Ventilated seats.

[JBee]

It seems to me that Tesla is iterating like.a typical software company. Hence the improvements over time. This is better than most vehicles where the capabilities are fairly static over a model's lifetime, sometimes with minor refreshes thrown in. Sometimes those capabilities are locked in years before release. I find Tesla's approach of their cars being essentially an automotive equivalent of an iphone to be fascinating. Software is indeed eating the world. The minimal physical controls means just about everything is fungible. That has pros and cons, but provides a lot of flexibility. This iteration seems entirely natural to me given that I have long worked under this model.

As for the disabled seat heaters. I think your perspective is a little naive... Tesla is a publicly traded company with a fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns for its shareholders. If they determine the best way to do that is to install seat heaters in all vehicles and activate them for those that pay, then that's what they'll do. I prefer this model because if I don't want the rear seat heaters on purchase but later decide I do, there is an viable option to pay, or hell, they could do a subscription model where I pay for it for a month for that ski trip with the kids. This is consumer friendly IMO. Not sure why you think you should get something just because it's there, that's not how it works at all. I mean, I pay for a subscription to Office 365, the incremental cost for that to Microsoft is pretty much 0, but I'm not entitled to it just because the CPU in my computer can run it.

I specifically exempted software from my argument as I think most of it does include embodied development cost, (like a 365 sub) which I believe should be reimbursed. With that I'll politely ignore most of what you said as we would agree on the software side.

What I don't agree on is where hardware is already installed and it has been intentionally disabled in software despite the customer having already made the transaction, and bought the hardware.

Legally the transaction has already occured, but the manufacturer is intentionally interfering with its use by disabling it. There is precedent for this with Apple throttling performance on older iphones to persuade people to buy new. This is very similar, and I really just don't think its necessary when its something as simple as seat heating, or changing some varibles for motor performance. (If it was safety related throttling then that would have to be assessed case by case)

I believe the customer is entitled use it as the rightful owner, with every privilege it entails, similar to a property owner is entitled "peaceful enjoyment" without interference by others. At some point these rights have to be transferred and established.

The thing that I really don't like though is that they then blow their horn how they're enabling stuff via OTA updates that you already bought and paid for, as if they were doing you a favour.

To be clear I am a fan of many things Tesla and EM do, but there's a couple of things that contradict the moral mantra they publicise.

To be honest I don't think its only EMs doing, there are too many moving parts and cogs for a single person to manage, but that doesn't mean I turn off my cognitive functions, put down my moral compass, and stare into the light either.

Sponsored

 

[MEDICALJMP]

I specifically exempted software from my argument as I think most of it does include embodied development cost, (like a 365 sub) which I believe should be reimbursed. With that I'll politely ignore most of what you said as we would agree on the software side.

What I don't agree on is where hardware is already installed and it has been intentionally disabled in software despite the customer having already made the transaction, and bought the hardware.

Legally the transaction has already occured, but the manufacturer is intentionally interfering with its use by disabling it. There is precedent for this with Apple throttling performance on older iphones to persuade people to buy new. This is very similar, and I really just don't think its necessary when its something as simple as seat heating, or changing some varibles for motor performance. (If it was safety related throttling then that would have to be assessed case by case)

I believe the customer is entitled use it as the rightful owner, with every privilege it entails, similar to a property owner is entitled "peaceful enjoyment" without interference by others. At some point these rights have to be transferred and established.

The thing that I really don't like though is that they then blow their horn how they're enabling stuff via OTA updates that you already bought and paid for, as if they were doing you a favour.

To be clear I am a fan of many things Tesla and EM do, but there's a couple of things that contradict the moral mantra they publicise.

To be honest I don't think its only EMs doing, there are too many moving parts and cogs for a single person to manage, but that doesn't mean I turn off my cognitive functions, put down my moral compass, and stare into the light either.

Do you want FSD in your car or not? Let us imagine you do not want I. It is already built in to your CT. Should you be required to pay for an option that is there even though you don’t want it? Going by your reasoning you should because the equipment is there and you should get what you pay for. ‘’But I don’t want to pay an additional $10,000 for something I will never use!” you implore to Elon. Too bad, so sad; we put it in there and you must pay for it. We will update this feature you don’t want, need, nor will ever use free of charge, though.

Or do you want to pay more for each individual unit because Tesla makes every single CT to order? More parts stored for eventual use means higher storage costs, manufacturing delays, etc. That is why legacy auto manufacturers package options, so they can reduce overall costs for model upgrades. You may not want your Ram 1500 to have seat warmers because you live in the desert and don’t plan trips to the mountains or a move to the Midwest however, if you want the rich, Corinthian leather and tow package it is bundled in that option package.

I can make augments pro and can about how Tesla does it. Overall I believe they do it right. If I don’t want my butt to be warm I don’t pay for it. But if circumstances change and I now want a warm butt or I sell the car and the new owner wants seat warmers s/he can easily upgrade and does not have to find a different car that had it built in at the factory. Win-win.

 

[tidmutt]

I specifically exempted software from my argument as I think most of it does include embodied development cost, (like a 365 sub) which I believe should be reimbursed. With that I'll politely ignore most of what you said as we would agree on the software side.

What I don't agree on is where hardware is already installed and it has been intentionally disabled in software despite the customer having already made the transaction, and bought the hardware.

Legally the transaction has already occured, but the manufacturer is intentionally interfering with its use by disabling it. There is precedent for this with Apple throttling performance on older iphones to persuade people to buy new. This is very similar, and I really just don't think its necessary when its something as simple as seat heating, or changing some varibles for motor performance. (If it was safety related throttling then that would have to be assessed case by case)

I believe the customer is entitled use it as the rightful owner, with every privilege it entails, similar to a property owner is entitled "peaceful enjoyment" without interference by others. At some point these rights have to be transferred and established.

The thing that I really don't like though is that they then blow their horn how they're enabling stuff via OTA updates that you already bought and paid for, as if they were doing you a favour.

To be clear I am a fan of many things Tesla and EM do, but there's a couple of things that contradict the moral mantra they publicise.

To be honest I don't think its only EMs doing, there are too many moving parts and cogs for a single person to manage, but that doesn't mean I turn off my cognitive functions, put down my moral compass, and stare into the light either.

Btw, thanks for the conversation!

There are other examples of hardware that's present and not enabled. Intel sold CPUs with disabled math coprocessors at one point as one example.

I don't see this as a moral issue, I think the company produces a product, you have a choice to purchase something else if don't like their practices. Some may choose an Android device due to Apple's naughtiness with the iphone. Although I don't think companies should be able to do anything they want, of course not, but to me, Tesla charging to enable a piece of hardware is just capitalism. What if the cost of the truck is actually slightly lower due to the overall cost savings of having a more homogenous product line? Wouldn't it then be more ethical to include the hardware? Or should they exclude the hardware so they can act more ethically in your assessment and now charge everyone slightly more? Also, I assume you also feel the same way about FSD? After all, the hardware is included in every Tesla at least in some capacity. I would prefer they do this as the entire fleet learns and provides data to the ML software to improve FSD however, based on your logic they should give it include it with every Tesla because the hardware is there? I know you're going to say the price embodies the cost of development of the FSD but you could say that the cost of the heated seats software does too, sure it's much simpler being pretty much a little UI and a boolean but who is to say Tesla can't amortize the cost of other things across the cost of that heated seats. I guess I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around your ethical subroutines here.

As for the OTAs, well I'm not convinced they haven't iterated on their battery tech, motor performance, and the software and electronics surrounding them. I don't know what you do, but I suspect only Tesla knows the answer. My gut (of which there is ample) is telling me they did release this as they developed it. In one case they charged for it, the $2K Model 3 performance enhancement feature. Other times they used it for marketing purposes. I struggle to find an ethical issue with this, the performance was already excellent and well worth the money according to many Tesla owners. Even if they did cynically plan it all as a marketing exercise, I just can't find myself objecting to it. What's the alternative? Paying for advertising which would raise the price of the vehicle? Instead I would applaud them for some creative marketing after all they are taking a product that already delighted people with it's performance and delighted them even more and recipe for success for sure and I honestly would admire that.

Anyway, I suspect we must agree to disagree on this.

 

[MEDICALJMP]

Also, what Apple did by throttling their phone is far different. They purposely made their product worse by OTA changes to entice you to get a new phone.

Tesla does OTA updates to make your vehicle function better than before and do things you, and they, did not originally think was possible for it to do. And they don’t charge you for it.
Yet you complain about it.

Yes, they will charge for performance updates at times. Maybe I am thrilled that my CT does 130 mph, but see no need to pay for it to go 150 mph. I choose not to soup it up. Just as some take the ICE car and chip it to make their Audi A8 faster, others leave it stock. No difference.

 

[rr6013]

on topic - It getting warmer. Vented seats are going to sell like ice cream to Eskimos for the first time!

I want ventilated seating, even if I have to order SilCloth seats to get it.. SilCloth would be innovative to counteract natural material deterioration that occurs from sweat. Leather seats simply perforated are the first panels to need replacement due to salt effect through perforations.

For the first time, ever, I’m a proponent of ducted cooling cushion temperature management. I’ll take seating for two please.

 

[JBee]

Happy to take the convo to a dedicated thread or just leave it there. To be clear I specifically excluded most software and FSD from my position, because I have an issue with the hardware part instead. Likewise, FSD being paid for in advance of it being available is a separate issue all together.

As mentioned previously, my point is simple: Don't sell to people what they have already bought, and don't sell to people, at full price, that which doesn't yet exist.

-----


On topic.
I wonder how they actually do car seat ventilation in the CT.
I've experienced two different systems so far.

1. where the seat ventilation is just sucking in ambient cabin air from it's surroundings and
2. where the seat ventilation is connected to the HVAC and can be actively cooled and heated by it.
This would mean you wouldn't' need heating elements in the seat either. This would probably be the best option and use the least amount of energy, as it would make use of the heat pump COP, and produce more units of heat than units of electricity it consumed from the battery. And it would do so directly on the occupants body instead of trying to climatize the whole vehicle.

 

[GnarlyDudeLive]

It honestly should be standard in any EV. I watched or read some article a while back indicating the amount of energy required to heat or cool the vehicle cabin vs just the seats and steering wheel. It was something like a ~20x energy cost difference but I don't recall the exact figures. I would think there is some middle point where on a cold day, heating the cabin to say 50-55 degrees and then the heating the seats and steering wheel can create a far lower energy consumption rate while still remaining very comfortable for the passengers. Of course this is all centered around range and reducing over all power demands.

 

[Crissa]

Also, what Apple did by throttling their phone is far different. They purposely made their product worse by OTA changes to entice you to get a new phone.

Let's be clear: Apple did not do this.

They reduced crashes caused by older hardware using a turbo mode that would exceed their aging battery's ability to supply power.

Would you rather have a reliable phone that's still supported? Because that's what Apple provided. Or a phone that's abandonware and crashes? Because that was the other option.

This would mean you wouldn't' need heating elements in the seat either. This would probably be the best option and use the least amount of energy, as it would make use of the heat pump COP, and produce more units of heat than units of electricity it consumed from the battery. And it would do so directly on the occupants body instead of trying to climatize the whole vehicle.

It's more energy efficient to transport heat with coils and fluids than it is with air.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

It's more energy efficient to transport heat with coils and fluids than it is with air.

-Crissa

I'm not sure what you want to say with that.

But the HVAC uses a heat pump that will have a COP of at least 3 if not up to 5. So blowing that through ventilated seats would be more efficient, if you want to use existing heat exchangers.

A heat pump does not convert electricity to heat, rather it transports (pumps) the heat from one place to another. With a COP of 3 that would mean 100W of electricity would create 300W of heat. Or in this case the power required for one seat with a resistive wire, would be able to to heat 3 seats with HVAC sourced heat ventilation. So much better, same applies in the reverse cycle, where it would cool by pumping heat out of the cabin and seats.

Fluids would also work, like in a hydronic house heating system, and you could tap other existing cooling circuits for that as well. This could well be an option, however you would then have to integrate a heat exchanger into the seat (the coils?) and you still have to add the ventilation part as well. But I was thinking ventilated, would allow the same dash heat exchangers to be used, just with some ducting and a separate fan. Insulated ducting won't lose much heat, and then they have the airflow as well with less overall parts.

I hope they have them either way, great for Oz.

 

[Crissa]

I'm not sure what you want to say with that.

Exactly what I did say. Having a radiator coil that linked to the heat pump is more efficient than blowing air from somewhere else in the cabin, that's all. Air is inefficient to move, and is a poor conductor of heat... Until interacting with a sweaty surface. Like someone's back side on a hot day.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Air is a poor conductor but an average convector though...which makes it work. It will still transfer the heat regardless. ;-)

 

[Monkchoi]

Only experienced them once, they were excellent... I did wonder if it would more effectively dissipate a fart around the cabin, you would think so.

How about a fart filtration seat, while emitting a "new car scent" with every use. I laid it out so you could play it out. Make it happen.

 

[tidmutt]

How about a fart filtration seat, while emitting a "new car scent" with every use. I laid it out so you could play it out. Make it happen.

How about bioweapon defense mode built into the seats as well. Instead of blowing fart around the cabin, it actually sucks and filters farts through the HEPA filter. You can also select the extended range option which instead of filtering, the methane is extracted and used to produce energy and charges the battery. Elon being Elon, it would be called the "Liquid Schwartz (beta)" mode...

You can extend the range by about 10% if the entire family is extremely flatulent. Eat up kids! Dad needs the extra range!

 

[JBee]

Bottle it and send it to Boca Chica as Starship fuel...

 

[Throwcomputer]

Ac seats are some if the best inventions in modern times. I want one and if I'm paying 40k plus, that's a luxury range vehicle and expect it to be included.

Sponsored