6 ms·

IMO locking down the battery capacity via software is pretty lame. Does anyone know exactly how this is done? does the battery just never charge up all the way

IMO locking down the battery capacity via software is pretty lame. Does anyone know exactly how this is done? does the battery just never charge up all the way? does it claim it's empty when there's actually more charge left? Are some of the cells locked down and just don't charge? How does it impact the health of the battery (since not being able to charge or discharge completely would presumably affect the health of the cells)

toomuchtodo 9y ago
For the same reason that CPUs and solar panels (just two examples off the cuff) that are not up to spec are sold at cheaper prices: price discrimination. Tesla gets to sell a car it otherwise wouldn't get to sell, and a consumer gets a vehicle they otherwise couldn't afford. Why is that lame? That's capitalism.
- serf 9y ago
  >Tesla gets to sell a car it otherwise wouldn't get to sell, and a consumer gets a vehicle they otherwise couldn't afford. Why is that lame? That's capitalism. It's lame because the value change is one-sided. The value is being adjusted by taking away options from a good which has the same intrinsic material value as another to change the market value of the good. It's capitalism, sure, but it's not one of the better parts.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    So you're suggesting only selling the 75kwh version, which means some folks who want it would otherwise not be able to afford it. How is that good for anyone? And if you buy a 60kwh version, would you be happier if it actually had fewer cells? Comments above indicate that means it would charge more slowly and charging would wear it out faster, but that appears to be the solution you prefer.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      They are only selling the 75kwh version. They're just charging more to let people actually use the the thing they bought.
      - icelancer 9y ago
        >>They are only selling the 75kwh version. They're just charging more to let people actually use the the thing they bought. Definitely not true. The parts are the same, the support contracts are not.
      - DSMan195276 9y ago
        It's not clear to me that the batteries in the 60kwh version aren't 'reject' batteries that weren't quite up to snuff to support the full 75. So just because Tesla pushed out this update doesn't mean that every car is actually capable of getting the full 75. Where-as the cars sold as 75 are guaranteed to reach that. I don't know the details of Tesla's batteries exactly, but I'm pretty sure they're just use a ton of 18650s. If too many of them won't hold a charge, then instead of fixing it they can just call it a 60 rather then a 75.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        My understanding is that they offer the upgrade option to all of the 60 kwh owners.
        DSMan195276 9y ago
        Huh, nevermind, you would be right: https://electrek.co/2016/07/26/tesla-upgrade-software-limited-battery-pack-model-s-x/ https://electrek.co/2016/07/26/tesla-upgrade-software-limite... That's a bit silly. I suppose in someways it is nice for the consumer that they have the 60kwh version if they're basically selling it close to a loss with the hope that you'll pay for the battery upgrade, but obviously it begs the question why the 75 model can't just be the same price.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    >>It's capitalism, sure, but it's not one of the better parts. Alright, then there is no 60 kWh version of the car. Is that a better version of capitalism?
    - stale2002 9y ago
      Yes. Because it would result in a lower price for the larger battery version. Price discrimination is horrible for consumers.
      - icelancer 9y ago
        >>Yes. Because it would result in a lower price for the larger battery version. Why? 75 kWh version requires a more intensive support contract, more warranty repair, and more service.
    - jancsika 9y ago
      > Alright, then there is no 60 kWh version of the car. That's implicit short-term thinking which I find strange given the speed at which such technology improves nowadays. Even assuming the government made a law against artificial software lockdown punishable by death, this luxury vehicle would still come down in price and improve in quality well within the lifetime of most of the people who are currently drooling over it. That's not an argument for making such a law, just a refutation against what is probably a false dichotomy between car and no car.
- mirkules 9y ago
  On the one hand I understand your argument. IMO it's a strange time to live in. You own the car, but not the ability to use it to its full capacity. On top of that, from my understanding, the software is owned by Tesla, so you couldn't mod it even if you wanted to (legally). That's a fundamental problem we've been having for a long time, then - you own the device, they own what you can do with it. It's the very same issue a lot of us have fought tooth and nail for, for the last decade and a half. Edit: someone replied - then deleted - that effecitvely this is a free market issue. I agree with that, and I by no means think that government needs to get invloved. Still, as a consumer of such devices/cars, I still feel uneasy (to say the least) about this scheme/business practices. It's "lame" for the reasons I outlined.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sp527 9y ago
    Striking parallels to the issues farmers had with John Deere tractors [0] (they ended up hacking them). [0] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-americ...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
foota 9y ago
It sounds like the alternative may be not having a cheaper 60 kwh version.
artursapek 9y ago
It's an established practice to allow consumers to buy a product at a lower price point without complicating supply chain. It's explained well in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6z2fwd/did_tesla_just_upgrade_my_60d_due_to_the_hurricane/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=teslamotors https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6z2fwd/did_tes...
- serf 9y ago
  it's also a way for Tesla to fuel their own positive PR in situations like this. Pretty crummy.
- newman8r 9y ago
  I know it's an established concept (I put modded firmware on my nikon d5100 - basically makes it more like a d7100) it just seems perverse in this situation though. vehicles have more of a 'life and death' component than a digital camera
  - artursapek 9y ago
    It threw me off at first as well, but I think getting more Teslas on the road warrants pursuing this kind of business practice.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    >>it just seems perverse in this situation though. vehicles have more of a 'life and death' component than a digital camera As pointed out multiple times in these comments, Tesla is not the first company to do this. VW, Honda, and many others have been doing this for decades.
vvanders 9y ago
It's done pretty much across the board even in ICE vehicles. I know it happens in trucks and compact utility tractors. Easier to validate and build one powertrain on the assembly line than 2-3 variants.
- newman8r 9y ago
  that's a fair point. Are these ICE features solely locked down by software though?
  - duskwuff 9y ago
    Essentially, yes. There are physical limitations to how much power an ICE can safely produce, but no sane manufacturer would tune the engine in a passenger vehicle to run at those limits. It'd make for a gas guzzler that required constant maintenance. (Which, unsurprisingly, is a perfect description of a "performance" vehicle, i.e. a racecar.)
  - i389uy2352 9y ago
    Does it really matter if they create the artificial limitation via software or by drilling a hole in the extra cylinder? I mean, it makes a difference from the perspective of reversibility, but it shouldn't affect your view of the morality of doing the price discrimination.
    - newman8r 9y ago
      If that's all it came down to I'd agree with you but I don't know of any ICE models where the difference is solely software that locks features down (or, as you said, drilling a hole somewhere to limit functionality). They may share parts like bodies or engine blocks (not sure, I'm not a mechanic) - but there's a lot of additional hardware that makes it safe for them to beef things up via software. not sure though - can you think of any two ICE models where difference between the two is solely locked down via software? or the only difference is a hole drilled in a cylinder, etc etc. It may exist and I'm just not aware of it.
drewg123 9y ago
My understanding is that it does not charge all the way. There are some advantages in having a s/w locked down battery rather than a physically limited battery. Since the battery charges slower when it is above 80% capacity, you can recharge to "100%" much faster with a software limited battery. Similarly, charging to 100% is supposed to cause more battery wear, so in a real 75 you don't want to do that very often. But in a 60, its no problem, since 100% is really 80% of the physical capacity.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  My understanding is that it does not charge all the way. So doesnt that make this update a little late and kind of useless? The evacuation order was days ago. People have already left their homes--where they would have charged their cars. They already made it to where they were going on the 60kw charge they had or they didn't. The hurricane has already reached FL. http://media.miamiherald.com/static/testdir/weather/storm-radar-11-lg.gif http://media.miamiherald.com/static/testdir/weather/storm-ra...
  - newman8r 9y ago
    hah just replied with exactly the same thing. I'd say it was a PR move, but advertising that they lock down features doesn't strike me as wise.. but then again, I'm not an ad man.
    - karmakaze 9y ago
      Good on Tesla for doing what's good for these specific customers than worry about their corporate image. If they continue to act on the users' behalf these events which may tarnish other companies will have no negative impact.
  - tunetine 9y ago
    The evacuation orders were only for low level areas. Half of the state is pretty much out of harms way and could make a run for it at this point, if they choose.
martin_bech 9y ago
You are not aware that the exact same thing is done for petrol and diesel cars (i believe a bmw 318d is the exact same engine as a 323d, a part from software/firmware). Cpus, gpus etc. etc.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  There's the base engine and then there is everything bolted on to it (Turbo(s) for instance). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N47 There are two basic versions of that engine both have four cylinders, a 1.8L and a 2.0L, that's only a difference in sleeves and pistons but it is not just a software change. There is no 2.3L version of that engine and I'm not aware of a 323d. The next level up is a six cylinder version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M57 Which comes in three different displacement variants.
- giobox 9y ago
  Exactly. Many years ago my father drove a Rover 75 in the UK which used an older version of BMW's 318d engine, but of course hobbled in software so as not to deliver as much power/torque as the same engine in a BMW. For a couple hundred quid you could "chip" the engine to match or exceed the rated power of the BMW version. They even installed it in such a way that the chip could be removed before you took it in for a service so as to avoid warranty concerns etc.
icelancer 9y ago
>>IMO locking down the battery capacity via software is pretty lame. This is a thing in OBD2 ICE cars as well and has been for years, particularly the VW series of cars in the 2000s. The GTI had most of the same parts as the Golf but the GTI had an ECU "tuned" to maximize performance. Hondas were not that much different, though not as egregious. The rise of Hondata and scavenging JDM parts overseas is a testament to that. "Software" just feels different. But it really isn't, whether it's firmware (ECU) or a few extra holes/different tolerances in the machinery.
- newman8r 9y ago
  I think to me, the difference is that in ICE vehicles, you're often tuning them up (requires additional research, testing, warranties) rather than tuning them down. I also assume there's some additional hardware to support the increased stress from higher performance. In the case of the tesla, they're taking something good and just tuning it down. I wonder how people would react if they did this with the next iphone - i.e. it only charges to 80% unless you pay for an upgrade.
  - LeifCarrotson 9y ago
    The Teslas will suffer longer battery charges (much more than 20% longer) and significantly reduced battery life if on this new firmware. It would take improvements in hardware (or drastically reduced durability) to make it available for everything. I just wish I could pick these modes for my phone, especially if it's a non-repairable battery. My Lenovo laptop actually has something like this - it puts the laptop to sleep at 20% and only charges to 80%, unless I choose otherwise.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    >>I think to me, the difference is that in ICE vehicles, you're often tuning them up (requires additional research, testing, warranties) rather than tuning them down. I also assume there's some additional hardware to support the increased stress from higher performance. In the case of the Golf/GTI, there wasn't. The hardware is virtually the same in both, the only difference was ECU tuning. This is the same as the Tesla, it's not tuned up or tuned down... it's identical, just rolls off the line with a different body, accessories, and ECU. >>In the case of the tesla, they're taking something good and just tuning it down. That's exactly what VW and car makers have been doing for decades. And Intel, AMD, Western Digital.... >>I wonder how people would react if they did this with the next iphone - i.e. it only charges to 80% unless you pay for an upgrade. Probably about as poorly as this is being received, even though it's been going on forever.
coin 9y ago
> IMO locking down the battery capacity via software is pretty lame This is done all the time in other industries - aircraft engines are derated, SSDs are over-provisioned, all to preserve longevity. It's also done with CPUs, perfectly good cores disabled in lower performance models.
- eudox 9y ago
  For those who haven't heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  The worst is in printers. Sometimes the fast "workgroup" model is completely identical to the "personal" model, just with the speed turned down.
skybrian 9y ago
Many kinds of batteries last longer if you don't use their full capacity. Maybe that's true here? It's annoying, but on the other hand it would be kind of neat to avoid paying for the upgrade until the first day you find you need it. Maybe you never do?
jdietrich 9y ago
Without these software limits, lithium ion batteries are practically useless. Lithium-ion cells are remarkably finicky and fragile. There's no clear cut-off that demarcates "over-charged" or "over-discharged", you're just increasing the stress on the cell. A highly stressed cell has a much shorter cycle life, so there's a tradeoff between durability and capacity. The 0% and 100% you see on the charging icon are essentially arbitrary lines, chosen by the product designer to best exploit this tradeoff. Drone racers will often charge their cells beyond 4.3v and discharge them below 3.2v to eke out every last joule of energy. These cells will lose 20% of their capacity within a few dozen charge cycles and might fail catastrophically due to dendrite formation. A perfectly reasonable tradeoff in this application, but a disaster in an electric car. For obvious reasons, electric car manufacturers lean strongly on the side of durability. Nobody will care about an extra 20 miles of range if their battery fails after 40,000 miles. Consumer electronics manufacturers started using more conservative battery management profiles when non-replaceable batteries became the norm - by sacrificing a bit of capacity, they could double or triple the cycle life of the battery. Note: this explanation is grossly over-simplified in the interests of brevity. Battery chemistry is ludicrously complex.
- lttlrck 9y ago
  Aren’t drone batteries usually LiPo?
  - vurpo 9y ago
    LiPo is just Lithium-ion polymer, which is basically a Li-ion battery with a specific polymer container.
- gmiller123456 9y ago
  Seems like the issue you're describing is more about repeated "overcharging", so it would seem that it'd be perfectly acceptable to allow the user to override it when they deem it necessary. However, as the article states, users can permanently unlock the extra charge for $5000, so I doubt your concerns are why the limit is in place.
sudhirj 9y ago
Not really that lame or uncommon. It keeps costs down, makes replacement easier and faster, less inventory, etc. And happens all the time in lots of industries - lots of examples here about same engines indifferent states of tune, same engines and parts with different ECU / fuel injection maps, happens in electronics with chip binning, and lots of devices that have special keys to unlock more functionality or better performance. What’s wrong with blurring the lines between hardware and software? We do in app purchases all the time, and if standardising hardware across all product levels makes things more efficient anyway, why not?

toomuchtodo 9y ago

For the same reason that CPUs and solar panels (just two examples off the cuff) that are not up to spec are sold at cheaper prices: price discrimination. Tesla gets to sell a car it otherwise wouldn't get to sell, and a consumer gets a vehicle they otherwise couldn't afford. Why is that lame? That's capitalism.

serf 9y ago
>Tesla gets to sell a car it otherwise wouldn't get to sell, and a consumer gets a vehicle they otherwise couldn't afford. Why is that lame? That's capitalism. It's lame because the value change is one-sided. The value is being adjusted by taking away options from a good which has the same intrinsic material value as another to change the market value of the good. It's capitalism, sure, but it's not one of the better parts.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  So you're suggesting only selling the 75kwh version, which means some folks who want it would otherwise not be able to afford it. How is that good for anyone? And if you buy a 60kwh version, would you be happier if it actually had fewer cells? Comments above indicate that means it would charge more slowly and charging would wear it out faster, but that appears to be the solution you prefer.
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    They are only selling the 75kwh version. They're just charging more to let people actually use the the thing they bought.
    - icelancer 9y ago
      >>They are only selling the 75kwh version. They're just charging more to let people actually use the the thing they bought. Definitely not true. The parts are the same, the support contracts are not.
    - DSMan195276 9y ago
      It's not clear to me that the batteries in the 60kwh version aren't 'reject' batteries that weren't quite up to snuff to support the full 75. So just because Tesla pushed out this update doesn't mean that every car is actually capable of getting the full 75. Where-as the cars sold as 75 are guaranteed to reach that. I don't know the details of Tesla's batteries exactly, but I'm pretty sure they're just use a ton of 18650s. If too many of them won't hold a charge, then instead of fixing it they can just call it a 60 rather then a 75.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        My understanding is that they offer the upgrade option to all of the 60 kwh owners.
        DSMan195276 9y ago
        Huh, nevermind, you would be right: https://electrek.co/2016/07/26/tesla-upgrade-software-limited-battery-pack-model-s-x/ https://electrek.co/2016/07/26/tesla-upgrade-software-limite... That's a bit silly. I suppose in someways it is nice for the consumer that they have the 60kwh version if they're basically selling it close to a loss with the hope that you'll pay for the battery upgrade, but obviously it begs the question why the 75 model can't just be the same price.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >>It's capitalism, sure, but it's not one of the better parts. Alright, then there is no 60 kWh version of the car. Is that a better version of capitalism?
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Yes. Because it would result in a lower price for the larger battery version. Price discrimination is horrible for consumers.
    - icelancer 9y ago
      >>Yes. Because it would result in a lower price for the larger battery version. Why? 75 kWh version requires a more intensive support contract, more warranty repair, and more service.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    > Alright, then there is no 60 kWh version of the car. That's implicit short-term thinking which I find strange given the speed at which such technology improves nowadays. Even assuming the government made a law against artificial software lockdown punishable by death, this luxury vehicle would still come down in price and improve in quality well within the lifetime of most of the people who are currently drooling over it. That's not an argument for making such a law, just a refutation against what is probably a false dichotomy between car and no car.
mirkules 9y ago
On the one hand I understand your argument. IMO it's a strange time to live in. You own the car, but not the ability to use it to its full capacity. On top of that, from my understanding, the software is owned by Tesla, so you couldn't mod it even if you wanted to (legally). That's a fundamental problem we've been having for a long time, then - you own the device, they own what you can do with it. It's the very same issue a lot of us have fought tooth and nail for, for the last decade and a half. Edit: someone replied - then deleted - that effecitvely this is a free market issue. I agree with that, and I by no means think that government needs to get invloved. Still, as a consumer of such devices/cars, I still feel uneasy (to say the least) about this scheme/business practices. It's "lame" for the reasons I outlined.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sp527 9y ago
  Striking parallels to the issues farmers had with John Deere tractors [0] (they ended up hacking them). [0] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-americ...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

foota 9y ago

It sounds like the alternative may be not having a cheaper 60 kwh version.

artursapek 9y ago

It's an established practice to allow consumers to buy a product at a lower price point without complicating supply chain. It's explained well in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6z2fwd/did_tesla_just_upgrade_my_60d_due_to_the_hurricane/?utm_content=comments&utm_medium=hot&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=teslamotors https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6z2fwd/did_tes...

serf 9y ago
it's also a way for Tesla to fuel their own positive PR in situations like this. Pretty crummy.
newman8r 9y ago
I know it's an established concept (I put modded firmware on my nikon d5100 - basically makes it more like a d7100) it just seems perverse in this situation though. vehicles have more of a 'life and death' component than a digital camera
- artursapek 9y ago
  It threw me off at first as well, but I think getting more Teslas on the road warrants pursuing this kind of business practice.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >>it just seems perverse in this situation though. vehicles have more of a 'life and death' component than a digital camera As pointed out multiple times in these comments, Tesla is not the first company to do this. VW, Honda, and many others have been doing this for decades.

vvanders 9y ago

It's done pretty much across the board even in ICE vehicles. I know it happens in trucks and compact utility tractors. Easier to validate and build one powertrain on the assembly line than 2-3 variants.

newman8r 9y ago
that's a fair point. Are these ICE features solely locked down by software though?
- duskwuff 9y ago
  Essentially, yes. There are physical limitations to how much power an ICE can safely produce, but no sane manufacturer would tune the engine in a passenger vehicle to run at those limits. It'd make for a gas guzzler that required constant maintenance. (Which, unsurprisingly, is a perfect description of a "performance" vehicle, i.e. a racecar.)
- i389uy2352 9y ago
  Does it really matter if they create the artificial limitation via software or by drilling a hole in the extra cylinder? I mean, it makes a difference from the perspective of reversibility, but it shouldn't affect your view of the morality of doing the price discrimination.
  - newman8r 9y ago
    If that's all it came down to I'd agree with you but I don't know of any ICE models where the difference is solely software that locks features down (or, as you said, drilling a hole somewhere to limit functionality). They may share parts like bodies or engine blocks (not sure, I'm not a mechanic) - but there's a lot of additional hardware that makes it safe for them to beef things up via software. not sure though - can you think of any two ICE models where difference between the two is solely locked down via software? or the only difference is a hole drilled in a cylinder, etc etc. It may exist and I'm just not aware of it.

drewg123 9y ago

My understanding is that it does not charge all the way. There are some advantages in having a s/w locked down battery rather than a physically limited battery. Since the battery charges slower when it is above 80% capacity, you can recharge to "100%" much faster with a software limited battery. Similarly, charging to 100% is supposed to cause more battery wear, so in a real 75 you don't want to do that very often. But in a 60, its no problem, since 100% is really 80% of the physical capacity.

rgbrenner 9y ago
My understanding is that it does not charge all the way. So doesnt that make this update a little late and kind of useless? The evacuation order was days ago. People have already left their homes--where they would have charged their cars. They already made it to where they were going on the 60kw charge they had or they didn't. The hurricane has already reached FL. http://media.miamiherald.com/static/testdir/weather/storm-radar-11-lg.gif http://media.miamiherald.com/static/testdir/weather/storm-ra...
- newman8r 9y ago
  hah just replied with exactly the same thing. I'd say it was a PR move, but advertising that they lock down features doesn't strike me as wise.. but then again, I'm not an ad man.
  - karmakaze 9y ago
    Good on Tesla for doing what's good for these specific customers than worry about their corporate image. If they continue to act on the users' behalf these events which may tarnish other companies will have no negative impact.
- tunetine 9y ago
  The evacuation orders were only for low level areas. Half of the state is pretty much out of harms way and could make a run for it at this point, if they choose.

martin_bech 9y ago

You are not aware that the exact same thing is done for petrol and diesel cars (i believe a bmw 318d is the exact same engine as a 323d, a part from software/firmware). Cpus, gpus etc. etc.

jacquesm 9y ago
There's the base engine and then there is everything bolted on to it (Turbo(s) for instance). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N47 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_N47 There are two basic versions of that engine both have four cylinders, a 1.8L and a 2.0L, that's only a difference in sleeves and pistons but it is not just a software change. There is no 2.3L version of that engine and I'm not aware of a 323d. The next level up is a six cylinder version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M57 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M57 Which comes in three different displacement variants.
giobox 9y ago
Exactly. Many years ago my father drove a Rover 75 in the UK which used an older version of BMW's 318d engine, but of course hobbled in software so as not to deliver as much power/torque as the same engine in a BMW. For a couple hundred quid you could "chip" the engine to match or exceed the rated power of the BMW version. They even installed it in such a way that the chip could be removed before you took it in for a service so as to avoid warranty concerns etc.

icelancer 9y ago

>>IMO locking down the battery capacity via software is pretty lame. This is a thing in OBD2 ICE cars as well and has been for years, particularly the VW series of cars in the 2000s. The GTI had most of the same parts as the Golf but the GTI had an ECU "tuned" to maximize performance. Hondas were not that much different, though not as egregious. The rise of Hondata and scavenging JDM parts overseas is a testament to that. "Software" just feels different. But it really isn't, whether it's firmware (ECU) or a few extra holes/different tolerances in the machinery.

newman8r 9y ago
I think to me, the difference is that in ICE vehicles, you're often tuning them up (requires additional research, testing, warranties) rather than tuning them down. I also assume there's some additional hardware to support the increased stress from higher performance. In the case of the tesla, they're taking something good and just tuning it down. I wonder how people would react if they did this with the next iphone - i.e. it only charges to 80% unless you pay for an upgrade.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  The Teslas will suffer longer battery charges (much more than 20% longer) and significantly reduced battery life if on this new firmware. It would take improvements in hardware (or drastically reduced durability) to make it available for everything. I just wish I could pick these modes for my phone, especially if it's a non-repairable battery. My Lenovo laptop actually has something like this - it puts the laptop to sleep at 20% and only charges to 80%, unless I choose otherwise.
- icelancer 9y ago
  >>I think to me, the difference is that in ICE vehicles, you're often tuning them up (requires additional research, testing, warranties) rather than tuning them down. I also assume there's some additional hardware to support the increased stress from higher performance. In the case of the Golf/GTI, there wasn't. The hardware is virtually the same in both, the only difference was ECU tuning. This is the same as the Tesla, it's not tuned up or tuned down... it's identical, just rolls off the line with a different body, accessories, and ECU. >>In the case of the tesla, they're taking something good and just tuning it down. That's exactly what VW and car makers have been doing for decades. And Intel, AMD, Western Digital.... >>I wonder how people would react if they did this with the next iphone - i.e. it only charges to 80% unless you pay for an upgrade. Probably about as poorly as this is being received, even though it's been going on forever.

coin 9y ago

> IMO locking down the battery capacity via software is pretty lame This is done all the time in other industries - aircraft engines are derated, SSDs are over-provisioned, all to preserve longevity. It's also done with CPUs, perfectly good cores disabled in lower performance models.

eudox 9y ago
For those who haven't heard of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
The worst is in printers. Sometimes the fast "workgroup" model is completely identical to the "personal" model, just with the speed turned down.

skybrian 9y ago

Many kinds of batteries last longer if you don't use their full capacity. Maybe that's true here? It's annoying, but on the other hand it would be kind of neat to avoid paying for the upgrade until the first day you find you need it. Maybe you never do?

jdietrich 9y ago

Without these software limits, lithium ion batteries are practically useless. Lithium-ion cells are remarkably finicky and fragile. There's no clear cut-off that demarcates "over-charged" or "over-discharged", you're just increasing the stress on the cell. A highly stressed cell has a much shorter cycle life, so there's a tradeoff between durability and capacity. The 0% and 100% you see on the charging icon are essentially arbitrary lines, chosen by the product designer to best exploit this tradeoff. Drone racers will often charge their cells beyond 4.3v and discharge them below 3.2v to eke out every last joule of energy. These cells will lose 20% of their capacity within a few dozen charge cycles and might fail catastrophically due to dendrite formation. A perfectly reasonable tradeoff in this application, but a disaster in an electric car. For obvious reasons, electric car manufacturers lean strongly on the side of durability. Nobody will care about an extra 20 miles of range if their battery fails after 40,000 miles. Consumer electronics manufacturers started using more conservative battery management profiles when non-replaceable batteries became the norm - by sacrificing a bit of capacity, they could double or triple the cycle life of the battery. Note: this explanation is grossly over-simplified in the interests of brevity. Battery chemistry is ludicrously complex.

lttlrck 9y ago
Aren’t drone batteries usually LiPo?
- vurpo 9y ago
  LiPo is just Lithium-ion polymer, which is basically a Li-ion battery with a specific polymer container.
gmiller123456 9y ago
Seems like the issue you're describing is more about repeated "overcharging", so it would seem that it'd be perfectly acceptable to allow the user to override it when they deem it necessary. However, as the article states, users can permanently unlock the extra charge for $5000, so I doubt your concerns are why the limit is in place.

sudhirj 9y ago

Not really that lame or uncommon. It keeps costs down, makes replacement easier and faster, less inventory, etc. And happens all the time in lots of industries - lots of examples here about same engines indifferent states of tune, same engines and parts with different ECU / fuel injection maps, happens in electronics with chip binning, and lots of devices that have special keys to unlock more functionality or better performance. What’s wrong with blurring the lines between hardware and software? We do in app purchases all the time, and if standardising hardware across all product levels makes things more efficient anyway, why not?