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

[Andrew]

I posted this a few pages back, but nobody really responded so I want to bring it up again.

I was specifically told we'd have 90kW for our car before we purchased (Delivery March 8, 2013). "Up to half a charge in 30 minutes" was the way they worded it, if I remember correctly. If I'm not sharing a Supercharger, I can get that rate. I got exactly what I paid for and was promised, and I'm not upset with having an A battery.

So here's my question: Are there any "A" pack owners who were told they'd have 120kW charging (or "50% in 20 minutes") before they purchased?

 

[tenstringer009]

I posted this a few pages back, but nobody really responded so I want to bring it up again.

I was specifically told we'd have 90kW for our car before we purchased (Delivery March 8, 2013). "Up to half a charge in 30 minutes" was the way they worded it, if I remember correctly. If I'm not sharing a Supercharger, I can get that rate. I got exactly what I paid for and was promised, and I'm not upset with having an A battery.

So here's my question: Are there any "A" pack owners who were told they'd have 120kW charging (or "50% in 20 minutes") before they purchased?

These excerpts are directly from Tesla press releases.

24-Sep-2012:

30-May-2013:

Tesla was talking about 120kW charging when they first introduced the Supercharger network. Then, on 30-May-2013, they said that the 120kW charging capability would be rolled out to customers and that it will allow the Model S to be charged at 120kW. Maybe it's just me, but 'rolled out' strongly suggests that only a software update would be needed to take advantage of this, and there was no mention of it only working on future Model Ss or that it would only work on Model Ss with certain hardware.

Two more points that have been rehashed many times before. 1) There is a considerable number of people that were given an 'A' pack well after the 'B' packs were being produced/installed. 2) Some of those people also purchased the extended service agreement which promises 'hardware upgrades'. I feel like this would classify.

I think when you look at all of that combined, it's reasonable for people to expect that their Model S should be able to charge at 120kW.

 

[Norbert]

These excerpts are directly from Tesla press releases.

24-Sep-2012:
View attachment 47435

30-May-2013:
View attachment 47436

Tesla was talking about 120kW charging when they first introduced the Supercharger network. Then, on 30-May-2013, they said that the 120kW charging capability would be rolled out to customers and that it will allow the Model S to be charged at 120kW. Maybe it's just me, but 'rolled out' strongly suggests that only a software update would be needed to take advantage of this, and there was no mention of it only working on future Model Ss or that it would only work on Model Ss with certain hardware.

Two more points that have been rehashed many times before. 1) There is a considerable number of people that were given an 'A' pack well after the 'B' packs were being produced/installed. 2) Some of those people also purchased the extended service agreement which promises 'hardware upgrades'. I feel like this would classify.

I think when you look at all of that combined, it's reasonable for people to expect that their Model S should be able to charge at 120kW.

Those points were already discussed, and I don't think that's what Andrew was asking for. The 24-Sep-2012 release is about the Supercharger technology in general, and any car purchased on or after the 30-May-2013 release is 120 kW capable (as far as I know).

In any case, I wouldn't consider any of those an actual promise, to owners that their previously purchased Model S (without a future battery upgrade, which of course will not be covered by the service agreement, surely costing more than $10k) would take more than "almost" 100 kW. I'd agree that the 30-May-2013 could give you *hope* that it would apply too all Model S, but if you read with anything else than wishful thinking, you'll notice, for example, that it speaks about "beta testing", and the fact that this term is used means that nothing can be taken for granted, yet.

Nevertheless, I agree with those who think that Tesla should offer new battery pack upgrades, as soon as cell supply exceeds demand. Don't expect them to be free, but I'd hope that A-pack owners would receive them at an discount versus the official price.

 

[dsm363]

The wording Tesla used was certainly vague (maybe on purpose or maybe they simply didn't know if they could technically roll out 120 to all customers) but not something in a contract. I certainly thought the 120 kW would apply to my car given the wording in those press releases but they were written in a way that looking back with what we know now it wasn't an iron clad promise to all customers. Sucks but that's is where we are now.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Those points were already discussed, and I don't think that's what Andrew was asking for. The 24-Sep-2012 release is about the Supercharger technology in general, and any car purchased on or after the 30-May-2013 release is 120 kW capable (as far as I know).

In any case, I wouldn't consider any of those an actual promise, to owners that their previously purchased Model S (without a future battery upgrade, which of course will not be covered by the service agreement, surely costing more than $10k) would take more than "almost" 100 kW. I'd agree that the 30-May-2013 could give you *hope* that it would apply too all Model S, but if you read with anything else than wishful thinking, you'll notice, for example, that it speaks about "beta testing", and the fact that this term is used means that nothing can be taken for granted, yet.

Nevertheless, I agree with those who think that Tesla should offer new battery pack upgrades, as soon as cell supply exceeds demand. Don't expect them to be free, but I'd hope that A-pack owners would receive them at an discount versus the official price.

I think the main crux of this issue isn't regarding cars manufactured after May 30th, 2013. It has to do with the fact that cars manufactured prior to May 30th, 2013 received a mix of A and B packs. As an owner, you had no idea what pack you would get and had no idea that one would charge at 90 kW and the other at up to 120 kW. Then, after the 120 kW superchargers roll out, we find out that some people who received their cars prior to May 30th are able to go to 120 kW while others who bought in the same time period cannot.

I can understand this. If I received my car today and you got yours next Friday, wouldn't you be irked if I could charge at 120 kW and you, who received a later vehicle, could only charge to 90 kW? That's what happened here.

 

[Norbert]

I think the main crux of this issue isn't regarding cars manufactured after May 30th, 2013.

That certainly isn't the main crux, and it is not even an issue at all, since as far as we know, there were only B-and-later packs after May 30th 2013.

Although, we still don't seem to know the differences between B, C and D packs. And maybe some would be irked if they did. (Perhaps also having a not-in-chronological-sequence version.)

 

[tenstringer009]

Those points were already discussed, and I don't think that's what Andrew was asking for. The 24-Sep-2012 release is about the Supercharger technology in general, and any car purchased on or after the 30-May-2013 release is 120 kW capable (as far as I know).

In any case, I wouldn't consider any of those an actual promise, to owners that their previously purchased Model S (without a future battery upgrade, which of course will not be covered by the service agreement, surely costing more than $10k) would take more than "almost" 100 kW. I'd agree that the 30-May-2013 could give you *hope* that it would apply too all Model S, but if you read with anything else than wishful thinking, you'll notice, for example, that it speaks about "beta testing", and the fact that this term is used means that nothing can be taken for granted, yet.

Nevertheless, I agree with those who think that Tesla should offer new battery pack upgrades, as soon as cell supply exceeds demand. Don't expect them to be free, but I'd hope that A-pack owners would receive them at an discount versus the official price.

I agree that what I pointed out didn't really address Andrew's question. However, I do have a couple of comments on your statement.

1) I still struggle to believe that the 'A' battery pack folks are really asking for an battery upgrade when some of them just want the packs that the people who bought their cars a month before them got. I'd agree with you if the 'A' packs were asking for batteries of larger capacity that came out later or something, but that's not the case. Those who received their cars in late March-ish received vehicles that were less capable than the ones built before it. The argument could be made that there are other aspects of the Model S that are the same way (i.e. the removal of the teeth from the cupholders), but the battery is the most expensive component of the vehicle, so to get one that's less capable without having it be acknowledged at the time just doesn't feel good. To be honest, I don't believe Tesla knew about this limitation initially, and I do believe they will come through with some sort of program to help the 'A' packs out, but I think it was a misstep on their part. They did not manage expectations very well in this case.

2) The 30-May-2013 press release. Yes, I suppose Tesla could point to the 'beta' caveat of their announcement, but, think of it this way. For all those people who purchased their Tesla's after 30-May, I'd bet they'd be really ticked if their Tesla never reached 120kW charging. Again, Tesla could claim the 'beta' argument, but I'd doubt that'd fly very well with customers.

 

[apacheguy]

@Norbert - Regarding this "beta testing" theory of yours...

So, as it turns out, TM is beta testing firmware 6.0 in anticipation of a wider rollout. Now, wouldn't it be great if, upon release, we found out that any vehicle manufactured before 2014 was incompatible because these cars had hardware chipset Rev. A, whereas Rev. B was required to run 6.0? Nobody could possibly be upset at Tesla because, well that's how beta testing goes. Aferall, nobody signed a contract promising them 6.0, right?

 

[invisik]

@Norbert - Regarding this "beta testing" theory of yours...

So, as it turns out, TM is beta testing firmware 6.0 in anticipation of a wider rollout. Now, wouldn't it be great if, upon release, we found out that any vehicle manufactured before 2014 was incompatible because these cars had hardware chipset Rev. A, whereas Rev. B was required to run 6.0? Nobody could possibly be upset at Tesla because, well that's how beta testing goes. Aferall, nobody signed a contract promising them 6.0, right?

Don't get us all worked up yet on some unknown My guess is if there was a situation like that they'd have the software identify what revision the battery pack was and apply the corresponding limits to it. I'd be extremely surprised if everyone can't go to 6.0.

-m

 

[Norbert]

I agree that what I pointed out didn't really address Andrew's question. However, I do have a couple of comments on your statement.

1) I still struggle to believe that the 'A' battery pack folks are really asking for an battery upgrade when some of them just want the packs that the people who bought their cars a month before them got. I'd agree with you if the 'A' packs were asking for batteries of larger capacity that came out later or something, but that's not the case. Those who received their cars in late March-ish received vehicles that were less capable than the ones built before it. The argument could be made that there are other aspects of the Model S that are the same way (i.e. the removal of the teeth from the cupholders), but the battery is the most expensive component of the vehicle, so to get one that's less capable without having it be acknowledged at the time just doesn't feel good. To be honest, I don't believe Tesla knew about this limitation initially, and I do believe they will come through with some sort of program to help the 'A' packs out, but I think it was a misstep on their part. They did not manage expectations very well in this case.

2) The 30-May-2013 press release. Yes, I suppose Tesla could point to the 'beta' caveat of their announcement, but, think of it this way. For all those people who purchased their Tesla's after 30-May, I'd bet they'd be really ticked if their Tesla never reached 120kW charging. Again, Tesla could claim the 'beta' argument, but I'd doubt that'd fly very well with customers.

Probably a crucial point is that in my understanding, although products in general (including the Model S) tend to get better over time, it is quite often the case that announced new versions of a product, as well as unannounced changes, are not necessarily for the better. It is not uncommon that problematic features are removed or replaced with non-equivalent functionality, or that specific problems (due to changes in components) exist only with certain ranges of serial numbers, for example, and that these ranges don't start with zero. I never had the impression that customers have (or should have) special rights in such situations, unless the problem has an impact on the product functioning as advertised (at the time of purchase), and that's what Andrews question was about. (As I understood it.)

Of course companies should avoid such situations, but that is quite often not possible.

 

[dsm363]

@Norbert - Regarding this "beta testing" theory of yours...

So, as it turns out, TM is beta testing firmware 6.0 in anticipation of a wider rollout. Now, wouldn't it be great if, upon release, we found out that any vehicle manufactured before 2014 was incompatible because these cars had hardware chipset Rev. A, whereas Rev. B was required to run 6.0? Nobody could possibly be upset at Tesla because, well that's how beta testing goes. Aferall, nobody signed a contract promising them 6.0, right?

Anything is possible but Tesla has explicitly promised software updates. Even if your scenario Tesla could swap out this proposed chip for much less than an entirely new battery pack. I seriously doubt this will happen.

 

[tomas]

Don't get us all worked up yet on some unknown My guess is if there was a situation like that they'd have the software identify what revision the battery pack was and apply the corresponding limits to it. I'd be extremely surprised if everyone can't go to 6.0.

-m

Methinks you do not understand the point of the hypothetical analogy set out there by Mr. Apacheguy. Please re-read in context! Not everything is meant literally!

 

[dsm363]

Upgrade for 90 limited "A Packs" : Official answer from Jerome Guillen, VP WW...

Methinks you do not understand the point of the hypothetical analogy set out there by Mr. Apacheguy. Please re-read in context!

The analogy is clear to everyone I'm sure. At some point this may actually be the case but almost zero chance right now. A 2012 Model S couldn't handle version 12 or something of the software without a hardware update in the future for example. It's not like your car would stop working with version 11 just like an old iPhone that isn't supported with the latest iOS release doesn't stop working but might not gain new features. Tesla can't support all cars forever that but that a strong incentive you support old cars as long as possible even if they had to pay for minor hardware upgrades themselves.

 

[Norbert]

@Norbert - Regarding this "beta testing" theory of yours...

So, as it turns out, TM is beta testing firmware 6.0 in anticipation of a wider rollout. Now, wouldn't it be great if, upon release, we found out that any vehicle manufactured before 2014 was incompatible because these cars had hardware chipset Rev. A, whereas Rev. B was required to run 6.0? Nobody could possibly be upset at Tesla because, well that's how beta testing goes. Aferall, nobody signed a contract promising them 6.0, right?

Exactly that happens with old computers: At some point they cannot run the latest software anymore, and that information is usually not part of the initial product announcement. But in this case, it wasn't the Model S that got improved, it was the Superchargers, and that had benefits for all Model S owners, including those with A-packs: when the Superchargers are shared. In that (common) case, it probably makes a larger difference than in the single-car-per-charger case.

 

[Panacea]

I feel for all the A pack owners. I put a deposit on my car Dec 2012 and took delivery May 2013, solely due to the fact that I had chosen MC red. I am sure that if I had wanted another color, I'd have an A pack now.

 

[jerry33]

I feel for all the A pack owners. I put a deposit on my car Dec 2012 and took delivery May 2013, solely due to the fact that I had chosen MC red. I am sure that if I had wanted another color, I'd have an A pack now.

I also placed my order in December and picked it up in early March. I got a B pack.

 

[tomas]

The analogy is clear to everyone I'm sure. At some point this may actually be the case but almost zero chance right now. A 2012 Model S couldn't handle version 12 or something of the software without a hardware update in the future for example. It's not like your car would stop working with version 11 just like an old iPhone that isn't supported with the latest iOS release doesn't stop working but might not gain new features. Tesla can't support all cars forever that but that a strong incentive you support old cars as long as possible even if they had to pay for minor hardware upgrades themselves.

I know you mods gotta speed read, but I don't think you got it. I really don't think he was suggesting this would happen. Not literal. Just trying to convey what it feels like to have an A.

 

[apacheguy]

I know you mods gotta speed read, but I don't think you got it. I really don't think he was suggesting this would happen. Not literal. Just trying to convey what it feels like to have an A.

^This. Thank you.

 

[dsm363]

I realize it wasn't a serious example like Tesla would tell everyone prior to 2014 that they wouldn't get 6.0 but I was trying to point out even it is is 7.0 or 8.0 it isn't the same in cost or scope as the battery pack. I have an A pack so I do know what it feels like.

 

[apacheguy]

I realize it wasn't a serious example like Tesla would tell everyone prior to 2014 that they wouldn't get 6.0 but I was trying to point out even it is is 7.0 or 8.0 it isn't the same in cost or scope as the battery pack. I have an A pack so I do know what it feels like.

Ok, that's reasonable. But, in the end, I think we also agree that:

A) The announcement was misleading. After all, you stated earlier that you had every expectation that your car would be compatible with the supercharger update.
B) There should be some upgrade path offered. Granted, maybe a chipset upgrade (as in my analogy), would be included in the service plan as a hardware upgrade. I concede that it may not be feasible to do so for an entire HV battery pack.

However, we now have a statement from Tesla that they intend to provide such an upgrade at a reasonable (i.e. not market) price so I realize that we have to be patient. The intention of my hypothetical analogy was merely to place the naysayers in our shoes and then perhaps they would understand why we are upset.