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

201–210 of 241 posts

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#201

Post by jusben1369 »

jimzvz wrote: post #161
noselasd wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I always find this mindset amusing. You don't feel good about what you have you're worried about what you could have just over the fence but don't want to do the work to get it. If your car has additional features and you can write a bigger check to activate them then activate them. If not, be happy with what you have.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#202

Post by lobster_johnson »

caf wrote: post #114
peterjancelis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems entirely irrational for those customers to change their opinion based on what some other customers are or aren't getting.

That's not irrational, assuming I'm interpreting the parent comment correctly: If 40 kWh car is really a "locked" 60 kWh that allows modders to unlock the remaining 20 kWh, then it's entirely reasonable to be pissed off if one bought the more expensive model. After all, one could saved a lot of money by buying the much cheaper 40 kWh model and unlocked it.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#203

Post by pbreit »

codex wrote: post #75

This looks like a precursor to asking for more money--scale back development costs for a few quarters to achieve profitability, then go back into the red to pay for future models. I am curious to see if Tesla goes back to the public markets for more money this year.

I'm guessing it goes back to public markets but primarily or exclusively to pay back its government loans.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#204

Post by lobster_johnson »

marvin wrote: post #144
kristofferR wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're becoming really popular in Norway too, in large part because of how incredibly cheap it is compared to the equivalent gasoline/diesel cars. In the US the Model S is a quite expensive car, but here in Norway the taxes on gasoline/diesel cars are so high that the Model S actually is really cheap for its class. In the US the Model S have often been compared to the BMW M5, but in Norway the BMW costs 3x what the…

Have Tesla deliveries to Norway started? Have you seen a Model S in Oslo yet?

Drove behind a Model S in Oslo a couple of weeks ago. Apparently they are popular in Norway, but this has been my first and only sighting so far. Edit: Probably because they are not sold here, you have to buy them overseas and ship them over.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#206

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

jacquesm wrote: post #155
relix wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Sigh. Look, I understand that you're not comfortable with people modifying stuff, but please understand that people designed it in the first place and that some of us are perfectly comfortable with entrusting our lives to our own creations / modifications. In fact, I feel rather more comfortable driving cars that I've worked on compared to those that I haven't worked on because I know those cars on a much more intima…

Anybody that has ever had a master cylinder fail on them knows what I mean.

That brought a smile ;-)

And memories of the shop supervisor telling me "we'd have to drop your gas tank in order to replace that brake line, but our insurance doesn't let us work on fuel systems. Closest guy who can fix that is about 5 miles up the road. Drive carefully!"

I drove over there during noon rush using a combination of compression braking and the E-brake.

Serendipity: the E-brake had been jammed open for 3 years and I had gotten around to fixing it just two weeks before the brake line rusted through! Talk about luck. I sure miss that truck though.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#207

Post by timdorr »

SeanLuke wrote: post #162
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.

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 t…

The Model S has two charge modes: standard and max range. Standard is the default and charges to 90% of capacity (approximately 240 miles in rated range). Max Range goes to 100%, but is discouraged for battery health reasons and has to be set manually each time you charge. It looks like Tesla is doing things similar to the Volt, but gives you the option to override.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#208

Post by SeanLuke »

timdorr wrote: post #207
SeanLuke wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

The Model S has two charge modes: standard and max range. Standard is the default and charges to 90% of capacity (approximately 240 miles in rated range). Max Range goes to 100%, but is discouraged for battery health reasons and has to be set manually each time you charge. It looks like Tesla is doing things similar to the Volt, but gives you the option to override.

It always seemed to me that the Model S's two settings might be better described as "pushing it" and "really pushing it".

Chevy's maximum state of charge is 80%. The Model S's 90% is pretty surprisingly high, but of course the Model S battery chemistry (Lithium Nickel) is different from the lower-charge one in the Volt (Lithium ion Phosphate).

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#209

Post by jimzvz »

jusben1369 wrote: post #201
jimzvz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I always find this mindset amusing. You don't feel good about what you have you're worried about what you could have just over the fence but don't want to do the work to get it. If your car has additional features and you can write a bigger check to activate them then activate them. If not, be happy with what you have.

>You don't feel good about what you have you're worried about what you could have just over the fence...

What are you actually talking about? This isn't about wanting something "over the fence", it is about wanting the ability to use something that you have in your possession to its fullest. If someone builds you a house for x dollars but but installs some kind of access control to a room so that you can't use it unless you pay an extra 20% of the original price (and you didn't know about this extra room when you ordered the house), would you be happy? The room has been built and the cost of building the room has already been incurred by the builders but they would rather have it empty, wasting space than have you use it unless you pay extra. Would that not frustrate you? If they can afford to build it, without you paying extra, then they are either ripping you or someone else off.

>...but don't want to do the work to get it.

Where do you get that from? This isn't about not wanting to pay for extra features, it is about not wanting to own something that you cannot use.

>I always find this mindset amusing.

Thanks for that extra piece of information, it really added an arrogance to your post that would have been lost without it.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#210

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

switz wrote: post #16
dm2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Tesla can later offer a $5,000 upgrade to the 60kWh version. Customers are still getting a better car that has the potential to be software upgraded. Win-Win.

So we're entering a phase of micropayments on material objects now? In-app payments, but for your car. I'm not sure how I feel about it, to be honest.

This is absolutely nothing new.

15 years ago I worked for a major manufacturer of high-end office equipment. One of the "upgrade" hardware features the machine had actually shipped with each machine. When a customer ordered it, the service technician only had to enter a code in a Diagnostic screen to enable the hardware.

I had the task of implementing that feature and at first it seemed like a bit of a scam. After some thought it made perfect sense, though. Because of manufacturing costs, it was far cheaper to build each machine with the extra hardware than have the field tech install it. Besides, probably 90% of customers purchased it anyway.

Post reply on HN