Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[ckessel]

A fellow PM'd me about taking his Q4 2012 into service and asking why he wasn't getting 120kw. The service investigation sheet says he has an older battery with cells that can't take 120kw charging.

So, we unlucky few had batteries that were already outdated before Tesla had even shipped a few thousand cars.

 

[efusco]

A fellow PM'd me about taking his Q4 2012 into service and asking why he wasn't getting 120kw. The service investigation sheet says he has an older battery with cells that can't take 120kw charging.

So, we unlucky few had batteries that were already outdated before Tesla had even shipped a few thousand cars.

That bites..., I haven't even gotten to supercharge yet and I'm out of date...

 

[stopcrazypp]

A fellow PM'd me about taking his Q4 2012 into service and asking why he wasn't getting 120kw. The service investigation sheet says he has an older battery with cells that can't take 120kw charging.

So, we unlucky few had batteries that were already outdated before Tesla had even shipped a few thousand cars.

Grain of salt and all that (although if it's on paper and through evaluation by engineering that's a bit different), but if that's the case then there's not much Tesla can do in terms of retrofit. If true, I guess it's also not a coincidence that the high current NCR18650PD cells from Panasonic came out around mid-2012.

 

[ckessel]

Grain of salt and all that (although if it's on paper and through evaluation engineering that's a bit different), but if that's the case then there's not much Tesla can do in terms of retrofit.

No, not cheaply. My car's resale is definitely going to be impacted, worth less than the guy that literally took delivery the same day. At least with a normal manufacturer, you have a fairly clear idea of changes by model year and usually some previews of what's coming up in the next model. And older models tend to get price incentives as new ones come out.

With Tesla, you've got no idea what's changing when or how it might impact you.

 

[apacheguy]

A fellow PM'd me about taking his Q4 2012 into service and asking why he wasn't getting 120kw. The service investigation sheet says he has an older battery with cells that can't take 120kw charging.

So, we unlucky few had batteries that were already outdated before Tesla had even shipped a few thousand cars.

Ugh. If that's the case, Tesla definitely knew they were shipping cars with outdated components at the time and took no initiative to inform customers. If Tesla somehow discovered this issue somewhere later down the line that would be one thing, but if they intentionally shipped cars with low rate Panasonic cells then that really bugs me.

 

[dmckinstry]

I don't have an opinion here on what Tesla should do, but it seems we're straying into revisionist history. So just a reminder: The supercharger announcement of 'free charging for life' was in Sept 2012 at the supercharger reveal event in Hawthorne AFTER many cars had been delivered. (Remember how many people were upset they hadn't opted for supercharger hardware...)

And I don't remember when the specifications for supercharging were announced. Before that, all we knew was that level III charging would be available. That was then presumably a 50kW rate.

 

[joefee]

Tesla must do the right thing replace all the Sig B-packs at no cost to the owners (we already payed the Sig tax) and offer a pro-rated replacement for all the 2012 production packs to put this behind them. The used packs can be sent to Solar City for grid storage.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If Tesla somehow discovered this issue somewhere later down the line that would be one thing, but if they intentionally shipped cars with low rate Panasonic cells then that really bugs me.

Not really "low rate", it was still cutting edge in terms of energy density (even Envia, the failed battery startup in the news recently used it as a reference point for the cutting edge), just not the newest of the new. And apparently discharge power is high enough to be no different (I'm not seeing reports of Signature cars getting noticeably less performance).

Panasonic's cell release cycle just happened to coincide with the release of the Model S. From the battery thread, Tesla announced in 2010 that they would use 3.1Ah cells for the Model S (NCR18650A), but in mid-2012 Panasonic came out with NCR18650B (3.4Ah) and NCR18650PD (2.9Ah high current). In that thread, I argued they would not swap cells in the middle of early production (so they would stick with the original 3.1Ah cells), but it seems like they may have done exactly that.

 

[napabill]

Tesla must do the right thing replace all the Sig B-packs at no cost to the owners (we already payed the Sig tax) and offer a pro-rated replacement for all the 2012 production packs to put this behind them. The used packs can be sent to Solar City for grid storage.

Excuse me. The so-called sig tax was for early delivery, special color, 21" wheels, etc. Those of us that got the first 1,000 of general production are no less deserving. But think we should all participate paying for the portion of the battery already consumed.

 

[qwk]

A fellow PM'd me about taking his Q4 2012 into service and asking why he wasn't getting 120kw. The service investigation sheet says he has an older battery with cells that can't take 120kw charging.

So, we unlucky few had batteries that were already outdated before Tesla had even shipped a few thousand cars.

Just curious, what is the serial # on your battery(white sticker on front passenger side of battery)?

 

[apacheguy]

Tesla must do the right thing replace all the Sig B-packs at no cost to the owners (we already payed the Sig tax) and offer a pro-rated replacement for all the 2012 production packs to put this behind them. The used packs can be sent to Solar City for grid storage.

But think we should all participate paying for the portion of the battery already consumed.

Well, Elon said they plan to add grid storage at all SC locations eventually so there's no question that they could use battery packs. This would make a great PR move as it would demonstrate that there is an afterlife for used battery packs (as so many of us have pointed out to EV doubters).

As for paying for the replacement battery I disagree. I have 22000 miles and unless TM were extremely generous that would cost me thousands. Don't think we should pay for what ought to be considered a fix. How do you justify that cost to someone like ckessel who took delivery at the same time and paid the same amount as someone who got a 120 kw capable pack? One just got lucky and the other has to foot a $2,000 bill to get the same features? Hmm... Doesn't seem right to me.

 

[NoMoGas]

Ugh. If that's the case, Tesla definitely knew they were shipping cars with outdated components at the time and took no initiative to inform customers. If Tesla somehow discovered this issue somewhere later down the line that would be one thing, but if they intentionally shipped cars with low rate Panasonic cells then that really bugs me.

WHY would it bug you? Guys, what has Tesla promised and not delivered on? You have access to the SuperCharging ability that existed at the time the car was made. That Tesla came in and upgraded their system later is of no consequence.

This is however going to be a PR issue for Tesla. I have long said they should stop pushing upgrades the moment they come out and save them for the next model year for just this reason. People want EVERYTHING and if their car is on the wrong side of the free upgrade line, they're going to complain about it. Perhaps Tesla has concluded the griping (allbeit truly unjustified) is worth the hit they'd take to Q4 sales if everyone just waited for the new model year.

Bottom line, If Tesla promised 120kw Supercharging, you should get it. They didn't, and some people don't have it. I've been holding out for AWD, but may crack and pull the trigger before it's available knowing darn well it'll come out 3 days after delivery but that's the risk I take.

 

[apacheguy]

WHY would it bug you? Guys, what has Tesla promised and not delivered on? You have access to the SuperCharging ability that existed at the time the car was made. That Tesla came in and upgraded their system later is of no consequence.

...

Bottom line, If Tesla promised 120kw Supercharging, you should get it. They didn't, and some people don't have it. I've been holding out for AWD, but may crack and pull the trigger before it's available knowing darn well it'll come out 3 days after delivery but that's the risk I take.

Umm, they did promise it and they have not delivered. They have said repeatedly that it will be fully rolled out to all customers via a software update. If you require proof, I have previously posted TM quotes several times in this very thread.

As for AWD, P+, parking sensors, etc. you don't see us complaining about that. Totally different ball game.

 

[hans]

Guys, what has Tesla promised and not delivered on?

- lighted sun visors
- a sunshade for the pano roof
- a developer kit for third party console apps
- 4G

 

[stopcrazypp]

Realistically, I think Tesla will offer at most a $2k supercharging refund (assuming battery swap is the only possible fix).

From the start, Tesla promised 90kW 45 minute quick charge:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6860-45-Minute-QuickCharge
It was only in the 9/24/2012 unveiling was there mention of 120kW being possible in the future (and no promise of all Model S getting it), but I think most cars affected (before ~VIN 2000) were locked in already (aka not purchased under the assumption of 120kW capability):
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/pr...y-supercharger-enabling-convenient-long-dista

 

[ckessel]

From the start, Tesla promised 90kW 45 minute quick charge:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/6860-45-Minute-QuickCharge
It was only in the 9/24/2013 unveiling was there mention of 120kW being possible in the future (and no promise of all Model S getting it), but I think most cars affected (before ~VIN 2000) were locked in already (aka not purchased under the assumption of 120kW capability):
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/pr...y-supercharger-enabling-convenient-long-dista

And therein is part of the problem. I locked in September sometime if I recall. I didn't take delivery until December 30th.

I'd have been fine with getting the car a week later. I locked in fairly early in my window because I had no reason, that I knew of, not to. Knowing the SC hardware was changing is a non-trivial item.

Someone else that doesn't care about SC usage probably would have been happy to move up in the queue little and take my slot.

 

[aviators99]

The real problem is the taper problem, if it can't be fixed. I think I could live with the 90kW limitation, but not the fact that my car will be forced to taper at an agonizing rate. For road trips this makes a big difference that DWARFS the difference made by 90kW vs 120kW. It will have a huge resale impact.

 

[Kraken]

I think you guys are getting a bit overhyped with the resale value bit. I don't think that something that has been only realized by 1000 forum readers (after 6 months on the road) is going to greatly change the mindset of the value of the car for most used car purchasers looking at the model s. especially when it on,y affects the car when supercharging at a 120 available location with no other cars sharing the load (a.k.a. Fairly rare for most). from what I've seen, most owners don't even realize that their charging speed could be affected by another car currently charging in the paired stall for that supercharger.

even yesterday, I met a guy trying to take pictures of the supercharger through a tiny gap in the surrounding cage. When I mentioned pictures exist on this site, he responded with his amazement that the charger was giving off 1 MW of power.... Turns out he thought each of the eight spots was getting a full 120.

most people won't notice the difference. A good portion of those that do, won't care. Your car will sell just fine.

furthermore, the last thing I expect tesla to do is to start putting out new 20-40k replacement batteries to 2000 people (1800 of whom have no clue they want it). Then again, maybe they have a plan for the replaced batteries. Maybe they've had a plan all along, knowing they will use those batteries at the superchargers later, and they just were waiting for a lull in production to get the new batteries out to you all. maybe they knew there was a reason that a lot of early batteries are being replaced anyway, and they are planning on this replacement for all of you when the time is right.

Realistically, with the cost of supercharging being $2000, and 90 being 75% of 120, I would say the most I'd expect tesla to do on this topic is reimburse 25% of that $2000, or $500, to those who ask. worst case, that's about $1,000,000 loss... Asking for $2000 as was suggested is over a $4,000,000 loss. Anything higher than that (full pack replacement, if they don't have a plan for the replaced packs) would multiply that cost from there.

 

[NoMoGas]

Umm, they did promise it and they have not delivered. They have said repeatedly that it will be fully rolled out to all customers via a software update. If you require proof, I have previously posted TM quotes several times in this very thread.

As for AWD, P+, parking sensors, etc. you don't see us complaining about that. Totally different ball game.

Actually, yes they do but that's a different story.

I get that Tesla said they would roll out the upgraded SuperCharging but that does not a contract make. When you PURCHASED the car any promise you depended on to make your purchase would give you solid ground and while I agree that Tesla needs to be more careful with the wording of their upgrade notices because it creates unmet expectations it would also be nice if people didn't act like every tweet, call or note was a blood oath. There is so much bellyaching about every little thing. We're talking about a mild difference in charging speed and an assumed impact on resale value. I just think this isn't a) a broken contractual obligation or b) worth all of this let alone a new battery pack. Can't we just enjoy the car?

- - - Updated - - -

I think you guys are getting a bit overhyped with the resale value bit. I don't think that something that has been only realized by 1000 forum readers (after 6 months on the road) is going to greatly change the mindset of the value of the car for most used car purchasers looking at the model s. especially when it on,y affects the car when supercharging at a 120 available location with no other cars sharing the load (a.k.a. Fairly rare for most). from what I've seen, most owners don't even realize that their charging speed could be affected by another car currently charging in the paired stall for that supercharger.

even yesterday, I met a guy trying to take pictures of the supercharger through a tiny gap in the surrounding cage. When I mentioned pictures exist on this site, he responded with his amazement that the charger was giving off 1 MW of power.... Turns out he thought each of the eight spots was getting a full 120.

most people won't notice the difference. A good portion of those that do, won't care. Your car will sell just fine....

Realistically, with the cost of supercharging being $2000, and 90 being 75% of 120, I would say the most I'd expect tesla to do on this topic is reimburse 25% of that $2000, or $500, to those who ask. worst case, that's about $1,000,000 loss... Asking for $2000 as was suggested is over a $4,000,000 loss. Anything higher than that (full pack replacement, if they don't have a plan for the replaced packs) would multiply that cost from there.

People asking for full or even partial Supercharging refunds seriously should just turn in the car. Maybe I'm grouchy but this entitlement attitude is getting tiring, fortunately it's only a few but c'mon. If a contract was broken (someone purchased a car based on a written promise) that's perfectly understandable but if Tesla improved the system beyond that known at the time of sale we aren't ENTITLED to that upgrade. Also keep an eye out for key words like "up to" and "about".

One of the reasons I didn't want a signature series was resale value. With this kind of technology it's the technology that sells and a Signature tells people oldest hardware. I'm not sure there's much value in the first 1000 iPhones sold because the technology has blown past it. I could be wrong of course but that's just my opinion.

 

[aviators99]

I think you guys are getting a bit overhyped with the resale value bit. I don't think that something that has been only realized by 1000 forum readers (after 6 months on the road) is going to greatly change the mindset of the value of the car for most used car purchasers looking at the model s. especially when it on,y affects the car when supercharging at a 120 available location with no other cars sharing the load (a.k.a. Fairly rare for most). from what I've seen, most owners don't even realize that their charging speed could be affected by another car currently charging in the paired stall for that supercharger.

even yesterday, I met a guy trying to take pictures of the supercharger through a tiny gap in the surrounding cage. When I mentioned pictures exist on this site, he responded with his amazement that the charger was giving off 1 MW of power.... Turns out he thought each of the eight spots was getting a full 120.

most people won't notice the difference. A good portion of those that do, won't care. Your car will sell just fine.

The resale market is smarter than you think. It is self-correcting and does not depend on what people know and how many people know it. If the taper problem can't get fixed, there will be an asterisk next to the first 2100 VINs that will mean the resale value is less. It won't say why and people won't need to know why (that it will take 2 hours to charge to full unstead of 1 hour).