Single Motor - "Positive Traction?"

[Mini2nut]

I doubt if Tesla will pull the de-contenting route when releasing the RWD version. It would complicate production, something Tesla is against.

Sponsored

 

[Gaximus]

RWD

I hate software castrated products to push profits or arbitrary features.

If I buy I get to use.

It's fine to pay for software, like FSD, or only enable more battery capacity once you have some real world test data back, but disabling hardware is a big no-no in my book.

In the case of the RWD battery pack I believe they will keep the same pack, but just reduce the capacity by a notional 10-20miles just so that AWD drivers don't feel ripped off, but keep the same calculated Wh/mile consumption in RWD, which however will be a bit better than the AWD (no front drivetrain losses and mass), resulting in the same real range anyway...instead of a bit more than the AWD.

BTW does anyone have numbers showing the unusable CT battery capacity? Is it 10-15kWh?
Do we also have more recent model 4680 capacity numbers?

When Tesla reduced the battery pack via software, it was actually a win for most customers, because most people never charge over 80%(and shouldn’t). And since the cars 100% was actually 80%, you would get much faster charging to 100%, could charge to 100% without worrying about battery degradation and get a cheaper car out of it. It still feels wrong for something like that to be software limited though.

 

[Gaximus]

At a certain point you just gut the truck and remove the essence that makes it amazing.

We are currently sitting in the gray zone between mass market ownership and full autonomy (where individual ownership will absolutely plummet).

Also, the truck will eventually be both better than it is now and cheaper. Tesla has proven this over several products for several years.

Which is why I said that if the reason to produce a cheaper truck, being single motor. The price of the motor is much cheaper than $20k gaps in models, so there would have to be a lot more reasons to differentiate the models.

 

[Leifmb]

The single motor version will have a differential to distribute power to the rear wheels, same as most ICE vehicles’s “ring and pinion” setup. What is unknown is how they will engineer said differential-can be “open” AKA “Single legger”, fixed clutch AKA “limited slip”, Spin Locker or an electronic clutch. I’m gonna guess it’ll be an electronic clutch activated by differential wheel spin detected by the optical ABS sensors on the two rear wheels.

 

[mongo]

The single motor version will have a differential to distribute power to the rear wheels, same as most ICE vehicles’s “ring and pinion” setup. What is unknown is how they will engineer said differential-can be “open” AKA “Single legger”, fixed clutch AKA “limited slip”, Spin Locker or an electronic clutch. I’m gonna guess it’ll be an electronic clutch activated by differential wheel spin detected by the optical ABS sensors on the two rear wheels.

Why not the electrically locking open differential they have now with brakes used otherwise?

 

[Leifmb]

Why not the electrically locking open differential they have now with brakes used otherwise?

I DO think it will be an electronic locking differential. In addition to that, the “stability control system” will likely employ the usual ability to apply braking (and reducing motor output etc) to any one/multiple wheels to assist when needed

 

[mongo]

I DO think it will be an electronic locking differential. In addition to that, the “stability control system” will likely employ the usual ability to apply braking (and reducing motor output etc) to any one/multiple wheels to assist when needed

Ah gotcha, sounded like more of a dynamic clutch setup than the current enaged/disengaged while stopped system.

 

[HaulingAss]

RWD

I hate software castrated products to push profits or arbitrary features.

It makes sense to have software locked features when the automaker needs to increase sales with a lower price of entry, and it would be cheaper to software lock the feature than to physically remove it. There is nothing 'arbitrary' about it. It's a calculated move to increase sales by giving budget limited customers more affordable choices. This can increase sales volumes which can reduce per-unit costs for all buyers.

If I buy I get to use.

It's fine to pay for software, like FSD, or only enable more battery capacity once you have some real world test data back, but disabling hardware is a big no-no in my book.

Nobody is forcing you to buy any particular product, every consumer can buy whatever offers them the most value. The people who bring products to market can configure them at their desire, because they took the initiative to create the product in the first place. The consumer can choose to buy it or buy a competitor's offering. If there is disabled hardware, that's the manufacturers choice. If you don't believe in that, don't buy it. Maybe you could even show them how it's done by starting your own car company and doing it better. If you are really good at it, consumers might flock to your products instead. In the end it's the consumer who decides who is successful and who is not meeting market needs but it's the manufacturer who decides what to bring to market. They will sink or swim based upon whether consumers find value in their offerings.

 

[JBee]

It makes sense to have software locked features when the automaker needs to increase sales with a lower price of entry, and it would be cheaper to software lock the feature than to physically remove it. There is nothing 'arbitrary' about it. It's a calculated move to increase sales by giving budget limited customers more affordable choices. This can increase sales volumes which can reduce per-unit costs for all buyers.



Nobody is forcing you to buy any particular product, every consumer can buy whatever offers them the most value. The people who bring products to market can configure them at their desire, because they took the initiative to create the product in the first place. The consumer can choose to buy it or buy a competitor's offering. If there is disabled hardware, that's the manufacturers choice. If you don't believe in that, don't buy it. Maybe you could even show them how it's done by starting your own car company and doing it better. If you are really good at it, consumers might flock to your products instead. In the end it's the consumer who decides who is successful and who is not meeting market needs but it's the manufacturer who decides what to bring to market. They will sink or swim based upon whether consumers find value in their offerings.

Maybe you are trying to prove my point again?

Like you say it's more expensive to remove some features physically.

Software is just a update away so removing features in software does in fact NOT reduce the vehicle cost for the manufacturer, whatsoever.

But removing PROFIT by offering the same product at a lower cost, by software castrating hardware does improve affordability and access to a greater market, that are willing to sacrifice a few features to get into the market.

Why not just leave the hardware available and lower prices, if that doesn't cost them an extra to make anyway?

Here in Australia they've hacked $30k off some models since release here, and guess what, they still have all the features! No software locks? How can this be?

Accordingly, maybe I should rephrase my point:

Tesla was stupid to software castrate their hardware features....and so now that they have learnt that it's a stupid idea, they just lower the price to meet market expectations. As they should. EM and Tesla don't mind learning from their mistakes. That's a positive IMHO.

Now if they would finally enable V2X on all existing models, we'd have the "open" hardware policy they should have had since the beginning. Better late than never.

 

[JBee]

When Tesla reduced the battery pack via software, it was actually a win for most customers, because most people never charge over 80%(and shouldn’t). And since the cars 100% was actually 80%, you would get much faster charging to 100%, could charge to 100% without worrying about battery degradation and get a cheaper car out of it. It still feels wrong for something like that to be software limited though.

There is no causality between software locking features and affordability for customers.

The reality is simply, lower price causes more sales.

As I tried to show in my previous post, reducing features in software does not magically produce more customers, lower prices do however.

Tesla justifying locking features only tries to justify price cuts, to avoid negative feedback on pricing from current customers. That's about the only advantage to do so, but as of late, that is also not happening as EV competition heats up.

Apart from FSD, Tesla is no longer the most advanced in EV drivetrain, battery or charging performance. In fact they really need to improve all of these to remain competitive as China is making these more affordably. In saying that, removing usable battery range is probably the most ridiculous move they have tried so far to justify a price cut for existing customers.

 

[HaulingAss]

Maybe you are trying to prove my point again?

Like you say it's more expensive to remove some features physically.

Software is just a update away so removing features in software does in fact NOT reduce the vehicle cost for the manufacturer, whatsoever.

Incorrect. One of the costs every manufacturer has to account for before they can declare a profit is warranty expense. By deleting a part, even if it's deleted with software, Tesla lowers the warranty expense they need to account for on that vehicle. For example, by deleting range (battery locking a portion of the battery), Tesla only has to pay to replace the battery pack if it falls below a much lower threshold. By software locking a portion of the battery Tesla reduces the risk they will have to replace a slightly underperforming battery.

Why not just leave the hardware available and lower prices, if that doesn't cost them an extra to make anyway?

See above. There is a tangible cost to offering the vehicle with a certain feature, even if that feature is already installed.

Here in Australia they've hacked $30k off some models since release here, and guess what, they still have all the features! No software locks? How can this be?

There are multiple avenues by which Tesla can lower the cost to deliver each vehicle. You are confusing increasing efficiencies through manufacturing innovations and higher volumes (which is most of how Tesla is able to lower prices) with other, more immediate ways to lower the cost.

Accordingly, maybe I should rephrase my point:

Tesla was stupid to software castrate their hardware features....and so now that they have learnt that it's a stupid idea, they just lower the price to meet market expectations. As they should. EM and Tesla don't mind learning from their mistakes. That's a positive IMHO.

I'm not sure what your original point that you feel the need to rephrase is, but there is no evidence that Tesla has decided to not software lock features, as needed. It's your opinion that it is a stupid idea. Again, it's the manufacturer's perogative to equip the vehicle however they want because they are the ones who took the initiative to offer the product in the first place. If you think you can do it bettter, than simply start a competing auto company, raise the money, and show Tesla how it's done.[/QUOTE]

 

[Crissa]

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/31/what-makes-your-tesla-model-3-or-model-y-go-video/

Here's an old article on how various (including Tesla) have done single motor variants.

Tesla uses a single step gear and then a differential; I would expect them to use the same parts from the AWD, so maybe the software locking differential?

Same for the battery pack, unless they're short on cells. It allows them to upsell people later who are short the up front cash.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Incorrect. One of the costs every manufacturer has to account for before they can declare a profit is warranty expense. By deleting a part, even if it's deleted with software, Tesla lowers the warranty expense they need to account for on that vehicle. For example, by deleting range (battery locking a portion of the battery), Tesla only has to pay to replace the battery pack if it falls below a much lower threshold. By software locking a portion of the battery Tesla reduces the risk they will have to replace a slightly underperforming battery.



See above. There is a tangible cost to offering the vehicle with a certain feature, even if that feature is already installed.



There are multiple avenues by which Tesla can lower the cost to deliver each vehicle. You are confusing increasing efficiencies through manufacturing innovations and higher volumes (which is most of how Tesla is able to lower prices) with other, more immediate ways to lower the cost.



I'm not sure what your original point that you feel the need to rephrase is, but there is no evidence that Tesla has decided to not software lock features, as needed. It's your opinion that it is a stupid idea. Again, it's the manufacturer's prerogative to equip the vehicle however they want because they are the ones who took the initiative to offer the product in the first place. If you think you can do it better, than simply start a competing auto company, raise the money, and show Tesla how it's done.

Thanks for the compliment that I should start my own car company to compete with Tesla!

But I think you are just trying to justify Tesla to increase hype for your portfolio by arguing non-relevant and non-related terms. (Nothing new - that is your cause here after all)

Warranty time is derived by expected life per manufactured item, but not by warranty cost per item. They want to bring warranty cost to near zero, which means the item lives longer than the warranty in >99% of cases. So it is not any substantial reason to reduce manufacturing cost at all or with it discount a vehicle by reducing features that still remain on it anyway.

Having more parts on it increases potential warranty claims, making software crippling even more silly.

Your excuse to reduce usable capacity because of better battery longevity is also not based on fact.

This is what has been pedalled previously, but historic data shows that there is negligible risk on battery capacity cycling due to high states of SOC or even high charge rates. Most is just due to temperature extremes on chemistry, be it to cold or too hot, which is not compensated for by having a larger pack anyway. Limiting Factor and others have shown this years ago, and is also why Tesla have heavily improved thermal performance of their cooling systems to counteract it. Evidence shows far better degradation than expected aka no warranty claim issues.

But overall your attitude towards advocating FOR software crippled battery capacity, because Tesla knows better than anyone else, is objectively at odds with any of your arguments AGAINST adding battery for production of a longer range EV because as you say "nobody needs more than 300mile range anyway".

So now all of a sudden its ok to drive extra battery mass around for no reason, in fact capcity you can never use because its software crippled, in order to "reduce" battery wear, let alone do so at no profit at all to Tesla because they have to give you the extra battery capacity for free??

At some point you have to choose which reality you want to believe in.

Just note for future reference that it can't be both.

 

[Gaximus]

There is no causality between software locking features and affordability for customers.

The reality is simply, lower price causes more sales.

Tesla software locks some models battery capacity, then they sell that model at a cheaper price. This allows them to produce one hardware model, which keeps price down for them. And the software locked version is cheaper for customers. So that is a causality between software locking feature, and affordable for a customer.
Then Tesla can sell that car later, unlocked, at a higher ranger range with less battery degradation due to users charging it too full too often.

Also China makes a cheaper car, not a better car, Tesla is still competing well over there in the premium market.

Sponsored