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

[brianman]

If they had formally communicated the slight difference, every hater out there would pick it up, exaggerate, and magnify.

They do this anyway. There are haters for tank mode as well, when all signs point to this being an all-positive result for current and future owners.

If Tesla uses "someone might say something bad about us" as a reason to degrade (or not improve) the communication with owners, then they are destined for failure because they would have to stop communicating almost entirely (beyond what's legally required).

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt Tesla would have knowingly continued to produce A packs once they knew the difference unless they had a few million dollars in cells that were already purchased and they couldn't return.

Here's where I think some disagreement comes into play among TMC members.

I believe:
1. The underlined is true and we have an abundance of supporting evidence.
2. Tesla had the option to go public about A vs. B after the discovery and before new A cars were delivered to owners. Instead, they chose to quietly ship A cars after discovering the issue.
3. The not underlined part is irrelevant w/r/t not informing current and future owners openly and quickly, rather than having owners discover it on their own and then respond to inquiries so poorly.

Paraphrasing:
We did something bad because ___.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem seems to me that everyone is simply assuming that B packs are better because they are able to charge at 120 kW for a few minutes every month.

No one knows if that is better, or not. Probably Tesla is still collecting data.

I'm confused by this statement. Being able to charge at a higher charge rate is better by definition. It's one of the key parameters of the Tesla driving experience that separates it from other EVs.

 

[dsm363]

So if Tesla had $40 million in A pack cells they couldn't return they should just trash them? It's not like they were producing packs that didn't work or that violated the sales agreement. Have you found any contract saying the car would be delivered with 120kW charging capability? I agree the communication wasn't great but what would you have done since you are upset about this?

 

[brianman]

those that are really concerned about a few extra minutes during a supercharge

I'm going to start using a "few extra hours during a trip" since that's a better capture of the real problem for me, and somewhat avoids the trivialization of the issue.

 

[dsm363]

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

I'm going to start using a "few extra hours during a trip" since that's a better capture of the real problem for me, and somewhat avoids the trivialization of the issue.

During a trip maybe. During a day even a 15 min difference would only be 45 min during a 1,000 mile a trip assuming 250 mile legs and three stops and leaving with a full charge and charging at your destination. How many people make regular 1,000 mile day trips? Yes 45 min is 45 min but to throw out millions of dollars of product maybe on this makes little sense for a small company.

I didn't say this side was trivial for some but again what would you have Tesla do assuming they had many A cells already purchased and no way to get rid of them (we don't know this to be the case)?

 

[Lloyd]

I've expressed my opinion before, and I believe I am one of the few that has had both an "A" pack and a "B" pack. IMO: It's not that big a deal. 4 minutes is pretty much correct in the difference, although I did not have both side by side for comparison.

 

[brianman]

So if Tesla had $40 million in A pack cells they couldn't return they should just trash them?

Extremes are the only options? I'm surprised you didn't say "should they just crush the already-produced-but-not-delivered A cars EV-1 style".

There are many options with dealing this situation. Some obvious examples are listed below.

It's not like they were producing packs that didn't work or that violated the sales agreement. Have you found any contract saying the car would be delivered with 120kW charging capability?

There's a lot of things Tesla has promised that aren't contractually captured. And, no, I haven't been spinning my wheels trying to get search engines to improve for simple time-filtered queries.

I agree the communication wasn't great but what would you have done since you are upset about this?

There's a lot of things they could have done. Some off the top...

• Clearly indicate on the paperwork for all vehicles with B+ packs which version of the battery pack they have.
• Set new-but-not-installed A packs aside for supercharger solar storage and (maybe) swapping.
• Use new-but-not-installed A packs in vehicles that are put directly into the loaner fleet.
• Reserve new-but-not-installed A packs for replacements of already delivered A cars.
• Expand in-house battery testing program with the new-but-not-installed A packs; I'm sure they still have plenty to learn on the way to Gen 3 (and beyond) about battery technology.
• Be open and straightforward on the supercharging page, like they were on the frunk page with the VIN # cutoff and on the information about the child seats VIN cutoff.
• Have a conversation with owners with social media or otherwise to take their input on the situation.
• Have a frank conversation with owners with social media or otherwise that (a) they are adding logic in the firmware to limit A packs and (b) explain why this is the case -- preemptively, before delivering a single B vehicle and before touting 120 kW on the website.
• Formally connect a price shift with the introduction of the B packs, rather than (as it seems) do it subtly (some would use a harsher word).

There's a lot of things they could (and, in some cases, definitely should) have done better. I don't buy the "other car companies do shady things too" argument. Many of us "bought into" the "Tesla is different" sales pitch from Roadster owners -- the company not the cars. This issue (and others) has(/have) led to trust erosion.

 

[dsm363]

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

Extremes are the only options? I'm surprised you didn't say "should they just crush the already-produced-but-not-delivered A cars EV-1 style".

There are many options with dealing this situation. Some obvious examples are listed below.


There's a lot of things Tesla has promised that aren't contractually captured. And, no, I haven't been spinning my wheels trying to get search engines to improve for simple time-filtered queries.



There's a lot of things they could have done. Some off the top...

• Clearly indicate on the paperwork for all vehicles with B+ packs which version of the battery pack they have.
• Set new-but-not-installed A packs aside for supercharger solar storage and (maybe) swapping.
• Use new-but-not-installed A packs in vehicles that are put directly into the loaner fleet.
• Reserve new-but-not-installed A packs for replacements of already delivered A cars.
• Expand in-house battery testing program with the new-but-not-installed A packs; I'm sure they still have plenty to learn on the way to Gen 3 (and beyond) about battery technology.
• Be open and straightforward on the supercharging page, like they were on the frunk page with the VIN # cutoff and on the information about the child seats VIN cutoff.
• Have a conversation with owners with social media or otherwise to take their input on the situation.
• Have a frank conversation with owners with social media or otherwise that (a) they are adding logic in the firmware to limit A packs and (b) explain why this is the case -- preemptively, before delivering a single B vehicle and before touting 120 kW on the website.
• Formally connect a price shift with the introduction of the B packs, rather than (as it seems) do it subtly (some would use a harsher word).

There's a lot of things they could (and, in some cases, definitely should) have done better. I don't buy the "other car companies do shady things too" argument. Many of us "bought into" the "Tesla is different" sales pitch from Roadster owners -- the company not the cars. This issue (and others) has(/have) led to trust erosion.

We don't have the details. It could likely have been the case that holding all A packs aside would have led to a big stoppage of production since not enough B packs were produced. We don't know. Why are you surprised I didn't say they should just crush them like EV1s? Really?

A VIN cutoff might not as been as clean as you would want. There were obviously some cars mixed in with A or B packs.

Bottom line is we don't know when Tesla figured out there was a major difference (in your opinion), how many cells or A packs were waiting to be installed, how quickly they could make B packs to make up for all the A packs they produced in order to not halt Model S production...etc.

Again, how does the difference in charging speed lead to hours and hours of difference during a trip? Was your Signature car instantly made worse when Tesla announced the 120kW charging or did it charge like if did before?

They have 40,000 cars driving around now so get plenty of data from that already. If they had a few hundred A packs (we don't know again) pulling them from production might not add much.

 

[brianman]

Bottom line is we don't know when Tesla figured out there was a major difference (in your opinion), have many cells or A packs were waiting to be installed, how quickly they could make B packs to make up for all the A packs they produced in order to not halt Model S production...etc.

Suppose I grant this.

What is their excuse for having no public statement or web page commentary on the fact that there are packs limited to < 120 kW supercharging, and they've been limited like this for months? I can find no official public statement from Tesla that even acknowledges this issue. For a company that I'd like to trust, I find this upsetting.

At best it's confusing, but it's more easily painted as deception.

 

[dsm363]

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

Suppose I grant this.

What is their excuse for having no public statement or web page commentary on the fact that there are packs limited to < 120 kW supercharging, and they've been limited like this for months? I can find no official public statement from Tesla that even acknowledges this issue. For a company that I'd like to trust, I find this upsetting.

At best it's confusing, but it's more easily painted as deception.

Maybe they simply didn't think it was a big deal. Who knows. They've stated their intended use of the Supercharging network is charging to 80% then heading to next Supercharger (I realize some need 100% charge). Assuming that then the 4 min charging difference might not have set off alarm bells for them sufficient enough to ditch, find alternative uses for or do whatever with the X number of A packs they had already produced. We just don't know.
Again why are you surprised I didn't suggest Tesla just crush the A packs like the EV1? It may be easier to paint this as deception or a conspiracy but that doesn't make it any more accurate. Again, we simply don't know so you are speculating as to motivations and facts as much as I am.
And again, how does this difference cause hours of delay during a trip when it is at most an hour during a very long day of driving?

 

[dirkhh]

Telling people what is a huge deal (to you) and what should or shouldn't be a huge deal to them is, IMO, "unhelpful" at best.

Hey brianman... you really shouldn't feel so strongly about being told how you should feel...

/me gets popcorn

 

[Norbert]

Suppose I grant this.

What is their excuse for having no public statement or web page commentary on the fact that there are packs limited to < 120 kW supercharging, and they've been limited like this for months? I can find no official public statement from Tesla that even acknowledges this issue. For a company that I'd like to trust, I find this upsetting.

At best it's confusing, but it's more easily painted as deception.

I don't think they will make a statement about this that would be more public than Jerome's (VP), as it isn't something that has an effect on what you can or can't do with the car (unlike, for example, range). Charging does take longer, but specific charging times cannot be guaranteed in any case (as when there are 2 cars at a Supercharger, for example, when B, C or D packs don't get 120 kW for each, either). Perhaps that changes when they are able to offer battery replacements. Perhaps not.

I expect they will start shipping E, F and G packs as silently as they started shipping B, C and D packs (unless perhaps range will improve noticeably).

 

[qwk]

So what about people with B-D 120kw capable packs without any(even 90kw)superchargers near them? Should they whine too?

FWIW, I have a B pack, but have yet to supercharge. 17k miles, and 14 months of ownership. 90kw would be light speed compared to the RV parks I visit.

 

[dsm363]

It's a problem with continual improvement and no traditional model years. If they pre-announce a change from D to E pack that will allow 135kW charging for example they risk future sales or angering people who are currently in production or even A pack owners maybe. They also aren't able to dump off last year's model on dealerships and have them deal with the pain of discounting cars to move old product. Every new feature they come out with will piss someone off. Do we really want them to stop innovating out of fear they might anger someone who already owns the car? When they have something concrete to offer other than 'sorry, we could have been better with our communication but the A packs still work fine' then I'm sure they'll do that.

 

[apacheguy]

No problem with innovation - just be upfront about it and don't set false expectations. I'll give you an example:

JB has said that Tesla is targeting a 5 minute recharge time for the Model S, which I think is great but I sure as heck don't ever expect my car to be compatible with it. 120 kW was billed as a firmware driven change compatible with all cars. Simple as that.

 

[dsm363]

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

Agreed. Messaging was flawed. Some who are upset had their cars for months before this possible firmware update was announced so their car didn't change. There was no bait and switch for people like me. If you bought the car specifically on the 120kW promise then I can understand being upset about the vague implied promise.

 

[Norbert]

No problem with innovation - just be upfront about it and don't set false expectations. I'll give you an example:

JB has said that Tesla is targeting a 5 minute recharge time for the Model S, which I think is great but I sure as heck don't ever expect my car to be compatible with it. [...]

Unless your car is compatible with upcoming battery exchange stations. (Which Tesla might not know yet.)

 

[AmpedRealtor]

There is one simple way how tesla could resolve this 'issue': Step back to 90kW supercharging for all cars.
Dress it in "fair treatment of customers and improved battery lifetime" and all will be happy.

Or not?

This is what Tesla should have done in the first place and never announced 120 kW supercharging. Any upgrades to the supercharger hardware would be invisible and behind the scenes. There would have been no outcry, and no disappointment. Nobody would have known anything different than 90 kW supercharging and all would have been fine with the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Well the make everyone happy solution at this point is offering all A pack owners a free upgrade to B packs or above. I'm not sure that is practical at this point regardless of how Tesla worded their Supercharger upgrade roll out. Those words have already been gone over multiple times. Tesla knows people are concerned about this and if a software update can't fix this issue for A packs then we can only wait and hope Tesla offers that proposed below market rate trade in program for A packs.

Using this same logic, shouldn't B pack owners be upset by A pack owners getting a free upgrade? What's to stop them from demanding a free upgrade to C or D packs? It's a slippery slope that I'm sure Tesla is going to avoid at all costs.

 

[apacheguy]

Unless your car is compatible with upcoming battery exchange stations. (Which Tesla might not know yet.)

Good point. If my MS isn't compatible with the super swapper then the s will hit the fan because I specifically purchased an Tesla with a swappable pack. That has been in the specs since the beginning.

 

[Norbert]

Good point. If my MS isn't compatible with the super swapper then the s will hit the fan because I specifically purchased an Tesla with a swappable pack. That has been in the specs since the beginning.

I think Elon said multiple times they will build it between SF-LA and extend it based on customer reception of the technology (perhaps as part of "forward looking statements"). So there you already have "small print" that it might not come anywhere else, if for some reason customers don't fully accept the technology as implemented.

 

[brianman]

And again, how does this difference cause hours of delay during a trip when it is at most an hour during a very long day of driving?

I think you underestimate how many supercharging sessions you can fit in 24 hours.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe they simply didn't think it was a big deal. Who knows.

If it's not clear to Tesla by now that this is a big deal to some of their owners and still haven't officially and publicly addressed the topic then they have more than just a communication problem.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think they will make a statement about this that would be more public than Jerome's (VP)

I don't characterize a private e-mail to a handful of owners a "public statement". They don't advertise 120 kW only in private e-mail.