If it is significant enough then cough up the money and pay for the battery that can take the juice.
Oh, you want it free because the next guy a week later got it for free? Well, I want a blond virgin! The guy next doors gets one every other week...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Oh, you want it free because the next guy a week later got it for free? Well, I want a blond virgin! The guy next doors gets one every other week...
But I haven't 'added 200 miles' until after 43 minutes have elapsed. But this is not about 'adding' 200 miles, apparently. If I had arrived with 100 miles I could never add 200.
TM webpage touts: '200 miles in 30 minutes'. What does that mean exactly? Does it assume some higher average SOC as you arrive from the prior SC? Like charging at Silverthorne CO to some standard level, like up to the point where the taper becomes tedious. Then when you arrive next at Glenwood Sprgs CO SC, only some 85 miles away, you only need a quickie session to again achieve this standard 'carrying charge' before blasting off to Grand Junction. So on average you are getting the 200/30min as you EV across the greensward?
There are a lot of assumptions going on here, that having used SCs only a handful of times have not cleared up for me.
'Those first six miles are added extra fast' - No, they are miles I brought from home, we are not adding them at the SC, we are adding *to them*. Have we managed to come full circle here? :smile:
--
TM webpage touts: '200 miles in 30 minutes'. What does that mean exactly? Does it assume some higher average SOC as you arrive from the prior SC? Like charging at Silverthorne CO to some standard level, like up to the point where the taper becomes tedious. Then when you arrive next at Glenwood Sprgs CO SC, only some 85 miles away, you only need a quickie session to again achieve this standard 'carrying charge' before blasting off to Grand Junction. So on average you are getting the 200/30min as you EV across the greensward?
There are a lot of assumptions going on here, that having used SCs only a handful of times have not cleared up for me.
'Those first six miles are added extra fast' - No, they are miles I brought from home, we are not adding them at the SC, we are adding *to them*. Have we managed to come full circle here? :smile:
--
Last edited:
Kraken
Member
I do not intend to throw gasoline onto this discussion, but here goes:
1) I agree with efusco it is measurable now (and I'm one of the limited Signatures, and my personal thoughts on this are mixed, so I'm trying to stay on the sidelines until Tesla communicates something).
2) If the 120kw battery packs can charge at the 135kw (which I believe they can), then the difference may move from measurable to significant.
Again, my issue is: communication because this thread may move from the "90kw limited vs. 120kw" to "90kw limited vs. 135kw." I believe Tesla should communicate, which cars have which packs, and what the "system capabilities" of those packs are and what the "system requirements" are for current/future Super Charger hardware.
While my personal view may differ, I understand the disappointment of those who purchased the identical technological hardware model (i.e., year, specs) and that said hardware is not compatible with future hardware/software upgrades. I try to avoid analogies, but if everyone bought the "same" computer, and some computers could upgrade to future OS' and other could not, that would be unacceptable.
If Tesla communicated technological differences of the batteries (i.e., in the VIN or through some means), then I would agree that it is a difficult argument to be disappointed in the limited technology. For example, I will not be disappointed when the Tegra 4 chip provides LTE and other capabilities that our Tegra 3 chips can not. Because we were made aware of this technology. At no point has Tesla communicated a difference in the 85kWh batteries. And I do not believe Tesla communicated any disclaimer stating "we continually improve our battery chemistry, which means tomorrow's battery pack (literally) will improve from today's battery pack." If I am wrong, someone please point out where Tesla communicates differences in the 85kWh.
I thought I would jump in and provide some additional information that I have recently received from Tesla about my car's Supercharging capability. I wanted to provide as accurate information as I could gather. Also I'll let others debate the legalities and promises (and/or perceived promises) around the communication from Tesla regarding their cars Supercharging capability. All I can say is that my personal experience with the Model S after 20,000 miles of every day around town driving and several long road trips with Supercharger use and without Supercharger use, is that it is simply the best car I have every owned and I enjoy it more and more every day. Every time I get behind the wheel, I revel in driving the car and simply am in awe of what Tesla has achieved. The emotional experience that my Model S provides me far outweighs (in my opinion) all the challenges with communication, issues with my early VIN car, inconsistent information and other nitpicks that I've experienced (Tesla has consistently addressed and eventually remedied all the issues I had concerns with). I personally am willing to give Tesla grace on this particular issue and have peace with my cars' ability to Supercharge at 90kW.
First to settle the matter completely, yes the earlier battery packs are limited to 90kW Supercharge rates.
The following is information direct from someone I trust has the some of the best information at Tesla:
'The earlier battery packs in the early Model S had been built with cells and power electronics architecture slightly different from the ones in vehicles currently being built. While the cells have the same energy density, the same reliability and are backed by the same Tesla warranty. Out of an abundance of caution, especially in light of the constant attacks Tesla has to face, we decided to maintain the supercharging rate in the early Model S at their initial 90kW.
While the newer superchargers are capable of delivering 120 kW, please note that the increased benefit is to be able to charge more cars per day and reduce the potential waiting times at the supercharge stations - a benefit shared by all customers. For a customer charging from 20% to 90% (more than enough to go to the next supercharger station), the difference in charging time between an early car and a current car is less that 4 minutes! Of course the charging times vary, based on the supercharger load, temperature etc.'
I won't get into the analysis about how accurate the 4 minutes statement is, I'll leave that to the more gifted at that kind of analysis here to study and verify. But for me I estimate that I will utilize a Supercharger approximately 20 to 30 times a year (If I take a roadtrip from Seattle to San Francisco and back, if not, then my use probably would drop to about 4 to 14 times a year). Not accounting for State of Charge and a multitude of other variables, say I have an increased wait time of 7 minutes each time I charge, that is approximately 140 to 210 extra minutes spread out over the year. While lumped together it may seem rather significant, on a 4 to 6 hour drive, I'm ok with the extra overhead. I realize that for others, this is unacceptable and that's good as well.
As people have debated this particular issue and Tesla responsibility to provide higher charge rate capabilities for us early cars, I thought of my experience with having my car fully wrapped with paint protection film. My car was one of the first in the Seattle area to receive this treatment. The local detail shop did an amazing job on it, but as I have looked at more recent cars that have received the same full wrap at the same shop, the later cars have even more amazing wrap jobs than mine. I thought about this, should I go back to the shop and ask that they redo my film wrap because they have improved their process so much over the past year? As I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't make sense or be fair for me to do that.
I can hear people already coming up with the arguments that I was never promised this or that by the detail shop and that the situation isn't the same as Tesla because Tesla made certain implied promises or communicated certain things about future updates to the Supercharger technology they have. I can't judge if that is true or not, it would probably take experts much more versed in law than I to dissect their language, look at case law relevant to the situation and discern that. All I can say is that for me, as I thought about it from my film wrap experience I could not imagine myself going back to the detail shop and demanding that they completely redo my wrap because my car wasn't done as well as the cars they are doing today.
The beauty of this forum is that everyone can have a voice and give their opinion. I value all the comments people post here and gain great knowledge and information from them. Everyone must pursue the course of action that they feel will bring them the satisfaction they desire. I'm a satisfied customer of Tesla and will continue to love driving my Model S and trust that Tesla will continue to iterate their cars and make them better and better for everyone one who keeps buying their product. I'm sad that my car doesn't have the state of the art that Tesla is providing now, but I'm good with that. I am very glad that Tesla iterates improvements into their cars as they develop them and that they don't wait for the next 'model year'.
As a paradigm busting company, Tesla has a lot of groundbreaking things they have to wade through and probably one of the most challenging one will be what is the right protocol and paradigm to create around introducing improvements to the cars as time goes by. Without a clear delineation between model years as is the standard in the rest of the car industry, Tesla is taking a more Silicon valley approach to product development. So maybe the root issue in this whole discussion is how should Tesla approach communication about internal changes to it's product and what are the realistic expectations that owners should have about no cost access to such changes over time.
This is further complicated by the varying opinions around the $40,000 Signature deposit that we gave to Tesla and the rights that Signature owners and early adopters perceive they have as supporters of the company and product before there was any certainty that there would be a Model S or a Tesla as an on-going company.
Certainly quite a number of issues going on in this thread, but hopefully I brought some relevant facts and opinions to the discussion! Have a Happy New Year everyone and for those that already have their Model S, enjoy driving them! For those who are waiting for their car to be delivered, I pray that your car arrives even sooner than expected and for those who are contemplating buying a Model S, if you make the leap, you will be blown away by the car as your drive it over time.
First to settle the matter completely, yes the earlier battery packs are limited to 90kW Supercharge rates.
The following is information direct from someone I trust has the some of the best information at Tesla:
'The earlier battery packs in the early Model S had been built with cells and power electronics architecture slightly different from the ones in vehicles currently being built. While the cells have the same energy density, the same reliability and are backed by the same Tesla warranty. Out of an abundance of caution, especially in light of the constant attacks Tesla has to face, we decided to maintain the supercharging rate in the early Model S at their initial 90kW.
While the newer superchargers are capable of delivering 120 kW, please note that the increased benefit is to be able to charge more cars per day and reduce the potential waiting times at the supercharge stations - a benefit shared by all customers. For a customer charging from 20% to 90% (more than enough to go to the next supercharger station), the difference in charging time between an early car and a current car is less that 4 minutes! Of course the charging times vary, based on the supercharger load, temperature etc.'
I won't get into the analysis about how accurate the 4 minutes statement is, I'll leave that to the more gifted at that kind of analysis here to study and verify. But for me I estimate that I will utilize a Supercharger approximately 20 to 30 times a year (If I take a roadtrip from Seattle to San Francisco and back, if not, then my use probably would drop to about 4 to 14 times a year). Not accounting for State of Charge and a multitude of other variables, say I have an increased wait time of 7 minutes each time I charge, that is approximately 140 to 210 extra minutes spread out over the year. While lumped together it may seem rather significant, on a 4 to 6 hour drive, I'm ok with the extra overhead. I realize that for others, this is unacceptable and that's good as well.
As people have debated this particular issue and Tesla responsibility to provide higher charge rate capabilities for us early cars, I thought of my experience with having my car fully wrapped with paint protection film. My car was one of the first in the Seattle area to receive this treatment. The local detail shop did an amazing job on it, but as I have looked at more recent cars that have received the same full wrap at the same shop, the later cars have even more amazing wrap jobs than mine. I thought about this, should I go back to the shop and ask that they redo my film wrap because they have improved their process so much over the past year? As I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't make sense or be fair for me to do that.
I can hear people already coming up with the arguments that I was never promised this or that by the detail shop and that the situation isn't the same as Tesla because Tesla made certain implied promises or communicated certain things about future updates to the Supercharger technology they have. I can't judge if that is true or not, it would probably take experts much more versed in law than I to dissect their language, look at case law relevant to the situation and discern that. All I can say is that for me, as I thought about it from my film wrap experience I could not imagine myself going back to the detail shop and demanding that they completely redo my wrap because my car wasn't done as well as the cars they are doing today.
The beauty of this forum is that everyone can have a voice and give their opinion. I value all the comments people post here and gain great knowledge and information from them. Everyone must pursue the course of action that they feel will bring them the satisfaction they desire. I'm a satisfied customer of Tesla and will continue to love driving my Model S and trust that Tesla will continue to iterate their cars and make them better and better for everyone one who keeps buying their product. I'm sad that my car doesn't have the state of the art that Tesla is providing now, but I'm good with that. I am very glad that Tesla iterates improvements into their cars as they develop them and that they don't wait for the next 'model year'.
As a paradigm busting company, Tesla has a lot of groundbreaking things they have to wade through and probably one of the most challenging one will be what is the right protocol and paradigm to create around introducing improvements to the cars as time goes by. Without a clear delineation between model years as is the standard in the rest of the car industry, Tesla is taking a more Silicon valley approach to product development. So maybe the root issue in this whole discussion is how should Tesla approach communication about internal changes to it's product and what are the realistic expectations that owners should have about no cost access to such changes over time.
This is further complicated by the varying opinions around the $40,000 Signature deposit that we gave to Tesla and the rights that Signature owners and early adopters perceive they have as supporters of the company and product before there was any certainty that there would be a Model S or a Tesla as an on-going company.
Certainly quite a number of issues going on in this thread, but hopefully I brought some relevant facts and opinions to the discussion! Have a Happy New Year everyone and for those that already have their Model S, enjoy driving them! For those who are waiting for their car to be delivered, I pray that your car arrives even sooner than expected and for those who are contemplating buying a Model S, if you make the leap, you will be blown away by the car as your drive it over time.
Last edited:
Great post, Blurrey_Eyed.
My 2 cents: Tesla service has been nothing but incredible for me over the past year that I have owned the car. I believe Tesla will once again do the right thing for the owners and provide some type of upgrade for those of us that have the older hardware. "Right thing" of course being my opinion here... I think Tesla has an infrastructure perfectly capable of taking the older battery packs and utilizing them for other purposes – battery swaps, Solar City, etc.
My guess is that Tesla is assessing the impact (both financial and social) of accommodating earlier owners with an upgraded pack. I would even be willing to pay some nominal fee – if it helps offset a heavier cost. These forums are likely a very good sounding board for Tesla to gauge the temperature of owners over issues like this. I would encourage everyone to weigh in here on their opinion.
My 2 cents: Tesla service has been nothing but incredible for me over the past year that I have owned the car. I believe Tesla will once again do the right thing for the owners and provide some type of upgrade for those of us that have the older hardware. "Right thing" of course being my opinion here... I think Tesla has an infrastructure perfectly capable of taking the older battery packs and utilizing them for other purposes – battery swaps, Solar City, etc.
My guess is that Tesla is assessing the impact (both financial and social) of accommodating earlier owners with an upgraded pack. I would even be willing to pay some nominal fee – if it helps offset a heavier cost. These forums are likely a very good sounding board for Tesla to gauge the temperature of owners over issues like this. I would encourage everyone to weigh in here on their opinion.
I was just about to post my reply from Jerome at Tesla that is essentially what Blurrey_eyed said.
"The battery packs in the early Model S have been built with cells and a power electronics architecture slightly different from the ones in the vehicles currently built. While the cells have the same energy density, the same reliability, and are backed with the same Tesla warranty; the battery packs we assembled early on had not been optimized for the enhanced supercharger power (which we developed later). Out of an abundance of caution, especially in light of the constant attacks Tesla has to face, we decided to maintain the supercharging rate in the early Model S at their initial 90 kW.
While the newer superchargers are capable of delivering 120 kW, please note that the increased benefit is to be able to charge more cars per day and reduce the potential waiting times at the supercharge stations – a benefit shared by all customers. For a customer charging from 20% to 90% (more than enough to go to the next supercharger station), the difference in charging time between an early car and a current car is less than 4 minutes! Of course, charging times vary, based on the supercharger load, temperature, etc.
Tesla is committed to build the best possible cars and deliver the best possible service – that’s what it will take to accelerate the transition to sustainable transportation. We continue to innovate and bring more features to the Model S. Whenever possible, we are committed to share these innovations with all existing customers, for example with the free firmware upgrades. "
"The battery packs in the early Model S have been built with cells and a power electronics architecture slightly different from the ones in the vehicles currently built. While the cells have the same energy density, the same reliability, and are backed with the same Tesla warranty; the battery packs we assembled early on had not been optimized for the enhanced supercharger power (which we developed later). Out of an abundance of caution, especially in light of the constant attacks Tesla has to face, we decided to maintain the supercharging rate in the early Model S at their initial 90 kW.
While the newer superchargers are capable of delivering 120 kW, please note that the increased benefit is to be able to charge more cars per day and reduce the potential waiting times at the supercharge stations – a benefit shared by all customers. For a customer charging from 20% to 90% (more than enough to go to the next supercharger station), the difference in charging time between an early car and a current car is less than 4 minutes! Of course, charging times vary, based on the supercharger load, temperature, etc.
Tesla is committed to build the best possible cars and deliver the best possible service – that’s what it will take to accelerate the transition to sustainable transportation. We continue to innovate and bring more features to the Model S. Whenever possible, we are committed to share these innovations with all existing customers, for example with the free firmware upgrades. "
Blurry, you might want to put the part from Tesla in quotes. It's hard to visually distinguish which is you and which is Tesla. That said, I got the same email this morning from Jerome Guillen (the VP). I followed up with some questions, which is why I hadn't commented here, but the cat is out of the bag now. Though the email is polite the ultimate answer is "tough luck".
I'm still upset that:
1) My hardware is old despite older VINs having newer hardware.
2) When asked to make my choice on build timing, I had no idea something a critical as the battery that was about to change. On an item like that, perhaps the biggest $ item in the car, the customer should have the opportunity to make an informed decision to delay their build or not.
3) There is still no way for anyone to know which car can support which specs. That needs to be open information, particularly as the used market starts to develop.
I think Tesla is big enough now with enough orders on the foreseeable horizon that they can write older customers off at this point. There's just nothing in it for Tesla anymore. They can afford to write off a few of us as losses in their greater cause.
I'm still upset that:
1) My hardware is old despite older VINs having newer hardware.
2) When asked to make my choice on build timing, I had no idea something a critical as the battery that was about to change. On an item like that, perhaps the biggest $ item in the car, the customer should have the opportunity to make an informed decision to delay their build or not.
3) There is still no way for anyone to know which car can support which specs. That needs to be open information, particularly as the used market starts to develop.
I think Tesla is big enough now with enough orders on the foreseeable horizon that they can write older customers off at this point. There's just nothing in it for Tesla anymore. They can afford to write off a few of us as losses in their greater cause.
Last edited:
@ckessel, I agree. It appears random that some cars go new packs while others didn't. So effectively our cars were OLD before they rolled off the line. This is why model years are so important. Now, who knows what you're buying. For those in the "tough luck" camp. What if this happened "you bough your car today... and you're car can go 300Miles because of efficiency that exists... a second person received their car 2 months ago and magically it can go 500miles because they used a newer motor that is more efficient. How do you feel? Were you alerted this fact? Did you not pay the same price?" Sure, I get the "you got what you bought" but really? How do you feel 
All of this basically boils down to one simple question: When you purchased the car (not after), were you under the belief that your vehicle would include 120 kW supercharging capability? It's a simple yes or no answer. Whatever Tesla said afterwards is completely irrelevant. If Tesla said in a press release today that it was going to start shipping a bag of gold to its "customers", and new orders started shipping with a bag of gold underneath the driver's seat, would you still have the same expectation of receiving a bag of gold even though you bought your car a year ago? What Tesla says today to its customers doesn't matter. What matters is what representations were made to you by Tesla at the time you purchased your vehicle.
If I am correct, didn't you take delivery in December 2012? Per the timelines presented, Tesla didn't mention 120 kW supercharging until May of 2013. So how would you be entitled to receive something that you were never promised and something that you never even expected at the time you purchased your vehicle? Those are the questions I am asking myself.
Kraken
Member
Yesterday, I was going to toss the fact that faster recharging for some means lower wait time for all, but I stopped short because I knew the response, so I'll throw it out there now to devils advocate.
"most of the time when I get to a supercharger it is empty, so this doesn't affect me, but the fact that my car charges slower does slow me down."
very true, especially at a lot of superchargers. I'd say that over 75% of the time I've been able to charge at a spot where there was no wait time.
This is virtually the same argument as arose against the fact that 120 helps out by allowing more charge to split from 2 cars in stalls that share one supercharger.
I guess the key here is individual vs group mentality. Tesla is pretty much saying 120kw was not introduced to speed up the charging time for individual cars, it was done to improve the overall charging speeds of the group. Which might be why they never addressed it as an upgrade pertaining to individual cars, but instead that it was an upgrade to the hardware of the supercharger. This doesn't necessarily agree with the advertisements showing how fast 120 can charge a car (the 80%in half an hour), but that marketing was already misleading and victim of tesla math to start with.... So now it also doesn't jive with teslas reasoning for 120. That being said, it's just a marketing figure.
quite frankly, it'd be best if they just took that marketing piece off their website and state 120kw allows for faster charging times when the supercharger is busy.
I agree - while Mr. Guillen's email confirms what we had suspected, it really doesn't address the larger issue of communication. To me, it actually looks like we were not told about this to help secure our purchases before the end of 2012.
What other "surprises" are in our cars which will ultimately hurt their value?
Kraken
Member
One things for sure.... Tesla is realizing now that it's going to have a difficult time keeping us from figuring out things. Through group deductive reasoning, we basically discovered most of what wasnt fully disclosed.
In fact pretty much every line of that email has been suggested in this thread at some point.
In fact pretty much every line of that email has been suggested in this thread at some point.
Answering my own question:
All cars have to be 'zeroed' before being charged so the testing is equal. The simplest way is to arrive at the SC with zero miles remaining in the battery. But if the car is showing 6 miles on arrival then it can be 'zeroed' by measuring accurately the time required for 6 more miles to be added to the battery (xx seconds). Then at the end of the charge cycle, say at 200 miles, you add those xx seconds to the '6 to 200' time to compensate for the 6 miles of charge that were brought from home (and the SC did not have to produce). If the SC had to charge those 6 miles it would have done so at the high initial rate. The fewer the miles showing as you begin the charge cycle the more accurate this compensation will be; the accuracy will be affected by any tapering of the charge rate. Measurement errors for small arrival miles can be avoided by running the battery down to zero as you reach the SC.
I trust I have now figured out the obvious. Sorry for the confusion.
--
All cars have to be 'zeroed' before being charged so the testing is equal. The simplest way is to arrive at the SC with zero miles remaining in the battery. But if the car is showing 6 miles on arrival then it can be 'zeroed' by measuring accurately the time required for 6 more miles to be added to the battery (xx seconds). Then at the end of the charge cycle, say at 200 miles, you add those xx seconds to the '6 to 200' time to compensate for the 6 miles of charge that were brought from home (and the SC did not have to produce). If the SC had to charge those 6 miles it would have done so at the high initial rate. The fewer the miles showing as you begin the charge cycle the more accurate this compensation will be; the accuracy will be affected by any tapering of the charge rate. Measurement errors for small arrival miles can be avoided by running the battery down to zero as you reach the SC.
I trust I have now figured out the obvious. Sorry for the confusion.
--
Your analogy isn't entirely correct either. Perhaps a better analogy would have been that while all Tesla's ship with bags of gold underneath the driver's seat (90 kW supercharging), tomorrow Tesla issues a press release saying that "customers will receive a larger bag of gold" (120 kW supercharging). That is pretty much parallel with what happened. An existing feature was expanded, but only for some and after a certain cutoff. So would those with smaller bags of gold from last year be entitled to receive the difference? I tend to think not.
I believe their time estimates are based on 0 rated miles starting SOC. I'm just saying if you are accurately trying to compare our data, then you have to extrapolate down to 0. This gives 41 minutes with 120 and 55-58 minutes at 90.
This is exactly right. I just saw this after I wrote my post.
Absolutely. My final payment to Tesla was concurrent with my delivery. At that time, Elon had already mentioned 120 kw SC. When they formally announced 120 I continued to assume (as I believe everyone else did) that my car would support that upgrade.
Last edited:
Riddle me this. Tesla has essentially stated something like the following regarding various updates, including supercharging, none of which specifies any sets of customers are included or excluded.
1) An update will be rolled out to customers supporting sleep mode.
2) An update will be rolled out to customers supporting 120kw super charging.
Tesla needs to be very precise about who gets which updates, because as it stands now there's a lot of ambiguity with the potential to piss people off.
1) An update will be rolled out to customers supporting sleep mode.
2) An update will be rolled out to customers supporting 120kw super charging.
Tesla needs to be very precise about who gets which updates, because as it stands now there's a lot of ambiguity with the potential to piss people off.
30+% is pretty huge IMO.
Options like Aero wheels exist for gains only in the 5% range.
- - - Updated - - -
As well as the Sig premium.
Similar threads
