Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[apacheguy]

From what it looks like, yes, it really does take a new battery. Which is why it must not be an easy fix. It's not as if we didn't expect battery engineering to get better. I feel a twinge of disappointment, but I don't feel like it's 'owed' to me or anything like that. It's not something that went wrong in my car. It's just that technology improved. Personally, it just makes me even more excited for the next generation.

I think we'd all expect batteries to improve by Model S 2.0, but certainly not within the first few months of production. Battery technologies improve over the course of years, not months.

All we know at this point is that it is something related to the battery. Might not be the entire pack that needs replacement so let's not jump to conclusions.

 

[Cottonwood]

See Finally 120KW Supercharging! - Page 20 for data from today's Supercharge on my Sig#37.

 

[bsd]

Fixing the older cars decreases the amount of time that a stall is occupied. It's in everybody's best interest.

 

[v12 to 12v]

My first thought was that I should have gotten some sort of indication that if I put up the extra $35k for an upgrade to a Signature that I might be passing on the faster Supercharging hardware. I didn't get my car THAT much faster and it would have been nice to have that $35k in stock for that period of time.

Then I recalled getting the message somewhere in the literature or on the webpage that the Signatures would be getting access to some special complimentary hardware upgrades. Ultimately, I originally thought that I was covered for things like this and part of the Sig tax was for such purposes.

 

[joefee]

My first thought was that I should have gotten some sort of indication that if I put up the extra $35k for an upgrade to a Signature that I might be passing on the faster Supercharging hardware. I didn't get my car THAT much faster and it would have been nice to have that $35k in stock for that period of time.

Then I recalled getting the message somewhere in the literature or on the webpage that the Signatures would be getting access to some special complimentary hardware upgrades. Ultimately, I originally thought that I was covered for things like this and part of the Sig tax was for such purposes.

+5500$

 

[DouglasR]

For those of you unhappy with TM because of this issue, how much difference would it have made if, when first announcing the 120 kW upgrade, TM had included a disclaimer, e.g., "For technical reasons, some early versions of the Model S will not be able to take advantage of this upgrade."?

 

[gimp_dad]

Fixing the older cars decreases the amount of time that a stall is occupied. It's in everybody's best interest.

Yea. However, they are producing 2x more cars every week than the total number of cars in the category of 90kW charging 85s. Statistically those 2300 cars are quickly going to become irrelevant. Building more SCs will have a lot more impact than retrofitting that small number of cars. Really there is only one meaningful reason to offer an upgrade and that is goodwill for early adopters. This one issue is not going to sour most of us early adopters but as others have said, we all are a little wiser now about the true downsides related to being first. And at this point I am not sure that offering a fix dramatically changes the slight loss in goodwill that has already happened. That was established by the way this was rolled out. And just to reiterate, for me personally this has not and will not wipe the Tesla grin off my face even though I want the fastest possible charge rate. I would like to know the story, understand where the chips fall for me and move on.

 

[Zythryn]

For those of you unhappy with TM because of this issue, how much difference would it have made if, when first announcing the 120 kW upgrade, TM had included a disclaimer, e.g., "For technical reasons, some early versions of the Model S will not be able to take advantage of this upgrade."?

For me that would make all the difference in the world.
My biggest complaint is the lack of communication, even now, and that when the upgrade was first unveiled, and ever since, there has been no indication that some cars can't charge at those levels.

 

[apacheguy]

For those of you unhappy with TM because of this issue, how much difference would it have made if, when first announcing the 120 kW upgrade, TM had included a disclaimer, e.g., "For technical reasons, some early versions of the Model S will not be able to take advantage of this upgrade."?

Big difference. It's not even what they did not say, but rather what they said. TM straight up told us that our cars (yes, they did say older cars too) will receive a software update to enable 120 supercharging. You can imagine our disappointment when we discovered this statement to be false.

IMHO, Tesla created this problem by themselves and they need to fix it. Personally I don't even see it as goodwill, but rather as an obligation they have to correct blatant misinformation.

 

[bluetinc]

Huge!

To keep everything in perspective, after going from 4.5->5.8 I was dismayed by my loss of lowering, ah but, I can now charge faster. Off on a trip I go, and yet my car doesn't seem to be charging at a faster pace. Off to other superchargers, and still no change. Roll the discussions of if a particular stall was able to charge at 120kW, battery states, and all the rest of the complications. Then discussions with my Tesla Service center follow the same course along getting to hear, we know of no issue charging any car at 120kW, where the stalls you were at 120kW..... We will have engineering look at this. I still haven't heard back with any final word.

Enter on top of all this that, it turns out that at the time Tesla started talking about 120kW charging, almost 1/3 of all cars delivered wouldn't charge at that rate and yet no-one seems to know that...

I think that Tesla's communication issues both internally and with the public has been their weakest area, and that aggravation over each one of their issues is starting to beginning to magnify each individual issue.

Peter

For those of you unhappy with TM because of this issue, how much difference would it have made if, when first announcing the 120 kW upgrade, TM had included a disclaimer, e.g., "For technical reasons, some early versions of the Model S will not be able to take advantage of this upgrade."?

 

[ChadS]

For those of you unhappy with TM because of this issue, how much difference would it have made if, when first announcing the 120 kW upgrade, TM had included a disclaimer, e.g., "For technical reasons, some early versions of the Model S will not be able to take advantage of this upgrade."?

Like the others so far, that's the only thing I'm unhappy about. So if they had said that, I would have no problems at all.

 

[Kraken]

Maybe tesla didnt realize this issue themselves until more recently

 

[SUPRKAR]

For those of you unhappy with TM because of this issue, how much difference would it have made if, when first announcing the 120 kW upgrade, TM had included a disclaimer, e.g., "For technical reasons, some early versions of the Model S will not be able to take advantage of this upgrade."?

Douglas at least it would have been an honest announcement. People would know what to expect and it would not seem so deliberately hidden. I prefer the facts like them or not to candy coated bull. Tesla has a problem with communication and you would think by now it would have changed. Even now no one who contacted Tesla has been given an explanation as to what is different with early cars which prevents them from 120 SC. Honesty and openness wouldn't hurt.

 

[yobigd20]

This might be a silly question (asking this without re-reading the entire thread), but has anyone with the limited 90kWh charging brought their car into a service center and "ask" to either 1) have the "problem" fixed or 2) ask for the free hardware upgrade since you paid for the service? (Assuming either you have the 4yr contract OR you have paid for at least one $600 service).

In my opinion, THIS is an example of what I think falls under the "hardware upgrade" clause, vs retrofitting parking sensors or electronically folding mirrors. The latter two I consider "aftermarket upgrades" as opposed to "core system hardware upgrades" which is more like maintenance of existing features.

 

[ckessel]

OP here. Tesla confirmed again that I'm hardware limited to 90kwh.
...
I have asked Tesla to clarify the following for the benefit of the overall community:
...
Will update if/when I get more info.

Just an update that I haven't heard anything from Tesla since that previous email to them on 12/10.

 

[bluetinc]

I am in the same state as Ckessel, I started to inquire with my Service Center about what the issue was after Thanksgiving. Since then I have directed Tesla to this thread and they asked for more data so engineering could look at the data in the car. Since then I haven't heard anything back. So we are still back at officially recognizing this as a "problem" still, before we really can move on to 1 or 2.

Peter

This might be a silly question (asking this without re-reading the entire thread), but has anyone with the limited 90kWh charging brought their car into a service center and "ask" to either 1) have the "problem" fixed or 2) ask for the free hardware upgrade since you paid for the service? (Assuming either you have the 4yr contract OR you have paid for at least one $600 service).

In my opinion, THIS is an example of what I think falls under the "hardware upgrade" clause, vs retrofitting parking sensors or electronically folding mirrors. The latter two I consider "aftermarket upgrades" as opposed to "core system hardware upgrades" which is more like maintenance of existing features.

 

[apacheguy]

This might be a silly question (asking this without re-reading the entire thread), but has anyone with the limited 90kWh charging brought their car into a service center and "ask" to either 1) have the "problem" fixed or 2) ask for the free hardware upgrade since you paid for the service? (Assuming either you have the 4yr contract OR you have paid for at least one $600 service).

In my opinion, THIS is an example of what I think falls under the "hardware upgrade" clause, vs retrofitting parking sensors or electronically folding mirrors. The latter two I consider "aftermarket upgrades" as opposed to "core system hardware upgrades" which is more like maintenance of existing features.

I have called ownership twice to report the issue and have scheduled a service appointment for January (earliest available) where I intend to do exactly what you suggested. Oh, and I have emailed supercharger@ and have not heard anything back. Same as the others.

Couldn't agree more with your second statement. Thanks for supporting us early adopters.

 

[napabill]

Just an update that I haven't heard anything from Tesla since that previous email to them on 12/10.

Nor I.

 

[wycolo]

> I value my time a lot more than the cost of electricity. [too far back to find]

A Distinction Without A Difference

Cottonwood's 'stopwatch' analysis showed about 5 to 6 minutes extra time spent at the SC. Apacheguy's estimate was more like 12 to 15 minutes. From memory.

From a 'road trip' perspective this extra time spent by 2012 Model S'en is barely significant. Only a daily commuter would be impacted by such a delay. But how many commute over 180 miles per day, thus even needing an SC stop at all??

If you are not an 'SC commuter' then this is all about prestige.

Btw, my 2012 vin 1993 had new battery installed summer 2013. It was a freshly arrived batt that was popped in, so no mods made to car. Thus a good test to see if the 90/120 issue is 100% battery-pack specific. So I'll take it to Silverthorne SC, get my burrito first, and then plug it in keeping eyes on the charge rate until it starts to crap out. That should prove it. 85 still using 4.5 firmware.
--

 

[stopcrazypp]

85 still using 4.5 firmware.

Don't you need to update your firmware too before this test?