Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

teslamotors.com

161–170 of 241 posts

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#161
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you be happier if they made two versions with no way of changing one into the other? Yes. I can't bear the thought of driving around a bigger battery and charging hardware that I cannot use. They have already built it, given it to me and it will cost them close to nothing to activate it but I cannot use it because of their pricing structure and I have to use my own money to transport this hardware that I am n…

Then you probably shouldn't be driving any modern car. Pretty much all cars are packed with software, that software determins the fuel mix, controls battery charging. Even the horsepower output of most engines today can easily be "upgraded" with just software.

Can you not see that what you are saying is completely different?

This is analogous to sealing off a section of your fuel tank which can be unsealed if you pay more. Modifying ecu software is not equivalent.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#162
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.

Though perhaps it was not Tesla's intent, this might be a feature, not a bug. Some cars (notably the Volt) will not charge an Li-Ion battery beyond about 85% nor allow it to drop below 15%. As a result the battery has an effective capacity of about 70% its full capacity. As I understand it the reason for this is battery life: these battery chemistries last much longer when only in a partially charged state.

I think that Tesla is pushing this: a quick Google suggests they may be charging up to 95% and maybe dropping to 5% in their standard packs. 40kWH usable charge on a 60kWh pack brings this down to maybe 65%, which should last a good long time.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

'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.

Could also be parts where the FPU failed QA but the rest was fine.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#164

I've never believed that Tesla had a viable product. In fact, Electric vehicles make very little sense and are far less "green" than most consumers perceive them to be. It's sad that people tend to believe whatever marketers tell them... Check out this article... By far the most comprehensive analysis on "green" cars so far. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732412850457834...

I'm wary of the truthfulness of anything from the WSJ Op-Ed, and with good reason. That said, I checked out this article at it appears to be largely based on a deliberate mischaracterization of an article from the Journal of Industrial Ecology, which can be read here (for free it appears):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012....

The Op-Ed author is trying to claim that the article supports his thesis that EVs have a bigger environmental impact than ICE vehicles. To do this he must assume that an EV will only be driven for 50K miles in its lifetime: otherwise he bumps up against the article's main thesis, which is that even at 65K miles, with the article's very conservative assumptions, an EV has a carbon advantage over ICE. The advantage grows significantly with longer, and more realistic lifetimes.

I think this is typical of an WSJ Op-Ed. Anyway, here's the abstract of the cited article:

> Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#165
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You guys are young! To the downvoter, this was a very common claim as far as computer folklore goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIntel_80486SX

> The joke about the drill through the precisely correct location is likely a joke made by someone who knew what they were talking about. It was likely not meant to be taken literally, but sort of a tease without explanation. The floating point unit was in fact never removed with a laser, it was disabled by tying a "disable floating point" input pad to power or ground using a bond wire in the package. This joke was probably a reference to the fact that if you disconnected that bond wire, the default state of that input pad was to enable the FPU. So I think the idea behind the joke was that you could disconnect that bond wire by drilling through the bond wire and thereby disconnecting it. The practical way to do this would be to flip off the lid on the PGA package to expose the die and bond wires. People did have a steady enough hand to straighten bond wires on occasion when that were shorting to adjacent bond wires. With a knowledge of which bond wire it was, a person with a steady hand could probably remove that bond wire with a tweezer-like tool. This was possible on the early units in a PGA package.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#166
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on comments below, no 40kWh models have shipped which eliminates the first point. Second point still stands but I reckon it would still be worth it.

The logical business decision seems to be "there was not enough demand for this product, so we are not going to release it, and everyone that ordered one can upgrade or get a refund" Sure, they lose sales, but at least they are honest. This move is only going to generate huge bad press for being anti-feature dicks.

You paid for a 40kw car and you're getting a 40kw car.

In 5 years you might decide you want to pay tesla for a 60kw upgrade an oh look, you don't even need to get out the car while you drive through the shop to do it.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At least a sizable chunk of which is going into the pockets of wealthy Google engineers, if what's to be read in this thread is true. Well, I guess they're paying the taxes in the first place...

If it successfully brings electric cars into the main stream it will be the most efficient use of $7,500 the government ever paid.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#168
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it depends on what your goal is. Here, the goal is satisfying shareholders. You want to satisfy shareholders because it's in your best interests to do so, the value of your company depends on it. The easiest way to satisfy shareholders is to underestimate (but not too drastically, just enough to be a little dramatic) your numbers, so that when you surpass your estimates, you look amazing. Underpromise and overdel…

Right, you sandbag and then you look like a hero. That argues it's a good idea, but if anything clarifies how artificial it is.

To clarify, I wasn't replying to your statement on artificiality. I was replying to your statement that the target would have been set incorrectly in such a case. I didn't intend to comment on your statement of artificiality at all.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#169
post #71

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'm a reservation holder for a 40kwh for about a couple months. I am pleased by this news obviously. I get the option to enable more range and the supercharger if I wanted. I didn't need either of these because I don't plan on taking long road trips with it (I have a 2nd vehicle for that). There might be some 60 owners upset by this but they knew what they were ordering and are getting it. Perhaps they wanted 60 speed but not range? People that ordered the 60,85 models are spending a lot of money and are likely Tesla enthusiasts. I don't think they are going to get angry over something that is beneficial to the company's bottom line. It's in every Tesla owners best interest for this company to be around for several years to come. I was predicting they would scrap the 40kwh battery and somehow not lose that low price point Tesla keeps advertsing. I based this on the fact they never shipped one, Europe doesn't even have that option for Model S orders and the Model X doesn't have a 40kwh option.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#170
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

IIRC the SX's were DX's with a manufacturing defect in the FPU. To increase overall yield of 486 family processors, intel would disable the inoperative FPU by cutting traces with a laser and sell the otherwise perfectly fine chip as an SX.

I think, even if you had some kind of super powers that let you reconnect those traces, you still wouldn't have a fully functional DX, unless you also used those super powers to fix the defective FPU.

Post reply on HN