Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WWSS TM

[AmpedRealtor]

If it's not clear to Tesla by now that this is a big deal to some of their owners and still haven't officially and publicly addressed the topic then they have more than just a communication problem.

Why do you assume that if Tesla is not commenting, then it's either not clear to them or that it is a communication problem? There is another option - they simply don't wish to address this issue because they do not see it as an issue. That doesn't mean it's "not clear to Tesla", it simply means that in their opinion there is no issue to address. Why do you presume that your position is the only correct position, and that any other position (i.e., Tesla's position) is incorrect and flawed or uninformed?

What is a big deal to some of the owners - and I believe it's 20-30 who have banded together to push this issue - is not a big deal to most owners. There will always be issues for some people. That doesn't obligate Tesla to respond to every unhappy person and to formulate a public communications strategy surrounding what it is that made a small minority of owners unhappy.

Cue the bashing...

 

[dsm363]

I think you underestimate how many supercharging sessions you can fit in 24 hours.

I don't. You said to not use extreme examples though. How many people Supercharge 6 times in a day during a trip would you guess (a 1,200 mile trip at least with 5 Supercharges or a 20 min delay if going to 80% or maybe a 75 min delay for range charging which isn't always necessary between Superchargers) ? Yes, this entire situation is not ideal but you bought your car knowing 90kW charging was there, right? Then they seemed to promise 120kW after you got your car but then backed off that promise. Was the car as delivered harmed in any way? Sure 120 and 135kW charging would be awesome if we could get it but it looks like we can't at this point.
If Tesla had promised 120kW charging with delivery in writing and then backtracked to delivered with 120kW charging and then degraded it to 90kW then you'd have a strong case. As it is, your car was delivered with 90kW charging and that has not changed.

I'll ask again: How does the difference in charging speed lead to hours and hours of difference during a trip? Was your Signature car instantly made worse when Tesla announced the 120kW charging or did it charge like it did before?

 

[Norbert]

I don't characterize a private e-mail to a handful of owners a "public statement". They don't advertise 120 kW only in private e-mail.

Not really, but it is a sort-of-official response which they likely expected to be posted on social media (like here). My point though is that I don't expect anyone from Tesla to do more than that. If someone asks this question in public Q&A, they may respond by pointing out that the 120 kW Superchargers reduce the charging time for all Model S when they are shared between multiple cars. At the scale at which Tesla is growing and innovating, they can't alway exclude having to make a step back before making two forward, and they want to talk about what they intend to do without confusing the public (and themselves) with lots of details (which would lead to lots of misunderstandings), especially when those details may include information about suppliers that is often treated as confidential.

 

[brianman]

Maybe they simply didn't think it was a big deal. Who knows.

If it's not clear to Tesla by now that this is a big deal to some of their owners and still haven't officially and publicly addressed the topic then they have more than just a communication problem.

Why do you assume that if Tesla is not commenting, then it's either not clear to them or that it is a communication problem? There is another option - they simply don't wish to address this issue because they do not see it as an issue. That doesn't mean it's "not clear to Tesla", it simply means that in their opinion there is no issue to address. Why do you presume that your position is the only correct position, and that any other position (i.e., Tesla's position) is incorrect and flawed or uninformed?

You're reading way more into what I said than what I said.

- - - Updated - - -

And again, how does this difference cause hours of delay during a trip when it is at most an hour during a very long day of driving?

I think you underestimate how many supercharging sessions you can fit in 24 hours.

I'll ask again: How does the difference in charging speed lead to hours and hours of difference during a trip?

You're trying to argue multiple points at once, so I've trimmed out the extraneous distractions to focus on the question I was addressing.

The term "minutes" is thrown around relative to a charging session to imply it's trivial. I used the term "hours" in conjunction with "trip" to try to get across that it's not trivial.

Regarding charging sessions in a day... For me a trip worthy of calling a trip is rarely done in one day. In fact, if there's only one charging sessions I don't really even call it a trip typically. A "trip" for me typically involves at least 2 days (typically more) and at least 3-4 charging sessions. "Oh that's only 4x4... 16 minutes slower than 120kW." No, no it's not. Not even bad math and approximation makes it only a 16 minute difference.

Sidenote: I don't understand phrases like "hours and hours". It's just extra words that mean the same thing as "hours" but perhaps with "<add dramatic flair>". I don't think I've ever used that phrasing in speech or typing, other than to quote it like here. (FWIW I'm not a fan of multiple characters of punctuation to end a sentence either unless it's for trailing off, but we digress....)

 

[dsm363]

You're trying to argue multiple points at once, so I've trimmed out the extraneous distractions to focus on the question I was addressing.

The term "minutes" is thrown around relative to a charging session to imply it's trivial. I used the term "hours" in conjunction with "trip" to try to get across that it's not trivial.

Regarding charging sessions in a day... For me a trip worthy of calling a trip is rarely done in one day. In fact, if there's only one charging sessions I don't really even call it a trip typically. A "trip" for me typically involves at least 2 days (typically more) and at least 3-4 charging sessions. "Oh that's only 4x4... 16 minutes slower than 120kW." No, no it's not. Not even bad math and approximation makes it only a 16 minute difference.

Sidenote: I don't understand phrases like "hours and hours". It's just extra words that mean the same thing as "hours" but perhaps with "<add dramatic flair>". I don't think I've ever used that phrasing in speech or typing, other than to quote it like here. (FWIW I'm not a fan of multiple characters of punctuation to end a sentence either unless it's for trailing off, but we digress....)

For a single charging session it is measured in minutes. Whether that's 4 min difference to 80% or 15min or so to 100%. How is that hours again?

Since you only responded to a few parts of a few sentences in the post to them I'll ask again:

Yes, this entire situation is not ideal but you bought your car knowing 90kW charging was there, right? Then they seemed to promise 120kW after you got your car but then backed off that promise. Was the car as delivered harmed in any way?

No one is arguing 90kW charging is slower. Whether is 16 min for 4 charges to 80% as Tesla says or an hour, that still doesn't qualify as 'hours' in my mind as that would imply more than one hour to most people. If you are doing a range charge for every single stop then yes, it will take longer. I always though 4x4=16 so I might have misunderstood what you are trying to get across. So your trip in one day with two supercharges takes 30 min longer than the new standard. Did the time it takes to charge your car degrade from what it was delivered as meaning does it charge slower than it used to or only in relation to the newer cars?

 

[brianman]

For a single charging session it is measured in minutes. Whether that's 4 min difference to 80% or 15min or so to 100%. How is that hours again?

I didn't say it was.

- - - Updated - - -

Did the time it takes to charge your car degrade from what it was delivered as meaning does it charge slower than it used to ...?

Actually yes, I believe it has. But that's a different discussion, unrelated to A vs. B+.

- - - Updated - - -

(a) Yes, this entire situation is not ideal but you bought your car knowing 90kW charging was there, right? Then they seemed to promise 120kW after you got your car but then backed off that promise. (b) Was the car as delivered harmed in any way?

(a) This matches your recollection and interpretation, but it doesn't match mine. And no, I don't want to play "internet link or it didn't happen game" again today.
(b) I don't recall saying it was (at least not w/r/t A vs. B).

 

[dsm363]

I didn't say it was.

- - - Updated - - -


Actually yes, I believe it has. But that's a different discussion, unrelated to A vs. B+.

- - - Updated - - -


(a) This matches your recollection and interpretation, but it doesn't match mine. And no, I don't want to play "internet link or it didn't happen game" again today.
(b) I don't recall saying it was (at least not w/r/t A vs. B).

I must have misunderstood this:

I'm going to start using a "few extra hours during a trip" since that's a better capture of the real problem for me, and somewhat avoids the trivialization of the issue.

Yes, you are talking about a 'trip' but you said 'a few extra hours during a trip' and then later gave an example of a two day trip with 4 supercharges. That would imply that measuring a single Supercharger stop in minutes is wildly inaccurate since a few extra hours is added during a trip.

It shouldn't come down to recollection. If you have something in writing from Tesla (contract or agreement) that states you as a Signature costumer would be getting 120kW charging please post that. I don't understand what you are upset about then in terms of your ability to travel or charge (not what Tesla implied wrongly on their website). Your car functions exactly as it always has after delivery and changes to other cars and Supercharging infrastructure has not negatively impacted your ability or speed to Supercharge (might even improve it with 120kW split among 2 cars).

 

[brianman]

It shouldn't come down to recollection. If you have something in writing from Tesla (contract or agreement) that states you as a Signature costumer would be getting 120kW charging please post that.

If that's the bar for what we should expect from Tesla going forward, then Roadster owners led us astray. I don't plan to ask Tesla to put everything they promise in writing; I expect them to stand behind what they say in an official capacity. Apparently you expect it to be scribed on tablets or "not count". I think we just won't see eye to eye on this ever. We're just too far apart.

- - - Updated - - -

I must have misunderstood this

I think so. I probably should have said "my understanding of the real problem" instead of "real problem for me".

My point was that the real issue is for the impact on a "trip" (i.e., where multiple charging sessions are involved) the "mere minutes" are not single digit minutes and they add up quickly. This gets further exacerbated when my minutes delay someone else's charges, thus impacting their minutes, etc.

Generally speaking, I don't feel like I'm losing years of my life bored senseless waiting at superchargers. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

A slight tangent: I don't expect it to be too long before the "charging etiquette" threads start suggesting that 90kW-limited owners should let the 120+kW owners go first when there is a line.

 

[dsm363]

If that's the bar for what we should expect from Tesla going forward, then Roadster owners led us astray. I don't plan to ask Tesla to put everything they promise in writing; I expect them to stand behind what they say in an official capacity. Apparently you expect it to be scribed on tablets or "not count". I think we just won't see eye to eye on this ever. We're just too far apart.

Not sure blaming Roadster owners is appropriate. I expect Tesla to follow through when they promise something as well but don't have a guarantee unless it is in writing. Tesla didn't from what I remember explicitly state 'all customers will be gaining the ability to charge at 120kw'. You even state

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.

Tesla said they had 'plans' to roll this out. If Tesla is never allowed to aggressively pursue goals and fall short then Tesla is in trouble. I'm sure they intended to roll this out to everyone but can't for whatever reason (technical or business case). Sometimes companies plan things that don't work out. That sucks and I'm disappointed I'm not going to get 120kW charging at this point but it really doesn't make the Model S any less of a car as delivered. That still doesn't change the fact that 90kW was promised for sure and the car was delivered with that capability. That hasn't changed no matter what they had to retract or modify.

Elon also had other factually incorrect information a year before launch. The blog said
"He also announced that a performance-tuned Model S will launch at the start of production, traveling from 0 to 60 mph in an incredible 4.5 seconds" when it was actually 4.2 seconds. We need to look at statements from Tesla after the car was finalized and people started taking delivery. Promises while the car was in beta are nice but no one was locked into the car at that point.

 

[apacheguy]

I think Elon said multiple times they will build it between SF-LA and extend it based on customer reception of the technology (perhaps as part of "forward looking statements"). So there you already have "small print" that it might not come anywhere else, if for some reason customers don't fully accept the technology as implemented.

Yes, that's correct. I live in So Cal so arriving at a super swapper won't be much of an issue. If, however, we find out that not all Tesla's are compatible with the technology then Tesla will have a serious issue on their hands since they have promised from day one that all MS's come with a swappable pack.

 

[dirkhh]

I think Elon said multiple times they will build it between SF-LA and extend it based on customer reception of the technology (perhaps as part of "forward looking statements"). So there you already have "small print" that it might not come anywhere else, if for some reason customers don't fully accept the technology as implemented.

My understanding is that with the rule change to the zero emission credits Tesla no longer plans to build a battery swapping station.
But I was trying to find the source where I read that and my Google-Foo appears to be lacking. Can't find it anymore. So I'm not sure.

 

[Musterion]

My understanding is that with the rule change to the zero emission credits Tesla no longer plans to build a battery swapping station.
But I was trying to find the source where I read that and my Google-Foo appears to be lacking. Can't find it anymore. So I'm not sure.

Tesla to Get Fewer Eco Credits as California Tweaks Rules
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...r-eco-credits-as-california-tweaks-rules.html

As I understand it, in principle the battery swap would allow Tesla to regain the new "rapid charge" credits that replace the current ones, but:

Quote from article re: battery swap:
"While Tesla has proposed opening battery-swap stations to let its drivers exchange depleted packs with fully charged ones within a minute or two, none have opened. When they do, the proposed change also requires detailed documentation of how much they are used, in order to get the maximum credits."

 

[Norbert]

Yes, that's correct. I live in So Cal so arriving at a super swapper won't be much of an issue. If, however, we find out that not all Tesla's are compatible with the technology then Tesla will have a serious issue on their hands since they have promised from day one that all MS's come with a swappable pack.

That's not my recollection. Early concept papers and webpages did include a general notion of battery swap. However at the time Model S production became real, I think word from Elon was that the cars would be built with the intention of allowing battery swap, but that it might be used only for servicing the cars, and that it wouldn't be clear if they would actually build swap stations (and to which extent), and that it would depend to some degree on what customers ask for. (Speaking of before they demoed a working swap station.)

Speaking in general, there seems to be the danger of mixing Tesla talking about future technology they are working on (for example Elon in shareholder meetings), with actual product announcements referring to the car as you order it.

 

[apacheguy]

Ok, well, first off by your definition a Nissan Leaf has a swappable pack. That is clearly not true.

Believe me, it was abundantly at the time I placed my order for the car that the Model S was going to be swap compatible. I remember that fact very clearly because it was something that really intrigued me. Swap stations themselves were never promised, but the promise was that if they were to ever exist that I could take my MS and swap out the battery pack. There's no two ways around it this time.

Ah, found one source (2009 article):

REPORT: Tesla Model S was designed with battery swaps in mind

 

[dsm363]

Yes. Tesla said the Model S was battery swap capable from the beginning but as you said, no explicit promises a network of swap stations. I don't think anyone is arguing that at the moment. That is a separate issue form the A pack issue anyway.

 

[Norbert]

Ok, well, first off by your definition a Nissan Leaf has a swappable pack. That is clearly not true.

Believe me, it was abundantly at the time I placed my order for the car that the Model S was going to be swap compatible. I remember that fact very clearly because it was something that really intrigued me. Swap stations themselves were never promised, but the promise was that if they were to ever exist that I could take my MS and swap out the battery pack. There's no two ways around it this time.

Ah, found one source (2009 article):

REPORT: Tesla Model S was designed with battery swaps in mind

2009 was part of the concept phase I talked about (production started in 2012). I agreed that it was talked about very early. But not promised at production time to be usable with a network of stations. I'd very much expect that they do their very best to make any swap stations, that they might build, compatible with all cars. But if that turns out not to be practically possible, then it isn't. (for example I was always wondering how many swaps the bolts and nuts might endure). And if they can't make it work, then that should not forbid them to try a new mechanism that makes it possible.

 

[apacheguy]

I don't think anyone is arguing that at the moment. That is a separate issue form the A pack issue anyway.

Norbert is, ahem, arguing that issue. But yes, we have digressed.

 

[Norbert]

Norbert is, ahem, arguing that issue. But yes, we have digressed.

No, I agree with the way dsm363 put it. And it is of course a separate issue (if it even turns out to be an issue).

However it seems that for both of these features, a fair amount of the expectations came from the early concept phases (or perhaps later development-level intentions), rather than from promises at production time.

 

[apacheguy]

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...

Coincidence that the battery swap stations are slated for a December opening, just before 2015? Perhaps this is one way they can address the A pack issue and give us a hardware upgrade discount?

Tesla's battery-swap stations will finally arrive in December

 

[TexasEV]

The article said in the next few months. Don't know where the headline writer got December from, but it's unlikely anyone from Tesla said anything that specific. And we all know what in the next few months could mean.