Tasla Lifts software Battery Capacity Cap in times of crisis

[BlazingBlob]

Okay, So Tesla has confirmed that all of thier cars are battery capped via software, Owers with all types of Tesla's are now able to use the full extent of the bettery during the Hurricane Irma in florida.

I think that this is such a good thing that Tesla is willing to temporarily can thier selling price points for people in evacuation areas.

 

What do you guys think of Tesla doing this?

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/10/tesla-extends-range-on-cars-in-hurricane-irma-path/

 

Quote

Tesla may have software-limited the battery capacities of some cars to upsell owners to pricier trim levels, but it's now clear that the company is willing to lift that limit during a crisis. The EV maker has confirmed to Electrek that it temporarily unlocked the full battery capacity on 60kWh Model S and Model X cars in Florida to give them the full 75kWh and help them escape Hurricane Irma.

 

[Creed1]

Interesting...This is what At&t kind of did. Unlimited talk, text + data for all florida members.

[Enderman]

Pretty sure that the extra 15kWh is not for "pricier trim levels" it is for reducing battery wear by increasing the minimum charge level.

If you don't fully discharge lithium batteries you can increase their lifespan of charge cycles.

 

It would also be a complete waste of money to build cars with 75kWh packs and then limit them through software.

Lithium batteries are not cheap and expendable.

 

EDIT- i was wrong

[Shreyas1]

Ah yes, tasla, the best car company out there

 

Spoiler

Sorry couldn't resist

 

[AshleyAshes]

19 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Pretty sure that the extra 15kWh is not for "pricier trim levels" it is for reducing battery wear by increasing the minimum charge level.

If you don't fully discharge lithium batteries you can increase their lifespan of charge cycles.

 

It would also be a complete waste of money to build cars with 75kWh packs and then limit them through software.

Lithium batteries are not cheap and expendable.

I kinda have to agree with this.  Also, batteries are EXPENSIVE to produce, particularly large ones.  Building a 75kWh battery and selling it as a 60kWh battery with a software would be a lot more expensive than manufacturing two different classes of batteries, one being cheaper and lighter to ship from battery factories to vehicle assembly plants.  It'd just make terrible sense from a business perspective.

[RGProductions]

Good on ya m8... I guess? 

[ARikozuM]

How long until people complain about Tesla locking down their batteries?

[BlazingBlob]

21 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

How long until people complain about Tesla locking down their batteries?

i dont think people will, this car is a disconinued version, and they did pay a lower price for it, so it makes sence, but then again, people do jump to conclusions

[xtroria]

22 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

How long until people complain about Tesla locking down their batteries?

 

It's just business and it's normal to make smaller profit margin on the lower end stuffs compared to the higher end ones. 

 

People should commend Tesla for doing this, they don't have to do it but they do it anyway to help people

[Kano]

1 hour ago, Enderman said:

Pretty sure that the extra 15kWh is not for "pricier trim levels" it is for reducing battery wear by increasing the minimum charge level.

If you don't fully discharge lithium batteries you can increase their lifespan of charge cycles.

 

It would also be a complete waste of money to build cars with 75kWh packs and then limit them through software.

Lithium batteries are not cheap and expendable.

The battery is software locked on the newer cars, the 75kWh and the 60kWh version of the car use the same battery packs.  You can pay Tesla and they will unlock it with an over the air update.

 

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/

[Enderman]

16 minutes ago, Kano said:

The battery is software locked on the newer cars, the 75kWh and the 60kWh version of the car use the same battery packs.  You can pay Tesla and they will unlock it with an over the air update.

 

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-tesla-model-s/

Huh I was wrong, ok then.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

How long until people complain about Tesla locking down their batteries?

Actually, it is as I understood it, yes, they are dicks  

But of course, it begin a software lock, it must  be hacked if any faith in humanity is to remain. I mean, fuck cracking games, this is serious!

 

2 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

I kinda have to agree with this.  Also, batteries are EXPENSIVE to produce, particularly large ones.  Building a 75kWh battery and selling it as a 60kWh battery with a software would be a lot more expensive than manufacturing two different classes of batteries, one being cheaper and lighter to ship from battery factories to vehicle assembly plants.  It'd just make terrible sense from a business perspective.

According to the source of the source, yes, it is the same battery fully capable of 75kWh, the point being that you can pay Tesla to software-enable the full capacity at a later point in time.

So yes, it seems this is indeed like selling you an 4-core CPU locked to dual by software, then enabling the two extra cores remotely if you pay extra.

 

[AlTech]

Title contains a typo.

 

Also, capping battery capacity via Software is exactly why I will never buy a Tesla.

 

I'm not cool with that. Offer me a real 70Whr battery and not some throttled software controlled 100Whr .

[AlTech]

4 hours ago, Enderman said:

Pretty sure that the extra 15kWh is not for "pricier trim levels" it is for reducing battery wear by increasing the minimum charge level.

If you don't fully discharge lithium batteries you can increase their lifespan of charge cycles.

 

It would also be a complete waste of money to build cars with 75kWh packs and then limit them through software.

Lithium batteries are not cheap and expendable.

Pretty sure the "60Whr" models they used to sell were just 100Whr units with Software control just how the 70Whr units were able to be upgraded to 75/85Whr later.

[AlTech]

2 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Actually, it is as I understood it, yes, they are dicks  

But of course, it begin a software lock, it must  be hacked if any faith in humanity is to remain. I mean, fuck cracking games, this is serious!

What happens if somebody is able to hack software using an exploit and then tell the software to overvolt the batteries and blow them up?

 

I don't think you really want the battery software to be hacked .

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

What happens if somebody is able to hack their software using an exploit and then tell the software to overvolt the batteries and blow them up?

 

I don't think you really want the battery software to be hacked .

I am a firm believer in full ownership over hardware. You can choose to sell me a particular battery, or not sell me that battery, but you can't control how I use it later.

 

Also, I do not believe in security through ignorance - or rather a sense of security based on te hope that everyone else remains as ignorant as myself.

 

Adding both things together, yes, I do want people to have control over the software their cars run (just like those folks getting sued for modding their tractors' software).

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I am a firm believer in full ownership over hardware. You can choose to sell me a particular battery, or not sell me that battery, but you can't control how I use it later.

I'm fine with it if it's more a case of quality control and they are unlocking cells that did not outright fail but the unit itself did not pass the full 75kWh testing so became a lesser standardized value i.e 60kWh.

 

I know this is a pure up-selling decision and not the above but that is just the example of where I would be fine with software capping the battery to a lower amount. Say 8kWh worth of cells are defective, makes perfect sense to lock it to 60kWh since every battery might be different so there does need to the a common figure.

 

Edit:

Not that the above should happen since all cells are tested before packaging in to a battery pack.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

I'm fine with it if it's more a case of quality control and they are unlocking cells that did not outright fail but the unit itself did not pass the full 75kWh testing so became a lesser standardized value i.e 60kWh.

 

I know this is a pure up-selling decision and not the above but that is just the example of where I would be fine with software capping the battery to a lower amount. Say 8kWh worth of cells are defective, makes perfect sense to lock it to 60kWh since every battery might be different so there does need to the a common figure.  

Yes, i would equate that with burning out cores that turned out below spec in a CPU die to sell lower core-count versions (or not even completely killing them, as in the days of "unlock cores!" motehrbaords ). Something where they can't guarantee safety or even performance.

 

This... is the same product with a software switch. Still, even the alternative example, I'm still for the right of users to modify things at their own risk (which means also not at the risk of others, i.e., you can't blow up your car in the street because "it's my right to manioulate it!" ).

[AlTech]

12 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Yes, i would equate that with burning out cores that turned out below spec in a CPU die to sell lower core-count versions (or not even completely killing them, as in the days of "unlock cores!" motehrbaords ). Something where they can't guarantee safety or even performance.

 

This... is the same product with a software switch. Still, even the alternative example, I'm still for the right of users to modify things at their own risk (which means also not at the risk of others, i.e., you can't blow up your car in the street because "it's my right to manioulate it!" ).

 

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm fine with it if it's more a case of quality control and they are unlocking cells that did not outright fail but the unit itself did not pass the full 75kWh testing so became a lesser standardized value i.e 60kWh.

 

I know this is a pure up-selling decision and not the above but that is just the example of where I would be fine with software capping the battery to a lower amount. Say 8kWh worth of cells are defective, makes perfect sense to lock it to 60kWh since every battery might be different so there does need to the a common figure.

 

Edit:

Not that the above should happen since all cells are tested before packaging in to a battery pack.

Apparently according to the article OP linked, they no longer sell software locked battery capacities.

 

But anybody who bought a 60Whr or 70Whr Tesla Model S from 2012-2017 has a software locked battery. Same for the initial 60Whr Model X.

[AshleyAshes]

5 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

According to the source of the source, yes, it is the same battery fully capable of 75kWh, the point being that you can pay Tesla to software-enable the full capacity at a later point in time.

So yes, it seems this is indeed like selling you an 4-core CPU locked to dual by software, then enabling the two extra cores remotely if you pay extra.

 

Ya got me there.

[Notional]

Tasla

 

So is there any reason why they are artificially capping battery capacity you paid for? Is it just over-provisioning like on SSD's? 

[PlayStation 2]

As much as I don't like Tesla, I wonder if they artificially cap the battery capacity for reasons like efficiency and life span.

[MeDownYou]

9 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Actually, it is as I understood it, yes, they are dicks  

But of course, it begin a software lock, it must  be hacked if any faith in humanity is to remain. I mean, fuck cracking games, this is serious!

 

According to the source of the source, yes, it is the same battery fully capable of 75kWh, the point being that you can pay Tesla to software-enable the full capacity at a later point in time.

So yes, it seems this is indeed like selling you an 4-core CPU locked to dual by software, then enabling the two extra cores remotely if you pay extra.

 

Ahh Intel sold one of these once I believe it was a single core to dual however, interesting to say the least. But wasn't worth it for consumers because they had to pay 50 bucks to unlock it and if you waited a while you could get better chip for that...

[NumLock21]

Tasla?

Is that the chinese knockoff version of the Tesla?

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

1 hour ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

I wonder if they artificially cap the battery capacity for reasons like efficiency and life span

Well, a battery does lose overall capacity faster if it's nearly full or empty, even when you're not using the device.  40-60% tends to be ideal (which is why most laptops and phones come out of the box with half a charge). 

Some laptops also have an option in the BIOS to stop charging once a battery hits a certain percentage (my Samsung NP900-X4D allows me to cap it at 80%) for just that reason.  I've had this laptop for 4.5 years and according to Mint's Power Statistics the original battery still has 89.3% of its original capacity left, so I think it's working out okay.  Certainly would have been worse if I were to keep it plugged in and at 100% all the time.