Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[ckessel]

But as I recall there was a bit of a panic toward the year's end as to the Credit's viability come 2013. A bunch of us went for the 'bird in the hand'. In my case I sensed that 2013 would be a 'no tax year' for me, and indeed that has occurred. So I'm cheerful getting my MS during 2012, to the tune of $7500- which is a lot of lunches. TM pulled thru for us big time.

Tesla gave a bunch of us the option of 2012 or 2013, I was one of those. I don't recall when that choice was offered, but I'm pretty sure it was after the Super Charger announcement in September based on the timing of my emails to/from Tesla.

For someone like you, even knowing about the 90 vs 120 you'd probably have picked 2012. I didn't really care about the year of delivery and had no reason to think it mattered, so I figured go ahead and do it in 2012. If I had known about the SuperCharger impact, I would have waited the extra couple weeks.

For me, Tesla's SuperCharging announcement in September was misleading in its ommisions. It said nearly 100kwh and potentially more. I only get 90kwh. Calling 90 "nearly" 100 is taking some liberty with rounding. The typical rule of thumb is you don't round up until past the halfway mark, so 95ish.

There also wasn't anything in the announcement indicating older cars wouldn't get 100+kwh support. And certainly nothing in the announcement indicating cars delivered months later still wouldn't have.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

... to make the Gen III possible, per Elon's long-stated strategy. This thread has also reminded me, since I had been planning on being one of the probably tens of thousands who would vie for Gen III Reservation #1, that perhaps it would be prudent to wait 6 months for some of the inevitable early bugs to be worked out.

Off-topic here but, the only thing to worry about would be the expiry of the $7,500 federal tax credit once Tesla hits the 200,000 cars produced mark. This amount would be a much bigger chunk of the Gen III price than it is for the MS.

As of this year end, we'd have had 2,500 Roadsters and about 25,000 Model S. After three more years of MS production at say, 30,000 per year and two years of Model X production at 20,000 per, there's going to be at best 3-5 months worth of Gen III production capacity in early 2017 before the tax credit runs out.

I'm getting my Gen III reservation in nice and early for sure!

 

[bluetinc]

Wycolo,

If you could cover the 80-100% range, that would be very helpful. While 220 miles is 84% for you, it's about 90% for me, which makes the 80-100% taper time very painful, and also needed here on the east coast between our SuperChargers, much of the time. (Delaware -> Richmond ~200 miles, Richmond -> Burlington ~200 miles)

Thanks,

Peter

> I agree that from 0-80% it doesn't make much of a difference. [aviators99]

I ran my test under 4.5(1.33.61) from 15 miles up to 220 miles and it took exactly one hour. 220 miles divided by 260 miles (~100% SOC) equals 84%. Why would an MS want to take the extra time to charge above 84% unless facing a hyper-miling situation.

Today I'll try to upgrade to 5.8+ and re chart an SC session taking it up to 220 miles rated. I still don't see any reason to bother with the ~80% to 100% segment.
--

 

[qwk]

So you think it's appropriate people before and after my car got 120kwh while I didn't, even though we paid the same price?

Unlike any other car company out there, Tesla upgrades components on a very regular basis. Would you be happier if every car up until 2014 had the same problems as the early cars? While my car is not affected by this limitation, if it was, it wouldn't be a big deal. I chose to get a first year model from a new company, nobody twisted my arm. All of the early roadster cars had inferior parts, and build quality(not to mention price increases), so for anyone following this forum it shouldn't have been a surprise that this could, and would also happen with the model S.

There are many free upgrades that have come about since my car was built(6759, reservation #2681), like the a/c compressor that doesn't sound like an F16, or the better control arm bushings, revised door handles, and I'm sure a lot more items I'm leaving out. You cannot expect Tesla to swap out all these parts for better parts, for free.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

For me, Tesla's SuperCharging announcement in September was misleading in its ommisions. It said nearly 100kwh and potentially more. I only get 90kwh. Calling 90 "nearly" 100 is taking some liberty with rounding. The typical rule of thumb is you don't round up until past the halfway mark, so 95ish.

Uh, no. The "halfway mark", as you put it, is 50 not 95. On a scale of 1 to 100, 90 is nearly 100. I think you saying that 90 is not nearly 100 is taking some liberty with reality.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe anyone who ordered a vehicle on or after the 120 kW supercharger announcement has every reason to expect that their vehicle is capable of 120 kW charging. Those who ordered prior to the announcement really have nothing to complain about because no representation was made to those customers. There should be nothing more to discuss.

If you bought your vehicle prior to the 120 kW announcement, why do you believe that Tesla owes you anything? I'd like to hear the rationale.

 

[Kraken]

Unlike any other car company out there, Tesla upgrades components on a very regular basis. Would you be happier if every car up until 2014 had the same problems as the early cars? While my car is not affected by this limitation, if it was, it wouldn't be a big deal. I chose to get a first year model from a new company, nobody twisted my arm. All of the early roadster cars had inferior parts, and build quality(not to mention price increases), so for anyone following this forum it shouldn't have been a surprise that this could, and would also happen with the model S.

There are many free upgrades that have come about since my car was built(6759, reservation #2681), like the a/c compressor that doesn't sound like an F16, or the better control arm bushings, revised door handles, and I'm sure a lot more items I'm leaving out. You cannot expect Tesla to swap out all these parts for better parts, for free.

OT, but they replaced my ac compressor for that very reason.... Doesn't hurt to ask.

also, for the rest of you, what if they were able to update the taper rate so that it was the same, but the only difference was the time period where the 120 is above 90kw in the taper curve. That difference is about 5 minutes. Doing a software update could be relatively free, as opposed to a million dollar battery replacement option. Would that happy medium satisfy?

also, perhaps the battery batches were mixed from the start, or very early on. Perhaps there are purely random vins in the first 2000 that have this issue, that would add some complexity to this whole thing on their end (especially for a software fix) and might be part of the delay. Maybe they didnt realize these batteries had this issue until people started noticing. They did their research, found out the cause was the battery type that was randomly mixed in throughout the early stages, and all of that took some time.


other random thought that might kill some of my other thoughts in this post... Is the car figuring it out that it can't charge that fast, or did tesla specifically have to program specific vins that were unable to do 120 in to the software update that enabled 120.

 

[stopcrazypp]

other random thought that might kill some of my other thoughts in this post... Is the car figuring it out that it can't charge that fast, or did tesla specifically have to program specific vins that were unable to do 120 in to the software update that enabled 120.

I don't think it's by car as people with their battery swapped in the earlier VINs do get 120. It might be by battery. A way to find out is to see the battery ID (I believe it's on the front passenger side of the battery) and try to decode if there's a pattern among those affected.

 

[qwk]

OT, but they replaced my ac compressor for that very reason.... Doesn't hurt to ask.

I asked when my car was getting some minor things addressed, they didn't fix it, which is no big deal. I'll just fix it myself when the car is out of warranty. Certainly not going to start a whine thread about it.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it's by car as people with their battery swapped in the earlier VINs do get 120. It might be by battery. A way to find out is to see the battery ID (I believe it's on the front passenger side of the battery) and try to decode if there's a pattern among those affected.

I asked service about this very thing last summer, and it didn't sound like they knew anything about it. The battery id, and part numbers vary, so there has definitely been some changes.

 

[ckessel]

Uh, no. The "halfway mark", as you put it, is 50 not 95.

So, by your logic, a $50,000 car is "nearly" $100,000? A $500,00 house is "nearly" $1 million?

If you bought your vehicle prior to the 120 kW announcement, why do you believe that Tesla owes you anything? I'd like to hear the rationale.

My car was paid for on December 19th and delivered December 30th.

The super charger announcement of "nearly 100kwh" and 120kwh in the future was mid September.

My car arrived 3 months AFTER Tesla said cars would get 100kwh and more in the future without any disclaimer that this future potential still wasn't in cars delivered over 3 months after the announcement.

 

[apacheguy]

also, for the rest of you, what if they were able to update the taper rate so that it was the same, but the only difference was the time period where the 120 is above 90kw in the taper curve. That difference is about 5 minutes. Doing a software update could be relatively free, as opposed to a million dollar battery replacement option. Would that happy medium satisfy?

While I still think they need to provide 120 kw support (since it was promised to us), this would squash most of my concerns. I think it would be a fantastic step in the right direction.

other random thought that might kill some of my other thoughts in this post... Is the car figuring it out that it can't charge that fast, or did tesla specifically have to program specific vins that were unable to do 120 in to the software update that enabled 120.

Yes, it detects if the battery is capable of handling a higher rate of charge. Evidence of this has been presented by Sig owners who have had their packs replaced and can indeed charge at 120.

 

[mitch672]

Yes, it detects if the battery is capable of handling a higher rate of charge. Evidence of this has been presented by Sig owners who have had their packs replaced and can indeed charge at 120.

Most likely the cars computers communicating over the CAN bus, to the controllers in the battery pack, which likely describe / manage the cells/BMS. Likely also where the car is told the capacity of the pack (60 vs 85), etc.

P.S. My car was finalized in early December 2012, delivery was in January 2013, I can't tell you if I can charge at 90 or 120, as I've never even been to a SuperCharger, they are just not around here. Soon one will show up in Providence, RI, and I'll be able to test...

 

[Kraken]

Yes, it detects if the battery is capable of handling a higher rate of charge. Evidence of this has been presented by Sig owners who have had their packs replaced and can indeed charge at 120.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it's by car as people with their battery swapped in the earlier VINs do get 120. It might be by battery. A way to find out is to see the battery ID (I believe it's on the front passenger side of the battery) and try to decode if there's a pattern among those affected.

Good points, which likely means that the didnt specifically know of this problem until more recently. It was probably a small difference that they didnt expect but helped with supply chain issues, and now they are realizing that there is an issue. I know some of you are appalled that tesla Might not have known right away that the packs couldn't handle it, perhaps there is more to the story. Perhaps there was a small deviation to the batteries for a few batches to fix supply chain issues, and all their testing showed the batteries were pretty much the same. Then they also didnt have those batteries tested for higher charge rates because those rates weren't readily available yet and they didnt suspect it to be an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked when my car was getting some minor things addressed, they didn't fix it, which is no big deal. I'll just fix it myself when the car is out of warranty. Certainly not going to start a whine thread about it.

ahh... Same story. I just asked about how loud it was, and they responded with "it was the compressor, but we replaced it".... My plan was to kindly ask about it every time it was in, hoping that sometime they would figure it out/fix it. You could probably try that method.

The first time they said the frunk tub was vibrating on part of the ac unit. The second time (before finding the problem in the compressor), they said "it's normal and expected"... But then they fixed it. Way better now.

 

[Odenator]

I believe anyone who ordered a vehicle on or after the 120 kW supercharger announcement has every reason to expect that their vehicle is capable of 120 kW charging. Those who ordered prior to the announcement really have nothing to complain about because no representation was made to those customers. There should be nothing more to discuss.

If you bought your vehicle prior to the 120 kW announcement, why do you believe that Tesla owes you anything? I'd like to hear the rationale.

Because Tesla has made no statements in writing stating that there is a difference in the charging capabilites in different Model S'. Nowhere on the TM website does it state that older MS can not charger at 120kW. The TM website clearly states that a supercharger equipped 85/60 kW MS can supercharge and the implied message is that they all can charge at 120 kW. There is no astersik stating that only West coast cars can reach 120 or that only pretty people with red hair can have 120. The website leads all owners to believe that 120 kW is standard on ALL Model S cars with supercharging and this is why I as an early owner am upset.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

So, by your logic, a $50,000 car is "nearly" $100,000? A $500,00 house is "nearly" $1 million?

My car was paid for on December 19th and delivered December 30th.

The super charger announcement of "nearly 100kwh" and 120kwh in the future was mid September.

My car arrived 3 months AFTER Tesla said cars would get 100kwh and more in the future without any disclaimer that this future potential still wasn't in cars delivered over 3 months after the announcement.

90 out of 100 is "nearly 100". 9 out of 10 is nearly 10. Your above example of $50,000 being "nearly $100,000" is out of a totally different universe and has no relation to my earlier response to you. $90,000 is "nearly $100,000" (9 out of 10, or 90%), not $50,000 (5 out of 10, or half). Rounding up means something different than "nearly". $50,000 rounded up is $100,000, but it is not anywhere close to $100,000. See the difference?

90 kW is nearly 100 kW, but 50 kW rounded up to 100 kW is not anywhere close to 100 kW. Rounding up or down is determined by where you are in relation to the mid-point and what the range is, but being "nearly" something requires you to actually be close to it.

As far as you ordering and taking delivery after the 120 kW was promised, I would say that you should have the functionality. If you don't, I would make a lot of noise.

 

[ckessel]

FWIW, here's the May 30th announcement snippet for reference. It specifically calls out the supercharger "system" as improving and makes no reference that any Model S would be left out:

In addition to the expansion of the Tesla Supercharger network itself, Tesla is improving the technology behind the Tesla Supercharger to dramatically decrease the amount of time it takes to charge Model S, cutting charging time in half relative to early trials of the system. The new technology, which is in beta test mode now and will be fully rolled out to customers this summer, will allow Model S to be charged at 120 kW, replenishing three hours of driving in just over 20 minutes.

We've discussed here how much it matters in terms of actual charging time, so note Tesla says "cutting the time in half relative to early trials".

 

[bonnie]

Moderator request: Guys, this thread is turning into one big argument and I don't think that is anyone's intent. Let's get it back on topic, please.

We are all entitled to our opinion. Let's keep judgment of other's opinion out of the thread, please. There's enough in here already. People have a right to feel the way the feel and it doesn't hurt for Tesla to see a good cross-section of those feelings, since it is probably somewhat representative of their customer base overall (I say 'somewhat' because I do feel folks here might be a little more involved than the general population ).

Anyhow, tone it down. If you've stated your feelings, great. Please don't get on a mission to insist everyone else share your personal feelings. You have a right to yours, they have a right to theirs.

And if someone thinks this post is directed at them, it wasn't. But it could be if you choose to take it that way. Everyone. Settle. (Or someone is gonna get hurt ).

 

[Joel]

If you bought your vehicle prior to the 120 kW announcement, why do you believe that Tesla owes you anything? I'd like to hear the rationale.

On May 30, 2013, Elon Musk entitled Model S owners to free Super Charging for life. Also, on May 30, 2013 Elon Musk entitled, "Model S owners who previously were spending upwards of 40-45 minutes with the Super Charging technology. Now a stop will only take you about 20-22 minutes."

TESLA DRAMATICALLY EXPANDS SUPERCHARGER NETWORK, DELIVERING CONVENIENT, FREE LONG DISTANCE DRIVING THROUGHOUT U.S. AND CANADA | Press Releases | Tesla Motors
At the 1:04 mark, Elon Musk states, "So, by buying a Tesla you essentially have free long distance travel throughout the country forever. And we are also improving the Super Charging Technology itself to cut the charge time in half. So, previously people were spending upwards of 40-45 minutes with the Super Charging technology. Now a stop will only take you about 20-22 minutes.”

Also, the press release clearly states:
In addition to the expansion of the Tesla Supercharger network itself, Tesla is improving the technology behind the Tesla Supercharger to dramatically decrease the amount of time it takes to charge Model S, cutting charging time in half relative to early trials of the system. The new technology, which is in beta test mode now and will be fully rolled out to customers this summer, will allow Model S to be charged at 120 kW, replenishing three hours of driving in just over 20 minutes.
TESLA DRAMATICALLY EXPANDS SUPERCHARGER NETWORK, DELIVERING CONVENIENT, FREE LONG DISTANCE DRIVING THROUGHOUT U.S. AND CANADA | Press Releases | Tesla Motors


At the very least, these statements are misleading. I interpret them to apply to all Model S owners and all Model S customers because they explicitly state the charge time would be cut in half and the new technology will be fully rolled out to customers this summer. Neither Elon Musk nor the Press release qualify which Model S or which "customers" will receive the roll out. In fact, we do know that previously press releases qualified statements with foot notes (see footnote one in the September 12, 2012 Press Release).

Tesla Motors Launches Revolutionary Supercharger Enabling Convenient Long Distance Driving | Press Releases | Tesla Motors

If Model S "customers" are entitled, it is because Elon Musk and Tesla has communicated in absolute terms referencing the Model S and "customers" without any exception or qualification.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Because Tesla has made no statements in writing stating that there is a difference in the charging capabilites in different Model S'. Nowhere on the TM website does it state that older MS can not charger at 120kW. The TM website clearly states that a supercharger equipped 85/60 kW MS can supercharge and the implied message is that they all can charge at 120 kW. There is no astersik stating that only West coast cars can reach 120 or that only pretty people with red hair can have 120. The website leads all owners to believe that 120 kW is standard on ALL Model S cars with supercharging and this is why I as an early owner am upset.

They don't have to! What don't you understand about that? Your statement presumes that Tesla is somehow obligated to keep all Model S owners on the same page in terms of capabilities, and when they are unable to do so, they must make some written statement to owners? Wow... can you please point to any other company who does this? Just one would be enough.

When early buyers ordered their vehicles, Tesla made no promises to them about 120 kW supercharging. Those buyers have no reason to expect the feature. On a certain date, Tesla announces that it will have 120 kW supercharging. People who buy after that announcement have a reason to expect that feature, but not anyone who bought prior. Did Tesla promise you 120 kW supercharging when you bought your vehicle? If the answer is no, then you are owed nothing despite how much you may feel to the contrary. If the answer is yes, and you don't have it even though you paid for it, then yes you may be owed something. But when a new feature or capability is announced, Tesla is under no obligation to equip prior sold vehicles to upgrade them to the new capabilities and it is also under no obligation or expectation to make explicit statements about who is or is not entitled to receive an upgrade.

You can't expect a feature unless it was specifically included at the time you purchased your product. There is no reasonable expectation to receive new capabilities after you have purchased your car. We are lucky that our cars are as upgradable as they are in terms of firmware, etc., but Tesla doesn't even have to do that. This is like someone with an iPhone 3G demanding that Apple upgrade their phone to LTE because currently shipping iPhones have faster connectivity. Um, no.

 

[bonnie]

I'm serious, tone it down. Saying things like 'any intelligent person knows' will get your entire post a ride to snippiness. All of you. No more word games. Keep it respectful or I'm going to do some major housecleaning. And I'd really rather enjoy the day.

 

[ckessel]

FWIW, I've emailed a more formal request for comment to the service folks that responded to my casual initial query. I've noted the verbiage and timing in the press releases, as well as the timing on the build of my car. I indicated I was fine with a response after the end of quarter craziness.

If anyone in a similar situation wants to do the same, I'm willing to share what I sent by PM if they're interested.