Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Hidden 72 amp charging option

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
So far no one knows exactly how the 48 vs 72 amp charger are accomplished in the X. In the S obviously you had one or two 10kW (11 in the EU) chargers. Hence people jumping to conclusions that this must be a hardware upgrade.

That said, my guess is they're not installing 72A (80 peak) capable chargers in all Xs and for some reason software limiting them to 48A. It seems silly.

Also, why 48 vs 72? 72 is just 48 + 50% (not double like Model S). Why would be the technical underlying reason for this?
 
Out of curiosity flankspeed8 how are you basing your opinion? What credibility do you have to speak on this?

Out of curiosity what credibility do you have? Prior to your posting everyone AFAIK talked about Tesla service very clearly stating that there was a HARDWARE difference between the two chargers and that because of the location they could not be retrofitted after factory build. If it was indeed a software option, why would they have gone out of their way to discourage the 72 amp option by hiding it especially since it would leave a lot of revenue off the table. Makes no sense.

why release all the Sigs with 72amp but the production car is only 48amp? What possibly would be the business model behind this? Would also hope they would not be installing 72amp Chargers and software limiting them because of potential problems. That does not sound right either. I believe others have posted that 72amp is a physically larger piece of equipment.
 
Last edited:
I have personally have zero creditability. Never claimed that I did. Your the one making fear evoking statements like "I fear people can be misled easily and potentially make a mistake that will affect their car forever if indeed it can NOT be fixed by software."

I personally take advice from people with credibility and my source (who talks to Elon himself a few times a month) says Software only. This is why I believe it.

To reiterate: Go ahead and get the 72amps if you want (I recommend it) but those of you who missed paying for it for some reason don't worry. That is all.
 
Just because it's software doesn't mean Tesla will allow you to upgrade it in the future. Having said that, if it's just software I don't understand why Tesla would hide the option.

It's also possible that the charger is the same and is set via software, but other components are changed; for example, the size of wire used to the charge port. This would make your source correct but also explain why it's factory only.
 
Just because it's software doesn't mean Tesla will allow you to upgrade it in the future. Having said that, if it's just software I don't understand why Tesla would hide the option.

It's also possible that the charger is the same and is set via software, but other components are changed; for example, the size of wire used to the charge port. This would make your source correct but also explain why it's factory only.

My guess is Tesla hid the software because its a future surprise for us and stock holders. Just like they only told a few people about the square space in the frunk that was created for the duel motor. Just like they hide many things till they reveal it later... Bottom line is its strategy for propping the stock up and creating momentum two years from now. If too many people know about it they can't use it news and hype later on. Tesla is built on excitement, hope and dreams. Think about the headlines when they reveal the cars charge twice as fast as they did just two years earlier... Or on the flip side, think about if they have it as an option that everyone can buy easily and they somehow the idea fails or takes to long to implement (battery swap stations)? I love what Tesla stands for and I'm a huge fan of Elon but I'm certainly not blind to the tricks and or risks it takes to keep that ball in the air. Not an easy feat.
 
Last edited:
My guess is Tesla hid the software because its a future surprise for us and stock holders. Just like they only told a few people about the square space in the frunk that was created for the duel motor. Just like they hide many things till they reveal it later... Bottom line is its strategy for propping the stock up and creating momentum two years from now. If too many people know about it they can't use it news and hype later on. Tesla is built on excitement, hope and dreams. Think about the headlines when they reveal the cars charge twice as fast as they did just two years earlier... I love what Tesla stands for and I'm a huge fan of Elon but I'm certainly not blind to the tricks it takes to keep that ball in the air. Not an easy feat.
This is even more ridiculous than your initial claim that Tesla is hiding the ability of the 48A charger to charge at 72A and all that's required is a software update. Something as esoteric as the top AC charging rate that most owners might have an occasion to use a few times a year with a destination charging station, a rate that's not quite what Model S owners with dual chargers could get since 2012, would have exactly zero impact on "propping the stock up". This isn't like doubling the supercharger rate (and anyway the difference is 50%, not doubling).
 
This is even more ridiculous than your initial claim that Tesla is hiding the ability of the 48A charger to charge at 72A and all that's required is a software update. Something as esoteric as the top AC charging rate that most owners might have an occasion to use a few times a year with a destination charging station, a rate that's not quite what Model S owners with dual chargers could get since 2012, would have exactly zero impact on "propping the stock up". This isn't like doubling the supercharger rate (and anyway the difference is 50%, not doubling).

This last post was only a guess. As stated at the beginning of the post. Ridiculous? Certainly possible. As far as the first post goes (as stated) that was information from Tesla not me. On a more positive note I respect all points of view and you certainly could be right about yours. I guess time will tell.
 
-Onboard charger works great at 66% rated duty. Excellent MTBFs.
-Less warranty claims of failed chargers
-Pay money to unlock charger to 100% duty
-Charger's MTBF drops and warranty claims go up
-Money paid to unlock charger's full capacity is used to pay for warranty claims in the future.

Step 3: PROFIT!

See, now wasn't that easy?
 
FWIW, I looked at the source of the design studio. It's hard to read because it's minified (essentially obfuscated), but so far a) although the code seems to be set up to allow for multiple hidden settings, that's the only hidden option I could make out, and b) they refer to it as an easter egg. A debugging log says "Let's fire off the MX GP charging easter egg!". It's also often referred to as "cheet", which drives me nuts.
 
This is even more ridiculous than your initial claim that Tesla is hiding the ability of the 48A charger to charge at 72A and all that's required is a software update. Something as esoteric as the top AC charging rate that most owners might have an occasion to use a few times a year with a destination charging station, a rate that's not quite what Model S owners with dual chargers could get since 2012, would have exactly zero impact on "propping the stock up". This isn't like doubling the supercharger rate (and anyway the difference is 50%, not doubling).
I wouldn't be so quick to discount MichaelW's information. You must have missed the whole thread started by Eds. Hopefully it doesn't get his friend in trouble.
 
-Onboard charger works great at 66% rated duty. Excellent MTBFs.
-Less warranty claims of failed chargers
-Pay money to unlock charger to 100% duty
-Charger's MTBF drops and warranty claims go up
-Money paid to unlock charger's full capacity is used to pay for warranty claims in the future.

Step 3: PROFIT!

See, now wasn't that easy?

A very reasonable guess.
 
Ok now I'm 100% positive! Just software! They are doing it to avoid the hassle and time of upgrading hardware as they have done in the past. Up till now (on the Model S) it has been a huge hassle for people that want to upgrade. Switching wires new parts etc... Now all they have to do is bring the car in for two hours download the software and its done. Only one port and one big box (Not two boxes like the S) under the back seat. No Hardware people!


This includes ALL models of the Model X not just the performance one :)


Why they put it in as a hidden option on the site they wouldn't tell me so that's still up for debate ;)
 
The only thing I can think of is too many people complained they paid for a feature (dual chargers) that they later discovered they didn't need. By hiding it, people who want it know to ask, and everyone else doesn't pay for something they don't need.

Only reason to charge for it is increased margins. Tesla likely modeled the take rate and priced it cover the cost of deploying it in every car.
 
Ok now I'm 100% positive! Just software! They are doing it to avoid the hassle and time of upgrading hardware as they have done in the past. Up till now (on the Model S) it has been a huge hassle for people that want to upgrade. Switching wires new parts etc... Now all they have to do is bring the car in for two hours download the software and its done. Only one port and one big box (Not two boxes like the S) under the back seat. No Hardware people!


This includes ALL models of the Model X not just the performance one :)


Why they put it in as a hidden option on the site they wouldn't tell me so that's still up for debate ;)

I'm still not convinced. Unless you can see the part/model number and spec's, just looking at the case is meaningless. If they are the same part number I would buy it. But just because the outer cases look the same proves nothing. The fact that they have stated that it can not be upgraded after delivery also casts doubt on your theory.
 
I'm on the fence regarding this development. Not as to who is correct/has the inside scoop/etc., although that in itself is worth an aside: many statements by esp. Service Center employees over the past three or so years have turned out to be variably either not true, 180º not true, or, at best, still not the case. And not statements from junior SC employees, either.

What concerns me is the seeming pricing iniquity* I am reading into this hardware/software development, if it is true. As follows:

It used to be the case in the United States, under federal statute - from my grad or undergrad economics classes - that extracting economic rent by creating a price discrimination situation such that different persons paid a different price for the same product, was illegal. Cannot remember if it was civil or criminal penalties that applied.

Now, if Tesla Customers A and B receive the same hardware product - a 72A charger - but A doesn't need beyond the 48A default and so opts out of paying the $1,000 enabling charge; B sees utility in being able to charge at 72A and so she pays the additional amount, then, in my eyes, Tesla Motors is performing precisely this price discrimination. Worse, TM is acting out of a knowledge imbalance: TM knows that both customers possess the same item but, presumably, the customer does not.

So: as a shareholder, I am happy to learn that TM has the ability to achieve a higher gross margin. Yay!
But, as a long-distance traveler through esp SpC-impoverished Canada where Sun Country's 70A chargers are the best one can hope for....I'm a Customer B. Boo!

My two cents. Get three more and you can buy a nickel.

*iniquity AND inequity. Again, if true, then to my eyes it is both.
 
I'm on the fence regarding this development. Not as to who is correct/has the inside scoop/etc., although that in itself is worth an aside: many statements by esp. Service Center employees over the past three or so years have turned out to be variably either not true, 180º not true, or, at best, still not the case. And not statements from junior SC employees, either.

What concerns me is the seeming pricing iniquity* I am reading into this hardware/software development, if it is true. As follows:

It used to be the case in the United States, under federal statute - from my grad or undergrad economics classes - that extracting economic rent by creating a price discrimination situation such that different persons paid a different price for the same product, was illegal. Cannot remember if it was civil or criminal penalties that applied.

Now, if Tesla Customers A and B receive the same hardware product - a 72A charger - but A doesn't need beyond the 48A default and so opts out of paying the $1,000 enabling charge; B sees utility in being able to charge at 72A and so she pays the additional amount, then, in my eyes, Tesla Motors is performing precisely this price discrimination. Worse, TM is acting out of a knowledge imbalance: TM knows that both customers possess the same item but, presumably, the customer does not.

So: as a shareholder, I am happy to learn that TM has the ability to achieve a higher gross margin. Yay!
But, as a long-distance traveler through esp SpC-impoverished Canada where Sun Country's 70A chargers are the best one can hope for....I'm a Customer B. Boo!

My two cents. Get three more and you can buy a nickel.

*iniquity AND inequity. Again, if true, then to my eyes it is both.

It's not discrimination. Electronic companies have been using this technique for three decades or more. Consider two TVs, the same display, but one with smart features (Netflix, etc). The TV manufacturer makes one set, and via a config file or other mechanism sets it to have the smart features or not.

Thirty years ago we discovered that a manufacturer of modems used the same board for their 1200, 2400, and 9600 models. You could buy the 1200 for a fraction of the price of the 9600, open it up, and by soldering one wire you could make it a 9600 version.