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

121–130 of 241 posts

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#121

Post by jimzvz »

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh.

>...all 60 kWh cars have been and will be built with Supercharger hardware included. Tesla is taking a slight cost risk that ultimately all customers will want to buy the Supercharger upgrade and receive unlimited, free long distance travel for life.

I am assuming that the supercharger hardware will be disabled as well.

This kind of thing really turns me off a company.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#122

Post by twoodfin »

cloudwalking wrote: post #61
jonemo wrote: post #2

The real headline seems to be that this is the first profitable quarter for Tesla.

Everybody is making a big deal about the battery changes, but you're right: the really important part of this announcement is profitability. This is HUGE for Tesla, as it proves their model is successful.

At least so long as a $5,000/car government subsidy continues.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#123

Post by tiziano88 »

jimzvz wrote: post #121

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. > ...all 60 kWh cars have been and will be built with Supercharger hardware included. Tesla is taking a slight cost risk that ultimately all customers will want to buy the Supercharger upgrade and receive unlimited, free long distance travel for life. I am assuming that the supercharger hardware…

I don't see why. Would you be happier if they made two versions with no way of changing one into the other? I see this as a great plus, if you are not interested in a feature, do not pay for it, if you later are, you can enable it without buying an entire new car. Also if you sell it, the new owner can decide if and when to enable those features. It seems a clear win-win to me, and a very clever strategy from Tesla.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#124

Post by IheartApplesDix »

tiziano88 wrote: post #123
jimzvz wrote: post #121

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. > ...all 60 kWh cars have been and will be built with Supercharger hardware included. Tesla is taking a slight cost risk that ultimately all customers will want to buy the Supercharger upgrade and receive unlimited, free long distance travel for life. I am assuming that the supercharger hardware…

I don't see why. Would you be happier if they made two versions with no way of changing one into the other? I see this as a great plus, if you are not interested in a feature, do not pay for it, if you later are, you can enable it without buying an entire new car. Also if you sell it, the new owner can decide if and when to enable those features. It seems a clear win-win to me, and a very clever strategy from Tesla.

anti-feature is just bad engineering, no matter how marketers spin it.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#125

Post by brk »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #109
jacquesm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Disabled' sounds like there might have been some way to re-enable them, but iirc there was a whole bunch of traces that were zapped with a laser, making the disabling a rather permanent affair.

Rumor has it there were a few people who were good enough with a soldering iron to re-enable them.

Huh? The traces were buried inside the ceramic chipset. And even at the scale of technology in that era the soldering was usually done with vibration, not heat.

I find this statement rather implausible. It would take far too much time and equipment to make it worthwhile vs. just upgrading your CPU "over the counter".

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#126

Post by tiziano88 »

IheartApplesDix wrote: post #124
tiziano88 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why. Would you be happier if they made two versions with no way of changing one into the other? I see this as a great plus, if you are not interested in a feature, do not pay for it, if you later are, you can enable it without buying an entire new car. Also if you sell it, the new owner can decide if and when to enable those features. It seems a clear win-win to me, and a very clever strategy from Tesla.

anti-feature is just bad engineering, no matter how marketers spin it.

Maybe the other way round. I consider it good engineering (why waste an entirely separate production process to make a lower-grade version, when most of it can be shared?), but people are irrationally led to believe they are entitled to the full thing, just because it's potentially there. Proof of this is that if no one told you, you would not even suspect anything at all. If you want to "unlock" your car to get that extra 20kWh go ahead, the car is yours after all, but then do not try to ask for any form of warranty or support from the manufacturer.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#127

Post by barney54 »

twoodfin wrote: post #122
cloudwalking wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody is making a big deal about the battery changes, but you're right: the really important part of this announcement is profitability. This is HUGE for Tesla, as it proves their model is successful.

At least so long as a $5,000/car government subsidy continues.

I believe its $7500 from the federal government and various states like California also have a subsidy on top of that.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#128

Post by i_cannot_hack »

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...

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#129

Post by relix »

jacquesm wrote: post #107
skriticos2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've restored an old car from the ground up. That was lots of fun. One day someone will do it to a model 'S'. Working on old vehicles is interesting because you get to be creative because of a lack of manufacturer supplied parts. Welcome to the aftermarket, where nothing is too crazy. Want to slap a 160 HP engine into your classic mini? That's possible: http://jamesfawcett.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&#...…

If you're modifying the software, such that in certain edge cases your battery overheats and explodes, or the brakes stop working, does it still make sense to rely on road approval to deem a car road-worthy, and get appropriate insurance? Since all software has bugs, I feel this is an interesting discussion point even if you don't modify it. Basically, should road approval include a check on the software? (which would be nearly impossible)

Or will insurance companies just ask if you modified the software, and charge you an appropriately higher price? Is that how they do it with cars mechanically upgraded like you describe?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#130

Post by klinquist »

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.

A better analogy is the early US Robotics Sportster 14.4kbps modems that could be turned into a 16.8 HST with an init string.
Post reply on HN