The following TMC thread states otherwise:
Upgrade S85 to P85
Tesla quoted the person a cost for Performance Drive Unit upgrade: $20,921.19 . That wasn't a D model, and drive unit swaps are not software.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Upgrade S85 to P85
Tesla quoted the person a cost for Performance Drive Unit upgrade: $20,921.19 . That wasn't a D model, and drive unit swaps are not software.
EVie'sDad
Member
"Beyond that, there will be a small fee to Supercharge which will be charged incrementally and cost less than the price of filling up a comparable gas car. All cars will continue to come standard with the onboard hardware required for Supercharging."
Not sure if this was already asked, but if tesla is restricting Supercharging to only 1000 miles for new customers post Jan 1st 2017, what kind of a billing system are they going to come up with if said customers want to use more than 1000 miles at Superchargers? (easily achievable on longer road trips through several states).
Will it be pay at the pump as you charge, or charged to a credit card or account to then be mailed to the customer?
Not sure if this was already asked, but if tesla is restricting Supercharging to only 1000 miles for new customers post Jan 1st 2017, what kind of a billing system are they going to come up with if said customers want to use more than 1000 miles at Superchargers? (easily achievable on longer road trips through several states).
Will it be pay at the pump as you charge, or charged to a credit card or account to then be mailed to the customer?
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It's not actually 1000 miles, it's 400kWh per year. You can see the press release.
An Update to Our Supercharging Program
There's no official details on how the billing will work yet, but two months ago there was a leak on the website where there was a billing section by kWh from a saved credit card. I believe that is how it is going to work.
Tesla Adds Supercharger Payment Section By kWh For Model 3 On Website
2.5 year old thread. It's already been done since with just software. I don't see any part numbers referenced in that thread that show the DUs are actually different.
hmmm
Member
See post #257 re. reply from Tesla:
"I am glad to help you with this. Of course you will still receive free supercharger, any vehicle sold before January 2017 will continue to receive those services for free." So it seems to imply that it is tied to the vehicle/transferable.
For some reason, I am not sure this answer has been/is fully blessed by "corporate". I hope I am wrong.
Acrono
Member
I'm glad I'm grandfathered into unlimited SpC, since I live in an apartment complex where I can't charge at home and rely on a local SpC for my charging needs.
You'll have to provide references to back up that 'it's already been done', official ones please. It's one thing to use software to extra additional performance out of the current battery and motor (no different from a tuner upgrade of a gas car) and quite a different matter to do so in a way that retains Tesla warranty . Here's another never TMC post saying the same thing I said:
Upgrade MX 90D to P90D
While this is with reference to D models, there's still no affirmation that *Tesla* has upgraded a non-P to P model entirely by software. While the old non-D 85s could ramp up the power, I've seen no official report suggesting it can be done without literally blowing a fuse or degrading the MTBF of the internals.
Upgrade MX 90D to P90D
While this is with reference to D models, there's still no affirmation that *Tesla* has upgraded a non-P to P model entirely by software. While the old non-D 85s could ramp up the power, I've seen no official report suggesting it can be done without literally blowing a fuse or degrading the MTBF of the internals.
Hmm....still lots of wiggle room in that statement. All it seems to be saying for sure is that any Tesla purchased before 31 Dec will still have free, unlimited access to Superchargers on 1 Jan 2017. Doesn't address whether that remains true if the owner changes.
Can't be for sure, but perhaps to not be a loss leader?
I'm generally in favor of the change, although I think they could set the number a bit higher. Buffet style items tend to bring out the worst in human behavior.
They did set the exception of 1000-1500 miles of SpC was expected per year based on their (misleading) pricing summary that assumed certain "Gasoline Savings".
"The average person drives between 10,000 and 15,000 miles ... per year. ... We've assumed ... 10% charging on Tesla's supercharger network".
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The new plan wouldn't change your access to superchargers, just that you have to pay for it now beyond 400kWh/year.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The dual motor versions are a completely different case because there the motors are different (the RWD-only and P versions uses a larger rear motor, while the non-P dual motor models use the same smaller motor/inverter unit front and back.)
Really ?
Tesla Model S85
Battery max power: 373 hp / 278 kW
Motor max power: 382 hp / 285 kW
Tesla Model P85
Battery max power: 420 hp / 310 kW
Motor max power: 470 hp / 350 kW
These are not D model specs. Further, I already quoted a post where someone got an official quote for this from Tesla, with a hardware update cost. I'd like to see a Tesla quote stating a software S->P upgrade . Hacked versions do not prove this; the max batt for the P model exceeds the S model's motor maximum power.
Tesla Model S85
Battery max power: 373 hp / 278 kW
Motor max power: 382 hp / 285 kW
Tesla Model P85
Battery max power: 420 hp / 310 kW
Motor max power: 470 hp / 350 kW
These are not D model specs. Further, I already quoted a post where someone got an official quote for this from Tesla, with a hardware update cost. I'd like to see a Tesla quote stating a software S->P upgrade . Hacked versions do not prove this; the max batt for the P model exceeds the S model's motor maximum power.
JSkrehot
Member
Nobody is keeping you from using the superchargers. Now, you would have to pay for electricity above 400 kWh usage. People who own Tesla's who charge at home at night already "pay" for the miles they drive. I'm going to go with miles, easier on myself...let's assume you have 250 mile available on a full charge, range charge at home at night, drive as close to 220-230 miles as possible before stopping at a SC, charge enough to make it to your destination (not a 80-100% charge), just what you need, which is about 80 more miles, then charge at your destination. You do this trip bi-weekly, so the allotted 400 kWh will cover 49.99% of your yearly trips. This of course is only if you do not already own a Model S/X, otherwise, keep on charging as you have been. If you purchase a Tesla after the deadline, still awesome for you. If you purchase a Model S/X after SC deadline, nobody is going to feel sorry that you have to pay a small fee compared to gas to charge your $75-130,000 car half the time you make this trip. Insane how much (mostly wealthy upper class) people are whining about this.
It doesn't dispute itself. Your quotes are very out of context. Indeed, Alsema did not account for the energy that went into the original scrap because it's a waste product anyway - and therefore is delivered as a raw resource. And since, as of that publication, the majority of panels were made using that resource, why would they be back-charged for it? That's a reasonable research assumption.
You seem to have forgotten the referenced peer-reviewed work, which is quoted in the article. Specifically,
"Knapp and Jester studied an actual manufacturing facility and found that, for single-crystal-silicon modules, the actual energy payback time is 3.3 years. This includes the energy to make the aluminum frame and the energy to purify and crystallize the silicon." Full paper here. Note the publication date of 2000. That was the case for single-crystal-silicon 16 years ago. The referenced studies that looked at multi-crystalline silicon were done in 1996 and 1997, and still had favorable outcomes.
The Fraunhofer ISE has a more current report that discusses payback of current multi crystalline silicon panels in Northern Europe - not the most favorable location for solar energy payback. Spoiler alert: it's 1.5-2.5 years. And it uses energy measures, not cost.
Generally speaking, I think most reasonable installations (read: not in a closet
) pay back the energy sunk into their manufacture. You don't have to be in California or the desert, where PV is a very clear win. Even that hyper-efficient uber-green stacking of humans known as New York City is probably going to net out positively.
hmmm
Member
I agree that it's open to interpretation...but if it's meant to not be transferable, then I would have worded it something along the lines of "anyone buying a new/inventory vehicle by...".
But then again, I am not a lawyer.
@stopcrazypp https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1391400/
Read the first page of the thread: Pack Swap on 70D to 90kWh HP?
You can argue it's not Tesla sanctioned. Sure it's not. But that doesn't make it any less true.
Tesla has never given out bad information.
Read the first page of the thread: Pack Swap on 70D to 90kWh HP?
You can argue it's not Tesla sanctioned. Sure it's not. But that doesn't make it any less true.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I see you were able to find the old post I talked about earlier. Basically it's as I characterized. Part numbers are actually different between P and non-P, but wk057 was able to do a software only "upgrade" in one instance. However, that doesn't actually tell you if the parts inside are the same (without having taken apart the units and looked for differences; esp. the earlier units to eliminate the possibility they switched to the same parts in later configurations).
Sorry but that is not good enough. An independent person stating 'it looks the same to me, the part numbers are just smoke and mirrors' is not authoritative. He cannot prove he was merely looking at one car that happened to have it. He cannot provide 0-60 times to prove that the motor is in fact running at full P level (as opposed to simply an overdriven S motor, akin to someone boosting a 5 series and calling it an M5). Further, there's no warranted reliability claim; you could drive a motor capable of 285KW at beyond design power, and it probably internally regulates itself against catastrophic failure, but at the cost of rapidly increasing potential for failure.
There's only one official statement about this topic, which I quoted in the post earlier. Tesla states that a drive unit upgrade is required, and that's that. Anything else anyone tries is entirely at their own risk, and not something any normal owner would even contemplate. Unless Tesla officially states that an S->P upgrade is software only, it is not. They've already told multiple parties that it's a hardware update.
I don't think we know one way or another. I agree with your premises that they could be different on the inside. But they could also be the same (I'm not arguing this, i'm saying they could though).
Technically that's not a Tesla official statement. That's someone who posted it on the board STATING that's what Tesla told him. If you don't buy wk057's analysis, I don't have to buy that the person didn't fabricate the statement.
See the silliness in the argument?
Also, that was in early 2014, the first handful of cars off the line. Things change (they could easily have standardized parts).
Similar threads
