolled out even to A packs. They still benefit from faster charging when two cars are using same bank. If they said 'all cars ever produced will be capable of charging at 120kW rate' then that is different.
Yes it is disappointing and sucks but the car still works just like when it was delivered and this wouldn't be a cheap 'fix' for Tesla. As long as Tesla provides people the option to upgrade to a new pack and then pay some prorated difference that should keep Tesla and the upset A pack people happy.�
Apr 2, 2014
bluetinc If you are looking for video of Elon saying this, I'm sure I or others can dig it up, I know bc it's come up before in the other threads. If you are looking for a signed document, then we all know that doesn't exist, just like it hasn't for every other item Tesla has promised (delivered or not).
Peter
�
Apr 2, 2014
FlasherZ I share the same concern with you as I was trying to search for any clues.
I do recall Supercharging being discussed that early, but I don't recall 120 kW being mentioned, much less promised. As I said, I do recall that at the Supercharger announcement I first heard it could go up to 120 kW in the future, but I don't have any evidence of a documented statement saying that all cars could do it or would get that functionality.
I agree with you if you can show me a documented case where it is said that all existing cars will get the step up to 120 kW. I just don't recall any, and I haven't found one yet. Until that happens, it's like the parking sensors. I don't have it because the hardware wasn't on the cars.
- - - Updated - - -
Video, web page, whatever - any documented evidence that even hints that every existing car gets the capability. I recall Elon saying the technology was going to 120 kW, but I don't recall the "...and every car today gets to take advantage of it" part that I'm looking for.�
Apr 2, 2014
brianman It's not at all like parking sensors. The parking sensors issue involves an absence of componentry. It's not like my Signature car has no battery whereas new cars do have a battery.
Also, even if you go with your parking sensors comparison: Owners have been offered a parking sensor retrofit option (with cost information). No such luck for A->B pack conversions. Hell, even the Battery Replacement Option that was announced in November 2012 is an undelivered promise if you want to go down that road.
2013 Model S Price Increase | Blog | Tesla Motors
I've said more than once that if they would deal with the BPO then many of us A owners would be probably be somewhat calmed if the language in that BPO would assert that at least 120 kWh supercharging support would be active after the new pack is installed.
But they keep dropping the ball. Over and over again. On the one yard line. It's like watching bad football.�
Apr 2, 2014
bluetinc I'll find a video link tonight, but as I said originally, Elon said "all customers" during a number of speeches. There have been a number of arguments on TMC over the exact definition of "all" and "customers", and the one thing clear is that we don't all agree what that means. Some think that it covers cars moving forward not ones already built (AR). Others feel that because the car next to you and before you charged faster, it was rolled out to you (dsm363), etc. etc.
Peter
�
Apr 2, 2014
dsm363 I get why people are disappointed and I have an A pack in my car too. Elon's wording was open to interpretation. I thought as well my car would be upgraded to 120kWh with the new stations. Sure I'm disappointed but my car still works the same as delivered and there are a number of other features delivered in newer cars if love to have as well. I knew getting an early car things were going to progress rapidly and I'd miss out on some newer features.
As long as Tesla allows people to pay for an upgraded pack and turn their old one in for some prorated amount that should at least be considered fair. We will have to see what they do. As far as I know no explicit written promises were made. CEOs and companies often make promises (Tesla more than others) that deal with the future and their understanding of what is coming down the line. Maybe Elon really did think they could roll out 120kW charging to all cars but found out later that wasn't possible. I doubt he was trying to trick people that had already bought the car. Tesla should be more careful about blanket promises of features unless they are certain they can deliver.�
Apr 2, 2014
brianman How long do you think is reasonable to wait for this option and for the BPO? My car is over 16% into its battery warranty.�
Apr 2, 2014
Andrew When we bought (and took delivery of) our car, the website said quite clearly that we'd get a 50% charge in 30 minutes. Only months later did that change that to 20 minutes. Our A-battery is certainly capable of the 30 minute charge, so I'm quite happy with that and I don't think Tesla owes me a new pack.
However, I discovered shortly after delivery that the Superchargers don't always provide full power (even to get the 30 minute charge) because of the way they work in pairs, and that was a disappointment because it was definitely not made clear. But that's a failure of the stations themselves, not of the battery. Ramping each pair up to 120kW or 135kW will get us closer to the 50% in 30 minutes more consistently.
So it seems to me that the solution isn't changing out my battery pack. It's getting the superchargers to be able to charge two cars at once at full speed.�
Apr 2, 2014
apacheguy I believe you are correct about this. IIRC, Elon himself never said "every car on the road will charge at 120 kW, PERIOD." He beat around the bush in his public appearances in which he hinted at 120 kW a number of times without mentioning any caveats, therefore giving many of us false hope. That's the big problem I have with what Elon has said. It's misleading at the least.
However, that's not to say that Tesla corporate is off the hook. Ownership made this claim to a 90-kW limited owner before 5.x was released:
Here, TM states that this is purely a firmware driven change requiring no additional hardware on the car side. We now know this not to be the case.�
Apr 2, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
When they make it available I guess. This would be separate from the battery pack replacement option and only for people who are upset enough about the slower charging that they are willing to pay for the difference between a brand new pack and their old one.�
Apr 2, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
What you quote even says "speculation and not fact at this time". I agree what Elon said was inaccurate and could be considered misleading by some. This assumes of course he knew there was no way A packs could take advantage of 120kW charging but said it anyway. Things changed somehow and they are no longer able to keep that promise however you interpret it.�
Apr 2, 2014
apacheguy Speculation was in regards to a 30% increase in speed, not the fact that all cars would be receiving the firmware update.
I was just thinking about this and what it is that really ticks me off. The fact of the matter is Tesla is not just another car company. I hold them in much higher regard and believe they need to reciprocate trust to customers who gave them an interest free $40 K with no guarantee that the car would see the light of day. Repeatedly marketing and hyping up 120 kW supercharging as something that will be "fully rolled out to customers" and then having that not be the case is a HUGE no-no in my book. Did they break a contract? No. Did they lose my faith and trust? Absolutely. And that's the saddest part about this whole screw up.�
Apr 2, 2014
brianman Ok, let's start simple. Do you think it's reasonable to wait until 2020 for delivery of the BPO and upgrade cost without BPO?
Sidenote: Apparently I fail acronyms today. BRO (Battery Replacement Option) not BPO (Battery Pack? Option).
- - - Updated - - -
And where has this been officially acknowledged? Nowhere on the teslamotors.com Supercharging page does it say anything about it. I'm fairly confident when they roll out 135 kW supercharging they probably won't have the asterisk then either. Trust erosion is self-inflicted.
- - - Updated - - -
Indeed.�
Apr 2, 2014
Kraken You have a very interesting way of interpreting things sometimes to just what you want to hear.
How do you take "this upgrade will LIKELY come in form of a firmware upgrade" and hear "this is PURELY a firmware driven change"... I'm baffled.
clearly the issue here is communication. His isn't a rare issue, but what is going on is the standard issue that the frontline reps aren't engineers. They are relaying a message that they were never trained to fully understand the details of. This is an issue with all tech companies. The engineers have more pressing issues to worry about and aren't always the best at communicating from technical jargon to understandable laymans terms. That seems to be all that happened here.�
Apr 2, 2014
apacheguy @Kraken - We could argue all day about how to interpret TM's statements. There are a number of other statements, IMO, that are much less vague than the one I posted, including the official press release, that support my point of view. Obviously we will continue to disagree on how to parse these statements so I suggest that we agree to disagree.
The bigger issue here is that TM is disrespecting a loyal fan base and that is an issue many are overlooking.�
Apr 2, 2014
dsm363 They should simply hire the guy from Office Space whose job was to take the specs from the engineers and give them to customers in a way they could understand. You know, a people person.�
Apr 2, 2014
NoMoGas Stop being reasonable. People MUST find a reason to complain, or assume that Tesla will screw us over somewhere. It's not their fault, they've been conditioned by GM, Toyota et al for decades... but it is getting old.�
Apr 2, 2014
Plug Me In My theory is the "A" packs will be replaced in about a year - with "C" packs. Then we can have threads about people with B packs wanting to get theirs upgraded.�
Apr 2, 2014
tomas Geez, I'm so sad to see the same earth being turned over again and again.
28 of us got together and communicated with Jerome directly. That's why the original thread on this quieted down. That moved Tesla's position from "tough luck" to "battery upgrade program when we get past constrained battery production". The Jerome email that JoeFee (OP) posted has to be taken in context of all of the other correspondence on this topic with Jerome. It is consistent, not obfuscation. Anyone want details, PM me your email address.
Fact is, battery production will be constrained for many quarters if not years. "A" owners who are chomping at bit may be disappointed. Personally, I'll be very happy to upgrade to 2016 technology (more than 85 kWh, faster than 120 kW, better price/performance), assuming economic deal is "fair". Nice mid-life boost for my car.
I know some of you don't trust anything Tesla says, but I do trust that they will follow through on this. I'm also not expecting it soon.
For those of you who are throwing this in with lighted vanity mirrors and music storage, it just ain't the same thing. Those are features that some people desire, but Nobody got. You can get excited that you think they were promised, but we're all in same boat. The battery is the most expensive and critical component in the car, and some of us got a less functional part than others whose cars were produced the same week, despite the fact that neither of us knew, and we both paid the same price. Anyone doesn't understand the difference, PM me.
PS, I don't blame Tesla. I don't want them to stop improving the car. Ever. I also trust them to make good on this. I know some of you will say I'm stupid for that, but I'm not going to spend months twisting on this� they've told us they'll do it and to be patient, so it's just not worth the angst. Carping on the forum is not going to make it better or faster.�
Apr 2, 2014
dirkhh Actually, I have been cursing myself from time to time for not getting an 85 (for example on my 1500 mile trip down I5 last week). So far I have always amused myself with thinking that in 3-4 years (mid life of my expected 8-10 ownership of my Model S) I would upgrade to a brand new 85kWh (or maybe hundred-something kWh) battery. Which seemed like a brilliant way to make sure I don't run into range / battery age issues at the tail end of my expected ownership of the car.
Interesting to notice that you see a very comparable solution for people with 'A' packs...�
Apr 2, 2014
dsm363 Thanks tomas. Well said.�
Apr 2, 2014
rlang59 I would hope that whatever upgrade path they come up with is offered to all owners.�
Apr 2, 2014
tomas I'm pretty sure it will be, but also hopeful "a" owners will get a fair accommodation in the pricing.�
Apr 2, 2014
Rodolfo Paiz I see no possible argument for "bad faith" here. They sold someone a car with an "A" battery, which was the best/only pack they had available at the time. They later developed "B" packs and put those in other cars, and the "B" packs are better. But the "A" packs still do everything they promised to do when they sold you the car, so they have not failed to deliver on any promise. They have never promised to retrofit ALL upgrades to ALL cars. The fact that there is now a newer, better product available is simply a reason for you to consider buying a new and improved version, but it does not -- most emphatically does not -- imply that Tesla did anything wrong nor that they are in any way obligated to supply upgraded battery packs to owners of "A" pack vehicles.
On the other hand, I do believe it makes sense for them to offer replacement packs (with a trade-in value for the old one) as soon as battery-production capacity is not constraining vehicle production. I further believe that it would be great customer service, and would uphold a high standard of ethics and conduct, if they offer special pricing on said replacements to "A" pack owners. I think there is certainly a reason for Tesla to do this, and to be especially nice to early adopters when doing so. What I don't believe is that there's a valid allegation of "bad faith" in this process.�
Apr 2, 2014
mknox I wonder if there is any as yet undiscovered disadvantage to the later packs? Maybe there is some compromise we don't know about that is required to enable the faster Supercharging? Just sayin'�
Apr 2, 2014
apacheguy Actually, there are hundreds (thousands?) of late production vehicles that shipped with A packs despite better tech being available.�
Apr 3, 2014
Vger You mistake my meaning. I am not saying that Tesla is in bad faith about the whole issue, though that case can be made and others have made it.
I am only saying that Tesla has now opened the door to the possibility of offering an upgrade plan, under some "business case" (read price), after "several months" when battery production constraints are lifted. So I am claiming that they would be in bad faith if and only if many more months than "several" pass without the kind of solution you yourself suggest in your second paragraph being offered.�
Apr 3, 2014
dsm363 Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...
It would have been a multi million dollar write off to just junk those packs unless someone would have bought them for grid storage or Tesla could use them in their Superchargers. If not, they had to use them and we know their production line isn't always linear so some crossover was bound to happen. I don't think there were thousands of A packs after B from what I've seen on TMC.�
Apr 3, 2014
Chris I don't have the exact number of A packs delivered but I am P01895 and have an A pack. The original pack was actually replaced due to an impedance issue but only with a refurb A pack.�
Apr 3, 2014
FlasherZ I'm now convinced this very discussion is why auto manufacturers rather like their model year designations, and only bring their upgrades once a year.
To those of you who feel you've been slighted, the best to you all in getting your satisfaction.�
Apr 3, 2014
aviators99 Huh? I don't know why you think this is true.�
Apr 3, 2014
AmpedRealtor I feel you. Further complicating things is the fact that Tesla mentions "hardware upgrades" on the web page where you buy the plan, but the actual language in the service plan contract says absolutely nothing about upgrades. Does that rise to false advertising and/or misrepresentation? I don't know.
- - - Updated - - -
From my readings in the forum, the range gained from 5.9 roughly matches the range that was claimed to have been lost prior to the update. I don't have specific knowledge of every single case, if that's what you're asking, but I think most people who thought they had range issues probably now feel that those issues have been resolved.
If that's not true, I'm likely to hear about it very shortly! lol�
Apr 3, 2014
aviators99 That the 5.9 firmware has resolved anything. All they did was change the calculation so that it shows a higher number at the same percentage of available battery. The issue that needs to be resolved has to do with the amount of energy that can be stored in the battery, not some number on the display.�
Apr 3, 2014
jerry33 I just want that 220 kWh pack that weighs 500 pounds and costs $5K installed.�
Apr 3, 2014
dirkhh I'll take your current 85kWh pack of your hands...�
Apr 4, 2014
joefee And where has this been officially acknowledged? Nowhere on the teslamotors.com Supercharging page does it say anything about it. I'm fairly confident when they roll out 135 kW supercharging they probably won't have the asterisk then either. Trust erosion is self-inflicted.
- - - Updated - - -
Indeed.[/QUOTE]
Agree! Goodwill did take a hit but they have done so many free service upgrades Tesla still has a huge positive balance in my book.. We will see how they deal with Sig upgrades going forward.�
Apr 4, 2014
stopcrazypp Not according to the time-line I compiled:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/24799-Older-Teslas-limited-to-90kW-Supercharging/page47?p=534636&viewfull=1#post534636
The first mention of 120kW supercharging was during the unveiling event on 9/24/2012.
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-motors-launches-revolutionary-supercharger-enabling-convenient-long-dista
First mention with a promised release date was on 5/30/2013:
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-dramatically-expands-supercharger-network-delivering-convenient-free-long
It was also mentioned on the supercharger page for the Model S around that time (never mentioned 120kW before that).�
Apr 6, 2014
digitaltim I spent some time a while back perusing SEC filings and believe I found a reference there - might take some time at a more reasonable hour to find it again.
That said, I signed a contract giving them carte blanche to make changes.
And with that said, while I think communications could be more open and transparent, technology moves on.�
Apr 6, 2014
digitaltim Right there w/ ya!!!�
Apr 6, 2014
AmpedRealtor Agreed. The official announcement of 120 kW supercharging didn't even occur until late May 2013, at which time only B packs were being installed. Tesla has also clearly said that increases to the supercharger current is for allowing more vehicles to charge faster simultaneously, not for individual cars to charge faster. Given all of the facts in play, this is a total non-issue.�
Apr 6, 2014
apacheguy Huh? Excuse me? A total non-issue? Since when did Tesla say the purpose of 120 kW was not to charge individual cars faster?�
Apr 6, 2014
Norbert Well, some very early concept papers/webpages of the Model S spoke about a range of 300 miles (according to the old ~55 mph measurement method) and fast charging in 45 min, IIRC. However that was even before it was certain how much battery capacity 300 miles would exactly require. Then, closer to production start, more detailed specs became available about the battery, and if you used those numbers with the old concept paper, you might have calculated a higher charging rate.
Whenever they were talking about the maximum charging rates, there were very different sorts of infos, depending on whether they were talking about the Superchargers being built, or the Supercharger technology in general, or the connector technology, or the cars currently sold, or previously delivered. And sometimes they were talking about beta testing or future engineering goals. Things can change after beta testing, that's why it is called beta testing. And sometimes Tesla needs to change things even after delivery, per software.
The Supercharging technology is at the cutting edge, and sometimes they make a step back before making two steps forward. The biggest unpleasant surprise was the need for significant tapering, in my view, much of which is surely needed to protect the lifetime of the battery cells (built by Panasonic, also at the cutting edge). But then, the Leaf needs tapering as well (down from 50 kW). We knew that and it was predicted on the forums.
However, the upgrade to 120 kW Superchargers, the best I remember, was a pleasant surprise, even if not as retrofittable as it sounded.
You could complain about Tesla giving info early, from an optimistic position, and not always reporting the worst case scenario, but what do you expect of a small company constantly doing things no one has done before, in a production context? They need to be optimistic, in a sense. Preceding Tesla's Superchargers becoming reality, *many*, including many experts, were doubtful that it would be practically possible to build a network with >50 kW charging rates, at all. Tesla is making you participate a bit in this innovative process, and its not always better than receiving an established product.
Just my 2 cents.�
Apr 7, 2014
AmpedRealtor An email from Jerome was published in the other thread about this issue. In it he stated the upgrades were specific to the superchargers and with the purpose of charging more cars in a day. This makes sense, as there is more current for cars to share.�
Apr 8, 2014
apacheguy You mean that factually incorrect BS email that not all of us received that was supposed to be the official response? Right, that one.
Tesla has always marketed 120 kW as enabling faster supercharging on individual cars. Just take a look at the supercharger page or the announcement. It wasn't until we owners started investigating the issue that Jerome came up with that excuse.�
Apr 8, 2014
Norbert So far I agree (and it does so, for all cars sold when, and since, 120 kW was introduced.)
However, the announcement said the technology was in beta testing. One of the emails from Jerome suggests that the decision was made at a late point, and that the A-packs could theoretically have been used with more than 90 kW. But to avoid a higher risk (probably in life time reduction), they decided not to. My impression is that Tesla continuously evaluates and improves the optimal charging strategy for the battery cells as they receive them from Panasonic.�
Apr 8, 2014
jerry33 If they can charge more cars per day for a given amount of chargers, wouldn't that, on average, mean faster charges for individual cars?�
Apr 8, 2014
brianman No, it's not. For the folks that want people to "stop talking about this", asserting incorrect conclusions like this isn't helping.
- - - Updated - - -
It doesn't imply that. It implies possibly less waiting time, not anything directly about the charge rate.
- - - Updated - - -
If this is the official company position, they should correct the
Supercharger | Tesla Motors
page to advertise the products offered by the company accurately.�
Apr 8, 2014
Norbert Yes, including for 90 kW cars. A faster Supercharger will achieve "more cars per day" only in a situation where cars wait for each other. In that situation, it will increase effective charging rates also when there are only 90 kW cars, since there usually are two cars per Supercharger. So two 90 kW cars could make use of up to 180 kW, depending on where they are in the tapering curve.
- - - Updated - - -
I just looked at the Supercharger page, and didn't notice any inaccuracy. Which "product offered", and which feature, are you referring to?�
Apr 8, 2014
brianman These descriptions of Model S are incompatible with my car's actual behavior:
�
Apr 8, 2014
Norbert Tesla's website generally does not show historical information. This is common practice, on any website I'm familiar with, and most products change over time, in one way or another.
This specific page doesn't even show the numbers for the 60 kWh version (or the 40 kWh version), in so far as different. Also, when features of the Model S are updated, Tesla does not in general send out notifications, we just often happen to notice the updates on the website.�
Apr 9, 2014
Zextraterrestrial A vs B pack supercharge
Since this thread is 'newer' - I had my A replaced with a refurb B pack. but firmware 5.9 on the B vs 5.8 on the A pack so it makes it a little tricky to compare directly. I did end at the same SOC and start at about the same SOC
A pack: 11% SOC - 9mi rated
chg to 84% SOC - 197mi rated
charged between 85-90kW for ~ 18.5 minutes (90 peak ~ 14 min)
55.6 minutes total (188 mi)
B pack: 10% SOC - 28 mi Rated
chg to 84% SOC - 223mi rated
charged above 90 kW for ~ 18 min (110-12 peak ~ 8+min)
47.5 minutes total (195 mi) (last 2 min from 218-223, so ~45.5 min for 188mi added)
so here is an interesting part of it...
kW on X-axis
different charge rate MPH for the same kW input...? due to Amperage differences I assume. the most the 'A' takes that I have seen is 250A. B pack pulls >315A�
Apr 9, 2014
Cottonwood Remember that while kW, Amps, and Volts are nearly instantaneous reported values, mph charge rate is the average of the charge session. For example, your "B" graph shows an "mph" charge rate of 250 mph with a power of about 40 kW; on an instantaneous basis this is just not possible; 40kW=>about 133 mph charge rate.
Your curves of rate of charge vs kW are at most a curiosity, because you are plotting an average for the session (mph) against an instantaneous value (kW).�
Apr 9, 2014
Zextraterrestrial I was thinking the MPH reported is instantaneous just like the kW. just different in that you can 'see' either one by selecting it in settings. I thought this is where the numbers are coming from for these 2 values.
how did you determine
40kW ~ 133mph charge rate? based on rated power used per mile?�
Apr 9, 2014
ken830
An entire week of re-hashing some of the same arguments... and only ONE post mentioned the April-built 85kWh cars that has "A" packs when the "B" packs have been delivered for months before that. No matter what your stance is on early cars with "A" packs, I think everyone is in agreement that the April-2013 cars with A packs is a big W-T-F! But we always seem to be forgotten. Even Jerome's email to us did not acknowledge our situation at all....�
Apr 9, 2014
Norbert Panasonic may have been producing both A packs and B packs for some time, due to multiple production sites or lines. After converting (or adding) the first site or line, it may have took them a few months to convert (or replace) the other site or line. And Tesla may not have been able to say "no" to those A packs still coming in, since they accepted them to start with (that being a time when Superchargers where specified to be 90 kW).�
Apr 9, 2014
apacheguy @Zextraterrestrial - Very nice and thanks for posting. Although I agree that it is difficult to compare. What I was most interested in was the fact that you spent 18 minutes above 90 kW! Starting from the same SOC (10%), my car only spends 14 minutes at 90 kW before beginning its taper at ~35% SOC. Would you mind plotting power (kW) vs. SOC (%) on the same graph so we can get a sense of the taper curve differences?�
Apr 9, 2014
Cottonwood YMMV, but every time that I have checked, the MPH reported was the average over the session. Take the plot into the taper and this becomes very obvious.
Every time that I have looked at rated miles accumulated in the battery with DC charging on a Supercharger, it has been very close to 300 Wh/(rated mile). Before 5.9, whenever my "since last charge" Wh/mi was at 290 Wh/mi, the miles traveled + rated miles left was equal to the rated miles that I started with. My guess is that the difference between these two figures of 10 Wh/mi is due to DC charging inefficiency. Note that AC charging efficiency is a lot worse because of the losses in the AC/DC conversion in the charger.
40 kW divided by 300 Wh/mi is equal to 133.3 MPH.�
Apr 9, 2014
Norbert When plotting power over time, it looks as if the differences (between A pack and B pack) after the first 15 min are quite small. A plot over SOC would indeed be interesting.�
Apr 9, 2014
Lloyd Over the length of the SOC, starting both at 28 miles, it appears to me that Julian was right in that there is about a 4 minute difference between A and B.�
Apr 9, 2014
ken830 This mixing theory is only evident in December 2012. It doesn't hold true after that -- And that's the problem with the late vehicles with "A" batteries. I know the battery wiki isn't a huge sample, but the last recorded "A" battery was VIN 25xx (December 2012) in the early batch of cars. All cars following that was 100% "B" batteries. The next "A" battery didn't show up until VIN 72xx (March 2013). From there, 100% of the reported batteries were "A" until VIN 94xx (April/May 2013). From there, 100% of the reported batteries were "B".
There is a clear chunk of cars (VIN 72xx - 94xx) that had (most likely) 100% "A" batteries despite months of 100% "B" battery deliveries prior to this. Now the question is where did these come from? Are they refurbished batteries from early cars? Did they just find a batch of cells that were forgotten in a corner somewhere for months? What happened? Why?�
Apr 9, 2014
Norbert I don't see how it could be possible to find a definite answer, but I think it just means that it was more complicated than the potential situation I described. My first guess would be that Panasonic had some difficulties producing "B" cells, between December 2012 and March 2013, assuming your numbers are correct. I guess B cells use either a slightly different chemistry, or a slightly different manufacturing method. In the latter case, for example, they might have used more delicate machinery, and it kept breaking (just a random speculation). In any case, I'm speculating that at that time, Tesla had no sufficient reason to reject those cells. It would be one of the cases where cutting edge technology sometimes needs to make step back before making two forward. In general, I don't see manufacturers providing that level of detailed information to their customers, as long as the product meets the published specifications at the time. Additionally, they might have been very hopeful that they could later raise the charging rate even for the "A" cells. It appears that turned out to be a matter of balancing multiple priorities, later on.�
Apr 9, 2014
tomas Y'know, all the conjecture about how/why really doesn't matter. It happened! B or later pack owners by and large can't understand the issue. Not all, but large % of A pack feel they got a raw deal on the issue. Concern has been registered with Tesla, who understand it and have proposed their path forward - eventual battery upgrade program. So, everything else is academic.
What the B or later owners should think about before they post on this topic: A owners are trying to step back from this and wait patiently for opportunity to upgrade (which is quarters if not years out), but we get to relive the whole painful thing every time there's a new thread and a bunch more forum members decide to wade in and opine on it.
So, have a heart and stop tormenting your forum mates!�
Apr 9, 2014
apacheguy Have to be careful when looking at rated miles. Also, bluetinc has empirical data showing > 4 min difference. A lot of folks at Tesla don't even believe that Jerome's assertion is correct.�
Apr 9, 2014
Zextraterrestrial ya not quite right.
40.90 minutes from 25% -84% 155 mi added for 'B' pack
vs
46.98 minutes from 27% -84% 149.5 mi added for 'A' pack
seems more like 6-7 minutes at this SOC for my car and batteries
quite a bit more when you are trying to get to 98%SOC or so on an 'A' pack. the B pack seems to take more power at higher SOC
and kW vs SOC:
�
Apr 9, 2014
bluetinc Zextraterrestrial,
I thought that you had mentioned that some of your data is with 5.8 and some is with 5.9. If so, have you adjusted your data to account for the differences in both SOC and rated miles between versions?
Peter�
Apr 9, 2014
Zextraterrestrial no. but I don't think it should matter for the kW vs SOC graph? I know the SOC to rated numbers are different and your lines are pretty close to what I saw for 5.8 & 5.9
comparing added miles should be similar even though the rated mi # shown is higher at the same SOC for 5.9�
Apr 9, 2014
Norbert We'll have similar situations in the future, as battery cells will be improved continuously, and Supercharger rates will be upgraded sooner or later. Imagine 30,000 owners getting into that situation. Also, discussion about the reasonable price for such an upgrade will be unavoidable, once it comes to that point.
These threads seem to be kept going very much by those who are part of the discussion since the beginning. And that's what has to happen when such threads go on forever: others will come in, hoping that their input will help resolve the matter.
- - - Updated - - -
Just to mention it, also possible that there are incremental differences within the A pack designation and the B pack designation (and later), i.e. the numbers aren't necessarily the same for all cars "A" vs all cars later than "A".
Thanks for the graphs!
- - - Updated - - -
Plus, the numbers are likely weather/temperature dependent, to some degree.�
Apr 9, 2014
apacheguy Im beginning to believe this to be the case as well. As you can see from Z's graph, the A pack began its taper from 90 kW at 45% SOC. On two separate occasions that I have recorded, my car begins the same taper at 35 %. We tried to work through this a couple months ago in the other thread, but we were ultimately unable to explain it. Any other Sigs want to post a taper curve (kW vs SOC) so we can try to determine whether there is a difference among A packs?�
Apr 10, 2014
Rodolfo Paiz Tomas, I think you need to realize that you take things more personally and more emotionally than most people. And that's OK, in fact I think that's an asset in this life... but I suggest you are generalizing too much from your own feelings/perceptions to those of everyone else. What do you call a "large % of A pack owners", for example? 30%? 60%? Because I strongly doubt that more than 20% of those owners even know they have an A pack. I can tell you that I have a March '13 P85, and that I'm more than a little OCD about many things (esp. wrt my car) so most drivers know far less about their vehicles than I do... and I have no idea whether I have an A or a B pack, and I don't care. I suspect that most A-pack owners don't care either.
That doesn't diminish your concern. Even if the fraction of A-pack owners who really care about the issue is as low as 5%, y'all are fully entitled to feel that way and to make those feelings known to Tesla. I'm glad to see that there appears to be progress on a resolution, too. I just think you're over-dramatizing this.�
Apr 10, 2014
bluetinc Except the SOC % for 5.8 is different from 5.9. A couple of quick examples, 5.9 0% SOC = ~8% SOC on 5.8 (0 miles range), 5.9 50% SOC =~ 58% SOC 5.8. Because Ideal miles didn't change I can use that as a base, here is a quick graph that better shows the change they made in SOC.
�
Apr 10, 2014
qwk Tesla mixed A and B packs in the 2013 cars. For example, vin 9230 has a B pack.�
Apr 10, 2014
Zextraterrestrial well then
here is SOC A vs B on 5.9 too (another twist):
(most likely not a fully balanced A pack)
& my 5.8 vs 5.9 looks like yours
�
Apr 10, 2014
wycolo 90 kw limited cars (hardware limited) are protecting (whichever) battery they happen to have. No other MS is able to reduce the onslaught of SC amperage. Less amps, less stress on battery chemistry, etc - gotta be worth something. Dare I say Prestige?
--�
Apr 10, 2014
stopcrazypp My theory is they timed the "official" 120kW announcement on 5/30/2013 (they also changed the website to mention 120kW at around the same time) according to the time when they used up all the "A" Packs. So by the time they announced on 5/30/2013, there were no cars being produced that would not be compatible with 120kW (I believe this is true so far looking at the battery wiki).�
Apr 10, 2014
apacheguy Right, which is further evidence they were full well aware of the hardware limitation at the time. Why not then simply qualify their statement with "not all cars produced may be able to take advantage of all features."? Instead, they gave every indication that 120 kW was supported by the entire fleet. The misleading that took place is what upsets me the most.�
Apr 10, 2014
brianman This.
TLDR:
When you nudge or create an "A Angst" with no new official information, the typical impact is to make it worse for A owners and better for no one.
- - - Updated - - -
This is consistent with a trend that I've noticed from Tesla. Perhaps their legal eagles aren't as inept as some suggest.
The general trend of "wait until 1 minute after we start doing X to announce the new Y that we're doing". Sometimes they follow this with clear documentation of the change (like the kid seats and frunk changes). Sometimes they follow this with "and here's what the retrofit story is". Sometimes they do all of announce Y, announce the VIN/timeline threshold, and announce the retrofit situation. Sometimes they do a subset of those three. Sometimes they do none of the three.
(1) For parking sensors and tank mode, all of the 3 occurred.
(2) For A-not-A supercharging and the ninja suspension changes, none of the 3 occurred.
Notice the difference in tone of threads and the overall member drama on TMC for cases (1) vs. (2).
I really wish Tesla would internalize the impact this has on the user experience and the owner community every time they do (2) instead of (1) -- and embrace the former into Tesla philosophy going forward.�
Apr 10, 2014
gimp_dad So 5.9 SC got slower for B packs? Hopefully I'm reading your charts right since you and Bluetinc used exactly opposite axes.
Well, if they keep this up maybe B packs will be as slow as A packs. I'm an A pack owner. I've already gone on record as saying I would never trade the great time I have had all the way back to Aug 2012 when I took delivery of my P85 for a B pack. No sour grapes here (other than finding out from the forums about my difference rather than hearing it from Tesla).
But, I hope they actually make newer cars and newer batteries and newer SC stations a lot faster than they are now. Even if I had a B pack I would probably avoid taking a trip in my MS of more than 1 SC stop. I think that maybe around 180kW or 200kW charge rate and a big enough battery to live without the last 10% SOC while on the road would make charging on the road a non-issue for me.
�
Apr 10, 2014
Zextraterrestrial no, I think it just shows that my A pack was degraded a little bit ~ 5% or so (21k miles, driven hard)
not showing SC rates in these last graphs just SOC vs rated miles�
Apr 10, 2014
ken830 Well, the e-mail about the rear-facing seats no longer post-delivery-install-able went out on February 28th (around 11:38 PST), but they were delivering cars for about two weeks with the change already in place, which means the orders for those cars were already locked-in two months before that. I have first-hand knowledge of this.�
Apr 10, 2014
bluetinc No, I actually don't have supercharger charge rates on 5.9 yet. My graphs are meant to point out that we can not make statements such as "I charged from 60%->90% SOC under 5.8 and 5.9 and hear is the time difference" (or "my 80% SOC charge has gone up by XX under 5.9 so I've gained miles") because they actually cover different states of the battery and different amounts of energy.
In the 60%-90% on my car there is a 13% energy difference between 5.8 and 5.9 with 5.9 being less energy. (details from my car - 5.8 60%=365V 148.4 IM 90%=390V 243.7 IM, and 5.9 60%=368V 168.6 IM 90%=392V 252.9 IM)�
Apr 10, 2014
brianman Hah. So I try to pick an example of Tesla being good and even that case they could have done better. /chuckle�
Apr 10, 2014
Norbert Yes, one month later. However this doesn't mean they had already decided about the A packs, as they said they were still beta testing. And this would seem the most likely candidate for what they were still testing.
At least I'm not aware of anything else that might still have been in question, and would have caused them to use the term "beta testing" (as opposed to some term like "final testing"). Although I'm still doing some catch-up reading on that which might be referred to as the "old thread".�
Apr 10, 2014
apacheguy So why didn't TM just come clean about it? Say "while we originally anticipated fully rolling out 120 kW supercharging, beta testing has shown accelerated degradation on A packs." Instead, TM decided to make it hush-hush and let us figure out for ourselves that we were supercharging limited. Jerome's email did nothing to address this point.�
Apr 10, 2014
aviators99 Not to mention the degradation on the A packs even without the SC.�
Apr 10, 2014
Norbert At that point, probably nobody [EDIT: meaning: no customers] knew about A packs and B packs, and companies usually do their best to avoid pointing fingers at suppliers, and even when they do, they usually avoid giving details.
It apparently took Elon quite a while until he became clearer about battery cell production limiting Model S production. While it still does't seem to be clear whether the cells in the A packs are limiting, or the electronics or other components within the pack. Although not impossible, I wouldn't hold my breath for Tesla ever giving out that information.�
Apr 10, 2014
apacheguy It's evident that you have an enormous amount of faith in Tesla, something for which I commend you. Personally, I've lost a fair amount of that faith and trust that I used to have. There are bunch of "what ifs" "maybes" and "probablys" that you have used in developing your arguments. IMHO, you're giving them every benefit of the doubt possible. If you ask me, Tesla was fully aware of the limitation as far back as May and quite likely even earlier and they screwed up big time by trying to conceal the issue and dismissing it as a non-issue when it eventually surfaced. But hey that's just me.�
Apr 11, 2014
Norbert I went back and looked at my use of "probably" and "maybe" in this thread, and the only place where that seemed to matter, was in my attempt to explain the "A" packs in March and April 2013. However, that was an odd event by any means, and I have not yet heard any explanation that would come easier than the kind I have given.
Other than that, I have pointed out that related statements from Tesla were consistent with specific facts we were discussing. I suppose that means they could be true. None of us know what exactly has really happened.
EDIT: P.S.: When I said in my post above that "At that point, probably nobody knew about A packs and B packs", I simply meant that at that time, few or no *customers* knew that there are "A" and "B" versions. Something I actually take for granted.�
Apr 11, 2014
apacheguy Here:
and here:
Which essentially comprise the meat of your argument, IMO.�
Apr 11, 2014
Norbert These are not part of a larger "argument". Just two of many possible situations due to which Tesla may have received received A cells from Panasonic again, after receiving B cells. Two examples for why that doesn't have to be a "W-T-F" (as some appear to think), just to show how there easily can be innocent and reasonable explanations. Rather unrelated to anything else. (Besides, I already mentioned that above, as the "attempt to explain the A packs".)�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét