Or they could not reduce it for the same production cost. No money is saved by tasking an employee to develop the battery nerf.
Yes, but perhaps some money is saved by not having to manage multiple production lines for multiple battery capacities and also having to predict how many of each capacity is going to sell so you’re not stuck with cars nobody wants?
There are no benefits. You could simply unplug at 80%.
Right, after you just paid more for battery that you’ve decided not to use. The benefit is that it’s cheaper for the customer.
It’s only cheaper because they inflated the price from a limitation they created. There is absolutely no reason to limit the battery capacity in software in this manner other than to create an artificial divide to upsell people on the “”higher”” capacity.
It’s only cheaper because they inflated the price from a limitation they created.
TIL Tesla has a 100% monopoly over the electric vehicle market space.
Tesla is offering a wider variety of products at more diverse prices to try to better fit the needs of a larger portion of customers. They must have determined that it was cheaper overall to do it this way rather than physically rip the batteries out of the vehicles or they wouldn’t do it.
to create an artificial divide to upsell people on the “”higher”” capacity.
I mean, isn’t not offering a cheaper version at all already upselling? When the F-150 Lightning came out, people had a really hard time finding the standard range version because dealers didn’t want to sell a lower trim version of the car with lower commission.
They must have determined that it was cheaper overall to do it this way rather than physically rip the batteries out of the vehicles or they wouldn’t do it.
Or, you know, just keep the capacity the same and lower the price without imposing a battery nerf. It costs the same to make. The only reason the nerf exists is to extract money from consumers.
You are not required to purchase your vehicle from Tesla. I mean, we’re butting up against the primary tenets of capitalism here. I’m a socialist personally, but if there’s one thing that capitalism is supposed to do well in theory, it’s find market efficiencies. Tesla appears to have found one here. If anybody else could sell a non-software locked smaller-battery version of a similar vehicle for a lower price, people would buy that one instead.
That’s actually how the majority of batter packs operate, they have a margin of cells to replace when they start undercurrenting. It’s not quite THAT simple, but it’s not also that difficult when every pack has electronic controllers in them now.
How do you think they were able to do this battery capacity limitation if you couldn’t do something like that…?
No.
The packs aren’t like flash storage where they have spare blocks to use when one block wears out. Essentially switching in something that wasn’t used at all before.
The cells are all connected physically, being charged and drained. They do not connect and disconnect cells when wear occurs.
They have software limitations on how far to charge and discharge (at what voltage and c rating).
Yes, a larger pack will last longer if the charge/discharge cycles aren’t as “deep”. But no, they don’t have spare cells just to cover wear.
You realize you can also use a microcontroller to completely shutoff cells so they don’t get used until one dies yeah? There’s multiple tech in these packs now.
Some pieces of equipment allow you to put two batteries in it, so when one is depleted it automatically switches over to other one. Same kinda concept, just done at the cell level.
Think of a battery pack like a backpack, it’s lots of cells in series, to make larger batteries, you make the backpack larger and hookup more cells. A fancy controller can control which individual cells are active. Or even think multiple backpacks, now linked together.
No. Handwaving a microcontroller doesn’t fix it unless you have two high current contactors per cell, and multiple intermediate busses and contactors, it’s not going to work.
That’s going to add a ton in transmission complexity, and weight, that doesn’t really benefit the battery at all.
Along with the fact that cells should be balanced in wear and cycles. It just doesn’t make sense.
have two high current contactors per cell, and multiple intermediate busses and contactors, it’s not going to work.
Again, most battery packs already do this. It’s the nature of the natural design it of it. A pack is collection of cells, wired together in different configurations for V and A…. It’s already a massive collection of tiny cells put together and put together and put together, and put together, put together, until you have what you want……
That’s going to add a ton in transmission complexity, and weight,
Huh? How so…? Wires are negligible weight and what complexity? It’s already wired and it’s just a micro controller an d programming…… so what added weight? The wires are already there and are only a fraction of a percent of the total weight….
Yes it absolutely benefits the battery…. it can double the life as previously explained, that’s a massive boon mate.
Most packs have only 2 contactors. Not 2 per cell.
The only way to have spare cells that are not in active use all the time is to physically disconnect the cells from the rest of the pack.
The only way to do that is to have contactors at each “end” of the cell, or cell pack, that you want to switch in and out.
Car packs are ~360-800v nominal depending on the car/pack.
To get to those voltages with the normal cells (~3.2-3.7v nominal)you need between 95 and 250 cells in series (wired one to another directly, all the power goes through all the cells).
Let’s do an example. The simplest pack possible. A 95s1p meaning 95 cells wired negative to positive in a single line. A contactor at each end to cut power to the car for safety.
This is the simplest pack. Also the lowest range and worst for cell wear.
So say you want to “double” the range?
You “simply” build an entire separate pack, and drop it next to the first with it’s own set of contactors, right?
But in that case you have doubled the amount of interconnect bus in the pack(the wires to get the high current out of the battery), as well as contactors.
You could get to the same power storage (range and longevity) by making a 95s2p pack with one set of contactors.
So instead of 2 lines of cells, you connect each cell to it’s partner with a small piece of wire then connect that to the next cell in the pack.
This means you don’t need the extra long wire from the back to the front of the pack for the second set. The tradeoff is you can’t physically disconnect the second cells, but you don’t need the weight and complexity of extra contactors, and the long wire for second cell set.
So what’s the actual benefit of physically disconnecting the second set of cells?
When one battery dies in the 95s1p pack, the whole pack is useless, as all the power from the remaining 94 cells must travel through the one high resistance cell.
In a 95s2p pack each cell only has to take half the current of the entire pack (improving as you go up in parallel cell count).
You would be able to run one 95s1p dead, then switch to the other and keep driving till that is dead. But the efficiency of that is actually less than you get if you just had one 95s2p you ran from full till dead.
So again, being able to physically disconnect some cells in the pack only adds weight, complexity, and risk.
The Tesla car with “less range” that can be “unlocked” is literally just a software setting that limits the charge/discharge voltage of the entire pack, not switching in and out battery cells physically.
There are no benefits. You could simply unplug at 80%.
You misunderstand, having a larger battery that is not used to full capacity makes it last longer. If you unplug at 80%, you need to have paid the extra price for the bigger battery, if the battery size was actual physical battery.
There is no “larger battery”. It’s an identical battery with different software limitations on the charge level.
No consumer benefits from artificial limitations being imposed on them like this. It exists solely to extract more money from consumers. The fact people are defending this blows my mind.
No consumer benefits from artificial limitations being imposed
No we agree on that, but when the market is so they can charge more, you still benefit getting the car cheaper with 80 Watt than an extra production line with a 70 watt battery. I agree it feels like cheating.
The fact people are defending this blows my mind.
I’m not defending the practice, but you are arguing from a false assumption that the company would choose yo sell at the discounted price, instead of only having the full version at full price in this kind of cases.
If the choice is between making a model with an actual smaller battery that cost the same to make, the customer is actually better off getting the bigger battery without being able to use it 100%
There is no such advantage in the BMW example. Which was kind of the point.
Yes it is; it’s exactly that.
Or they could not reduce it for the same production cost. No money is saved by tasking an employee to develop the battery nerf.
There are no benefits. You could simply unplug at 80%.
Yes, but perhaps some money is saved by not having to manage multiple production lines for multiple battery capacities and also having to predict how many of each capacity is going to sell so you’re not stuck with cars nobody wants?
Right, after you just paid more for battery that you’ve decided not to use. The benefit is that it’s cheaper for the customer.
It’s only cheaper because they inflated the price from a limitation they created. There is absolutely no reason to limit the battery capacity in software in this manner other than to create an artificial divide to upsell people on the “”higher”” capacity.
TIL Tesla has a 100% monopoly over the electric vehicle market space.
Tesla is offering a wider variety of products at more diverse prices to try to better fit the needs of a larger portion of customers. They must have determined that it was cheaper overall to do it this way rather than physically rip the batteries out of the vehicles or they wouldn’t do it.
I mean, isn’t not offering a cheaper version at all already upselling? When the F-150 Lightning came out, people had a really hard time finding the standard range version because dealers didn’t want to sell a lower trim version of the car with lower commission.
Or, you know, just keep the capacity the same and lower the price without imposing a battery nerf. It costs the same to make. The only reason the nerf exists is to extract money from consumers.
You are not required to purchase your vehicle from Tesla. I mean, we’re butting up against the primary tenets of capitalism here. I’m a socialist personally, but if there’s one thing that capitalism is supposed to do well in theory, it’s find market efficiencies. Tesla appears to have found one here. If anybody else could sell a non-software locked smaller-battery version of a similar vehicle for a lower price, people would buy that one instead.
Let’s just say it’s 50% battery capacity and range for simplicity.
As each cell dies, it can use another cell to replace that one, it would effectively double the life span of the battery.
That’s… not how battery packs work
That’s actually how the majority of batter packs operate, they have a margin of cells to replace when they start undercurrenting. It’s not quite THAT simple, but it’s not also that difficult when every pack has electronic controllers in them now.
How do you think they were able to do this battery capacity limitation if you couldn’t do something like that…?
No. The packs aren’t like flash storage where they have spare blocks to use when one block wears out. Essentially switching in something that wasn’t used at all before.
The cells are all connected physically, being charged and drained. They do not connect and disconnect cells when wear occurs. They have software limitations on how far to charge and discharge (at what voltage and c rating). Yes, a larger pack will last longer if the charge/discharge cycles aren’t as “deep”. But no, they don’t have spare cells just to cover wear.
You realize you can also use a microcontroller to completely shutoff cells so they don’t get used until one dies yeah? There’s multiple tech in these packs now.
Some pieces of equipment allow you to put two batteries in it, so when one is depleted it automatically switches over to other one. Same kinda concept, just done at the cell level.
Think of a battery pack like a backpack, it’s lots of cells in series, to make larger batteries, you make the backpack larger and hookup more cells. A fancy controller can control which individual cells are active. Or even think multiple backpacks, now linked together.
No. Handwaving a microcontroller doesn’t fix it unless you have two high current contactors per cell, and multiple intermediate busses and contactors, it’s not going to work.
That’s going to add a ton in transmission complexity, and weight, that doesn’t really benefit the battery at all. Along with the fact that cells should be balanced in wear and cycles. It just doesn’t make sense.
Again, most battery packs already do this. It’s the nature of the natural design it of it. A pack is collection of cells, wired together in different configurations for V and A…. It’s already a massive collection of tiny cells put together and put together and put together, and put together, put together, until you have what you want……
Huh? How so…? Wires are negligible weight and what complexity? It’s already wired and it’s just a micro controller an d programming…… so what added weight? The wires are already there and are only a fraction of a percent of the total weight….
Yes it absolutely benefits the battery…. it can double the life as previously explained, that’s a massive boon mate.
It’s okay to be wrong.
Most packs have only 2 contactors. Not 2 per cell. The only way to have spare cells that are not in active use all the time is to physically disconnect the cells from the rest of the pack. The only way to do that is to have contactors at each “end” of the cell, or cell pack, that you want to switch in and out.
Car packs are ~360-800v nominal depending on the car/pack. To get to those voltages with the normal cells (~3.2-3.7v nominal)you need between 95 and 250 cells in series (wired one to another directly, all the power goes through all the cells).
Let’s do an example. The simplest pack possible. A 95s1p meaning 95 cells wired negative to positive in a single line. A contactor at each end to cut power to the car for safety.
This is the simplest pack. Also the lowest range and worst for cell wear.
So say you want to “double” the range? You “simply” build an entire separate pack, and drop it next to the first with it’s own set of contactors, right?
But in that case you have doubled the amount of interconnect bus in the pack(the wires to get the high current out of the battery), as well as contactors.
You could get to the same power storage (range and longevity) by making a 95s2p pack with one set of contactors.
So instead of 2 lines of cells, you connect each cell to it’s partner with a small piece of wire then connect that to the next cell in the pack.
This means you don’t need the extra long wire from the back to the front of the pack for the second set. The tradeoff is you can’t physically disconnect the second cells, but you don’t need the weight and complexity of extra contactors, and the long wire for second cell set.
So what’s the actual benefit of physically disconnecting the second set of cells?
When one battery dies in the 95s1p pack, the whole pack is useless, as all the power from the remaining 94 cells must travel through the one high resistance cell.
In a 95s2p pack each cell only has to take half the current of the entire pack (improving as you go up in parallel cell count).
You would be able to run one 95s1p dead, then switch to the other and keep driving till that is dead. But the efficiency of that is actually less than you get if you just had one 95s2p you ran from full till dead.
So again, being able to physically disconnect some cells in the pack only adds weight, complexity, and risk.
The Tesla car with “less range” that can be “unlocked” is literally just a software setting that limits the charge/discharge voltage of the entire pack, not switching in and out battery cells physically.
So… As you said
It kinda sorta is, but not exactly.
You misunderstand, having a larger battery that is not used to full capacity makes it last longer. If you unplug at 80%, you need to have paid the extra price for the bigger battery, if the battery size was actual physical battery.
There is no “larger battery”. It’s an identical battery with different software limitations on the charge level.
No consumer benefits from artificial limitations being imposed on them like this. It exists solely to extract more money from consumers. The fact people are defending this blows my mind.
No we agree on that, but when the market is so they can charge more, you still benefit getting the car cheaper with 80 Watt than an extra production line with a 70 watt battery. I agree it feels like cheating.
I’m not defending the practice, but you are arguing from a false assumption that the company would choose yo sell at the discounted price, instead of only having the full version at full price in this kind of cases.
If the choice is between making a model with an actual smaller battery that cost the same to make, the customer is actually better off getting the bigger battery without being able to use it 100%
There is no such advantage in the BMW example. Which was kind of the point.