Feb 26, 2016
bswn1 In the future, if a 70D was replaced with a 90kWh pack somehow would the HP output / speed then increase to that of a current 90D?�
Feb 26, 2016
Ingineer Yes. The D Motors are identical on non-P cars. The reason the 70D is lower performance is because the voltage of the 70kWh pack is lower due to it missing 2 of the 16 modules.�
Feb 26, 2016
bswn1 Got it. Is this something that could be fixed with a software update in the future much like the 85D was or is it strictly a hard voltage limit? That may be a stupid question.�
Feb 27, 2016
Ingineer I think there is artificial performance limiting according to my back-of-the-napkin calculations. I bet a 70D could have more performance, but for marketing reasons, they limit it. Don't expect it to change. Tesla likes to "sweeten the pot" only on the high-margin models.�
Feb 27, 2016
Muzzman1 @Ingineer, you'd be the one to ask. Are the inverters in the 70's the same as the Non-P Dual cars? I suspect they are?
Back when I had my classic 85, I kinda urked me that they were charging at the time $10k for a different inverter.�
Feb 27, 2016
wk057 It's not even a different inverter.
Based on my own analysis all of the small motors and inverters (70D, 85D, 90D, front of P85D/P90D) are all physically the same. All of the large motors and inverters (S40/S60/S85/P85/S90/rear of P85D and P90D) are all physically the same.
The only differences are firmware, and relevant battery capability. An S85, for example, could be changed to P85 performance with just software. A 40 could be changed to P85 performance with a pack swap and software.�
Feb 27, 2016
bswn1 As a new soon to be owner who is still learning about the hardware of the cars, this is a bit unbelievable to me.
If I'm understanding this correctly, it's not hard to imagine a future where larger 'refurbed' packs are offered at a specific cost which would upgrade not only the range, but the performance of the car.
To confirm, the 70D -> 90D upgrade path would be as simple as a pack swap and firmware upgrade. Correct?�
Feb 27, 2016
wk057 Correct. It's not really all that far fetched when you think about it. Makes a lot of sense from Tesla's perspective. Also makes a lot of sense for them to keep the perception that it's more complicated, even when it isn't.�
Feb 27, 2016
bswn1 Right. It makes no sense for them to offer this right now, but in the future when there's v2 and v3 of the body style and sensors, owners with older cars would likely pay for pack upgrades vs. new cars if that was an option. With the Gigafactory running at full capacity, a trade-in of your old pack in exchange for a reduced price on a full car upgrade sounds like a great program and revenue stream for them. Could push the current gen cars to 10 year life-cycles and beyond.�
Feb 27, 2016
Muzzman1 Wow....my mind is Blown. I cannot believe the big motors are all physically the same. Wow. P85 & S85, the same (except the firmware). Mind completely blown.
�
Feb 27, 2016
stopcrazypp Wait, didn't Tesla already say before production release back in 2011 that the motors were the exactly same between the P85 and S85? The only difference was the inverter (P85 inverter can do 1200A and S85 can do 900A).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/21625-Motor-battery-combo-performance-differences-S60-S85-and-P85/page2?p=444202&viewfull=1#post444202
It is conceivable that they decided to make the inverters the same later on to reduce configuration differences (similar to how the 40kWh is a software limited 60kWh).
It should be easy to tell from the part numbers.
Edit (why didn't I think to look at the wiki? performance rear drive unit has a different part number):
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Model+S+Parts+List
1002633-00-E ASY,P-TRAIN,MECH,COMPLETE,RC Standard Powertrain Between rear wheels 1002633-01-E ASY,P-TRAIN,SPORT,MECH,COMPLETE P85 Powertrain Between rear wheels
I remember someone mentioning that there is a longer lead time to get a replacement performance drive unit than a standard one. If they are physically the same (only software is different) that seems like a waste of time on Tesla's part (why not have same part number and upload software later).
Front drive unit, I was aware previously was the same physically across all models (only the firmware is different).�
Feb 28, 2016
schonelucht The problem is that their upgrades are exciting enough that people are not just willing to buy a pack upgrade but buy a whole new car to get them. Unless that ever change there is zero incentive for Tesla to offer substantial upgrades like larger a larger pack. They have made vague promises from time to time about it and have changed maybe one or two packs but those were more of an accident than a real commercial strategy.�
Feb 28, 2016
wk057 Part numbers are different. Motors and inverters still the same. It's smoke and mirrors... or rather stickers and fimware.
I've personally been a part of and have driven a 60 (early VIN salvage repair) turned P85 with just a pack swap, configuration change, and firmware redeploy. Performance was P85 performance. Inverter temps normal, etc.�
Feb 28, 2016
apacheguy Hmm. Consensus is that the P has a souped up inverter. The DU otherwise is the same. Pretty sure it's listed differently in the parts catalog so seems there's more to it than software.
Huh, that's surprising. Seems odd though that the part numbers are different.�
Feb 28, 2016
wk057 Yeah, Tesla has definitely been pretty good at keeping this one under wraps. Even the service center people I've spoken with were unaware that they were the same motor/inverter, but a couple of techs conceded that it makes sense in hindsight.
And really, it does make perfect sense. There's no advantage to them to have multiple hardware versions of basically the same thing when the cost difference/savings for doing so, on the hardware side, is virtually non-existent.�
Feb 28, 2016
bswn1 To wk057... in theory, could Tesla release a firmware update that makes the 70S / D faster than the current spec? Is there reason to believe the vehicle is limited by software vs. the battery / voltage output or are we currently at the limits of the car?�
Feb 28, 2016
stopcrazypp That's interesting. So Tesla's own techs are wasting time ordering a performance drivetrain if that is true. I wonder however if there are any hardware differences inside (as in you can run the standard inverter at performance level, but it will degrade more quickly than one that is rated for that load, similar to how in a recent thread, transformers can be run above their load ratings).�
Feb 28, 2016
bswn1 To expand on this, I've read the 85 kWh is really a 77 - 78 kWh usable battery. That's an effective 10% increase in usable battery with a 20% drop in 0-60 time delta between the 70D and 85D. Does that lend credence to the theory they're limiting the power of the 70s?�
Feb 28, 2016
wk057 I'm 100% sure they could increase the power output to the motors with firmware on the 70D/60/S85/etc. I even think they still have some headroom with the 85D/90D. The 70/60's would certainly be amperage limited, however, and could never be made faster than their larger pack counterparts.
I thought this at first too, which is why I was closely monitoring the temperatures reported by the drive unit of the 60->P85 I helped with. One thing in particular is that it reports temperatures on CAN for the bus bars for each AC output phase. I compared the temperature data to data from my wife's P85 (a real from Tesla P85) and there were no discernible differences in the data. This essentially proves that the relevant components are the same. If say, the AC output bus bars were smaller, they would heat up faster under full load. If the IGBTs were smaller, they would heat up faster, etc etc. The data showed that this wasn't the case.
Further, I've seen the inside of a "standard" rear drive unit. There's nothing that suggests it couldn't handle the "performance" load.
In short, yeah... Tesla is wasting their time partitioning the two. If there is some subtle difference between them besides the sticker and firmware then it doesn't appear to be related to functionality.
- - - Updated - - -
The data on that kind of speaks for itself. We know they're the same motors. We know the normal packs with the normal fuses can output about 1300A. The 70 packs are basically "85" packs with with 14 modules instead of 16 modules. So, exact capacity aside, it's capable of 87.5% of the power output of the "85" pack. I also have second-hand info confirming that the fuses in the 60/70 packs are the same.
In short, yes I'm 100% sure the 70/70D is software limited.�
Feb 28, 2016
bswn1 Very intersting and mind blown a bit.
Do you have any thoughts as to WHY they're limited? Is it purely marketing (the 85D obviously has to be faster than the 70D, etc.), or is there some type of safety or longevity or other argument to be made here? Apologize if the answer is obvious, I'm still learning about the mechanics of the cars.�
Feb 28, 2016
wk057 Just speculation, since I have no more inside knowledge on the "why" than anyone else, but I'd have to say it's marketing. They have to justify the jump to the higher priced higher margin versions somehow. That'd be harder if their performance was similar across the board. If they marketed the S85 and the P85 at the same specs, except the P85 had red brake calipers... I mean, really, who would pay the extra $10k? So they "justify" the costs it by software limiting the lower end models.�
Feb 28, 2016
xG35 ^^ From a manufacturing standpoint, using the same parts and design keep cost low and quality high... it also creates a larger margin for the higher model.
From a customer standpoint, it makes them feel good in spending more money for more... Remember the Model S is for the more fortunate who can afford more.
Model S and X are the same except for suspension height and the body.. arguably speaking you can take the Sedan top off and put a suv one on top.�
Feb 28, 2016
bswn1 Could the power be increased with a rooted firmware 'hack'?�
Feb 28, 2016
apacheguy I've seen the vehicle config screens and there is certainly an option for "Base" and "Sport". I just assumed it determined the labeling and nothing more. But perhaps modifying the setting releases the cap on the DU. If so, then yes, a root MS can be hacked to a perf model. In reality, I believe it is more complicated. 1) If Tesla's smart about it, they would require a separate DU firmware push so a small config change should have no effect. 2) Unless all connectivity is removed, Tesla would see this change over the network and would disable it fairly quickly.�
Feb 28, 2016
Mike K 0-30 performance between the S85 and P85 is substantial so I have no reason not to believe your claims. I don't think anyone is confusing off the line S85 performance with P85 performance.
That said, two questions:
1. How did they apply a firmware update outside of Tesla? And if they did, can't anyone else theoretically do this?
2. You've performed enough autopsies on the electronics of these cars to know... Since the car is telling the supercharger network it is/ isn't allowed to charge, will we get to a point where we can simply tell salvage cars that they do indeed have supercharging? What about simply converting S85s to P85s or S40s to S60s?
It sounds like this stuff is all just a home-tune away. I guess what I'm asking is if you see us getting to the point that the BMW guys are at where we can easily code in features that our cars didn't come with.�
Feb 28, 2016
apacheguy Sure, you can try that. You're VIN will get blacklisted awfully quick.�
Feb 29, 2016
Mike K Do you speak from experience or speculation? With BMW the biggest concern was them doing a firmware update and un-doing the coding in which case you'd simply go back in and re-code. Something tells me that with Tesla's walled garden they're not actively checking to make sure firmware hasn't been tampered with.�
Feb 29, 2016
stopcrazypp If I recall correct, the car sends the VIN number to the supercharger and the supercharger is able to determine authorization. So no amount of hacking on the car side will give the car authorization if the "mothership" doesn't give it first (other than VIN spoofing, which is probably illegal). I don't know if it is whitelist or blacklist based though.�
Feb 29, 2016
bswn1 The point still stands though for other 'upgrades' that are simply software based other than supercharging.�
Feb 29, 2016
stopcrazypp Right, we are not arguing those points though in this case, as those upgrades can be done inside the car without needing to interface with an outside Tesla controlled component (unlike in supercharging case).�
Feb 29, 2016
bswn1 Got it, so all of those things ARE possible (e.g. say increasing the performance of a stock 60 to that of an 85?)
Do we know if anyone has successfully done this or is it still theory at this point?�
Feb 29, 2016
MP3Mike Did you not read the post in this thread by wk057 that said he was part of a S60 to P85 conversion, that was just a pack swap, configuration, and firmware?
You won't be able to get S85/P85 performance out of an S60 without upgrading the battery because it has many fewer cells that are required to provide the power.�
Feb 29, 2016
Mike K I think you might be wrong on this. If I recall correctly, according to Wk057 the handshake is done car side versus supercharger-side. So when you hook up to the supercharger the car says "I have this option" and then starts charging. For salvage cars Tesla is actively going into the car and disabling the option so that when the car supercharges it says "I don't have this option" and won't charge. This was a point of contention with certain people that felt like Tesla was going into their property and removing an option that they paid for.
So don't hold me to it but I believe the handshake is done entirely on the car, at least as it is now. With that in mind, eventually I think we'll be at a point where salvage cars are having that option flipped back on.�
Feb 29, 2016
wk057 This is kind of OT for this thread, but...
Here's how it works today: The car has a configuration variable ON THE CAR that enables or disables supercharging (all DC charging). When it is enabled on the CAR the car is able to connect to superchargers and the car does send its VIN to the supercharger. As of today, the supercharger doesn't care what the VIN is. I've sent it all 6's, all 0's, a Roadster VIN, a VIN from a 1983 Yugo... it doesn't care. If it's enabled on the CAR the superchargers will charge the car today.
So today, when Tesla blocks a car from supercharging they connect to the CAR via their VPN link, modify the CAR'S options configuration to remove the DC charging option, without the owner's permission (which I'm pretty sure is illegal, but who knows).
That's not say they wont change this eventually. But as of right now, that's how it works. Eventually the supercharger could reject based on VIN or something else, but today it doesn't care. That's how it SHOULD work, but it is not how it actually works.
For the record, I've turned supercharging back on (undoing Tesla's illegal configuration change) for a fully repaired salvage and it works fine. If they want to block it on the supercharger side, by all means.�
Feb 29, 2016
bswn1 Did you not read the posts in this thread in which we discussed the fact that the cars are software limited with regards to performance? That's what I'm referring to, NOT a pack swap and firmware upgrade.�
Feb 29, 2016
Panu I think that's a good idea from Tesla because otherwise SpC would need to connect to Tesla servers to ask for permission and if network connection is down you might not be able to supercharge.
Are you really saying that if someone has not bought the supercharging option for her S60 she won't be able to charge from Chademo?�
Feb 29, 2016
MP3Mike Yes and no. The quote on the Tesla page is: "For Model S without Supercharging enabled, onboard hardware must be activated to use the CHAdeMO adapter."
If you don't have, and don't want to, enable Supercharging then Tesla has a cheaper, $1,900, option to enable just the DC fast charging hardware for CHAdeMO charging. I am curious how that works if there really isn't a separate option in the car. Maybe Tesla enables Supercharging on the car and then blacklists the VIN on all of the Supercharging stations.�
Feb 29, 2016
Ingineer The "P" Large DU's contain beefier transistors in their inverters, and I think the motor windings are also different. It isn't just software.
Now the front DU's are all the same on all cars that have them.�
Feb 29, 2016
wk057 Have any evidence on this one? Everything I've found out so far does not agree with this.
The fact that the non-P drive unit can perform the same as the P drive unit with the same temperature rises, power use, etc after flashing is pretty telling. I've physically seen a non-P drive unit tear down, and photos of a P drive unit tear down... no noticeable differences.�
Feb 29, 2016
Ingineer You cannot flash the P firmware into an inverter with non-P hardware. The bootloader will not permit it. Try it.�
Mar 1, 2016
jaguar36 There are lots of other things that *could* be different between a P DU and a S DU that wouldn't show up simply by looking at temperatures and would just be related to increased longevitiy under the higher loads. Off the top of my head different alloys could be used, different bearings or even just different bearing liners, the shafts could be balanced better, or the tolerances could be tighter. Similarly its possible that the certain components are built to the same drawing but then just binned based on the final dimensions with the better parts being allocated for the P DUs.
Note that I'm not claiming they are different, just that there could easily be differences that aren't immediately obvious even if you tore-down the inverters and motors and compared the two.
This also doesn't mean that flashing a S85 to a P85 wouldn't be quite successful for the long term, quite similar to how you can overclock many cpus without issue.�
Mar 1, 2016
apacheguy Right, as I suspected it's more than just a config setting in the diagnostic screens. Tesla did the right thing by hard coding it into the inverter firmware.
Wk - What exactly was done with the S60 -> P85 conversion? How did you verify P85 performance?�
Mar 1, 2016
wk057 I have. It worked fine... wonder what you did differently? Maybe we should compare notes.
Was an S60. Car was fully repaired, but the pack was damaged beyond reasonable repair, so it was swapped with an 85 pack from another salvage. The car functioned at this point with no software changes, albeit with a bit of complaining. I modified the car's configuration to match the 85 donor car's pack configuration, and redeployed the firmware. All was happy and it was a happy little S85. After a bit of test driving, for s***s and giggles, I figured it'd be fun to see what it'd do when telling the car it was a P85, with a P85 motor, and then redeploying the firmware. Much to my surprise the car didn't complain, no firmware errors in the log, and it did indeed flash a P85 firmware to the motor. A quick test drive and it was immediately apparent that the car was performing like every P85 I've driven before. The improvement was very obvious.
I figured to be safe temperatures should be monitored to see how things worked out. I did several 0-~100 runs with the car, among other things, while CAN logging and watching the thermal data screen. Nothing unusual. I went back and compared this with CAN data from my wife's P85 and the temperature rises were basically exactly the same. If, for example, the IGBTs in the real P85 were beefier than the IGBTs in the S60 turned P85, then the latter should have a quicker temperature rise under the same load. Same for the stator; if the stator were somehow less robust in the S60->P85, then it should have heated up faster. In both cases the rise in temperature was pretty much identical.
That car has been on the road as a P85 for... two months now? And the owner drives it pretty hard.
Heck, he's even got a "P85" badge on the back now. If that doesn't make it go faster, then I don't know what will.�
Mar 1, 2016
snooper77 Does the car get OTA updates for a P85 as well?�
Mar 1, 2016
wk057 The car doesn't get OTA updates period, since it's a salvage that Tesla won't touch. It currently only gets wk057 updates. lol.�
Mar 1, 2016
techmaven Way cool.
Could be that Tesla slammed a P85 drive unit into the S60 at some point? After all, no one complains if they get a better than spec new or refurb.�
Mar 1, 2016
glhs272 Jason (a.k.a. Whiz kid aka wk057) or Phil (a.k.a Ingineer),
Someday I sure hope you publish methods on how to get a pack upgrade into a Tesla. Even if under a pseudonym, cause we all know who you are ;-).
I would be happy to pay Tesla to upgrade mine. First they say "go pound sand" when I ask, then later they say sure give us the money. When I come up with the cash, they have gone back to saying "go pound sand". A bit frustrating to say the least. At this point, I just want to get a used pack and throw it in my car once the battery warranty expires (about 2 more years). I don't think I am the only one either.�
Mar 1, 2016
snooper77 Ah ok, thanks, so the VIN isn't serviced anymore, makes sense.�
Mar 1, 2016
GregRF Have you seen the inside of these motors/inverters? I have yet to find any pictures of their insides and am curious to see the changes vs. the large motors.�
Mar 1, 2016
Mike K Two questions:
1. Are OTA firmware upgrades similar to supercharging in that the car decides whether or not it is allowed to receive them? If so, is there any way to re-enable updates?
2. On that S85/ P85 now that the car thinks it's a P85 would that change in the future with a firmware update? Would that firmware again treat it as an S85 or continue to treat it as a P85? Or is there just completely different firmware files for the two models?
3. Let's say one day this is something people do. They take their S85's and turn them into P85s. Is Tesla currently set up to find this out automatically or would they need to due some snooping?
4. I understand if you don't want to answer this one... How do you come upon the firmware? I assume you've just found a way to sneak it off the car? I've followed your posts pretty closely but don't see any reference to any of this.�
Mar 1, 2016
wk057 I count more than two.
Not directly, no. The car requests firmware be prepared for it, and the server either has an update for you and does so, or it does not. Once Tesla revokes the car's VPN keys there isn't even a way to ask if there is an update, let alone have their server put a package together.
The car would continue to be a P85 until the configuration was changed. Updates don't touch the configuration.
While connected to the internet and Tesla's VPN, the car periodically sends status to Tesla's servers. The status includes the configuration. So they would have that information pretty much immediately automatically.
The CID and IC are just computers running Linux. Once you have root you can do anything with them pretty much. The way Tesla's firmware works is pretty straight-forward, so imaging one machine and then getting another to apply the new firmware isn't impossible.�
Mar 1, 2016
apacheguy So am I correct in my understanding that the previously downloaded firmware is stored on a separate partition? And reflashing the firmware merely entails executing an install command? Wonder why Tesla doesn't allow the owner to retry failed updates. From posts around the forum, failed updates are a source of major headaches.�
Mar 1, 2016
Mike K One question this time, I swear. Is there any hope of perhaps spoofing this so that the car thinks it's a P85 but reports that it's an S85?
If the components are indeed the same then truly there's no harm to Tesla since the car would be under the same warranty regardless of whether it thought it was an 85 or P85.
Wishful thinking for the future I suppose. I've had images dancing through my head of replacing the inverter some day far in the future so this info is exciting to hear.�
Mar 1, 2016
apacheguy Well the easier avenue I suppose would just be to bring down the VPN interface. Once folks wander into this sort of territory they'll also have to consider unintended consequences. Like Tesla refusing to service the car and blacklisting the VIN at SpC. I suspect it's only a matter of time before they crack down on this sort of thing. Don't know about anyone else, but having the SpC network is a much greater asset to me than have a hacked P DU.�
Mar 2, 2016
Max* Except monetary damage, right? They charged, what $10k (?), to upgrade from the S85 to a P85.
On one hand it's your car, you should be able to do whatever you want with it; on the other hand, it doesn't feel ethical...�
Mar 2, 2016
jaguar36 Upgrading your car from an S85 to a P85 is one thing, that I would consider questionable. Upgrading it and then still expecting Tesla to warranty it or support it any way as Mike K suggested is hugely unethical.�
Mar 2, 2016
No2DinosaurFuel SO I am assuming your "salvage" S60 -> P85 isn't supercharging either right? It's just a fast electric car with > 200 miles range like the upcoming chevy bolt with a lot of Tesla's defects if it was an older S60. Sounds like there might be a market for your hacking. I would imagine people who don't have a lot of cash would probably just get a salvage S60 for cheap and hack it to a P85 or so. Sure they don't have warranty and what not, but I am sure a steady supply of salvages will ensure a steady supply of replacement parts.
I say if you can convert a salvage S60 to a P85 for 1/2 to 2/3 of what the new bolt cost, I think you will have a solid business in the short term.
- - - Updated - - -
I think he needs to do what people are doing in the cellphone industry. Root and hack the car with P85 Firmware. Disable internet so it doesn't report to the server. Once service is needed, reflash back to the old firmware and resume internet connection. Yes unethical, but that is one way around the problem.�
Mar 2, 2016
wk057 Why wouldn't it? According to the logs the 60 had supercharging enabled before it was crashed, so the original owner paid for an option to be added to the car. Tesla reached in while it was being repaired and stole that option back with no compensation to the new owner. I turned it back on. I don't see the problem. Again, if Tesla wants to block it on the supercharger side and have the charger deny access, not many people are going to argue. But when they reach into the car without permission, I have a serious problem with that.�
Mar 2, 2016
Ingineer Excerpt from the service manual on DU replacement:
Now, why, if the physical hardware is identical, would this procedure exist, and why would different sounds emanate from the DU? Even if you got the firmware to work, you are probably going to cause DU failure. Temperatures are not a good enough indicator.
As it is, we know the 1st gen DU's are "fragile". Making one put out more power is just asking for it.
BTW, I recently did a pack swap of a 90 into a P85D and now it's a P90D. That is totally fine and doesn't stress anything out beyond it's original design.�
Mar 2, 2016
jaguar36 Who was the owner when this was done though? Wouldn't it have been done when it was owned by the insurance company? Whatever "paperwork" is given to Tesla to tell them that the title is being changed may include the agreement that some features such as connectivity and supercharging are removed.�
Mar 2, 2016
Mike K Well yes and no. I thought about that yesterday. Let's change perspective a bit. Let's say I bought a car and wanted to add an option it didn't come with. People with BMWs do this regularly. What would I do? I'd either buy the part new or source it used. In the case of BMW I'd also find a coder to program my car and tell it that it has the missing option. BMW doesn't get paid for the option but my car ends up having it anyhow. Would there be anything wrong with any of this? No. It's not unethical to buy parts and modify your own car. I think we'd all agree on this.
So now let's take that one step further. Here's a real scenario. Let's say I bought a 2013 BMW 535 but I didn't get the advanced bluetooth package so I don't get A2DP sound over bluetooth. Well I'm going to go out and buy the advanced bluetooth module. But wait, there is no module. It's the same one as the one that's in my car. When I pay for the option BMW simply tells the car I have advanced bluetooth and boom, the option is active. So while I'm completely willing to go out and buy the parts necessary, it's not required. In this case I simply flip a digital switch and my car has an option it didn't have before. Now is this wrong? Again, no, I don't believe it is. I'm modifying my car.
I view potentially turning an S85 into a P85 as the same thing. It's always been in the back of my mind that in the future way down the road the option to swap inverters and reprogram the car is going to be there. In my scenario I'd buy the inverter, have it swapped and then have the car programmed. Again though, all hypothetical and all years down the road. More importantly, is it my fault that performing those modifications potentially wouldn't require a parts swap? No.
Warranty issues aside, if you bought an inverter, installed it and reprogramed your car to turn it into a P85 everyone here would be talking about how cool that was but the moment people find out you do exactly the same thing only it's not necessary to swap the inverter, suddenly you're some sort of villain? I guess my bottom line is this: the ease of which a particular car can be modified is not something that can be held against the owner and the owner shouldn't be faulted for wanting to take advantage of those exploits. They also shouldn't feel entitled to them though.
I see your point. I just happen to think a very strong case can be made for doing what you want with your own car. And on the flip side of that coin, if Tesla were to come out and block access to all of this I wouldn't feel slighted at all. In fact, I kind of think they should.
- - - Updated - - -
Unethical is a pretty strong word. I think there's room for debate and I think you need to consider a few different variables. Here's one:
Is there a higher rate of component failure between 85 and P85 cars? If there is then I see your point. Maybe the price difference between the models covers the additional failure rate of the higher powered car. If there isn't a higher rate of failure on the P85s then I'm not so sure I agree with you. Tesla would be offering the same warranty on the same drive unit and the same battery. In theory this would not affect them at all.
And just to clarify, I'm basing my assumption off the fact that the components between the cars are indeed identical as has been suggested. If an S85 inverter can be made to pass power like a P85 inverter but at the cost of longevity then I'm right back in your boat with it not being ok.�
Mar 2, 2016
wk057 The owner when it was done, according to the logs in the car, was the current owner and not the insurance company. The car wasn't online long enough for Tesla to get their grubby paws into the system before the current owner was repairing it. If the insurance company wants to let Tesla do whatever, then they're welcome to. But the owner who had a car delivered to him with the option enabled has the option removed after the fact, without permission given.
- - - Updated - - -
Yep, I've seen this as well. Seems pretty likely that this is just from the increased stress on the components causing a noise while the gears and differential wear to a point where the sound is inaudible, which is likely just not an issue when running at lower power and would "break in" on its own over time without audible noise. This is certainly just a customer satisfaction procedure so that people with P cars don't freak out the first time they accelerate when they hear this noise.�
Mar 2, 2016
MP3Mike Where did you get a ludicrous upgraded 90 kWh pack from? Has someone totaled a P90D already?�
Mar 2, 2016
wk057 Ingineer can probably confirm, but the consensus has been that all of the 90 packs contain the upgraded fuse and contactors required for Ludicrous mode.
@Ingineer - Did you replace the front drive unit fuse (under the rear seat if memory serves) as well? That appears to be part of the upgrade procedure for Insane->Ludicrous. AFAIK they just remove it and replace it with a bus bar now and it doesn't exist at all on newer cars with the electronic pack fuse.�
Mar 2, 2016
MP3Mike So that would mean the only difference between a P90D and a P90D is $10,000 to change a software option? I guess that fits with the only difference between an 85 and a P85 is a $20,000 software option.
Meaning that the difference between a 90D and a P90D is the rear motor/invertor and a software change for $30,000k. I wonder what the difference in cost between the small and large motors are...�
Mar 2, 2016
wk057 Well, the 90D and P90D have different rear motors at least. Beyond that, yeah, it's pretty ludicrous.�
Mar 2, 2016
GasKilla 
Kind of back to the original question, if a 70D is software limited (and according to Tesla's website also battery performance limited) would an 70D that was only software changed to allow the performance of a 90D be able to maintain the performance of a 90D (1 second faster 0-60) with a smaller battery pack? Or is there not sufficient power from the smaller pack to allow the better performance.
I included the screen shot from the tesla website because it confirms the motors are the same between the 70D and 90D�
Mar 2, 2016
wk057 With software limits removed the 70 pack would provide about 14% less power than the 90D.�
Mar 2, 2016
bswn1 Let me know how much it'll cost me to have the limit removed�
Mar 2, 2016
wk057 Not really in the business of doing such things, really, although it might be fun to try it.�
Mar 28, 2016
DrTharp Seems this three just stopped. Did something happen?�
Mar 29, 2016
travwill I have a 70D, and while I'm not big on wanting the 90 battery pack, if they create a compatible 100-125 that fits in same "tray" then I'd be interested in that upgrade option - depending if pack costs do come down as well...�
Mar 29, 2016
Ingineer I don't know if all 90 packs have the upgraded fuse, but all the newer ones do I've looked at. You can tell because as you pointed out they have removed the auxiliary fuse box for the front motor (and rear motor on non-P cars). This is because the new electronic fuse can respond fast enough to protect the small inverters, whereas before, they needed 3 total fuses on cars with small inverters. When I installed the 90 pack I also installed the front power cables from the same car which didn't have the fuse.�
Apr 26, 2016
skip8jj I believe I read that the MS 60 battery voltage was 350V. I checked the battery pack for our MS70D and see that it is a "D" series but I am unable to read what the voltage is because the label is partially covered by the fender liner. For the MS90s, the battery series is also "D" but the voltage is 400. Does any one know what the voltage is for the MS70D? Thank you�
Apr 26, 2016
sandpiper So that is a really interesting thought. Converting a 90D to a P90DL would be a matter of new/salvage drive unit (less than 5k for sure) and maybe some new higher current cabling. And then you need someone to hack the software. So, assuming you're willing to live with static firmware and forgo future updates, then it should be a pretty inexpensive 3rd party upgrade.
I wonder what the laws are on that? I know that (expensive) software switch enabled options are common on industrial machinery. And I know that people hack those every day.�
Apr 26, 2016
supratachophobia I just heard second hand that an owner was quoted $18k for a 60kw to 90kw battery upgrade minus a $2k core credit for the old 60kwh battery. I was unclear if this included installation, but the owner was under the impression that it did.�
Apr 26, 2016
David99 @wk057 Can you send me the P upgrade software on a USB drive? LOL�
Apr 27, 2016
Ingineer 60's and 70's have the same voltage; 350. There are 14 modules in 60's and 70's, and 16 modules in 85's and 90's. Each module is 25 volts. In 60's they also remove some cells, but the voltage stays the same. 70's have fully populated modules, same as used in an 85 or 90.�
Apr 27, 2016
bswn1 Would upping a 70 to 400 cause harm?�
Apr 27, 2016
Bishop this actually wouldn't surprise me in the least when i had an M6 and figured out the coding i discovered ( along with a bunch of others) that bmw just limited options with a simple true or false flag written in german.. . want to add this feature to roll the windows down and up with the key fob .. hook up laptop talk to the convenience module change the flag from false to true turn car off and back on and BANG.. there it is bmw charged 500-1000 for this same feature and it really just took 10 mins ... it wouldn't surprise me at all of tesla just software limited options based off model of car in fact there is already evidence of this with the autopilot why make 5 different parts if you can make 1 and get a programmer to change what you want it to do.�
Apr 27, 2016
David99 I highly doubt that the 70 has different inverters or motors. They can operate at a wide range of voltage (they have to anyways because the voltage difference between fully discharged and fully charged is about 100 Volt.). The example that a 60 had no problem taking an 85 battery shows that.�
Apr 27, 2016
glhs272 The Model S platform runs fine on 350volts or 400volts. It's just a matter of control over the firmware.�
Apr 27, 2016
MP3Mike Umm, how would you do that? Open the pack an rewire all of the modules? Add two extra modules? (which would make it a 90 kWh pack.)�
May 3, 2016
trigga71 If I'm reading this right it's nothing like coding a BMW. The BMW's firmware has all the info for the different configurations, to a degree. Coding is just turning on and off the settings you want. The Tesla firmware is unique for each trim level. S85, P85, etc use different firmware even if its the same parts. You have to flash the full firmware over what is already programmed. Is that correct?�
May 4, 2016
sandpiper So, I'm confused by this. If the 70s have fully populated modules, and are made with the same cells as the 90s, doesn't that imply that they have 14/16 = 87.5% of the capacity of a 90? And so shouldn't they be actually be 78s? Or alternately, wouldn't the 90s actually be 80s? Or some mix between the two? Something doesn't add up here.
I know there's speculation that the 70s are ALL just software limited 75s.... and maybe that's why they're able to do an unlock to turn them into 75s (or maybe 78s)?�
May 4, 2016
MP3Mike You got one thing wrong the 70s use the same cells as the 85 they just removed two modules. So a 70 is 14/16 of an 85 pack. So if an 85 was actually 85kWh, then it would be a 74kWh pack. But since we think an 85kWh pack is really only ~81kWh, that would make the 70kWh pack actually just under 71kWh.
The new 75kWh packs are probably using the new 90kWh cell formula, but with only 14 of the 16 modules.�
May 5, 2016
sandpiper I would be very surprised if they've been using two different types of cells. And the 70s came out at roughly the same time as the 90s. To me it seems more likely that the 70s have been 75s all along with the same cells as the 90s - but that they they software limited them for marketing purposes.�
May 5, 2016
Buzzz Elon said a few hours ago on Twitter that larger battery replacement will be possible in the future.
Elon Musk on Twitter�
May 5, 2016
MP3Mike Well if I recall correctly the 60 kWh pack, which is 14 modules with holes/empty cell spots in it, was replaced with the 70 kWh which is 14 modules without holes in it in April, 2015. (While the 85 kWh pack was still the long range choice.) Then the 90 kWh pack was released until July, 2015, which is when they announced the new formula. They also produced the 85s and 90s at the same time which were two different types of cells.�
May 5, 2016
sandpiper Right... So the made the 85s for a bit to run out the old cell inventory. That ended quite a while ago. I have a very hard time believing that the 70s in production since that time have still been using the older cells. I bet that there are a lot of older 70s already out there that are really 75s (or 78s depending on how you rate them).�
May 10, 2016
Bikezion So what about the Rav 4 EV, and the B class ED. If I understand right, they have the same motor as the large rear motor. Not sure about the inverter, but if I were to guess...... Anybody know?�
May 11, 2016
Ingineer The Rav4 and B-Class motors are physically different because they have implemented a park pawl actuator and the internal mechanism. I think they are the same as the non-P inverters, but run different software.�
May 12, 2016
travwill I sent a note/email to Tesla asking what the earliest VIN is that would potentially be eligible to upgrade to 75D from 70D. My VIN for example was a 70D delivered in June, right before the 90s were released though - likely for sure old chemistry and not eligible, but it could clarify if they provide a clear answer when the 70s (if at all) started using improved 90s chemistry (if not until refresh).
-T�
May 12, 2016
bswn1 Do me a favor and update this thread with what they tell you, I'm curious too... I got mine delivered in March.�
May 12, 2016
Camera-Cruiser This makes sense in a year to 18 months from now. Maybe 2 years. Reason being is that the Gigafactory will be pumping out batteries at a much lower cost then. I would love being able to buy a 100 to 120 KwH battery for a reasonable fee. I think Tesla, and the electric car industry as a whole, needs to be able to show that all the gas savings you received over the past 4 to 5 years is not lost the moment you have to buy a new battery. Tesla knows this and the Gigafactory is there to both increase volume, and reduce price.
So, where do I send my USB thumb drive?�
May 18, 2016
scole04 Tesla could use this as a cash cow for the service centers. They could even charge a premium to upgrade after delivery because most don't know about the common part structure.�
May 18, 2016
jbcarioca Even if one knows this most people would choose the lowest-risk option by going with the factory vs an aftermarket choice. If our person is and electrical engineer like a handful of people here the decision process outdoor be entirely different.�
May 18, 2016
scole04 Do you guys want to leak this to the media or should I.�
May 31, 2016
Ric T. The larger battery pack has a larger number of individual batteries. There is a limit as to what each individual cell can "output" at one time. Therefore a larger pack can output more amps at one time.�
Jun 21, 2016
HyperMiler Like it or not, compared to where they started out, Tesla is closer to a big car company now, going from a "we will try as hard as we can" to the usual "we cheat you out of as much money as we can per release". The motivation (funding model 3 for the masses) may be laudable. The methodology is not, any more? They have stopped telling the truth, in a way? In part, understandable, yet, in a way, regrettable. Am I being naive? Or is this stopping being s3xy?�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét