Is that actual real additional range, or just reducing buffer and battery life to make money on software updates, or just more range calculation trickery?
brobot_
From what I saw I think it’s a top buffer on the locked version.
I wonder what if any repercussions there are from this since I see some YouTubers recommend an occasional top balance by charging to 100% (which I basically never do myself) and due to the lock you can’t top balance this trim?
Before anyone mentions it, this is an NMC pack not LFP so it doesn’t “need” to 100% charge per se. I’m talking about the “top balancing” people sometimes talk about with NMC packs.
LibMike
“Real” extra range should be free when you buy the car. I’ve seen people in the Tesla subreddits boasting about how great it is that they are letting people pay to software unlock more battery but it’s insane.
duke_of_alinor
Gotta love those who don’t like software range limit. Just pay the extra up front and NP.
DynamicHunter
This is so weird. This just screams late stage capitalism and environmental greenwashing. Software locking battery capacity that’s already in the car seems like a huge waste of resources. I get it’s for manufacturing simplicity… but still feels icky.
I know this is a thing in computer components like CPUs and GPUs but it’s usually a totally different model offered, and not all models can overclock and such. But a few cores or clock speeds on a CPU is different than several pounds of battery capacity being artificially limited, then allowing people to pay to use the battery that’s already in their car.
Waiting for the Tesla battery jailbreaks allowing this.
Peds12
ppl who follow Branden Flasch already knew this….
meshreplacer
I never understood don’t charge to 100% imagine if ICE folks had to worry about not filling up the tank just up to 3/4.
Design the car so that it’s okay to charge to 100%
death_hawk
So I can 0-60% instead of 0-80% taking advantage of the increased charging speed? SOLD.
That is assuming charging speed isn’t also soft locked to 170kW instead of 250kW.
8 Comments
Is that actual real additional range, or just reducing buffer and battery life to make money on software updates, or just more range calculation trickery?
From what I saw I think it’s a top buffer on the locked version.
I wonder what if any repercussions there are from this since I see some YouTubers recommend an occasional top balance by charging to 100% (which I basically never do myself) and due to the lock you can’t top balance this trim?
Before anyone mentions it, this is an NMC pack not LFP so it doesn’t “need” to 100% charge per se. I’m talking about the “top balancing” people sometimes talk about with NMC packs.
“Real” extra range should be free when you buy the car. I’ve seen people in the Tesla subreddits boasting about how great it is that they are letting people pay to software unlock more battery but it’s insane.
Gotta love those who don’t like software range limit. Just pay the extra up front and NP.
This is so weird. This just screams late stage capitalism and environmental greenwashing. Software locking battery capacity that’s already in the car seems like a huge waste of resources. I get it’s for manufacturing simplicity… but still feels icky.
I know this is a thing in computer components like CPUs and GPUs but it’s usually a totally different model offered, and not all models can overclock and such. But a few cores or clock speeds on a CPU is different than several pounds of battery capacity being artificially limited, then allowing people to pay to use the battery that’s already in their car.
Waiting for the Tesla battery jailbreaks allowing this.
ppl who follow Branden Flasch already knew this….
I never understood don’t charge to 100% imagine if ICE folks had to worry about not filling up the tank just up to 3/4.
Design the car so that it’s okay to charge to 100%
So I can 0-60% instead of 0-80% taking advantage of the increased charging speed? SOLD.
That is assuming charging speed isn’t also soft locked to 170kW instead of 250kW.