Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#21

Post by mdorazio » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:47 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #17

jac_no_k wrote: post #15

This "continuous deployment" for cars must be a logistical nightmare. To do repairs for a given vehicle, keeping track of what parts are backward compatible would be challenging. What if it's a compatibility breaking change? Then keeping inventory for older cars would become problematic. Unless they do design with maximum compatibility. Then it gets interesting as upgrades are possible. While B.EV cars maintenance is…

Tesla's supply chain management system was built in house. Combined with configuration tied to the VIN, I don't see it as being onerous. Backward compatibility, while not easy, is straightforward (dependency graph). If a subsystem incompatibility exists and parts cannot be sourced from Tesla inventory or an OEM, you replace the entire system (and pray to whatever deity you believe in it happens under warranty). Tesla…

This is great until you want to do repairs or maintenance yourself or via lower cost aftermarket. It’s essentially locking you into the OEM service model.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#22

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #20

toomuchtodo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's supply chain management system was built in house. Combined with configuration tied to the VIN, I don't see it as being onerous. Backward compatibility, while not easy, is straightforward (dependency graph). If a subsystem incompatibility exists and parts cannot be sourced from Tesla inventory or an OEM, you replace the entire system (and pray to whatever deity you believe in it happens under warranty). Tesla…

Well, given that people report their Teslas sitting in the shop for months to get repaired, the logistical supply chain doesn’t seem to be working too well.

[deleted]

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#23

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:49 AM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #21

toomuchtodo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's supply chain management system was built in house. Combined with configuration tied to the VIN, I don't see it as being onerous. Backward compatibility, while not easy, is straightforward (dependency graph). If a subsystem incompatibility exists and parts cannot be sourced from Tesla inventory or an OEM, you replace the entire system (and pray to whatever deity you believe in it happens under warranty). Tesla…

This is great until you want to do repairs or maintenance yourself or via lower cost aftermarket. It’s essentially locking you into the OEM service model.

Correct. This is a choice you make as a Tesla customer (disclaimer: I have made this choice). I understand Tesla's position (brand protection, workload reduction), but also support Right To Repair; I don't have a solution I can offer in this instance. My hope is that Right to Repair legislation and Tesla's profitability intersect at some point in the future, where allowing aftermarket work is more palatable to Tesla while also requiring them to support it (Massachusetts has Right To Repair legislation that does require Tesla to provide some bare minimum support to customers and techs in that state).

If I'm Elon Musk, I don't want a news piece about Joe Schmoe electrocuted in his garage when he attempted maintenance on a Tesla 400V battery pack. So you sell to people who aren't interested in that use case. Like a baby cub and mama bear, you must protect the brand until it has grown big enough to protect itself.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#24

Post by wmf » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #20

toomuchtodo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's supply chain management system was built in house. Combined with configuration tied to the VIN, I don't see it as being onerous. Backward compatibility, while not easy, is straightforward (dependency graph). If a subsystem incompatibility exists and parts cannot be sourced from Tesla inventory or an OEM, you replace the entire system (and pray to whatever deity you believe in it happens under warranty). Tesla…

Well, given that people report their Teslas sitting in the shop for months to get repaired, the logistical supply chain doesn’t seem to be working too well.

I think that's an intentional choice to optimize sales of new cars. Every part made goes into a new Tesla and there are no replacement parts available.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#25

Post by martinpw » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:53 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #2

“Beginning today, Model S and Model X now come with an all-new drivetrain design that increases each vehicle’s range substantially, achieving a landmark 370 miles and 325 miles on the EPA cycle for Model S and Model X Long Range, respectively. Using the same 100 kWh battery pack”

What were the corresponding ranges before? The article does not say (just states >10% increase)

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#26

Post by mdorazio » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #18

azhenley wrote: post #3

They also announced on Twitter: "As a thank you to our Tesla owners, all existing Model S and Model X owners who wish to purchase a new Model S or Model X Performance car will get the Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value, at no additional charge" https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1120852649400623105

Came here to post this exact excerpt. That’s a heck of a customer loyalty bonus, even if the margin on that particular SKU is itself quite ludicrous!

Alternative view: they’re desperate to get more high margin model S and X sales because owners are keeping their existing models too long.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#27

Post by gibolt » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

It has been 7 years since initial release. Super excited that it got an update, right when competitors are somewhat catching up. Only took them that long to almost compete.

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#28

Post by jonknee » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

They're re-introducing the lower cost model, interesting move right before quarterly earnings get announced. I have to assume this means sales have been poor.

> In addition to our Long Range and Performance variants, we’re also re-introducing a lower entry price for Model S and Model X by bringing back our Standard Range option

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#29

Post by Someone1234 » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

azhenley wrote: post #3

They also announced on Twitter: "As a thank you to our Tesla owners, all existing Model S and Model X owners who wish to purchase a new Model S or Model X Performance car will get the Ludicrous Mode upgrade, a $20,000 value, at no additional charge" https://twitter.com/Tesla/status/1120852649400623105

Slight tangent but what are you getting for $20K? Is it a software feature, or is there physical difference between the normal performance and "Ludicrous" model?

Re: Changes to Models S and X allow them to travel longer without larger batteries

#30

Post by gniv » Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC

martinpw wrote: post #25

melling wrote: post #2

“Beginning today, Model S and Model X now come with an all-new drivetrain design that increases each vehicle’s range substantially, achieving a landmark 370 miles and 325 miles on the EPA cycle for Model S and Model X Long Range, respectively. Using the same 100 kWh battery pack”

What were the corresponding ranges before? The article does not say (just states >10% increase)

335 and 295