TMS Free Lifetime Supercharging holders: has your display changed with the UI update?

[SmoothMarx]

I own a 2015 TMS with MCU1 (which means I didn't get the latest UI update), with free lifetime supercharging (LFC). One of the biggest tells for me for this feature is the "no recent supercharging" in the "charging" menu.

I was looking to buy another Tesla, which does have the newest update and, according to the owner also has (vehicle bound) LFC, but it doesn't say the "no recent session" I'm used to. He navigated to the "car" menu (tesla icon, bottom left), "charging", and showed me the last supercharging session, which displayed "Location - $0.00".

Is this how it is displayed now? How can I be assured this TMS has LFC on the new UI?

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[DerbyDave]

In control panel, go to Software, and then Additional Information. It will show if you have lifetime free supercharging, and other critical information for your car configuration. V11 interface also shows the $0.00 if it was free.

 

[SmoothMarx]

In control panel, go to Software, and then Additional Information. It will show if you have lifetime free supercharging, and other critical information for your car configuration. V11 interface also shows the $0.00 if it was free.

Thanks for your answer! I can't confirm this without going to the seller again, but I believe mine says the same. But how can I be assured it is vehicle bound and not owner bound?

 

[DerbyDave]

I have no idea. As long as the car is pre 2017 and has been only transferred between individual owners, and not through a dealer or Tesla or auction (third party), it is my understanding that the UFS will transfer. Does Free Supercharging Transfer When You Sell Your Tesla?

 

[tldickerson]

@DerbyDave, Iooked at your link to see what my June 2016 built P90D Model S showed. For 2016 it didn't list any with 90 batteries yet it did for 2015. I'm pretty sure mine would transfer but I cannot be sure by that chart in the link.

 

[DerbyDave]

Tesla seems to never make things very clear on their policies, and their policies sometimes change.

 

[geordi]

I’m trying to figure out if the service center might’ve done something stupid with mine.

I just got the MCU upgrade and now it shows zero dollars for supercharging. And there is no mention under additional vehicle information about supercharging.

This is very concerning to me.

 

[DerbyDave]

Open a service ticket in the app, and tell them. Likely can be corrected remotely. They probably forgot to restore the information.

 

[geordi]

Color me VERY nervous. The last thing they "corrected" remotely was their own mistake, and it cost me 30% of my range which is being held for ransom for $4500.

Option codes for the car still show SC01 (free unlimited transferrable supercharging) so there's that. It may just be a visual thing with the new version. I don't know what you find funny with the reactions to this post... I'm serious. The service center "fixed tesla's mistake" by software-locking the battery to 60kw which is what the car originally had, and are ransoming the difference I have been driving on for months, back to me for $4500. This is not funny, it is theft.

 

[Doanster1]

Color me VERY nervous. The last thing they "corrected" remotely was their own mistake, and it cost me 30% of my range which is being held for ransom for $4500.

Option codes for the car still show SC01 (free unlimited transferrable supercharging) so there's that. It may just be a visual thing with the new version. I don't know what you find funny with the reactions to this post... I'm serious. The service center "fixed tesla's mistake" by software-locking the battery to 60kw which is what the car originally had, and are ransoming the difference I have been driving on for months, back to me for $4500. This is not funny, it is theft.

You’d have to give us more detail/background. Did you orig pay to get the extra capacity and now they’ve nerfed it back or were enjoying the extra S/W unlocked capacity due to an oversight?

 

[geordi]

I bought the car that way, after it had the warranty battery replacement done during the last couple weeks of the warranty. Apparently they had the car for over 2 months while doing it, so that actually expired while they had it.

Regardless - it was done by a service center, and the original 60 wasn't available (being no longer manufactured) and for whatever reason they didn't have anything other than a new revision 90 to install. That was installed and subsequently I bought the car, 100% charge was 295 miles. Now they have "nerfed" it remotely (not familiar with that terminology) and 100% charge is only 209 miles.

Supposedly I should be happy about this "fixing of their mistake" that the service writer was informing me about, but what I see is that they have decided there's an opportunity for extracting even MORE money out of me, or forcing me to cart around the extra weight and get no benefit from it.

What's to stop them at some point from deciding via "corporate policy" that owners no longer get to use their heated seats or air conditioning? These are connected cars, they can ABSOLUTELY do this, and then demand a ransom to return what you already have in your car.

 

[popgodazipa]

@geordi that is messed up. Could happen to any of use hoping to ride until the battery falls off.

 

[geordi]

Yes it IS messed up.

The comment above though from @Doanster1 suggesting that I was "enjoying the extra due to oversight" is similar to what the manager of the service center also questioned me - ACTUALLY asking me if I didn't feel like I was "stealing that" because I hadn't paid for it.

How is it that people think this way? I didn't make the choice to install (or not) any particular battery size.

If I discovered that the car had a heated windshield when that wasn't connected up (mine does, actually and it isn't) and I connect it - am I "stealing" the upcharge from the company that installed that windshield but never plugged it in? No. It costs them nothing, and it is hardware that I've already paid for and wish to utilize.

This is a fundamental difference in how cars are treated as legal property (and they ARE property) by the owners versus the manufacturers. Owners are protected BY LAW to be able to use or modify their vehicles, and manufacturers might not be happy about that, but they are limited to just denial of warranty service IF they can prove that a given modification has caused whatever subsequent issue that is being claimed under the warranty.

Tesla meanwhile actively looks to prevent anyone from going outside their system for service needs (market monopolization which may be illegal) or blacklists vehicles from being able to utilize services if they are discovered to be modified. They are treating the car as a 5000 pound rolling computer application that you don't own, you are only licensed by them to use as THEY allow. If that's where they want to be, then there needs to be ONLY lease option (not ownership) and unlimited warranties.

If I needed a future battery (or anyone else that will eventually need one) and their answer is "you are outside the warranty, give us 20k or good luck" and they actively look to block third party repairs (which is happening by changing the encryption in the MCU)... They are abusing the customers and trying to force them to be beholden to Tesla ONLY for service needs.

It is a car, not a computer. Either we own it and have the ability to utilize everything that is within it to our own desires... Or it needs to be completely and fully disclosed that it is only a lease and a license, and at any time the manufacturer can revoke our ability to use what is in our driveway. There's NOTHING to stop them from doing exactly that, other than the risk of bad publicity.

But Lord Elon is about to be on the hook for about 45 Billion for a poorly-thought-out joke.... So there is a REALLY decent chance that they are going to try and make much of that back from the existing revenue streams available to them: Sales and service.

 

[Doanster1]

That’s why I asked for more details and called out two scenarios. Wasn’t making a judgment upon you. With a single statement of them arbitrarily nerfing your car, it leaves people wondering hence the laughing emojis you wondered about.
I didn’t know 90 packs could be limited down to 60. I thought it was the orig 75s sold as (locked) 60s, hence why during natural disasters they could temp unlock back to 75.
So when they replaced the battery, was it documented as no 75s avail hence a 90 was installed? Otherwise I think they’ll keep arguing that the car was orig a 60 so they are restoring it to that spec.

 

[geordi]

@Doanster1 - no worries, I wasn't bagging on you for your comment, if it seemed that way I apologize. That the person at the dealership DID suggest that I was "stealing" that range though was and is beyond ludicrous.

Since the replacement was done prior to my purchase, they won't show me ANY of the previous service history, but the person who had it at that time (dealer guy who was driving it himself) said that they didn't have anything else available in stock. I did learn that they were sitting on it for about 2 months for the work, that was possibly an unplanned slip from the service writer who declared that it went in for the battery in March and completed in May.

I knew about the unlocking for storms / fires and the like, but HAD thought that those reports were just opening up the reserve capacity that was already available and known - like on a solid state drive, if you buy a 1tb drive it is actually 1.3tb usually b/c of reserve space to allow for some degradation without actual loss of capacity. That would be fine IF Tesla had been doing that from the beginning with the batteries, and maybe they actually are b/c truly pulling a lithium battery to zero is VERY VERY bad for it.

But now I have lost all trust in them - if I charge this battery to "100%" repeatedly, I know FOR FACT that I am actually only charging it to 60%, but what will the opinion be from the audience if that "100%" stops being 209 miles and is a lower number? Clearly there isn't actual loss of range from full b/c the battery isn't ever actually full.... So it's all bullshit at that point. They may be artificially limiting the range and not using the excess for wear-leveling.... and you are still stuck carrying around that capacity. If they don't want to manufacture smaller packs any longer (and that's OK as a decision) then when a replacement is installed... Give what is available, not what it "originally had" b/c it ISN'T what it originally had - it's 50% heavier!

 

[Alabaster]

If I needed a future battery (or anyone else that will eventually need one) and their answer is "you are outside the warranty, give us 20k or good luck" and they actively look to block third party repairs (which is happening by changing the encryption in the MCU)... They are abusing the customers and trying to force them to be beholden to Tesla ONLY for service needs.

Is this actually true? i bought a '13 P85 out of warranty BUT do have a 057 third-party warranty on the main battery. If Tesla is locking owners out of their own vehicles with MCU encryption on third-party repairs, that is taking it to a whole other level!

 

[DerbyDave]

That might be a problem for 057, but not for you. You still have a warranty.

 

[Alabaster]

That might be a problem for 057, but not for you. You still have a warranty.

Won't that affect 057's ability to replace a new HV battery by being locked out of the MCU?

 

[DerbyDave]

Won't that affect 057's ability to replace a new HV battery by being locked out of the MCU?

They will need to repair or replace your battery, I believe, under the terms of your warranty. If they are locked out, they still have options to repair or replace your battery, perhaps by paying Tesla. Not your problem.

 

[wk057]

On the vehicles we cover with our Extended Service Plan program (MCU1 and MCU2 S and X vehicles), there's really not anything Tesla can do to prevent us from working on the battery packs.

So far the only snag they've created is with cars that are still connected to Tesla that still have software locked packs. We can change things as needed on the vehicle side, but when the car connects back into Tesla's network it checks in, the server sees a different pack configuration, and then it's like, "Hmm... nope, let's change that." and a bot reaches into the vehicle remotely, modifies the pack configuration, and reboots the car to make the changes effective, all without owner consent or even notification.

We have some ways to mitigate this when needed (usually with salvage cars or oddball situations like noted before), but for the most part as far as we're concerned it's between you and Tesla as far as software locking goes. We won't intervene in that regard as long as Tesla still has an option for you to pay them to release the software lock. On our end, that just means we don't do upgrades on these vehicles. For the extended service plan program, we'll replace the physical pack with a compatible physical pack, and how the car software locks that pack is not our concern.

My issue becomes when someone has a software locked pack, say locked to a 60 with a physical 75 pack. If we upgraded that vehicle to a 100 pack, Tesla's teleforce bot will still try to lock that pack to a 60, instead of just locking out the portion originally locked (~15 kWh). That's not cool. So we just don't do these particular upgrades unless the customer is completely onboard with the caveats required to make it work. I could kind of understand Tesla keeping the 15 kWh locked on the vehicle unless the owner pays Tesla for the additional capacity... but it's just dumb all around.

Honestly the whole software locked hardware thing is completely idiotic as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, long story short there's very little, if anything, Tesla can do to prevent us from running our service program. We've got both MCU1 and MCU2 cracked well enough that we've prototyped completely custom replacements for them and the car is none the wiser. I don't think there's anyone out there, besides Tesla, who's gotten even close to that.