Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 7

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Sep 2017, 19:47:16

asg70 wrote: the extra locked battery capacity is actually a benefit


Jeez thats a dumb idea.

The lack of range, caused by Tesla intentionally degrading some of their cars---is a benefit?

Running out of charge while fleeing from a disaster with your family because your battery is factory degraded is suddenly a benefit?

Really?

If its a benefit to run out of battery power then why doesn't Tesla degrade the performance of all its cars so they can all have the wonderful benefit of degraded range.

Image
That is like so dumb. Do it, Tesla.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 11 Sep 2017, 20:01:10

Plantagenet wrote:Running out of charge while fleeing from a disaster with your family because your battery is factory degraded is suddenly a benefit?


Be careful not to clutch at your pearls too much or they might break. I'm sorry you're in a state of shock and moral indignation over this but it's nothing new and it's going nowhere beyond the usual 24 hour news-cycle.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 11 Sep 2017, 20:22:13

Plantagenet wrote:Tesla caught degrading performance of its own cars

tesla-hurricane-irma-battery-capacity-temp-boost

Apparently the cheaper Tesla's actually have the same batteries and range as the expensive ones, but Tesla uses software to degrade the performance of their own cheap cars by 20%.....

During Hurricane Irma Tesla "reset" the cheaper Teslas in Florida so they can go farther on a charge to help people evacuate.

I guess that is what Tesla sees as "customer service." If people are going to die because of the limited range of their cars, then Tesla will give them a "boost." Then Tesla turns off the boost and makes their cars have crappy range again.

Wow. That approach to selling cars seems strange to me....TESLA is a company that INTENTIONALLY DEGRADES the performance of its own cars. How isn't that cheating the customer? The customer buys a car and TESLA makes it run worse then it could run. That just seems like a crappy way to treat customers, IMHO.

Why not just sell the best possible car to everybody? Wouldn't that get them more satisfied customers?
This kind of behavior is quite common in IT products. AMD and Intel do this with their CPUs. They sell otherwise identical CPUs cheaper that are intentionally crippled. Motherboard makers sell some motherboards with identical hardware but with some features disabled. Etc. I don't see it as the customer getting cheated. After all, Tesla was upfront about the range they were selling to the customer. The fact that the hardware in the car is physically capable of more than the software allows changes nothing. If you want the long range version of the car pay for it. In these cases the reasons are monetary. However companies restrict what their products can do for all kinds of reasons. VCR's were restricted from copying certain video tapes for antipiracy reasons. Microsoft intentionally crippled some network functionality in it's operating systems to try and limit the speed at which viruses could spread(which ended up hurting legitimate network activities instead). Automotive makers install speed limiters to limit how fast you can go for a variety of reasons: safety, prolonging engine/tire life, etc.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Sep 2017, 20:54:22

CNN is reporting that TESLA will go back to degrading the performance of its cars in Florida on September 16th.

tesla-battery-irma-florida-evacuation

Which raises another question.

If TESLA batteries were so bad when Tesla degraded their performance that people couldn't even evacuate Florida, how will they get back home?

Won't they run out of power on the way back?

Image
Please Tesla----please don't degrade our battery range!!!!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 03:36:07

May I venture to guess that there is a trade-off between performance and battery life where increasing the performance reduces the number of charge cycles the battery can undergo before a battery change is required?
On some diesel truck engines you can order different control chips and injector pump settings to get several different horsepower settings from the same engine block and turbo combination. The catch is that the higher you set the power the more fuel you will use at full throttle and the warranty period is shorter the higher up the power range you go.
The Tesla owners should be fully informed about their power settings and the cost benefits involved in changing them but should have the choice of which settings they purchase.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7788
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 12:20:31

Tesla isn't making any claim that degrading the range of some of their cars is "better" or safer or does anything good at all.

The only reason Tesla downgrades the performance of the batteries in some of its cars to make them crappier.

Tesla is tricking people who want better performance into buying more expensive cars, even though the exact same battery packs are installed in all their cars. EVERY CAR and EVERYONE who buys one gets the exact same battery pack. Then Tesla degrades the performance of some of them.

It just doesn't seem like good customer service to me. If you buy a car with a good battery system, what in heck is Tesla doing installing software that makes it crappier?

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby GHung » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 12:33:10

Plantagenet wrote:Tesla isn't making any claim that degrading the range of some of their cars is "better" or safer or does anything good at all.

The only reason Tesla downgrades the performance of the batteries in some of its cars to make them crappier.

Tesla is tricking people who want better performance into buying more expensive cars, even though the exact same battery packs are installed in all their cars. EVERY CAR and EVERYONE who buys one gets the exact same battery pack. Then Tesla degrades the performance of some of them.

It just doesn't seem like good customer service to me. If you buy a car with a good battery system, what in heck is Tesla doing installing software that makes it crappier?

Cheers!


Or maybe they are reducing the number of battery cycles over the 8 year/unlimited mileage battery warranty period they give all customers by limiting the depth of cycles on their lower priced cars. I make my home batteries last 10+ years by not cycling them deeply.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 12:55:42

Plantagenet wrote:Why not just sell the best possible car to everybody? Wouldn't that get them more satisfied customers?

Plant stop being deliberately obtuse for dramatic effect. It's your least credible mode of argument on this site.

If they "just sold the best car to everybody", they wouldn't be economically competitve. It still could be a near thing whether they run out of cash or not as it is, as they race through the "production hell" mode of the Model 3.

As Kub said, this kind of behavior is quite common in IT products. The example that came to my mind immediately was printers. For decades, leading companies like HP have had printer lines where the "best" chassis/speed capable unit is used in all the models. It's cheaper and more reliable that way. Software "cripples" the speed on the slower models. This allows price and speed differentiation, which allows HP (and other companies) to maximize profits.

There is NOTHING illegal, immoral, or stupid about this as long as the actual functionality sold to the customer at price X is fairly disclosed.

In fact, as a technology buyer, I'm very much about being at the "knee" of the cost/functionality curve. So I'll buy a moderate speed printer if it's significantly cheaper than the fast one. I LIKE it that I get the best, most reliable chassis at the lower price.

I'll have the same attitude about EV's. In fact, it's really nice to know that I might be able to upgrade my range (or have the company upgrade it for free to fix a range warranty issue) with a simple software fix. No trip to the dealer. Nothing complex for some well-meaning mechanic to break or install wrong.

Again, the only legitimate issue here is if Tesla exaggerates the mileage capability. Hopefully the combination of the EV ratings and customer/reporter feedback and the internet makes that a game manufacturers don't play much.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 3849
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 12:59:30

GHung wrote:maybe they are reducing the number of battery cycles over the 8 year/unlimited mileage battery warranty period they give all customers by limiting the depth of cycles on their lower priced cars. I make my home batteries last 10+ years by not cycling them deeply.


Teslas don't seem to work that way. Tests show the Tesla batteries range decreases by about 2.3 miles per 10,000 driven for both the normal and the degraded version of the battery system.

tesla-battery-degradation-its-2.3-miles-every-10000-driven

Nope---all Tesla is doing here is screwing over some people who buy their cars. People buy a car, and then Tesla purposefully degrades the battery system to make their car crappier.

Its bizarre if you think about it. In many cases the Tesla car company has taken steps to make your Tesla crappier for the sole purpose of making the Tesla crappier.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby GHung » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 13:03:03

Plantagenet wrote:
GHung wrote:maybe they are reducing the number of battery cycles over the 8 year/unlimited mileage battery warranty period they give all customers by limiting the depth of cycles on their lower priced cars. I make my home batteries last 10+ years by not cycling them deeply.


Teslas don't seem to work that way. Tests show the Tesla batteries range decreases by about 2.3 miles per 10,000 driven for both the normal and the degraded version of the battery system.

tesla-battery-degradation-its-2.3-miles-every-10000-driven

Nope---all Tesla is doing here is screwing over some people who buy their cars. People buy a car, and then Tesla purposefully degrades the battery system to make their car crappier.

Its bizarre if you think about it. In many cases the Tesla car company has taken steps to make your Tesla crappier.

Cheers!


So you are saying that battery longevity isn't affected by the net number of cycles and depth of discharge?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 13:08:23

The entire discussion is moot since Tesla doesn't even sell the reduced range Model S anymore:

Mar 17, 2017 - Next month, Tesla will no longer offer the Model S sedan with a 60 kilowatt-hour battery pack — the cheapest car it sells. With the change, the Model S will start at $74,500 with a 75kWh battery before any state or federal tax incentives, up from $68,000 currently.

"One year ago, we introduced the Model S 60 kWh battery as a more affordable option to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles. However, most customers ended up buying an equivalent to the Model S 75kWh. To simplify the ordering process for our customers, we will be removing the 60 kWh option from our lineup."
Tesla is discontinuing its cheapest car, the 60kWh Model S
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 13:14:28

GHung wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
GHung wrote:maybe they are reducing the number of battery cycles over the 8 year/unlimited mileage battery warranty period they give all customers by limiting the depth of cycles on their lower priced cars. I make my home batteries last 10+ years by not cycling them deeply.


Teslas don't seem to work that way. Tests show the Tesla batteries range decreases by about 2.3 miles per 10,000 driven for both the normal and the degraded version of the battery system.

tesla-battery-degradation-its-2.3-miles-every-10000-driven

Nope---all Tesla is doing here is screwing over some people who buy their cars. People buy a car, and then Tesla purposefully degrades the battery system to make their car crappier.

Its bizarre if you think about it. In many cases the Tesla car company has taken steps to make your Tesla crappier.

Cheers!


So you are saying that battery longevity isn't affected by the net number of cycles and depth of discharge?


Didn't you read my post?

I'll repeat the key part of it here for you: Teslas don't seem to work that way. Tests show the Tesla batteries range decreases by about 2.3 miles per 10,000 driven for both the normal and the degraded version of the battery system.

tesla-battery-degradation-its-2.3-miles-every-10000-driven

This means there is no benefit to Tesla's degradation of the battery system. All it does is degrade the performance of the cars.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 13:16:51

kublikhan wrote:The entire discussion is moot since Tesla doesn't even sell the reduced range Model S anymore:

Mar 17, 2017 - Next month, Tesla will no longer offer the Model S sedan with a 60 kilowatt-hour battery pack — the cheapest car it sells. With the change, the Model S will start at $74,500 with a 75kWh battery before any state or federal tax incentives, up from $68,000 currently.


Thats good. Because Tesla never did sell a car with a 60 KWhr battery pack. Every car had the exact same battery pack---the cars that supposedly had a 60 kWh battery pack were actually identical to the ones with the 75 KWhr battery pack, except Tesla intentionally buggered them up to lower their performance.

It makes you wonder why Tesla didn't keep the original lower price for their baseline Model S, since THERES BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO IMPROVEMENT TO THE CAR TO JUSTIFY JACKING UP THE PRICE BY 10%.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 13:23:14

Plantagenet wrote:Thats good. Because Tesla never did sell a car with a 60 KWhr battery pack. Every car had the exact same battery pack---only Tesla degraded the battery performance of some.
Ok after all of the negativity you have been spewing lately it's time for you penance. :) You have to say one nice thing about each of the following subjects:
1. Tesla
2. Obama
3. China
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby GHung » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 13:27:27

Plantagenet wrote:
GHung wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
GHung wrote:maybe they are reducing the number of battery cycles over the 8 year/unlimited mileage battery warranty period they give all customers by limiting the depth of cycles on their lower priced cars. I make my home batteries last 10+ years by not cycling them deeply.


Teslas don't seem to work that way. Tests show the Tesla batteries range decreases by about 2.3 miles per 10,000 driven for both the normal and the degraded version of the battery system.

tesla-battery-degradation-its-2.3-miles-every-10000-driven

Nope---all Tesla is doing here is screwing over some people who buy their cars. People buy a car, and then Tesla purposefully degrades the battery system to make their car crappier.

Its bizarre if you think about it. In many cases the Tesla car company has taken steps to make your Tesla crappier.

Cheers!


So you are saying that battery longevity isn't affected by the net number of cycles and depth of discharge?


Didn't you read my post?

I'll repeat the key part of it here for you: Teslas don't seem to work that way. Tests show the Tesla batteries range decreases by about 2.3 miles per 10,000 driven for both the normal and the degraded version of the battery system.

tesla-battery-degradation-its-2.3-miles-every-10000-driven

This means there is no benefit to Tesla's degradation of the battery system. All it does is degrade the performance of the cars.

Cheers!


I read your post, Planty. I don't agree with it, and posit that I know more about batteries than you do. Limiting depth of discharge of any rechargeable battery increases its lifespan, especially if it's fully recharged regularly, which, in Tesla's case, may reduce the number of claims within the 8 year warranty. But I've grown used to you applying values judgments to physical processes.

Edit: Indeed, a little checking reveals that your original claim that all Tesla batteries are the same size is also false. Did it occur to you that there are people who tear these things down and actually count the number of cells?

Teardown of new 100 kWh Tesla battery pack reveals new cooling system and 102 kWh capacity

......When Tesla first unveiled the 100 kWh battery pack in August, the company said that the higher energy density was enabled through several improvements, like a new module and pack architecture, new cooling system and electronics. CTO JB Straubel described the upgrade as a “significant change”.

Hughes’ teardown of the pack revealed that the new modules have 516 cells for a total of 8,256 cells per pack. That’s a ~16% increase over the number of cells in the 85/90 kWh packs.

In a blog post, Hughes describes the new module and cooling architecture:

Basically they crammed a couple more rows of cells into the module. But what about the rumors around cooling? Well, they did modify the cooling, but not in any exotic way. The new modules simply have two shorter and thinner cooling loops per module. This way the coolant doesn’t have to run past so many cells before exiting....
https://electrek.co/2017/01/24/tesla-te ... tery-pack/


Seems that cooling is an issue as well. The vehicles with lower range batteries don't have the upgraded cooling that the higher mileage models do. Anyway:

And he shared a few pictures (the one on the right is a comparison of a module from a 85 kWh pack (top) vs a module from a 100 kWh (bottom)):

Image

Same batteries Planty?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 14:31:09

kublikhan wrote:The entire discussion is moot since Tesla doesn't even sell the reduced range Model S anymore:

With respect, it's not moot. Plant is attempting to tarnish the Tesla name with a completely bogus point, played up with the kind of dramatics I'd expect of an ambulance chasing lawyer.

As long as Tesla is honestly disclosing how much range R the customer can expect to get at price X honestly to the customer (which I have seen ZERO evidence to the contrary), there is nothing in the least underhanded about what Tesla is doing. And as various folks have pointed out, in electronic products, given the ability to limit performance with computers -- this type of thing is COMMON practice in many electronic products.

If Plant is trying to score points for being a drama queen, kudos to him. If he's trying to discuss the issue at all objectively, not so much.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 3849
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 14:42:49

Outcast - Objective discussions on the Internet??? What freaking universe do you live in? LOL. But you do make a valid point.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10528
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 15:08:43

Outcast_Searcher wrote:With respect, it's not moot. Plant is attempting to tarnish the Tesla name with a completely bogus point, played up with the kind of dramatics I'd expect of an ambulance chasing lawyer.

As long as Tesla is honestly disclosing how much range R the customer can expect to get at price X honestly to the customer (which I have seen ZERO evidence to the contrary), there is nothing in the least underhanded about what Tesla is doing. And as various folks have pointed out, in electronic products, given the ability to limit performance with computers -- this type of thing is COMMON practice in many electronic products.

If Plant is trying to score points for being a drama queen, kudos to him. If he's trying to discuss the issue at all objectively, not so much.
Plant always does that with certain topics like: EVs, Obama, etc. Remember when he was trying to convince us that EVs cause cancer? If you want rational discourse with Plant, I recommend changing the topic. Ask him about Alaska instead. He often has some interesting nuggets to share there.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 16:37:57

I can't help it if you are so ignorant that you don't even know that EMFs are implicated in causing cancer. I suggest you check out the NIH website to see the latest results of the ongoing studies of possible links betweens EMFs and cancer.

Once you've educated yourself come back and we can talk about this topic.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Electric Vehicle (EV) Thread pt 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 12 Sep 2017, 16:49:48

Outcast_Searcher wrote: Plant is attempting to tarnish the Tesla name with a completely bogus point...


?????

How is Tesla's bizarre policy of building two identical cars, installing software that degrades the battery performance of one, and then selling the exact same car at two radically different prices a "bogus" point?

Tesla itself has clearly had second thoughts about this manifestly stupid policy, because they are ending it.

Explain this---if it is a "bogus" point then why is Tesla completely changing their sales policy to end the sale of cars with degraded battery performance?


Outcast_Searcher wrote: If Plant is trying to score points for being a drama queen, kudos to him. If he's trying to discuss the issue at all objectively, not so much.


If anyone is being a drama queen, it is you.

Image

The issue of Tesla's degradation of some cars performance has been covered in the NY Times, WaPo, CNN, etc. etc. Its in the news right now because Tesla "upgraded" some of the cars in Florida they had previously degraded and they will remotely "degrade" them back to crappier battery performance in 4 more days.

Your bizarre idea that we can't discuss things that are in the news if they involve something dumb Tesla has done is wacko. Discussing the news is one of the things we've always done at this site---even if the news shows Tesla is doing something dumb.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20378
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests