I don't think that's an obvious conclusion at all. Many rechargeable battery chemistries experience terrible failures if they are not fully charged or fully discharged on a regular basis.
Even still, as a consumer I find it offensive when the same resources are consumed to produce something and then crippled just to sell at a lower price. It's a sign of market inefficiency.
For pure software, it's different because the per-unit cost of production approaches zero.
But batteries are literally massive objects, and their capacity-per-mass is the major factor of their value. So if your car still has to accelerate and decelerate all the mass of a 60KWh battery yet its capacity is artificially limited to 40KWh, your vehicle is not only range-limited, it's heavier and less efficient.
Do you lose sleep over cable/satellite channels that could be available if only you paid for them?
Do you yell at your network hub because it's capable of 150M down but you've only paid for 30?
Do you freak out when you see people in VIP areas at events that you've paid general admission to enter?
Tesla is being smart by constraining the number of products that they have to produce. Removing complexity directly translates to cost savings which go straight to the company's bottom line. It also helps eliminate decisions that a potential customer has to make.
I'm willing to bet that a much higher percentage of 40KWh customers will convert to 60KWh now that they have the capability built in. It's smart no matter how you look at it.
You're just being difficult now. My point is that we're surrounded by many examples of artificially limited products, and the sky hasn't fallen.
Other commenters have already pointed out that there's no weight difference between the 40 and 60KWh models, and that you get the benefit of a greater top speed.
> we're surrounded by many examples of artificially limited products, and the sky hasn't fallen
If Tesla wants to fashion its pricing model after cable television companies they're free to do so. But they should expect customer satisfaction to follow.
> Other commenters have already pointed out that there's no weight difference between the 40 and 60KWh models
Obviously there's no weight difference between the 40 KWh and 60 KWh models because they're physically identical.
Various estimates on the web seem to suggest that the battery pack makes up about 1000 of the 4647 lb car. Since 1/3 of this capacity is unusable, this has a similar effect as 300 lbs of intert lithium in the passenger seat.
> and that you get the benefit of a greater top speed.
So for the efficiency hit of 300 lbs of dead weight you get a top speed of 120 mph (190 km/h) instead of 110 mph (180 km/h). [Wikipedia]
I was answering a question about my sleeping habits in the face of cable television pricing models. Obviously this discussion has been driven to absurdity (by those who don't like to hear the logic of it).
By default, the Tesla Model S will never fully charge the battery, no matter what the capacity. You can tell it do this by doing a "range charge", but Tesla warns that doing this regularly will negatively impact the longevity of the pack. Full charge also has other problem, e.g. regen doesn't work anymore since the battery is too full.
If I'm to believe reports from 60kWh and 85kWh owners, the cars weigh essentially the same. It's not clear what they do with the smaller battery packs, but it doesn't seem to have much effect on weight.
If you read the news release, the 60kWh pack actually has better acceleration than the (theorethical) 40kWh pack.
I'm not sure I agree on market inefficiency, it's maybe inefficient, but it is a completely rational decision. Presumably, the cost to develop a 40kWh pack was higher than to just equip all 40kWh preorders with 60kWh packs.
What it says to me as a consumer is that the vendor doesn't value the product, and so I shouldn't either.
For example, a pet shop: "Sorry, someone else already adopted that three-legged dog we advertised on discount to a good home. But we can give you one of our regular puppies at the same price. Of course, we'll have to 'adjust' it first ..."
Yes, it's a perfectly rational decision of the kind which gives MBAs a bad name.
You are being incredibly mean to Tesla here. It says right in the article that producing the 40kWh pack didn't turn out to be economically viable due to investment costs.
Your view gives two possibilities:
1) Lose money on the 40kWh model by investing millions in production equipment for a product that almost no one wants
2) Lose money on the 60kWh model by selling it for less than it costs to produce
None of these are viable. As far as I can tell, Tesla has chosen the best option here (given that they want to keep the 40kWh model on the market, which for marketing purposes I am pretty sure that they will).
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be "incredibly mean" to a car company. I'm trying to express how I, as an aspiring electric car buyer, feel about crippleware adding 300 lbs of mass to a vehicle for which I would have to pay the energy costs to haul around.
Tesla's obligation was to deliver cars at least as good as were pre-ordered at at least as good a price.
Tesla has chosen your option (2) here, shipping the heavier 60 kWh battery for the 40 kWh price. They have chosen this option because it benefits them economically.
However, to ensure that it does not benefit the customers who preordered the 40 kWh battery, they are artificially restricting the capacity. As a result, the customers who ordered a 40 kWh battery are receiving a heavier car with no additional range to account for it.
Well the weight difference likely comes from removed ballast in the 85 kWh variant. It's easier to program the ESP/ABS and other safety systems for one weight distribution instead of three.
Even still, as a consumer I find it offensive when the same resources are consumed to produce something and then crippled just to sell at a lower price. It's a sign of market inefficiency.
For pure software, it's different because the per-unit cost of production approaches zero.
But batteries are literally massive objects, and their capacity-per-mass is the major factor of their value. So if your car still has to accelerate and decelerate all the mass of a 60KWh battery yet its capacity is artificially limited to 40KWh, your vehicle is not only range-limited, it's heavier and less efficient.