Thanks, Kardax. That blog you point out seemed to be where Martin was pointing out engineering changes that had to happen between EP and VP.
So does that mean that EPs had 56kWh ESSs, but VPs and production models have 53kWh ESSs?
The blog you point out was also the first hint that the original range targets weren't going to be met. By extrapolation one could suspect that the range targets were at risk because of the apparent battery change.
Darryl Siry recently said in the Tesla blogs that "
Battery Rumors {are} Untrue"
It seems the focus there is to say that battery changes didn't cause delays, but could they have caused a domino effect to need to make other engineering changes to try to keep the range from falling too far given less ESS capacity and more weight?
---
Part of the reason I blog so much is that I think it is healthy for Tesla to have ongoing outside activity (unlike a "stale blog" as some other EV makers), and I want to support them, yet these sorts of topics now are possibly things that Tesla would rather think of as "water under the bridge, lets move on" topics.
So, I am conflicted to keep talking about this, but it appears that reporters have been writing speculative stories about it, so perhaps we need to try to discuss it.
The other thing that keeps me going is the way Tesla hit the ground running with a very "open" approach with the blogs and information flow. Once they started that ball rolling it is hard to make it stop. Even the reporters seem antsy for the next big revelation, and grasping for straws when the well runs dry.