10 ms·

Tesla’s $10k-Cheaper Model S, X Are Software Locked for Less Range: Report

73 points by ourmandave 3y ago

jauntywundrkind 3y ago
I wonder where the state of charge is held here. This could actually help the long term battery life significantly. Do these discharge not as deep? Do they not fully top up? Neither full charge nor deeper discharge are good for batteries. Avoiding those areas could be a long-term win. It'd be pretty easy/interesting to compare the charge curves & find out what part of the curve it looks like versus a regular capacity model. This sort of cost-unrelated rent keeping keeps growing. Intel selling you a chip then having the vendor either one time fee or subscription based unlock any of the half dozen different accelerators is another stunning example. That one's even weirder to me, in that it's unlikely people will bake in support for these special features to common software systems, if they don't have access!
- lostlogin 3y ago
  I was wondering this too - and what happens with age? As the max charge level depletes does the artificial limit change, or stay the same?
  - natch 3y ago
    Great question! If it unlocks more headroom to compensate for aging battery that would be fantastic.
- bearjaws 3y ago
  Depends on the battery tech I imagine. LFP batteries are recommended to charge to 100% every time, where as NCA / NCM are both what we traditionally think of when discussing lithium batteries. I imagine for LFP they will keep it as full as possible, and hard cap the other types to 70%. More reading here: https://history-computer.com/which-batteries-is-tesla-using/ https://history-computer.com/which-batteries-is-tesla-using/
  - jackmott42 3y ago
    LFP batteries age faster when at 100% just like non LFP batteries, but since they degrade slower over time overall, and since you need occasional 100% charges for the battery management system to know what % of charge you are at, it is recommended to charge it to 100% regularly. if you wanted to protect the life of your LFP battery, don't charge it to 100% every day, just every week or two so the BMS knows what is going on.
    - murderfs 3y ago
      For additional context, the reason for this is that LFP cells have a much flatter voltage curve than other chemistries [1], so the BMS is forced to guess at the state of charge by tracking how much current has gone in/out of the battery, which is subject to drift. 1: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anupam-Parlikar/publication/337751227/figure/fig6/AS:832556693999618@1575508392705/Open-circuit-voltage-curves-left-for-the-the-LFP-C-and-NMC-C-cells-with-a-schematic-of.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anupam-Parlikar/publica...
- justrealist 3y ago
  > That one's even weirder to me This one actually seems more straightforward to me? It's hard to design chips so it's easier to use a common wafer and then cut features to tier the product.
  - InitialLastName 3y ago
    It's even simpler: it's hard to manufacture complicated things 100% correctly, so it's easier to make the most complicated version and bin/fuse off feature sets based on where the defects are (rather than just throwing out all chips with any defects).
- redox99 3y ago
  If I had to guess, they probably don't fully top up.
  - natch 3y ago
    If it’s software locked to below the true battery capacity, then yes by definition they don’t fully top up. Which is actually a lot better for the battery long term. Nice silver lining for these cars. Sure you can do the same by refraining from topping up yourself in a regular model but then you don’t get the price break.
    - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
      The software lock could just as easily to refuse to discharge below a certain capacity. Or it could be a combo of both.
      - natch 3y ago
        As I said, “if”, but sure.
- jackmott42 3y ago
  The sensible thing would be for it to stop charging at actual 75% and then as the battery degrades unlock the unused range gradually so it appears like there is no degredation for a decade. and in 5-10 years your range may match your neighbors with the expensive one.
lastingwin 3y ago
> It's worth a reminder that batteries are heavy. They're the heaviest collective part of an electric car, and reducing the usable energy density of a pack by 27% and not the vehicle's weight would be a questionable move—if the end goal was overall efficiency instead of profit. Because there are reportedly no changes to the physical hardware, this means the car is essentially lugging around the same 1,200-pound, 100-kilowatt-hour battery despite only having access to about 73% of its capability. This seems like something we should have regulations to protect against. Bad for the environment and bad for the consumer.
- sneak 3y ago
  If it's truly bad for the consumer, consumers will buy other products (that don't do that) instead.
  - p0w3n3d 3y ago
    Most of people don't care and will buy, and this will destroy the market, because other automakers will follow this rotten path
    - brandonagr2 3y ago
      The rotten path of selling the consumer a vehicle they want at a lower price?
      - Tostino 3y ago
        If the consumer is prohibited from circumventing those limits on their own property, do they really own it?
        ThatPlayer 3y ago
        Looking at the Apple iPhone that places plenty of limits on all their consumer's devices, I think that ship has already sailed. And then there's plenty of people that defend those limits whenever it gets brought up.
vsskanth 3y ago
I'm confused, If it's using the same kwh battery, How does this save money for Tesla ?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  More sales to folks who were borderline on buying one, presumably still at a (smaller) profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
- LanceJones 3y ago
  It doesn't. It really only allows them to sell the S and X to a new segment of the market that couldn't wouldn't afford the regular price.
- natch 3y ago
  It makes them more money if more people can afford the car. Market segmentation 101.
- williamscs 3y ago
  Probably the ability to recoup the cost with a subscription after sale (or one-time purchase like FSD). Lower the cost to get into as many homes as possible, then at least a few folks will pony up for it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  It's pretty standard price discrimination - think of it like a supermarket offering a coupon. You can get the same bottle of ketchup for full price or 20% off, but you have to invest some time and effort to find, clip, and bring the coupon for the discount. If there's someone out there who's considering another car that's a bit cheaper but would be willing to pay for a model X at this $10k-discounted price, they're getting a sale that they otherwise wouldn't get (albeit with lower margins). Meanwhile, people who aren't price sensitive will probably just buy the regular-priced one. They're presumably working on the assumption that profit from additional sales to people who would otherwise go with something else will outweigh any cannibalization of people who would pay for the higher-priced one taking the discounted one instead.
empath-nirvana 3y ago
Or are they just accurately reporting the range: https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-ev-lying-range-much-worse-elon-musk/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-ev-lying-range-much-wo...
pacetherace 3y ago
Would the battery and by that virtue these cars at least have a longer life?
- judge2020 3y ago
  Most likely yes.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
roamerz 3y ago
Maybe Tesla is planning on selling them or a future owner this extra capacity at Some point. In that case it might make business sence to include the extra capacity.
- SneezyRobot 3y ago
  That would be my guess and would follow Tesla's MO perfectly. They already offer a software "unlock" via their acceleration upgrade (which really just means the LR cars are software limited). FSD capability is built into all cars and yet you need to pay $15k or $200/mo to "add it". Why is anyone surprised that they could/would do the same thing with range. If true, I think this is a great business move. Theoretically increases the lifespan of the car/battery, would allow the user to actually charge to "100%" on a regular basis without damaging the battery, and it allows Tesla the option to let customers upgrade later if necessary or when the consumer can afford it. Plus it allows more people to get into an awesome car for $10k less. It's just wins all around. Makes me want one of these "standard" range versions even more.
  - SneezyRobot 3y ago
    I should add, I also think it's possible that Tesla is testing the market with this offer before they manufacture another batter pack configuration and add a potentially unnecessary SKU (smaller battery).
justin66 3y ago
> Unfortunately, Tesla was unable to validate the rumor officially since it dissolved its communications and public relations department some time ago. I wonder if they're auto-replying with a poop emoji when the press reaches out.
cactusplant7374 3y ago
The range is already horrible unless you like hanging at superchargers with “the kids.” Not great for mainstream EV adoption.
- neon_electro 3y ago
  Are you able to charge at home? Do you travel significantly farther than the US average of 40 miles per day? It's possible to adopt EVs without needing to worry about hanging out at DC fast chargers regularly. DC Fast charging is necessary for road trips, but again, the average American drives 40 miles a day.
  - cactusplant7374 3y ago
    I buy a car so I can easily do a roadtrip whenever I want.
- thebruce87m 3y ago
  I wake up with ~250 miles range every day, I wouldn’t call that horrible.
- jackmott42 3y ago
  For what use case? I've never had to charge my EV anywhere other than at home unless I'm on a road trip, and I only charged it up to 50%
  - cactusplant7374 3y ago
    Driving across the country for vacations? A car should be multipurpose.
- DoesntMatter22 3y ago
  I drive a lot, 33k miles a year. But I rarely drive more than 150 miles a day. Unless you are regional salesperson I'm not sure what situation it won't work.
throwaway4220 3y ago
Hm if the weight is the same but range is different, can’t that be explained by using LFP batteries rather than standard li-ion?
xyst 3y ago
The build quality issues are what drove me to cancel my preorder. The locking down of features is what will keep me away from this company forever. It’s a shame. I was really hoping to migrate away from my ICE vehicle (now 6-7 yrs old). Going to stick with it until it becomes financially unfeasible to repair (Fortunately no major repairs yet, only scheduled maintenance and replacement of worn down parts like tires, car battery, wipers, …). I guess I shouldn’t be too eager to migrate. Especially with the advances in battery tech (“solid state” batteries from Toyota) and significantly improved range over lithium ion batteries. Just hope this trend of locking down features doesn’t become widespread by the time I need to switch
- Reubend 3y ago
  If your ICE is only 7 years old, it's also environmentally friendly to keep using it rather than to purchase a new electric vehicle.
  - redox99 3y ago
    Really depends on how much you weigh CO2 emissions, different air pollutants, noise pollution, etc. Environmentally friendly isn't a single dimension. Furthermore it's not like he's going to dispose his older car, it's going to go to somebody else who might have an ever older, more pollutant car.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    No, probably not. An EV car is approximately 1k gallons of gas in energy to produce. Of course there are also rare earth metals. But your claim is obviously untrue at the edge, where that car could be driving 24k miles/year at 12mpg, for 30 years, and the EV is charged by renewables. That’s an extra 60,000 gallons of gasoline to account for with just the production cost of an EV.
  - lcfcjs 3y ago
    [dead]
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
akmarinov 3y ago
That means charging will be pretty fast, even at the high end, pulling in 190 kw at 50% and ~90 kw at 90%. That’ll be some fast charging! Here's a video going into it - https://youtu.be/RVmk-N7yqqo https://youtu.be/RVmk-N7yqqo
- flangola7 3y ago
  Who has 190kw of circuit to even handle that? That's enough for a large business building.
  - olivermuty 3y ago
    Even the «old» crap gen1 Tesla chargers outputs 150kw
    - flangola7 3y ago
      But who has a circuit for that? That's not a standard or even upgraded installation, and that's yet for only one charger.
0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago
If I had one I'd never charge above 80% or below 20% anyway. Good deal.
onewheeltom 3y ago
Tesla already exaggerates their range. So it’s really not as bad because there is less actual range to be reduced
shaftway 3y ago
I don't really have a problem with this. It's not like they're lying to the customer about battery capacity or vehicle weight. The best you can argue is that they're not being as efficient as they could be, but I could make that argument about pretty much any car on the market. And I see it as a net win for the customer. I get the car I want with only the usable battery capacity that I need for a lower price, and that battery will get less wear and tear over its life. If I want to upgrade to the larger battery down the road then it's an OTA purchase. That's far better than having to take it down to the dealership and have them install the extra battery packs, or for them to just tell me it's not possible.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Uhm, I don't see this as a really bad thing. Most of us are only charging our EVs to 80% anyways, because the battery will last longer. Locking out 27% of the capacity means we can charge up to 73%, which isn't that far from what we are doing anyways. It is a bummer for the longer trips where would charge to 100%, but it isn't as much deadweight as it appears at first glance for typical use. Now, if it wasn't somehow just software locked, and they were cutting off access to the cells (so they really would be dead weight), then that would be really bad.

73 points by ourmandave 3y ago

I wonder where the state of charge is held here. This could actually help the long term battery life significantly. Do these discharge not as deep? Do they not fully top up? Neither full charge nor deeper discharge are good for batteries. Avoiding those areas could be a long-term win. It'd be pretty easy/interesting to compare the charge curves & find out what part of the curve it looks like versus a regular capacity model. This sort of cost-unrelated rent keeping keeps growing. Intel selling you a chip then having the vendor either one time fee or subscription based unlock any of the half dozen different accelerators is another stunning example. That one's even weirder to me, in that it's unlikely people will bake in support for these special features to common software systems, if they don't have access!

lostlogin 3y ago
I was wondering this too - and what happens with age? As the max charge level depletes does the artificial limit change, or stay the same?
- natch 3y ago
  Great question! If it unlocks more headroom to compensate for aging battery that would be fantastic.
bearjaws 3y ago
Depends on the battery tech I imagine. LFP batteries are recommended to charge to 100% every time, where as NCA / NCM are both what we traditionally think of when discussing lithium batteries. I imagine for LFP they will keep it as full as possible, and hard cap the other types to 70%. More reading here: https://history-computer.com/which-batteries-is-tesla-using/ https://history-computer.com/which-batteries-is-tesla-using/
- jackmott42 3y ago
  LFP batteries age faster when at 100% just like non LFP batteries, but since they degrade slower over time overall, and since you need occasional 100% charges for the battery management system to know what % of charge you are at, it is recommended to charge it to 100% regularly. if you wanted to protect the life of your LFP battery, don't charge it to 100% every day, just every week or two so the BMS knows what is going on.
  - murderfs 3y ago
    For additional context, the reason for this is that LFP cells have a much flatter voltage curve than other chemistries [1], so the BMS is forced to guess at the state of charge by tracking how much current has gone in/out of the battery, which is subject to drift. 1: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anupam-Parlikar/publication/337751227/figure/fig6/AS:832556693999618@1575508392705/Open-circuit-voltage-curves-left-for-the-the-LFP-C-and-NMC-C-cells-with-a-schematic-of.png https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anupam-Parlikar/publica...
justrealist 3y ago
> That one's even weirder to me This one actually seems more straightforward to me? It's hard to design chips so it's easier to use a common wafer and then cut features to tier the product.
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  It's even simpler: it's hard to manufacture complicated things 100% correctly, so it's easier to make the most complicated version and bin/fuse off feature sets based on where the defects are (rather than just throwing out all chips with any defects).
redox99 3y ago
If I had to guess, they probably don't fully top up.
- natch 3y ago
  If it’s software locked to below the true battery capacity, then yes by definition they don’t fully top up. Which is actually a lot better for the battery long term. Nice silver lining for these cars. Sure you can do the same by refraining from topping up yourself in a regular model but then you don’t get the price break.
  - jauntywundrkind 3y ago
    The software lock could just as easily to refuse to discharge below a certain capacity. Or it could be a combo of both.
    - natch 3y ago
      As I said, “if”, but sure.
jackmott42 3y ago
The sensible thing would be for it to stop charging at actual 75% and then as the battery degrades unlock the unused range gradually so it appears like there is no degredation for a decade. and in 5-10 years your range may match your neighbors with the expensive one.

lastingwin 3y ago

> It's worth a reminder that batteries are heavy. They're the heaviest collective part of an electric car, and reducing the usable energy density of a pack by 27% and not the vehicle's weight would be a questionable move—if the end goal was overall efficiency instead of profit. Because there are reportedly no changes to the physical hardware, this means the car is essentially lugging around the same 1,200-pound, 100-kilowatt-hour battery despite only having access to about 73% of its capability. This seems like something we should have regulations to protect against. Bad for the environment and bad for the consumer.

sneak 3y ago
If it's truly bad for the consumer, consumers will buy other products (that don't do that) instead.
- p0w3n3d 3y ago
  Most of people don't care and will buy, and this will destroy the market, because other automakers will follow this rotten path
  - brandonagr2 3y ago
    The rotten path of selling the consumer a vehicle they want at a lower price?
    - Tostino 3y ago
      If the consumer is prohibited from circumventing those limits on their own property, do they really own it?
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
        Looking at the Apple iPhone that places plenty of limits on all their consumer's devices, I think that ship has already sailed. And then there's plenty of people that defend those limits whenever it gets brought up.

vsskanth 3y ago

I'm confused, If it's using the same kwh battery, How does this save money for Tesla ?

ceejayoz 3y ago
More sales to folks who were borderline on buying one, presumably still at a (smaller) profit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
LanceJones 3y ago
It doesn't. It really only allows them to sell the S and X to a new segment of the market that couldn't wouldn't afford the regular price.
natch 3y ago
It makes them more money if more people can afford the car. Market segmentation 101.
williamscs 3y ago
Probably the ability to recoup the cost with a subscription after sale (or one-time purchase like FSD). Lower the cost to get into as many homes as possible, then at least a few folks will pony up for it.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
idopmstuff 3y ago
It's pretty standard price discrimination - think of it like a supermarket offering a coupon. You can get the same bottle of ketchup for full price or 20% off, but you have to invest some time and effort to find, clip, and bring the coupon for the discount. If there's someone out there who's considering another car that's a bit cheaper but would be willing to pay for a model X at this $10k-discounted price, they're getting a sale that they otherwise wouldn't get (albeit with lower margins). Meanwhile, people who aren't price sensitive will probably just buy the regular-priced one. They're presumably working on the assumption that profit from additional sales to people who would otherwise go with something else will outweigh any cannibalization of people who would pay for the higher-priced one taking the discounted one instead.

empath-nirvana 3y ago

Or are they just accurately reporting the range: https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-ev-lying-range-much-worse-elon-musk/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-ev-lying-range-much-wo...

pacetherace 3y ago

Would the battery and by that virtue these cars at least have a longer life?

judge2020 3y ago
Most likely yes.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

roamerz 3y ago

Maybe Tesla is planning on selling them or a future owner this extra capacity at Some point. In that case it might make business sence to include the extra capacity.

SneezyRobot 3y ago
That would be my guess and would follow Tesla's MO perfectly. They already offer a software "unlock" via their acceleration upgrade (which really just means the LR cars are software limited). FSD capability is built into all cars and yet you need to pay $15k or $200/mo to "add it". Why is anyone surprised that they could/would do the same thing with range. If true, I think this is a great business move. Theoretically increases the lifespan of the car/battery, would allow the user to actually charge to "100%" on a regular basis without damaging the battery, and it allows Tesla the option to let customers upgrade later if necessary or when the consumer can afford it. Plus it allows more people to get into an awesome car for $10k less. It's just wins all around. Makes me want one of these "standard" range versions even more.
- SneezyRobot 3y ago
  I should add, I also think it's possible that Tesla is testing the market with this offer before they manufacture another batter pack configuration and add a potentially unnecessary SKU (smaller battery).

justin66 3y ago

> Unfortunately, Tesla was unable to validate the rumor officially since it dissolved its communications and public relations department some time ago. I wonder if they're auto-replying with a poop emoji when the press reaches out.

cactusplant7374 3y ago

The range is already horrible unless you like hanging at superchargers with “the kids.” Not great for mainstream EV adoption.

neon_electro 3y ago
Are you able to charge at home? Do you travel significantly farther than the US average of 40 miles per day? It's possible to adopt EVs without needing to worry about hanging out at DC fast chargers regularly. DC Fast charging is necessary for road trips, but again, the average American drives 40 miles a day.
- cactusplant7374 3y ago
  I buy a car so I can easily do a roadtrip whenever I want.
thebruce87m 3y ago
I wake up with ~250 miles range every day, I wouldn’t call that horrible.
jackmott42 3y ago
For what use case? I've never had to charge my EV anywhere other than at home unless I'm on a road trip, and I only charged it up to 50%
- cactusplant7374 3y ago
  Driving across the country for vacations? A car should be multipurpose.
DoesntMatter22 3y ago
I drive a lot, 33k miles a year. But I rarely drive more than 150 miles a day. Unless you are regional salesperson I'm not sure what situation it won't work.

throwaway4220 3y ago

Hm if the weight is the same but range is different, can’t that be explained by using LFP batteries rather than standard li-ion?

xyst 3y ago

The build quality issues are what drove me to cancel my preorder. The locking down of features is what will keep me away from this company forever. It’s a shame. I was really hoping to migrate away from my ICE vehicle (now 6-7 yrs old). Going to stick with it until it becomes financially unfeasible to repair (Fortunately no major repairs yet, only scheduled maintenance and replacement of worn down parts like tires, car battery, wipers, …). I guess I shouldn’t be too eager to migrate. Especially with the advances in battery tech (“solid state” batteries from Toyota) and significantly improved range over lithium ion batteries. Just hope this trend of locking down features doesn’t become widespread by the time I need to switch

Reubend 3y ago
If your ICE is only 7 years old, it's also environmentally friendly to keep using it rather than to purchase a new electric vehicle.
- redox99 3y ago
  Really depends on how much you weigh CO2 emissions, different air pollutants, noise pollution, etc. Environmentally friendly isn't a single dimension. Furthermore it's not like he's going to dispose his older car, it's going to go to somebody else who might have an ever older, more pollutant car.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  No, probably not. An EV car is approximately 1k gallons of gas in energy to produce. Of course there are also rare earth metals. But your claim is obviously untrue at the edge, where that car could be driving 24k miles/year at 12mpg, for 30 years, and the EV is charged by renewables. That’s an extra 60,000 gallons of gasoline to account for with just the production cost of an EV.
- lcfcjs 3y ago
  [dead]
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago

akmarinov 3y ago

That means charging will be pretty fast, even at the high end, pulling in 190 kw at 50% and ~90 kw at 90%. That’ll be some fast charging! Here's a video going into it - https://youtu.be/RVmk-N7yqqo https://youtu.be/RVmk-N7yqqo

flangola7 3y ago
Who has 190kw of circuit to even handle that? That's enough for a large business building.
- olivermuty 3y ago
  Even the «old» crap gen1 Tesla chargers outputs 150kw
  - flangola7 3y ago
    But who has a circuit for that? That's not a standard or even upgraded installation, and that's yet for only one charger.

0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago

If I had one I'd never charge above 80% or below 20% anyway. Good deal.

onewheeltom 3y ago

Tesla already exaggerates their range. So it’s really not as bad because there is less actual range to be reduced

shaftway 3y ago

I don't really have a problem with this. It's not like they're lying to the customer about battery capacity or vehicle weight. The best you can argue is that they're not being as efficient as they could be, but I could make that argument about pretty much any car on the market. And I see it as a net win for the customer. I get the car I want with only the usable battery capacity that I need for a lower price, and that battery will get less wear and tear over its life. If I want to upgrade to the larger battery down the road then it's an OTA purchase. That's far better than having to take it down to the dealership and have them install the extra battery packs, or for them to just tell me it's not possible.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Uhm, I don't see this as a really bad thing. Most of us are only charging our EVs to 80% anyways, because the battery will last longer. Locking out 27% of the capacity means we can charge up to 73%, which isn't that far from what we are doing anyways. It is a bummer for the longer trips where would charge to 100%, but it isn't as much deadweight as it appears at first glance for typical use. Now, if it wasn't somehow just software locked, and they were cutting off access to the cells (so they really would be dead weight), then that would be really bad.