I have done it on our 2014 model, although Tesla may have a different policy in UK to USA. It was two years ago, but think in the region of 300USD / 240 UKP
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Supercharging for an Early Model S - Can't Tesla do the right thing?
- Thread starter gatomon
- Start date
With only 31k miles on the car, I'd just pick up the free unlimited supercharging. Like others have said, I'm honestly shocked they still are even offering that. Car value with free supercharging is probably a few thousand higher. People literally buy cars for that functionality. There are people who live in urban areas without home changing and with expensive superchargers who would make up the $2,500 in less than a year.
Some Wayback machine context from early 2014:
“All Model S vehicles with the 85 kWh battery can use Superchargers as can properly equipped 60 kWh battery vehicles.”
It doesn’t seem you paid for the option for your car to be “properly equipped”.
A snippet of a PDF from the same era:
View attachment 945040
Draw from that what you will.
Should Tesla maybe reconsider their stance now that pay supercharging is a reality? Maybe.
Are they obligated to? No.
Is there anywhere near “50,000” vehicles in this state? Not a chance. I’d guess the true number is much closer to 500 in 2023.
Wrong era. Poster indicated that he got his before unlimited Supercharging was available.
If you keep posting about it online, you're going to get a BMS_u029 error after your next software update
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
No, he said he bought his car in April of 2014. Unlimited supercharging was an option on every Model S from the beginning (included with the 85 and a pay option on the 60).
Last edited:
At least somewhere, here or in another forum he said he bought it before free Supercharging was available.
Just looked back at original post
"At that time, the Tesla SC network was not fully developed and only offered unlimited SC; they had not implemented pay-as-you-go (PAYG) SC. (I understand Tesla is now trying to eliminate unlimited SC.)"
So he was offered paid unlimited Supercharging before free Supercharging was available and did not take the opportunity.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Did you read the second sentence?
“On April 17 of 2014, I purchased a Model S for $80k+.”
Unlimited “free” supercharging was never an option on the original S60. You always had to pay $2,000 to enable it (or $2500 after delivery). But it was always included in the 85 cars.
"paid unlimited Supercharging" = "free Supercharging": The difference is that the free was forcibly bundled into the price of a Model S 85, where it was optional on the Model S 60.
"paid unlimited Supercharging" is what was available for his Model S 60 when he bought it. (And is still available to him today.)
"Free Supercharging" was standard on all Model S 85s bought at the same time.
As I recall the Model S 40s didn't even have the paid Supercharging option. They had to pay to unlock and become a Model S 60 before they could pay to enable Supercharging.
Sorry, I did read this incorrectly.
But then looking closer I saw
And from the OP "lot to squeak out of a 9 year old S60 "
This is helpful. I think it helps explain my point. I didn't (and still don't) find the need for unlimited SC. It was not an option to use metered SC, when I purchased the car, the most common method today. I do not "need" SC capability and can live without it. However, there are times that it would be useful.. I guess I was going under the assumption that, as the network developed, supporting metered SC, they would offer it to the early adapters of Tesla cars. I'm not saying I would not pay something reasonable to enable SC. I'm not asking for anything free or that shouldn't be offered to others in my situation. I am saying that as an early investor and early adapter, that they should offer us a reasonable way to enable metered SC. There is no question that my car has the hardware.Some Wayback machine context from early 2014:
“All Model S vehicles with the 85 kWh battery can use Superchargers as can properly equipped 60 kWh battery vehicles.”
It doesn’t seem you paid for the option for your car to be “properly equipped”.
A snippet of a PDF from the same era:
View attachment 945040
Draw from that what you will.
Should Tesla maybe reconsider their stance now that pay supercharging is a reality? Maybe.
Are they obligated to? No.
Is there anywhere near “50,000” vehicles in this state? Not a chance. I’d guess the true number is much closer to 500 in 2023.
As for the number of cars with this problem, I don't see this as very important. Tesla should offer metered SC to all of their cars on the road, whether it is 50,000 ( according to a Tesla service manager) or 500 (it's probably somewhere in between).
Last edited:
VegarHenriksen
Member
I'm not sure I quite understand the complaint. Those $2500 were used to pay for expansion and maintenance of the Supercharger-network back in the day. Why should you avoid that and get free access now?
Every new Tesla sold includes this supercharger access fee. It just isn't visible to the customer.
Every new Tesla sold includes this supercharger access fee. It just isn't visible to the customer.
henderrj
Active Member
This discussion is really about the rigidity of service protocols. Tesla is a totalitarian regime - whatever Elon Musk wants is what happens. Top down organizations are always more rigid, and unable to modify their behavior easily. It makes for greater efficiency, but greatly limits flexibility. And - customer service drops through the floor. As Elon gains greater and greater power, everyone else at Tesla gets less.
beatle
Active Member
To draw a parallel, you could buy FSD at the time of purchase or later for a fixed price. That fixed price changed, but the option was always there, even post-purchase.
Now Tesla offers a subscription model for FSD. It doesn't matter whether your car was released before they started offering it or not - you can subscribe anyway. I see the option in the app for my 2019. This is much like how OP is trying to have the car enabled for PAYG supercharging. There is certainly a duality of how OTA cars can easily be changed for better and for worse, and how manufacturers selectively play the "it's always been that way and will always be that way" card for something easily changed in software. It's clear that they can remove FUSC and switch them to PAYG supercharging - my 2015 was like that when I bought it, so this is not a technology problem.
Tesla screws up several things by saying they can't change them because the VIN says so. They've stolen Ludicrous mode and FSD post-purchase. I see this is as them just being inflexible.
Now Tesla offers a subscription model for FSD. It doesn't matter whether your car was released before they started offering it or not - you can subscribe anyway. I see the option in the app for my 2019. This is much like how OP is trying to have the car enabled for PAYG supercharging. There is certainly a duality of how OTA cars can easily be changed for better and for worse, and how manufacturers selectively play the "it's always been that way and will always be that way" card for something easily changed in software. It's clear that they can remove FUSC and switch them to PAYG supercharging - my 2015 was like that when I bought it, so this is not a technology problem.
Tesla screws up several things by saying they can't change them because the VIN says so. They've stolen Ludicrous mode and FSD post-purchase. I see this is as them just being inflexible.
You really don't understand how business and computers work.
First, if you are reading the thread, the problem ISN'T a software one. There was something else that had to be done to the car.
And since that hasn't been done, the software can't be updated.
But even if it was a software issue. The car is 9 years old. There have been so many releases and updates to the car's software and to the maintenance tools, that even if it did once exist, the odds that it is still in the code is nearly zero. Like the OP said, the number of cars with this issue maybe in the 100's.
But more reality, if anyone was in this situation and they indeed wanted to use Superchargers, then this should have been fixed 5+ years ago.
Let's take another analogy. The number of CHAdeMO chargers is low and probably going to get lower. That's going to be an issue for some Leaf owners.
But did you know, that circa 2015, that Leaf sold cars that did not have Fast Charging Capabilities??? And those cars could not be retrofitted, AFAIK. JUST like this situation.
Go into your computer and move the task bar to the middle of the screen. What? you can't do it? Same thing here.
henderrj
Active Member
I spent an entire lifetime in the information community. Systems integration specialist. Hired by major companies all over the US. So, I do know computers. And I do know how it works. And, the reference to leaf cars is not the same. The car that the original poster has is capable of super charging, it is literally a software switch. The charging circuitry is built into the car unlike the Nissan leafs that you mentioned.. The decision to not even consider allowing something other than what has already been done, is a management decision. It's not some technical difficulty at all. And it has nothing to do with charge on the move (CHAdeMO - I also have a patent on EV charging) either. All the existing superchargers in North America and Mexico are capable of working with the op's vehicle. And of course vice versa.
Myself I think it's amazing Tesla still offers the option to turn on the switch. I think 2500 is a great deal. I think he should just do it and sell the car if he doesn't want to deal with it.
Last edited:
Pretty simple. OP asked for something special for himself and Tesla said no.
Now he is posting on this site how unfair (to him) it all is.
Now he is posting on this site how unfair (to him) it all is.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
No, it’s literally flipping a bit in the gateway file to enable fast charging. That’s it.
That said, there are some costs represented in that bit, and that’s really the crux of the issue. Tesla could have made physically different components to differentiate between cars that had DCFC capability and those that didn’t. But they ultimately decided that wasn’t worth it, produced a single part, and locked the feature behind software. They’ve done this with many other parts here and there over the course of history (Model S “40”, 2016+ Model S “60”, Model 3 “SR”, high amperage chargers in 2016, etc etc).
Essentially Tesla sold some cars/components at a loss to simplify manufacturing and come out ahead in aggregate. The question posed by OP is whether or not Tesla should now eat that loss ~9 years later given the advent of other pricing models for the feature in question. I think it’s a valid question, and I can see successful arguments on both sides. Tesla appears to have made their mind up though so the argument is somewhat moot.
Second owner of a Model S 60. I bought the car used, in the Specs on the app it specifically calls out the ability to supercharge. Which was frustrating to find out with 19 miles of range that Tesla wants to charge $2,500 for a software switch. Like rigidly. I barked up to a regional manager, and got chained to a post rather than given a bone.
To me, it seems counterintuitive to Tesla's stated goals (via Musk).
Tesla itself says it wants to expand sustainable transport. They're doing that in two ways related to this discussion:
1. They are starting to open the SuC network to other brands via the Magic Dock. Again noting their "mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy"
2. NACS is going to be the standard in the US. Now that the top domestic manufacturers are on board (Ford, GM), as well as the plucky upstart that is in a very similar stage to early Tesla (Rivian), it's only a matter of time before all the others jump on the train (for good reason, it's a great connector). As part of these agreements, they're going to develop a CCS1 adapter.
For those of you in the "You bought what you bought" camp, I would ask: Does allowing older cars to use the SuC network on a Pay as you go basis help or hurt Tesla's stated goals? Does it help or hurt Tesla's bottom line? These cars are currently not using Supercharging, and the second and beyond owners (or even first in the OP's case) will likely not pay $2,500 for that functionality, and certainly not if it doesn't include FUSC. That $2,500 used to include FUSC, it no longer does. Does it look ridiculous that they're going to open the network on a PAYG basis to competitors, but not their own vehicles?
I bought a 160k mile Model S for my wife to drive back and forth to work. I'm not willing to pay 25% of the cost just so I can PAYG on a supercharger. And certainly not on a car that if some were to be believed, could fail at a moments notice, requiring a battery pack that costs more than the vehicle itself. I would pay an hour of labor in California (which I assume it takes less than that to actually retrofit my car, Service Center Techs feel free to correct me).
I don't even have home charging, I drive it to work once a week to charge it. I won't be using it on any trips, I will use my gas car for that. I would use it for trips if I could supercharge. Again, stated goals.
To me it's silly for Tesla to hold such a hard line on would be a no lose situation for them. As another poster suggested, there's very few vehicles that are in this situation still left. I wonder, how many Model S owners have paid for the $2,500 lightswitch in the last three years?
How much would they gain from the positive PR? Here Tesla, I prewrote it for you:
Today, we're announcing that all Model S cars, equipped with the hardware, are being upgraded to pay-as-you-go utilization of the SuperCharging network free of charge through a software update (or a Service Center Visit if necessary). We're doing this to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport.
To me, it seems counterintuitive to Tesla's stated goals (via Musk).
Tesla itself says it wants to expand sustainable transport. They're doing that in two ways related to this discussion:
1. They are starting to open the SuC network to other brands via the Magic Dock. Again noting their "mission to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy"
2. NACS is going to be the standard in the US. Now that the top domestic manufacturers are on board (Ford, GM), as well as the plucky upstart that is in a very similar stage to early Tesla (Rivian), it's only a matter of time before all the others jump on the train (for good reason, it's a great connector). As part of these agreements, they're going to develop a CCS1 adapter.
For those of you in the "You bought what you bought" camp, I would ask: Does allowing older cars to use the SuC network on a Pay as you go basis help or hurt Tesla's stated goals? Does it help or hurt Tesla's bottom line? These cars are currently not using Supercharging, and the second and beyond owners (or even first in the OP's case) will likely not pay $2,500 for that functionality, and certainly not if it doesn't include FUSC. That $2,500 used to include FUSC, it no longer does. Does it look ridiculous that they're going to open the network on a PAYG basis to competitors, but not their own vehicles?
I bought a 160k mile Model S for my wife to drive back and forth to work. I'm not willing to pay 25% of the cost just so I can PAYG on a supercharger. And certainly not on a car that if some were to be believed, could fail at a moments notice, requiring a battery pack that costs more than the vehicle itself. I would pay an hour of labor in California (which I assume it takes less than that to actually retrofit my car, Service Center Techs feel free to correct me).
I don't even have home charging, I drive it to work once a week to charge it. I won't be using it on any trips, I will use my gas car for that. I would use it for trips if I could supercharge. Again, stated goals.
To me it's silly for Tesla to hold such a hard line on would be a no lose situation for them. As another poster suggested, there's very few vehicles that are in this situation still left. I wonder, how many Model S owners have paid for the $2,500 lightswitch in the last three years?
How much would they gain from the positive PR? Here Tesla, I prewrote it for you:
Today, we're announcing that all Model S cars, equipped with the hardware, are being upgraded to pay-as-you-go utilization of the SuperCharging network free of charge through a software update (or a Service Center Visit if necessary). We're doing this to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable transport.
henderrj
Active Member
The original owner opted not to help support the build out of super chargers, A choice he could make. Tesla has no obligation to suddenly start giving it to people. And, I am certain that you're charging would be free unlimited for life, as that's what the car was sold as, should a person upgrade to the option to supercharge.
I get where you're coming from, I've been frustrated with Tesla more than a few times, but this is the position from long ago. They don't change easily! They are a very top heavy organization, with Elon Musk deciding pretty much everything. It's just what is.
As to whether the 2500 is worth it to you, you'd have to decide how many trips you might take where you would supercharge. A 60 isn't really a great road car anyway, with the range being somewhat limited. However, it would make a nice City car. I think you are correct in just not paying for supercharging and using it around town.
Alternatively you could pay somebody like 057 tech to put a 100 KWh battery in it. That would make it exceptionally useful, but you'd be out a whole bunch more money again. With the used prices of Tesla's coming down, it's probably wiser just to buy one that has all the options you want.
One other thing, 057 tech and recell both have warranties for the Tesla batteries. Might be worth it to you. Especially if you do go for the supercharging option.
I have no problem with Tesla sticking to their original pricing for the option. (Afterall, they did include the necessary hardware in the vehicle at no cost to the original owner.) At least part of it goes to their standard of treating all customers equally. (If they made it free now, how many people that paid for it recently would have a fit, and demand a refund?) They haven't even raised the price to account for inflation over the past decade...
Another option would be to check and see if you can get the CCS retrofit installed for the normal ~$450. (It wouldn't give access to the Supercharger network, not even at MagicDock locations from what I understand, but it would give you access to a lot of other fast charging options.)
The OP was told, just over a month ago, that the $2,500 would include FUSC. (Which at some point you might be able to transfer to 6 years of free Supercharging to a new vehicle, if they offer that again.)
Last edited:
