Tesla has got me thinking

"coelacanthist" (coelacanthist) 06/10/2016 at 12:46 • Filed to: None

0

18

I wouldn’t hate the “freemium” concept applied to range and performance of an electric vehicle.

Imagine you could purchase a good looking, fun to drive, practical vehicle at a reasonable price. Let’s say for the sake of argument, a 20 thousand dollar hatchback, because I like hatchbacks. You can plug this car in at home, and charge it up to say a 100 mile range for nothing more than the cost of the electrons. You can now drive to and from work, drop the kids off at school, get your groceries, with the performance and driving dynamics of a base model VW golf. We’ll call this Monday-Friday mode.

Maybe on the weekends you like to drive out into the country for some wine tasting with the wife, or take the kids on a road trip to grandma’s house. You plug in, and pony up twenty or thirty bucks to boost your range up to a few hundred miles. This could be done through the charging app on the infotainment system. We’ll call this weekend mode. Once that range is exhausted, you can go back to your free M-F mode.

Maybe next weekend you want to enjoy an afternoon of carving up some back roads. You pony up again for weekend mode, but this time also purchase a 24 hour performance package. Let’s say another twenty bucks stiffens up the suspension and unlocks some extra torques and horses. You could even have a virtual “boost” button that could charge you a nominal fee by the second for temporary bursts of insane power. You could of course choose to never take advantage of these features and still have an economical, environmentally friendly “cheap and cheerful” car.

People seem to be upset that Tesla is selling a detuned version of the same car at a lower price, but we already buy cars that are intentionally limited for one reason or another. As enthusiasts we currently have to jump through hoops an potentially void warranties to get our existing hardware to perform more like we want it to. I think it’s smart of Tesla to keep this option “in house”. Why pay for range you might not need?

I see lots of potential benefits in a scenario like this. You would have fewer people dangerously abusing the power of their performance vehicles in day to day commuter scenarios unless they wanted to pay to have all the power all the time. Your car would stay fun longer as you would never get too used to an unchanging driving dynamic. Money you spent on range and performance would go back to the manufacturer rather than oil companies, providing a revenue stream for further software development and new models. Insurance companies could use this data to provide a more fair price structure based on how you actin use your car rather than its potential risks.

I realize this is some serious fantasy at this point, but a few years down the road? Maybe not so much. I also realize I’m not the first person to broach this subject. What Tesla is doing now works because their cars are still high end luxury items for most people, but I really believe this concept could be an interesting facet of enthusiast driving of the future, and I think I would be on board for something like this. Thoughts?

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 12:49

0

But the hardware isn’t free...

coelacanthist > Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch 06/10/2016 at 12:53

0

Neither is your cell phone, but you can choose which apps to purchase, or which free versions are worth paying to unlock.

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 12:57

0

But the phone is as good of a phone as it will ever be, you can’t download an app to make it call better. This works for secondary or tertiary software driven functions, not existing hardware..

Aaron M - MasoFiST > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 13:01

0

I think the issue people have is with the marginal cost of such “upgrades”. That is to say, it’s zero.

If it costs nothing to get better performance out of the vehicle, then almost any price charged for it is going to appear to be a “rip off”. Especially if access to that mode is temporary.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 13:03

0

I know just saying LS makes something a cliche, but I think this applies. It’s like buying any LS-powered GM product that isn’t a Corvette or a top-end model.

You get good power for a reasonable price, and when you judge the time to be right, it’s easy and not terribly expensive to wring a lot more power out of it.

coelacanthist > Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch 06/10/2016 at 13:05

0

Software updates can and have improved battery life of mobile devices. You can also think of data as range. Some people pay more for unlimited data while others choose to pay less and have it limited. Same existing hardware.

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 13:10

0

However, data is an intangible, battery capacity (not battery life) is the direct comparison. Software can improve battery life but it traditionally wouldn’t paywall hardware (battery capacity) which is already present.

jariten1781 > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 13:20

0

You could have all of that without it being behind a pay-wall. It’s done already with stuff that have different driving modes (eco-comfort-sport-track) that change fuel mapping, throttle butterfly opening speed/limits, steering weight, shock damping, shift points, etc. etc. The issue folks have w/ Tesla is that it's literally just a cash grab. It costs more, granted teensy amount, to code in the restrictions than just have one blanket that covers the hardware capabilities.

coelacanthist > Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch 06/10/2016 at 13:23

1

I totally get what you are saying and appreciate the lively discourse.

Bman76 (no it doesn't need a WS6 hood) M. Arch > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 13:24

0

Thanks!

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 13:27

0

So you’re saying that you’re okay with having to pay extra to extend the range of your car? I bet you’re the same guy that’s perfectly happy buying same day DLC for a game when it comes out.

The way it works now is that companies detune the engine which only makes the car less fast, not less usable.... Tesla is forcing you to pay extra so you’re not carrying dead weight on your car. “Here at BMW have just released an exciting new feature called ‘Bumb Bell’s’ where we add exciting new lead weights to your car making it way heavier so it uses way more fuel and for a small fee every weekend we’ll remove it so your car doesn’t drive like shit. Oh and if you try remove them we’ll slap you with a DMCA so quickly your head will spin...” I’d totally buy a car like that /s.

coelacanthist > jariten1781 06/10/2016 at 13:28

0

What they are doing is a short term fix to move units. If they had to reengineer a different version with less range, it likely would not be cost effective to do so. Obviously the demand for their model 3 has opened their eyes to the fact that people dig what they are doing, they just can't afford the current available options.

MuchWagon > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 13:31

0

I dig where you are going but range is a very expensive feature. Installing those extra batts is the thing, you arent unlocking a feature so much as unlocking hardware. Very expensive and heavy hardware that Tesla won’t install as a freemium.

I dig the concept though! Just don’t think range is the right use case.

jariten1781 > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 14:14

0

That could also be done just by lowering the base price. The materials and sunk engineering costs are the same for the lesser and full capable units. They’re extracting profit solely by commenting out some code.

Personally, it’s not a big deal to me. Things are worth what people will pay and what sellers will sell for. If people are willing to buy a neutered car or to pay extra for the exact hardware with a couple lines of code different that's their bag. I see how it rubs folks wrong, though, it’s pure unadulterated profiteering.

BigBlock440 > jariten1781 06/10/2016 at 14:19

0

I can think of one reason that doesn’t really bother me, and that’s if they’re selling the 60s at a low-to-loss profit margin because they’ll be able to sell more credits. That would mean they can’t sell the 60's at the same price as the 75's and still make a profit, but they’re instead making up the cost to sell them in some other way. I have not read anything to say that’s what their doing, but I feel like that would be a valid strategy.

jariten1781 > BigBlock440 06/10/2016 at 14:26

0

I wouldn't be shocked if they're doing it solely to try and entice Model-3 pre-orderers to buy early and drop/have a backup so when they fail to hit their production numbers there's less of a backlash. "Hey, so we're not going to be able to get you that 3 for 18 more months...but don't be mad at us, we can get you a 60 in 30 days and it's in the same bracket'

BigBlock440 > jariten1781 06/10/2016 at 15:05

0

I don’t really buy that one though, because I don’t consider $35k to be in the same bracket as $66k. Maybe it’ll be comparable when you really load the 3 up, but there’s no information on the upper ranges yet.

gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee > coelacanthist 06/10/2016 at 16:08

0

I dislike this idea, and think it’s unlikely to succeed. Your machine would have this capability, but the manufacturer denies it to you unless you choose to pay and use it. The manufacturer would know that most of its users would not pay for this service, and the equipment necessary to do it costs money. In the case of extended range, that would mean fitting a larger-capacity battery that costs more. On the scale that cars are manufactured, if you build 100,000 cars at an extra cost of $200 each, that’s an extra $20 Million to build the cars. It would take 200,000 $100 “bumps” just to break even. And that battery is likely to come at a much greater cost and in much higher volume... my boss just got a new golf cart, and the higher-capacity battery (on a golf cart, mind) was $1000 more.