Older Teslas limited to 90kW Supercharging

[AmpedRealtor]

Do any of you that are limited to 90 kW supercharging have the pre-paid service plan?

The reason I ask is because there is a generic reference in the service contract that says customers are entitled to "hardware upgrades". This situation would be a perfect test of that contract. Tesla just replaced three of my coolant pumps as a hardware upgrade to a better, improved part. Why would supercharging also not be included? And if supercharging is not included, can we get someone at Tesla on the record to tell us why?

 

[brianman]

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.

I have no idea if this is part of Tesla corporate mindset or not. That said...

It's the wrong mindset. Tricking customers is a bad idea. Part of what's kept Tesla alive is customer loyalty and trust. That's a two-way relationship that needs proper nurturing.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

"Bigger bags of gold are being rolled out to the entire fleet" is what they said.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe their time estimates are based on 0 rated miles starting SOC.

If driving a rated efficiency, this state ("0 rated miles") lasts for approximately 17 miles. Somewhat complicates things.

- - - Updated - - -

Do any of you that are limited to 90 kW supercharging have the pre-paid service plan?

Yes, I do.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

I have the pre-paid service plan. If battery swapping is coming and they mentioned the chance to change batteries then it should be no problem to upgrade with the current, same Kwhr battery. maybe pay a mileage difference or whatever the pro-rated $ value is

..but Sigs should get hooked up!

 

[AmpedRealtor]

"Bigger bags of gold are being rolled out to the entire fleet" is what they said.

No, I don't believe that's true. Tesla said it was enabling 120 kW charging via a software update and it also said it was rolling out 120 kW to its customers. It never said which customers and certainly did not qualify their statements using words like "entire fleet" or "all customers". That's the whole point of this discussion.

 

[tomas]

Do any of you that are limited to 90 kW supercharging have the pre-paid service plan?

The reason I ask is because there is a generic reference in the service contract that says customers are entitled to "hardware upgrades". This situation would be a perfect test of that contract. Tesla just replaced three of my coolant pumps as a hardware upgrade to a better, improved part. Why would supercharging also not be included? And if supercharging is not included, can we get someone at Tesla on the record to tell us why?

Yes on both counts, but I'm darned if I can yet figure out what the service plan gets me except a dent in my checking account. It seems any customer who stops by the service center gets exactly the same "hardware upgrades" under warranty, and in fact my service receipt explains most of the work done at my $600 visit as "warranty". Except maybe remote control batteries and wipers. I'm hoping this is clarified soon… maybe in the legendary "service announcements" that are coming.

Back in the day when I was an ICE mechanic (saabs and renaults), every shop had that picture of the cartoon characters laughing their @%% off and saying "you want it when?" That's exactly the reaction I'd expect if I were to show up and ask for a 120kw capable battery under my service plan. But don't think I haven't though of it, I don't mind getting laughed at.

 

[brianman]

"Bigger bags of gold are being rolled out to the entire fleet" is what they said.

No, I don't believe that's true. Tesla said it was enabling 120 kW charging via a software update and it also said it was rolling out 120 kW to its customers. It never said which customers and certainly did not qualify their statements using words like "entire fleet" or "all customers". That's the whole point of this discussion.

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

Seems the same to me.

What's next? "Only cars with VIN > ____ qualify for the battery fire addendum to the warranty"?

Tesla has a serious trust erosion problem. It's getting to the point to where I'm not sure I can assume anything positive about my car in any press release going forward.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Seems the same to me.

"Fully rolled out to customers" (Tesla's wording) and "rolled out to the entire fleet" (your wording) say completely different things. The former speaks to the roll-out itself, the latter speaks to the number of vehicles receiving the roll-out.

 

[brianman]

"Fully rolled out to customers" (Tesla's wording) and "rolled out to the entire fleet" (your wording) say completely different things. The former speaks to the roll-out itself, the latter speaks to the number of vehicles receiving the roll-out.

You read them differently, but I don't. Very much like the "free for life" thread discussion is showing different interpretations. Both issues support my point -- it's becoming increasingly difficult to trust Tesla corporate.

 

[Tommy]

To add a wrinkle in the 90kW vs 120kW debate. I have an early vin. #16xx, however I don't know if my battery is 90kW or 120kW capable as I have never supercharged yet. The wrinkle is this: My main battery pack was replaced due to a firmware fault in the pack itself, this was done in my first month of ownership. So maybe I got the 120kW capable or maybe the 90kW battery as the replacement; I don't know. When the San Juan Capistrano SC goes live I will certainly check the battery's charging capabilities.

I've read all the posts both pro and con regarding the OP's belief that his car would be 120kW capable. Good points on both sides. In the end though for me it comes down to the time tested adage "do right by the customer". I think that business philosophy trumps any argument as to why the OP is not due a 120kW capable battery pack. While communication has been lacking and in need of improvement, when issues have cropped up, Tesla has made things right for their customer base. Albeit at a glacier pace sometimes it seems. I expect we haven't heard the last word from Tesla on this; I don't think an e-mail to a few individuals is the big announcement. I expect to hear more in the future from Tesla on this matter.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Push Tesla on this!

Are one of you 90 kW limited owners who also has a service contract willing to try something?

What I'm suggesting is that an owner who is both limited to 90 kW charging and​ who has the service contract should basically demand an upgrade to 120 kW charging and push the issue all the way up the ladder. It doesn't sound to me like anyone has done that and used the service contract as a justification to receive the newer charging capabilities.

Depending on how that goes, there's always the option to publicly tweet Elon about the issue to throw some light on it.

 

[Odenator]

Jerome shouldn't be emailing that explanation to a single owner. He/Tesla should print it on their website or at least change the supercharger page to indicate that 120kW charging applies only to some cars.

Regardless, I still vote that the early owners should get together, have an unknown third party dump trailer hitches on the road, and then "accidentally" drive over them. Boom! New battery pack covered by warranty. Problem solved.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

Jerome shouldn't be emailing that explanation to a single owner. He/Tesla should print it on their website or at least change the supercharger page to indicate that 120kW charging applies only to some cars.

Regardless, I still vote that the early owners should get together, have an unknown third party dump trailer hitches on the road, and then "accidentally" drive over them. Boom! New battery pack covered by warranty. Problem solved.

hahaha :tongue:

 

[Trnsl8r]

"Fully rolled out to customers" (Tesla's wording) and "rolled out to the entire fleet" (your wording) say completely different things. The former speaks to the roll-out itself, the latter speaks to the number of vehicles receiving the roll-out.

All I can say is, when I heard the phrase "rolled out to customers", I thought that included me, being a customer and all.

Personally I have felt the silence reassuring. It doesn't take long to draft a "too bad so sad" message, but it takes longer to think of a solution, get it set up, and present it. The longer it takes Tesla to respond publicly, the better the odds of a satisfactory solution coming.

That is to say, unless the sporadic but copied-pasted email message reported up-thread are indeed the "too bad so sad" message I feared. If I'm stuck with 90kWh charging due to unfortunate timing, I'm not going to scream, cry and hire lawyers about it. I will still enjoy my car. But I will feel slighted and nothing anyone on this thread says will change that. Had they made a disclaimer at the 120kWh announcement, however tiny and obscure, that some early cars would unfortunately not be compatible, it would have made a significant difference to me.

My 2 cents and all I have to say about this.

 

[yobigd20]

Though the email is polite the ultimate answer is "tough luck".

Hmmm perhaps you could find a tow hitch or two to run over and score yourself one of those new packs





jackass warning: do not try this at home.




- - - Updated - - -

dammit. somebody beat me to the joke.

 

[ckessel]

While I'm disappointed in Tesla's response (I'm the OP), it comes from Jerome Guillen and was sent to several of us so it's the official answer. I haven't entirely given up on Tesla since they have, in the past, changed their stance on issues. The whole "super charger hardware included" flare up that happened and Tesla came back and made some adjustments for existing reservation holders. That's just one of several possible examples.

That said, I don't hold much hope and it makes me sad. There was a time where each of our issues was meaningful to Tesla. Every Roadster owner mattered. Everyone that had a deposit before Tesla ever shipped a Model S mattered. We were the ambassadors and each upset or happy customer had a magnitude effect on other potential owners.

Now, Tesla is mainstream with tons of press touting the car and many, many thousands of customers and set to more than double their count next year. The impact on a small percentage early customers just doesn't, perhaps can't, get the prioritization that it once did.

I sat and had dinner with Jason when he was the only tech in Portland and setting up the shop. It'd be presuming to call him a friend, but I like him and he takes time out to talk to me when I'm at the shop and show me what's new. But there's 13 people at the shop now, it's a serious business with layers of personnel.

Tesla is not "our" company the way it was a year ago. I suppose it's good for Tesla, but it's hard for me.

 

[apacheguy]

All I can say is, when I heard the phrase "rolled out to customers", I thought that included me, being a customer and all.

Exactly. I think all of us fully expected that our cars would support 120 kW charging. At the very least Tesla's statement was misleading.

While I'm disappointed in Tesla's response (I'm the OP), it comes from Jerome Guillen and was sent to several of us so it's the official answer. I haven't entirely given up on Tesla since they have, in the past, changed their stance on issues. The whole "super charger hardware included" flare up that happened and Tesla came back and made some adjustments for existing reservation holders. That's just one of several possible examples.
.

Agreed. Jerome's response was incredibly lacking and disappointing, but I'm holding out hope that there's more to come.

 

[Zythryn]

While I'm disappointed in Tesla's response (I'm the OP), it comes from Jerome Guillen and was sent to several of us so it's the official answer. ...

I'm glad you and a few others got answers.
However, I agree with the previous poster that said it should be communicated to all owners, or at least all owners directly affected.

I have emailed ownership and sent two follow up emails asking for information. All the follow up emails received the same response, "we have no information at this time".
The last email and response was sent late this afternoon.:cursing:

 

[Doug_G]

I wouldn't bet on anything changing. Replacing battery packs is out of the question, really, it would cost over $100 million. Most likely we're just going to have to live with it. Don't get your hopes up. At best maybe they can fiddle with the ramp-down algorithm.

 

[Zythryn]

I wouldn't bet on anything changing. Replacing battery packs is out of the question, really, it would cost over $100 million. Most likely we're just going to have to live with it. Don't get your hopes up. At best maybe they can fiddle with the ramp-down algorithm.

I am actually just fine with that. Sure, a little disappointed, but I can accept that.
The poor communication has me far more ticked off than the issue itself.

 

[apacheguy]

I wouldn't bet on anything changing. Replacing battery packs is out of the question, really, it would cost over $100 million. Most likely we're just going to have to live with it. Don't get your hopes up. At best maybe they can fiddle with the ramp-down algorithm.

IMHO, at the very least, they NEED to change the ramp-down algorithm to provide the benefit of the improved taper curve. It's totally unacceptable that we are forced to take a double whammy on this one. Give us the improved taper, please!