Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WWSS TM

[FlasherZ]

I'm now convinced this very discussion is why auto manufacturers rather like their model year designations, and only bring their upgrades once a year.

To those of you who feel you've been slighted, the best to you all in getting your satisfaction.

 

[aviators99]

Version 5.9 of the firmware resolved most, if not all, range drop issues. I personally gained 23 miles at a 50% SOC, but nothing was wrong with my battery because I've charged to 301 miles before on a full charge.

Huh? I don't know why you think this is true.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

While true, one of the other things I bought from Tesla was the pre-paid Service Plan which claimed (at the time) was the only way to get software and hardware upgrades. Since lots of folks without the Plan are getting smaller hardware upgrades anyway (door handles, defroster grilles) I thought I might be entitled to some of the more significant upgrades as per my Plan.

I feel you. Further complicating things is the fact that Tesla mentions "hardware upgrades" on the web page where you buy the plan, but the actual language in the service plan contract says absolutely nothing about upgrades. Does that rise to false advertising and/or misrepresentation? I don't know.

- - - Updated - - -

Version 5.9 of the firmware resolved most, if not all, range drop issues. I personally gained 23 miles at a 50% SOC, but nothing was wrong with my battery because I've charged to 301 miles before on a full charge.

Huh? I don't know why you think this is true.

From my readings in the forum, the range gained from 5.9 roughly matches the range that was claimed to have been lost prior to the update. I don't have specific knowledge of every single case, if that's what you're asking, but I think most people who thought they had range issues probably now feel that those issues have been resolved.

If that's not true, I'm likely to hear about it very shortly! lol

 

[aviators99]

Which part?

That the 5.9 firmware has resolved anything. All they did was change the calculation so that it shows a higher number at the same percentage of available battery. The issue that needs to be resolved has to do with the amount of energy that can be stored in the battery, not some number on the display.

 

[jerry33]

I just want that 220 kWh pack that weighs 500 pounds and costs $5K installed.

 

[dirkhh]

I just want that 220 kWh pack that weighs 500 pounds and costs $5K installed.

I'll take your current 85kWh pack of your hands...

 

[joefee]

And where has this been officially acknowledged? Nowhere on the teslamotors.com Supercharging page does it say anything about it. I'm fairly confident when they roll out 135 kW supercharging they probably won't have the asterisk then either. Trust erosion is self-inflicted.

- - - Updated - - -


Indeed.[/QUOTE]

Agree! Goodwill did take a hit but they have done so many free service upgrades Tesla still has a huge positive balance in my book.. We will see how they deal with Sig upgrades going forward.

 

[stopcrazypp]

In short: Tesla indicated as early as 2011 (read: before anyone took delivery of Model S) that the vehicle would support 120 kW supercharging -- without any hardware changes to the vehicle.

Not according to the time-line I compiled:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...harging/page47?p=534636&viewfull=1#post534636

The first mention of 120kW supercharging was during the unveiling event on 9/24/2012.

The Supercharger is substantially more powerful than any charging technology to date, providing almost 100 kilowatts of power to the Model S, with the potential to go as high as 120 kilowatts in the future.

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/pr...y-supercharger-enabling-convenient-long-dista

First mention with a promised release date was on 5/30/2013:
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/pr...arger-network-delivering-convenient-free-long

It was also mentioned on the supercharger page for the Model S around that time (never mentioned 120kW before that).

 

[digitaltim]

I'm looking for a documented promise. I don't recall one and I've followed it closely. Do you have a link to a speech where it has that documented process?

I spent some time a while back perusing SEC filings and believe I found a reference there - might take some time at a more reasonable hour to find it again.

That said, I signed a contract giving them carte blanche to make changes.

And with that said, while I think communications could be more open and transparent, technology moves on.

 

[digitaltim]

I just want that 220 kWh pack that weighs 500 pounds and costs $5K installed.

Right there w/ ya!!!

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Not according to the time-line I compiled:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...harging/page47?p=534636&viewfull=1#post534636

The first mention of 120kW supercharging was during the unveiling event on 9/24/2012.

http://www.teslamotors.com/about/pr...y-supercharger-enabling-convenient-long-dista

First mention with a promised release date was on 5/30/2013:
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/pr...arger-network-delivering-convenient-free-long

It was also mentioned on the supercharger page for the Model S around that time (never mentioned 120kW before that).

Agreed. The official announcement of 120 kW supercharging didn't even occur until late May 2013, at which time only B packs were being installed. Tesla has also clearly said that increases to the supercharger current is for allowing more vehicles to charge faster simultaneously, not for individual cars to charge faster. Given all of the facts in play, this is a total non-issue.

 

[apacheguy]

Tesla has also clearly said that increases to the supercharger current is for allowing more vehicles to charge faster simultaneously, not for individual cars to charge faster. Given all of the facts in play, this is a total non-issue.

Huh? Excuse me? A total non-issue? Since when did Tesla say the purpose of 120 kW was not to charge individual cars faster?

 

[Norbert]

Well, some very early concept papers/webpages of the Model S spoke about a range of 300 miles (according to the old ~55 mph measurement method) and fast charging in 45 min, IIRC. However that was even before it was certain how much battery capacity 300 miles would exactly require. Then, closer to production start, more detailed specs became available about the battery, and if you used those numbers with the old concept paper, you might have calculated a higher charging rate.

Whenever they were talking about the maximum charging rates, there were very different sorts of infos, depending on whether they were talking about the Superchargers being built, or the Supercharger technology in general, or the connector technology, or the cars currently sold, or previously delivered. And sometimes they were talking about beta testing or future engineering goals. Things can change after beta testing, that's why it is called beta testing. And sometimes Tesla needs to change things even after delivery, per software.

The Supercharging technology is at the cutting edge, and sometimes they make a step back before making two steps forward. The biggest unpleasant surprise was the need for significant tapering, in my view, much of which is surely needed to protect the lifetime of the battery cells (built by Panasonic, also at the cutting edge). But then, the Leaf needs tapering as well (down from 50 kW). We knew that and it was predicted on the forums.

However, the upgrade to 120 kW Superchargers, the best I remember, was a pleasant surprise, even if not as retrofittable as it sounded.

You could complain about Tesla giving info early, from an optimistic position, and not always reporting the worst case scenario, but what do you expect of a small company constantly doing things no one has done before, in a production context? They need to be optimistic, in a sense. Preceding Tesla's Superchargers becoming reality, *many*, including many experts, were doubtful that it would be practically possible to build a network with >50 kW charging rates, at all. Tesla is making you participate a bit in this innovative process, and its not always better than receiving an established product.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Huh? Excuse me? A total non-issue? Since when did Tesla say the purpose of 120 kW was not to charge individual cars faster?

An email from Jerome was published in the other thread about this issue. In it he stated the upgrades were specific to the superchargers and with the purpose of charging more cars in a day. This makes sense, as there is more current for cars to share.

 

[apacheguy]

An email from Jerome was published in the other thread about this issue. In it he stated the upgrades were specific to the superchargers and with the purpose of charging more cars in a day. This makes sense, as there is more current for cars to share.

You mean that factually incorrect BS email that not all of us received that was supposed to be the official response? Right, that one.

Tesla has always marketed 120 kW as enabling faster supercharging on individual cars. Just take a look at the supercharger page or the announcement. It wasn't until we owners started investigating the issue that Jerome came up with that excuse.

 

[Norbert]

Tesla has always marketed 120 kW as enabling faster supercharging on individual cars.

So far I agree (and it does so, for all cars sold when, and since, 120 kW was introduced.)

Just take a look at the supercharger page or the announcement. It wasn't until we owners started investigating the issue that Jerome came up with that excuse.

However, the announcement said the technology was in beta testing. One of the emails from Jerome suggests that the decision was made at a late point, and that the A-packs could theoretically have been used with more than 90 kW. But to avoid a higher risk (probably in life time reduction), they decided not to. My impression is that Tesla continuously evaluates and improves the optimal charging strategy for the battery cells as they receive them from Panasonic.

 

[jerry33]

An email from Jerome was published in the other thread about this issue. In it he stated the upgrades were specific to the superchargers and with the purpose of charging more cars in a day. This makes sense, as there is more current for cars to share.

If they can charge more cars per day for a given amount of chargers, wouldn't that, on average, mean faster charges for individual cars?

 

[brianman]

Agreed. The official announcement of 120 kW supercharging didn't even occur until late May 2013, at which time only B packs were being installed. Tesla has also clearly said that increases to the supercharger current is for allowing more vehicles to charge faster simultaneously, not for individual cars to charge faster. Given all of the facts in play, this is a total non-issue.

No, it's not. For the folks that want people to "stop talking about this", asserting incorrect conclusions like this isn't helping.

- - - Updated - - -

If they can charge more cars per day for a given amount of chargers, wouldn't that, on average, mean faster charges for individual cars?

It doesn't imply that. It implies possibly less waiting time, not anything directly about the charge rate.

- - - Updated - - -

An email from Jerome was published in the other thread about this issue. In it he stated the upgrades were specific to the superchargers and with the purpose of charging more cars in a day. This makes sense, as there is more current for cars to share.

If this is the official company position, they should correct the
Supercharger | Tesla Motors
page to advertise the products offered by the company accurately.

 

[Norbert]

If they can charge more cars per day for a given amount of chargers, wouldn't that, on average, mean faster charges for individual cars?

Yes, including for 90 kW cars. A faster Supercharger will achieve "more cars per day" only in a situation where cars wait for each other. In that situation, it will increase effective charging rates also when there are only 90 kW cars, since there usually are two cars per Supercharger. So two 90 kW cars could make use of up to 180 kW, depending on where they are in the tapering curve.

- - - Updated - - -

If this is the official company position, they should correct the
Supercharger | Tesla Motors
page to advertise the products offered by the company accurately.

I just looked at the Supercharger page, and didn't notice any inaccuracy. Which "product offered", and which feature, are you referring to?

 

[brianman]

I just looked at the Supercharger page, and didn't notice any inaccuracy. Which "product offered", and which feature, are you referring to?

These descriptions of Model S are incompatible with my car's actual behavior:

30-MINUTE CHARGE
170 MILES OF EPA RATED RANGE (85 KWH)
TESLA SUPERCHARGER
120 KW

We will soon roll out 120 kW Superchargers, which are 33% faster than our current version and can replenish half a charge in as little as 20 minutes, for free.

0-80% STATE OF CHARGE in 40 MINUTES