Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 241 posts

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#81

Post by peterjancelis »

dvanduzer wrote: post #69
nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

I'm not sure there's a big ROI for Tesla to develop elaborate countermeasures. 4,750 units of the 60kWh car at $62.4k yields $296.4m in revenue. If 4% of the orders are for the 40kWh car (190 units at $52.4k), there'd be at most $1.9m in lost revenue by "giving away" the slightly beefier battery. It's plausible they'd still come out ahead given the cost savings of not setting up that production line even if they gave…

The big ROI is of course in not pissing of their 60Kwh customer base.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#82

Post by eru »

rgbrenner wrote: post #59
rgbrenner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime ..." Is this guy serious? The average car is driven 13.5k miles/year. So 50k is 3.7 years. Why would anyone use a ridiculously low number unless they were just trying to prove a point they already made up their mind on?

"The average car on the road is about 11 years old, and the average car is driven about 15,000 miles per year. Multiply those figures together and you’ve got a fairly average car with something like 165,000 miles on it" http://business.time.com/2012/03/20/what-you-only-have-100k-... And that's AVERAGE of cars still being driven

Multiplying averages doesn't work for general distributions. (It probably works out mostly alright here.)

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#83

Post by skriticos2 »

nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

You want to hack the software of the car that can potentially kill you and others when the controls don't work as expected. Really? Let's see why I think that's not an option:

* you loose warranty (on $50k, that's big)

* you get liable for any damage your car does because of software failure no matter if it's because of your modifications or not

* you can get injured or killed because the car is not obeying your command

This is not a computer game we are talking about. I wouldn't apply the same metrics.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#84

Post by marshray »

peteforde wrote: post #70
marshray wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you lose sleep over cable/satellite channels that could be available if only you paid for them? No. I decided cable TV wasn't a good value and canceled it years ago. > Do you yell at your network hub because it's capable of 150M down but you've only paid for 30? No. My switch is 1 Gb. > Do you freak out when you see people in VIP areas at events that you've paid general admission to enter? No. Would you buy a ca…

You're just being difficult now. My point is that we're surrounded by many examples of artificially limited products, and the sky hasn't fallen. Other commenters have already pointed out that there's no weight difference between the 40 and 60KWh models, and that you get the benefit of a greater top speed.

> we're surrounded by many examples of artificially limited products, and the sky hasn't fallen

If Tesla wants to fashion its pricing model after cable television companies they're free to do so. But they should expect customer satisfaction to follow.

> Other commenters have already pointed out that there's no weight difference between the 40 and 60KWh models

Obviously there's no weight difference between the 40 KWh and 60 KWh models because they're physically identical.

Various estimates on the web seem to suggest that the battery pack makes up about 1000 of the 4647 lb car. Since 1/3 of this capacity is unusable, this has a similar effect as 300 lbs of intert lithium in the passenger seat.

> and that you get the benefit of a greater top speed.

So for the efficiency hit of 300 lbs of dead weight you get a top speed of 120 mph (190 km/h) instead of 110 mph (180 km/h). [Wikipedia]

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#85

Post by relix »

ck2 wrote: post #38

So... are you legally allowed to have root on a $60k car you paid for? Can we replace "cell phones" with "cars" in this whitehouse statement? [1] The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. ps. it's ironic that a software limited battery like that is going to last a lot longer than unrestricted deple…

Actually, I think there's a legal case for not having root on a car. It could mean you can disable safety measures - especially with regards to the battery, i.e. overcharging, temperature, ... - that might endanger you or others on the road.

Edit: downvoted for stating a valid point in a neutral tone? Stay classy HN...

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#86

Post by revelation »

relix wrote: post #85
ck2 wrote: post #38

So... are you legally allowed to have root on a $60k car you paid for? Can we replace "cell phones" with "cars" in this whitehouse statement? [1] The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. ps. it's ironic that a software limited battery like that is going to last a lot longer than unrestricted deple…

Actually, I think there's a legal case for not having root on a car. It could mean you can disable safety measures - especially with regards to the battery, i.e. overcharging, temperature, ... - that might endanger you or others on the road. Edit: downvoted for stating a valid point in a neutral tone? Stay classy HN...

I guess thats overly dramatic. The big touchscreen (and I guess the only thing that actually runs a Linux) is called an infotainment system for a reason - it's absolutely non-critical to the operation of the vehicle. In fact, theres a hotkey on the steering wheel controls to reboot it :)

All the critical systems are controlled by embedded systems running either no operating system at all or realtime operating systems that have been formally verified to some degree.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#87

Post by jlgreco »

skriticos2 wrote: post #83
nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

You want to hack the software of the car that can potentially kill you and others when the controls don't work as expected. Really? Let's see why I think that's not an option: * you loose warranty (on $50k, that's big) * you get liable for any damage your car does because of software failure no matter if it's because of your modifications or not * you can get injured or killed because the car is not obeying your comm…

Regardless of how smart of a thing it is to do, many people hack their cars today. There is even a very sizable industry in place to support it.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#88

Post by seanmcdirmid »

kragen wrote: post #79
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... and can be upgraded to the range of the 60 kWh upon request by the original or a future owner. Does anyone remember Intel's co-processor "upgrade" for turning a 486SX into a 486DX?

Yes. It was called the "487SX", and was billed as a floating-point coprocessor, but it was actually a 486DX with a lower pricetag and a different pinout. When you installed it, the motherboard disabled your 486SX and just used the "coprocessor" for everything. What's the relationship to Tesla's crippleware strategy here? I'm not seeing it.

Oh, it was worse than that: the 486SXs themselves were actually 486DXs with a disabled FPU. So not only were you buying a 486DX to "upgrade" your CPU, it was basically the same CPU!

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#89

Post by marshray »

jlgreco wrote: post #71
marshray wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. CPU cores are basically software, whereas battery weight is generally proportional to its capacity and would seem to have a big effect on the efficiency of an electric vehicle.

I wonder how many of the actual customers are as disturbed by this as you.

I wonder too.

What I would expect is that 4% of their customers will be reminded that their car is artificially limited whenever they need to travel more than 160 miles (260 km) and have to pull over early to recharge a battery that is actually capable of 230 miles (370 km).

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#90

Post by jotux »

relix wrote: post #85
ck2 wrote: post #38

So... are you legally allowed to have root on a $60k car you paid for? Can we replace "cell phones" with "cars" in this whitehouse statement? [1] The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. ps. it's ironic that a software limited battery like that is going to last a lot longer than unrestricted deple…

Actually, I think there's a legal case for not having root on a car. It could mean you can disable safety measures - especially with regards to the battery, i.e. overcharging, temperature, ... - that might endanger you or others on the road. Edit: downvoted for stating a valid point in a neutral tone? Stay classy HN...

>It could mean you can disable safety measures

How is this any different from being able to open the hood on a conventional car? Or having a screw driver and socket wrench that fit the nuts/bots/screws on a conventional car?

Post reply on HN