Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[stopcrazypp]

This situation is "When you order a car, you might get one which can charge at 120 kW, or you might get one which can't, we will charge the same amount either way and not tell you what you're buying"... it's seriously shady. Actually it's likely to be lawsuit material.

Again with the lawsuits. Even ignoring the clause in the contract that says Tesla has the right to change things, when people affected bought these cars, 120kW charging did not exist. All the cars at the time met the parameters of advertised spec (which was 90kW). Now if you ordered a car after the May/June 2013 rollout (when they made concrete promises of 120kW and changed the website to mention it), then you may have a chance of a successful lawsuit (again assuming the contract clause does not protect Tesla). Of course, I understand the frustration if you got "stuck in the middle" with a 90kW pack, and that in general it's best for Tesla not to do that, but production realities sometimes do not allow for such a clear cut off.

In terms of part sourcing it's not practical for Tesla to inform customers of every part change (as there's probably plenty that have occurred, although in areas people don't care about). Perhaps they can do better for the more important things, but as a general point, I don't think it's practical.

 

[qwk]

Seems like it'd be a lot easier to have the car download the firmware components required for the hardware on their card.

Say Model S VIN 1 has V1 of all components. Model S VIN 1 says: "I see there's a firmware update - here are the version #s of the hardware I have, give me the appropriate firmware updates to apply and tell me in what order they need to be applied".

No assembling of potentially unique firmware blobs for each car required - the "assembling" happens at the car. Tesla doesn't even need to maintain a database of component levels at each car if they didn't want to (though they probably would want to do so that they can test all combinations of hardware before shipping it out).

While this would be cool, it would take too much money to implement since some components come from vendors as an off the shelf-part, and have no capability to communicate with the car on that level.

 

[Dave EV]

Frankly, this is how the majority of drivers in the Linux kernel look -- they are drivers for dozens of slightly different pieces of hardware and they detect the hardware at runtime (boot time).

Yep - that's the classic way to handle multiple hardware revs with a single firmware blob. Works until the hardware gets to be too different from other versions.

While this would be cool, it would take too much money to implement since some components come from vendors as an off the shelf-part, and have no capability to communicate with the car on that level.

Even if the components themselves can't communicate their hardware version (which I find hard to believe if one can flash firmware to them which already requires bidirectional communication), it's a simple matter of storing the hardware revisions on the central computer on the car and making sure that info is updated when hardware is swapped out.

 

[neroden]

Now if you ordered a car after the May/June 2013 rollout (when they made concrete promises of 120kW and changed the website to mention it), then you may have a chance of a successful lawsuit (again assuming the contract clause does not protect Tesla).

That is what I was thinking of. Not the earlier cars, which is totally understandable, apart from bad communication. The point when we realized that some people were getting 90kW-limited batteries after June 2013 was the point where I went "what the hell, Tesla".

 

[Stoneymonster]

Do any of us have any real knowledge of Tesla's firmware upgrade mechanisms, or is this all just speculation. Because it sounds like speculation to me.

 

[qwk]

Even if the components themselves can't communicate their hardware version (which I find hard to believe if one can flash firmware to them which already requires bidirectional communication), it's a simple matter of storing the hardware revisions on the central computer on the car and making sure that info is updated when hardware is swapped out.

Good point, but I wonder if it was that easy, why Tesla is doing it the hard way? It takes a long time for Tesla to ping you new firmware(when you ask for it from engineering)because of the manpower involved with assembly of these separate revisions.

- - - Updated - - -

Do any of us have any real knowledge of Tesla's firmware upgrade mechanisms, or is this all just speculation. Because it sounds like speculation to me.

Some of it is speculation, some is not.

 

[Stoneymonster]

Some of it is speculation, some is not.

Having done some firmware update systems in the past (and watched others implement them), what I'm certain of is that whatever Tesla is doing is simultaneously better and worse than we can imagine.

 

[tomas]

Tesla's communication needs improvement.

I don't think that point has been made yet.

Thanks for the laugh, MK… comes in useful whenever catching up on this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Do any of us have any real knowledge of Tesla's firmware upgrade mechanisms, or is this all just speculation. Because it sounds like speculation to me.

Build a Tesla speculum and price it right, there would be a lot of buyers on this forum.

 

[ken830]

That is what I was thinking of. Not the earlier cars, which is totally understandable, apart from bad communication. The point when we realized that some people were getting 90kW-limited batteries after June 2013 was the point where I went "what the hell, Tesla".

I agree. Older cars not having the capability of newer cars is understandable. But newer cars having lower capability than older cars? That's not.

 

[dsm363]

See, the thing is, right now I'd recommend that before accepting delivery and writing the final check for the car, that the prospective owner open up every bit of the car, nearly disassembling the car, in order to note the part numbers for everything and check them against the most recent parts, to make sure that no "obsolete" parts were used in the making of his car.

This is the sort of thing which you have to do when buying "off the lot" from a used car dealer. You should not have to do this when ordering a Tesla. It's just ridiculous.

You'd probably void your warranty.

 

[shady]

I think "shady" is a bit strong.

I agree!

 

[Fedderman]

I agree!

Now I think we can all agree that was a Shady comment :wink:

On a serious note, this does seem to boil down to communications. Tesla seems to have intentionally kept things ambiguous when it was to their benefit. This is disconcerting to their most loyal fan base.

 

[brianman]

While this would be cool, it would take too much money to implement since some components come from vendors as an off the shelf-part, and have no capability to communicate with the car on that level.

Such a system scares me from a "completely untested integration" perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

On a serious note, this does seem to boil down to communications. Tesla seems to have intentionally kept things ambiguous when it was to their benefit. This is disconcerting to their most loyal fan base.

This is where I think shady is the right word.

They didn't "happen to mention" 120 kW charging. They made a big todo about it. They used words like "fleet rollout" and such. Then we later find out "only some customers", and "it's kind of random". And "120 kW isn't really that much better".

If it wasn't that much better then they should have said nothing and let some owners be pleasantly surprised that they got "ninja buff" of faster rates.

As it stands, Tesla used the 120 kW as an advertising / promotion tool apparently knowing full well that many owners would not be able use it. Lawyers use a 5 letter word that begins with f for such actions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That is what I was thinking of. Not the earlier cars, which is totally understandable, apart from bad communication. The point when we realized that some people were getting 90kW-limited batteries after June 2013 was the point where I went "what the hell, Tesla".

You might want to check up on your facts. AFAIK, there was no car after May 2013 that even reported its battery number on this thread. The latest one with an "A" battery is in April 2013:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Battery+table

 

[Fedderman]

I just harvested additional battery data from this thread and added it to the battery table (digitaltim, mitch672, captain_zap, and Musterion): http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Battery+table

Musterion - you seem to have the "youngest" car so far with an 'A' battery (VIN 9331).

 

[TexasEV]

I think everyone needs to take a few deep breaths, put down their stopwatches at the superchargers, and go enjoy their car. Let's not lose sight of the big picture here. Tesla is a disruptive technology being sold with a disruptive business model and powered for long distance travel in a disruptive way. Early adopters (and everyone who bought in 2013 was an early adopter even after 20,000 cars) should expect to be disrupted too in some way. Time to move on.

 

[apacheguy]

I think everyone needs to take a few deep breaths, put down their stopwatches at the superchargers, and go enjoy their car. Let's not lose sight of the big picture here... Time to move on.

This is an enthusiasts forum and as such you will find people who are enthusiastic about the technology. Hence the stopwatches at superchargers and I guarantee that's not something that's going to go away any time soon.

I'll move on once TM fesses up and offers some apology and compromise solution. Jerome's response isn't going to cut it and I think it is in Tesla's best interest that they learn their lesson here RE communication. I'm supportive of the mission of Tesla (hence my Sig Model S), but at the same time I'm not going to let them shove me around.

 

[walla2]

I was one of the first here to complain about model S communication problems and people literally told me to leave the forum. It is sad to still see Tesla struggling with delivery satisfaction, timelines, and this battery issue. I really wish Elon would say something about communication and then invest in making it happen. I am a full fan boy and want Tesla to change the world, but I'm not pleased that these problems continue at the company.

 

[joefee]

This is an enthusiasts forum and as such you will find people who are enthusiastic about the technology. Hence the stopwatches at superchargers and I guarantee that's not something that's going to go away any time soon.

I'll move on once TM fesses up and offers some apology and compromise solution. Jerome's response isn't going to cut it and I think it is in Tesla's best interest that they learn their lesson here RE communication. I'm supportive of the mission of Tesla (hence my Sig Model S), but at the same time I'm not going to let them shove me around.

+1
Elon fix this now!

 

[brianman]

I was one of the first here to complain about model S communication problems and people literally told me to leave the forum.

Sucks. I'm glad you ignored them, or at least ignored that "request".