FSD may require a hardware upgrade...

[sorka]

what about the newer cars that actually do have the stated capacity? IMO this means that the degradation would be less on them, so the damages to owners of older cars is we have to charge more often/longer doing more damage to the batts to get the same range. Plus, in a salvage situation our batts would be worth less to someone like a Jason Hughes or other folks who just wanted the raw batteries.. i'm not a lawyer, just throwing out things to think about outside of just hitting EPA #s

And those came with an increase in the advertised rated range as well. The use of batteries for something other than the intended purpose of powering Tesla it came in is interesting, but Tesla made no capacity promises for that purpose.

The only thing they promised that is of material relevance is that your Tesla will get x rated miles when driven using the EPA test loop.

 

[stopcrazypp]

And before anyone says AP1 hardware was in vehicles 1 year before they applied the software, I can guarantee you they had that system working 90% well before oct 2014 MP start. This AP2 situation is dramatically more reckless.

Citation required. How do you know the situation for AP2 is dramatically more reckless than AP1, when you are not privy to the details of the development? From outside appearances the situation is quite similar: if you read what Mobileye specified for the chip Tesla used, plus examine other examples of it implemented (with much more radar/sensor hardware), you can reasonably come to the conclusion what Tesla implemented with AP1 would be impossible. Mobileye had another chip (EyeQ4) that they were developing that would officially support AP1 functionality. Yet, Tesla went far beyond what Mobileye envisioned for the chip (part of the reason for the break).

And during the AP1 unveiling, Tesla had only demonstrated a lane change maneuver under a controlled environment.

Before you bring up that recent California report, any in-house testing they do off California public roads would not be reported on that form (in fact the form itself says that). They have obviously trained their in house neural network enough such that it can at least do that demo.

 

[SeminoleFSU]

And those came with an increase in the advertised rated range as well. The use of batteries for something other than the intended purpose of powering Tesla it came in is interesting, but Tesla made no capacity promises for that purpose.

The only thing they promised that is of material relevance is that your Tesla will get x rated miles when driven using the EPA test loop.

I think displaying 85kWh on the configuration page is a promise you'll get an 85kWh battery. I see the EPA miles promise and the size of battery clearly displayed on the config page (or at least it was for a long time) as two different promises, one kept the other broken. .. but I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either, so... I still stand by the logic that having less than 85kWh battery means more charges over its lifespan, which leads to greater wear and tear, degradation, etc... lower rated miles on the dash = potentially lower resale value. The fact that they adjusted the price of the software upgrade from 60 to 75 after Jason's tweets shows they knew they could be in hot water.

 

[drklain]

I think displaying 85kWh on the configuration page is a promise you'll get an 85kWh battery.

I can see why you feel that way, but legally speaking you are getting a 85kWh battery, just not all of that power is available to you. It's just like somebody saying a car (or plane or boat) has a X gallon fuel tank. In fact, how much of that fuel is usable is ALWAYS something less than thank capacity because the fuel line pickup is not from the very bottom of the tank, etc. They could have easily called the 60, 75, 85, 90 model S unites the Model S 100, 200, 300, 400 models (or E, EX, SX and ZX models). Where fradulent behavior comes in is if the car does not deliver to the customer what it is rated to deliver (EPA range in this case). Now if Tesla tells you you are getting a 800 horsepower drivetrain in your P model and the car can't make 800hp on a test stand, then that is fraudulent advertising (and is part of the reason they had the settlement in Norway and changed their marketing materials).

 

[SeminoleFSU]

I can see why you feel that way, but legally speaking you are getting a 85kWh battery, just not all of that power is available to you.

Incorrect. If it was in fact an 85kWh battery pack but they put in some buffer so it doesn't charge to 100% and can't fall below (just a number) 5% for bricking, that would be one thing... but you need to read the findings of Jason Hughes. He broke down these packs and physically determined that the 85kWh packs are NOT 85, not because of buffer, etc but because they are not actually 85. They were more like 81 and with buffer and brick protection something lower than that.
He also confirmed this by hacking the BMS firmware which confirmed his findings by ripping apart multiple packs. So this is 100% certain the 85's weren't 85kWh. They were advertised as such (this is 100% the case they listed the battery as being 85kWh on the config page).. Hitting the EPA estimates is one thing, having a battery that is physically the size advertised is different matter. I think most owners (*including myself*) would be fine having less actual capacity than 85 if that difference was all buffer and brick protection, but it isn't. I'll stop posting on this topic now in this thread as it is off topic from the OP.

 

[sorka]

I think displaying 85kWh on the configuration page is a promise you'll get an 85kWh battery. I see the EPA miles promise and the size of battery clearly displayed on the config page (or at least it was for a long time) as two different promises, one kept the other broken. .. but I'm not a lawyer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either, so... I still stand by the logic that having less than 85kWh battery means more charges over its lifespan, which leads to greater wear and tear, degradation, etc... lower rated miles on the dash = potentially lower resale value. The fact that they adjusted the price of the software upgrade from 60 to 75 after Jason's tweets shows they knew they could be in hot water.

That would only be the case if they were hiding capacity that they slowly let out as the battery degrades to hide the actual degradation.

They've made no promises about degradation. They've specifically said their warranty doesn't cover degradation. You can't assume that an 85kwh battery will degrade slower than an 81 kwh battery if *BOTH* batteries had resulted in the same range by using the same SOC range in capacity.

Did they advertise an 85KWh battery? Sure. Is it slimy move? Probably. Did it have any material effect on the range performance of the car that they sold you? No. Show me where the material damages are from the standpoint the car not performing as they promised?

Would they have sold fewer 85s if they'd advertised the as the model 85 but disclaimed that it had an 81 kwh battery if it didn't effect the the range they promised? Can't see it. i.e. I don't see it as a good case.

Advertising 228 hp less than they delivered in the P85D is a far better case because:

1) 691 hp implies a certain level of perfomance for a car that weighs x when passing from y mph to z mph.

2) They made no promises about passing performance but they did promise hp that would result in a certain passing performance had the hp actually existed.

As it turns out, the P85D Insane passes like a 5000 lb car that produces 463 hp which is what it actually makes with the delivered battery. Had the battery been an actual 85 kwh battery, it would have produced more hp(still not close to 691 of course as the P100D is just barely there at 685).

So if anything, the difference in advertised capacity vs actual has an actual material effect on the horsepower produced since the car produces far less horsepower than advertised.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Incorrect. If it was in fact an 85kWh battery pack but they put in some buffer so it doesn't charge to 100% and can't fall below (just a number) 5% for bricking, that would be one thing... but you need to read the findings of Jason Hughes. He broke down these packs and physically determined that the 85kWh packs are NOT 85, not because of buffer, etc but because they are not actually 85. They were more like 81 and with buffer and brick protection something lower than that.
He also confirmed this by hacking the BMS firmware which confirmed his findings by ripping apart multiple packs. So this is 100% certain the 85's weren't 85kWh. They were advertised as such (this is 100% the case they listed the battery as being 85kWh on the config page).. Hitting the EPA estimates is one thing, having a battery that is physically the size advertised is different matter. I think most owners (*including myself*) would be fine having less actual capacity than 85 if that difference was all buffer and brick protection, but it isn't. I'll stop posting on this topic now in this thread as it is off topic from the OP.

What wk057 demonstrated is for the packs he got at the condition he got them, they measured 81kWh. I don't believe he claims is results are necessarily universal, only that they apply to the samples he got. That's why he made that recent post asking for people to use the rated miles conversion to gather data. There have however been conflicting information if you look at rated miles from other cars to determine the new rated miles of a S85 or P85.

He can not definitively say that the packs as out of the factory would not measure at 85kWh under the nominal standard. Keep in mind, the measured capacity of packs/cells depend on the load on them. For example, 85kWh may just have been the ideal nominal capacity of the cells multiplied by number of cells (7104).

 

[brkaus]

Please, for the sake of keeping this thread on topic, save all those arguments for the other threads.

I do realize those issues may be relevant to this topic, but In my opinion adding a link here to the other threads would be best. Keep that debate there.

 

[bob_p]

The AP 2.0 hardware is activated at two levels - EAP and FSD.

EAP only activates some of the sensors, and should work well in environments with a limited number of variables - such as limited access highways - at highway speeds. It's surprising Tesla is allowing this to be used for non-divided highways and local streets, since the sensors in AP 1.0 and activated for EAP are not going to be detect all of the objects in those more complex environments.

That's what FSD is supposed to support. All of the sensors are activated. And even if Tesla never achieved full self driving, if FSD morphed into UAP (ultra autopilot), extending safe use of autopilot to almost all driving conditions - that would be worth the additional $3K for purchasing the FSD option. And using the software in "UAP" mode doesn't require regulatory approval, since the driver would still have to maintain control. And hopefully UAP mode will be enabled while Tesla is waiting to get approval to enable FSD.

 

[lunitiks]

UAP = Underdelivered Auto Pilot

 

[ZAKEEUS]

I'm fine with this as long as there is no additional cost for the upgrade. This may work out in their favor, if the CPU needed to get us to FSD exists now, it will almost certainly be significantly cheaper by the time the government allows FSD.

 

[gregincal]

Before you bring up that recent California report, any in-house testing they do off California public roads would not be reported on that form (in fact the form itself says that). They have obviously trained their in house neural network enough such that it can at least do that demo.

Speaking of which, when I picked up my car at the new Santa Clara service center (which happens to be right next to the Nvidia campus) I saw a Model S driving through the service center parking lot with "Nvidia Self Driving" emblazoned on the side. I only got a quick look, but I'm pretty sure there was nobody inside (when I came out after signing papers the car was nowhere to be seen).

 

[SeminoleFSU]

What wk057 demonstrated is for the packs he got at the condition he got them, they measured 81kWh. I don't believe he claims is results are necessarily universal, only that they apply to the samples he got. That's why he made that recent post asking for people to use the rated miles conversion to gather data. There have however been conflicting information if you look at rated miles from other cars to determine the new rated miles of a S85 or P85.

He can not definitively say that the packs as out of the factory would not measure at 85kWh under the nominal standard. Keep in mind, the measured capacity of packs/cells depend on the load on them. For example, 85kWh may just have been the ideal nominal capacity of the cells multiplied by number of cells (7104).

My understanding was that he found hard-coded values in the BMS firmware that were used to drive the rated and ideal mile outputs and those values for the 85kWh pack were approx 81 or something like that. If I'm mistaken please let me know. I can't get over here and read as much as I'd like but this was my understanding... On the other hand if I'm not mistaken this is a smoking gun that the advertised 85 pack was definitely less than that by a good margin and that wasn't because of some nominal standard, temperature influenced difference, or manufacturing variance in build quality of the packs, etc... Based on that being correct, the bottom line is there was no reason why Tesla had to advertise the packs at that size. They already had a product that was untouchable in the marketplace at that time... All I can think is that they didn't want to re-create all their marketing materials, back track on pre-set expectations communicated to shareholders and the media, or send back butt-loads of 85, etc badges

 

[SeminoleFSU]

Please, for the sake of keeping this thread on topic, save all those arguments for the other threads.

I do realize those issues may be relevant to this topic, but In my opinion adding a link here to the other threads would be best. Keep that debate there.

sorry - that was my last one. You'll be okay though, I promise.

 

[stopcrazypp]

My understanding was that he found hard-coded values in the BMS firmware that were used to drive the rated and ideal mile outputs and those values for the 85kWh pack were approx 81 or something like that. If I'm mistaken please let me know. I can't get over here and read as much as I'd like but this was my understanding... On the other hand if I'm not mistaken this is a smoking gun that the advertised 85 pack was definitely less than that by a good margin and that wasn't because of some nominal standard, temperature influenced difference, or manufacturing variance in build quality of the packs, etc... Based on that being correct, the bottom line is there was no reason why Tesla had to advertise the packs at that size. They already had a product that was untouchable in the marketplace at that time... All I can think is that they didn't want to re-create all their marketing materials, back track on pre-set expectations communicated to shareholders and the media, or send back butt-loads of 85, etc badges

Nope. He got the 81kWh number from multiplying the total number of cells (7104) with the average capacity of a cell measured from 1 month's worth of 6 hour charge/discharge tests done on sample cells. These cells were pulled from a pack with less than 1000 miles (5 cycles of wear).

He backed up those results from his car's BMS reporting 76.5 kWh usable and with the 4 kWh buffer, that means 81kWh. The BMS itself does not have hard-coded maximum capacity values. It reports the best estimation of the given pack itself. That's why different cars can report different rated miles values even when brand new. There is no way from the software to tell what is the ideal capacity number of a new pack.

So the results only apply to the samples he got and the wear they had already when he measured (including the extra wear put on during measuring given 1 months worth of cycling). He also did not attempt to back calculate what the capacity values would be from factory (although it's going to be difficult to do that given degradation is non-linear; it is drastically worse in the first few cycles, so a linear model would underestimate the capacity).
Tesla's 85 kWh rating needs an asterisk (up to 81 kWh, with up to ~77 kWh usable)

 

[calisnow]

I would really like to spring for an inventory P100D and call it a day for the next 10 years - but I just KNOW that 24 months from now Elon will say "Well, if you buy the new P125D with 15 solid state lidars, you can sleep like a baby knowing you are now 99.99999% less likely to have an accident than in an AP 2.0 self driving car." Then of course I will be filled with anxiety in my now-worthless P100D and sock over more money to Emperor Musk.

So I stay on the back end of the tech curve. Damn you, little non-P Model S I make do with... Then I hit the pedal and it feels nice - but I'm sure a P100D would feel nicer - but then I think that I'm not losing $3,000 a month depreciation - but it sure would be nice - but, but, but, but....

 

[Electroman]

I don't understand the fascination for the 'P'. I drove one the other day to see what all the hype is, and sure it is zipper, but the S is quite zippy and quick in itself that I simply can't see the allure.

But again there are normal Joes who can't understand my craziness for EV either

 

[LuvMyS]

Hi everyone, has anyone found a site where someone opened up an AP2 car to see the Nvidia unit and how it sits/looks in regards to space/etc?

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Hi everyone, has anyone found a site where someone opened up an AP2 car to see the Nvidia unit and how it sits/looks in regards to space/etc?

FIRST PICTURES - Tesla Autopilot 2.0 ECU (Nvidia PX 2)

 

[Viking1]

I'm surprised that they keep with only 1 radar in their new hardware confirmation. While radar does have its problems, cameras are subject to so many issues, as we've seen. Others seem to be using either lidar or multiple radars. Tesla seems to have lost at least 1 year by going to Tesla vision and dropping mobile eye. I have the new configuration and it is certainly less capable then the car I used to test drive. Based on what I've seen on current progress, I would guess another 4-5 months for parity. That puts us mid year.