Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Sep 10, 2017.
I wonder if a Tesla will even work if you live in a area with no cell reception?
What about Microsoft. The images for their different software are pretty much the same. You just unlock the extra built in features with a different license key.
A massive number of software companies do this.
And some of that software is a few thousand dollars for the base version.. such as Solidworks and other CAD software makers.
Creative Labs has done this before as well. Take a look at the history of the PCI 64 and the PCI 128 cards. After I found out that the only difference was an ID chip on the PCI 128, I hacked together a driver set that made the PCI 64 into a PCI 128. A couple months later, Creative basically released my driver set on their website.
Way back in the day, HP was trying to charge $15 for a printer driver upgrade that added MMX instruction support. It sped up printing a huge amount but kinda backfired on them.
What about text book publishers? They push out new versions of books every single year, most of them just having very slight changes compared to the previous year, to try to make students buy new books at $100 - $300+ per book.
You have all kinds of scummy crap going on in pretty much every single industry. Vote with your wallet.
Flash the BIOS and O/C the shit out of your car!
I don't like it but I also really don't give two shits either way. But all the people bitching about it - let's say they get rid of this, you know the base price will go up $7k or whatever the cost is anyway. If this is their way of making it cheaper (e.g. disables extra cores, if you need it translated to PC Hardware terms), then who cares? Most people complaining here about Tesla probably don't intend to purchase one anyway. Move on. I don't like Apple, don't intend to ever buy a product of theirs... I've moved on. It's easy.
I see noone complaining that intel sells the same silicon using multiple clocks and feature levels but how dare tesla sell the same battery with reduced capacity made available.
Yes, how dare they help in a time of need, they should give zero fucks all the time!
The fact that other companies artificially limiting their products does not mean it is a good thing. It does not sound right and probably should be prohibited by law. It's like limiting the lifetime of the product by using less reliable components. Or making products non repairable on purpose etc.
By "help" you mean giving them access to a feature they decided that they weren't wise enough to use on their own.
What does wisdom has to do with enabling a feature normally not available for that price?
The difference is Intel doesn't have the ability to remotely change the performance of my PC. That is my primary complaint here that Tesla has the ability to remotely alter the performance of someones car without their consent. That isn't acceptable on any level to me. I really could not care less that they are putting the bigger battery in lower end models to save money. I am well familiar with economy of scale manufacturing. It is the control Tesla has that I have a problem.
edited this to better clarify my point.
Just as Microsoft does with Windows 10. The only difference is that Tesla has yet to take away features or make them worse. But I agree, they should not have direct control, they should only offer the option, and not change things remotely without consent, even if it's for the better.
I'm not arguing Tesla doesn't have the right to charge whatever they want.
But it makes Tesla's awful value even worse. And it reeks of greed.
If you don't agree with the range and performance for the price, don't buy it.
Lots of things, including other cars are capable of far greater performance etc in stock form with a simple ECU reflash. Just about any turbo car is capable of some massive gains, big time if boost is controlled by the computer.
As for the car being connected, Tesla has always been a tech show off car for them, and seems to still be more or less in Beta, big time with all the new driving features always being updated. It is pretty shocking people here are taking about greed when a company gives something it doesn't have to for free to help people out in a bad situation, it is really amazing the anti-business mindsets that people have to twist anything into a negative.
This right here is one of the many reasons why I won't be getting an electric vehicle any time soon (beyond the super high price point). I don't always need to drive 300 miles in a single trip, but when I do, I want a vehicle that can meet my needs. Not living in a large metropolitan area like St Louis, Cincinnati, Denver, or Chicago means I drive longer distances, and need a car that can meet those needs. It's common for me to drive 150-200+ miles or more round trip to see my mother on a Saturday. Although I don't go to the company HQ often, I'd like to be able to not have to spend extra money renting a car to make that 300 mile one-way drive. Yeah, there's one Tesla charger along the way, but that's a lot of "hope" for such a long trip.
I'm glad Tesla unlocked their cars to help people in FL drive further, but I don't want to rely on a company being "nice" if I need to travel a decent distance.
If you live in an area like this, you plan and buy what you need. You would also probably have more than a single car for situations like this or long road trips, if you can afford $70k+ for a single car.
It still does not get around the fact a Tesla is an awful value and this "upgrade" makes it worse. You aren't paying for new battery. You are paying to get access to what's already there. And you paid for that extra battery when you bought the car. They aren't giving it to you for free. That untapped battery is factored into the BOM and you are paying for it. Again they have a right to do this but I still think it's an awful value proposition.
I'm not anti Tesla. I'm anti stupid.
BTW: boost is not computer controlled. A waste gate controls the top turbo operating pressure. That is purely a mechanical device with no computer oversight. Truth is you always want it operating at the highest pressure possible. But if it gets too high you risk damaging the engine. So the waste gate is what prevents your engine from over pressurizing. It's a safety feature and hence why it's mechanical.
Which is one of the things I've vocally opposed on Win 10 as well. But we more or less agree on this.
What is amazing is the mindset of the people who have to use logic leaps to defend this. This isn't twisting anything into a negative, this is just a flat out unacceptable practice. Comparing an ECU refresh isn't comparable because reprogramming an ECU requires physical access and very specialized equipment and knowledge. Ford can't just simply one day press a button and change the performance of all Ford Fiesta's, much less all ford Fiestas in a very specific area. I'm further not arguing that Tesla used the feature for good, they did however it is the fact that they have it that is unacceptable. If they can unlock battery capacity they can literally change anything they want. Further if they can change anything they want, then so can someone else.
God knows if I was forced to drive one , the first thing I would do is pull the uplink fuse. Corvette owners did this to prevent big brother GM tracking them when OnStar became mandatory
I refuse to have anything which could kill me be connected to the internet.
I'm always surprised to see the number of people trying to drive away from hurricanes. Unless you got a full family with some pets and really need a vehicle which would be understandable in that case, I'd hop on a plane every time vs trying to drive through traffic.
So instead of making battery packs, processors, widgets, etc as efficiently as possible, you are actually saying there should be a law that says every company has to design a specific product to do a specific thing, and the differences no matter how small or easy to control, or now matter how much economies of scale would save time/money/effort.... should be illegal?
That's like saying instead of buying a super fancy tool kit that can help me assemble something with philips head screws, I should be forced to buy a single specific use toolkit for each and every type of screw I want to use. That's not efficient at all, both from a manufacturing standpoint or a consumer standpoint.
The alternative you seem to suggest is that every battery pack should *only* ever have X number of kwh in it, exactly what you paid for. The problem with literally applying that logic is now instead of a single battery pack that can be used in multiple levels you have to design/test/build every possible iteration. Bloating costs, slowing manufacturing, and throwing money out the window with a nightmare inventory situation.
A supremely dumbed down example would be like me saying you aren't allowed to multi-task to get stuff done around the house, instead of getting a bunch of things done at the same time in one swoop, it's just downright inefficient.
Most newer turbo cars are controlled with the computer that works with a solenoid to control the open and close of the WG, the WG spring is only the minimal boost pressure the turbo will run, not the maximum. Back in the day most boost applications were all mechanical, however that is not the case anymore. New turbos are also going to be hybrid electric for boost filling, Volvo already has a number of engines slated to get these. Value is up to the person buying, there are lots of cars that are poor value, and if you don't think the lower capacity battery is worth it, don't buy it?
Giving people free extra range in a bad situation is a unacceptable practice? Well that sure is reaching.
So...Which one is it? ECU reprogramming is hard to do or anyone can do it? you seem to be very confused on this.
ECU flashing is very easy, even on older cars that are not as connected as those made today. Many cars cant do updates to the ECU like this because they are not as connected as a 70-150k car is, there are however some cars that can be updated over the air just like this. The statement that if Tesla can update the range on the battery, anyone else can do anything they want to the car, is well....Just hyperbole. And if you think OTA updates to cars is something only Tesla is/will do, you are very mistaken, the biggest cost is related to cellular services to the cars, so that will be limited to the higher end, with the rest being WiFi. The cost savings is to big for them to pass up on, and even IHS states that almost all the major can mfgs will have OTA ability by 2022.
More and more cars are being filled with ever more electronics, updates for those systems is already a big cost to mfgs, not even factoring in recall or warranty work. I find it funny people freak out about control and snooping from car mfgs, when all of them are carrying around a phone that does this already on a much more detailed scale.
Electronic replacements for mechanical controls have been in the works since the 80s. From solenoids to control valves and turbos. The kinks haven't been worked out. Variable turbos are a better option but they don't negate the need for a waste gate. It's hard for a computer to react the fast. The faster your data sampling the noiser your data. That makes precise control harder. Its also subject to more failures. I know as I specialized in sensor instrumentation control. This is why mechanical will always be superior. Physics always wins over computer control.
BTW you are wrong. The wastegate controls maximum pressure. Turn in your car guy card.
Giving people free extra range my ass. The range is already there. The consumer paid for it when they bought the car. It's artificially limited on a poor value. You'll never recoup the cost in gas savings.
And having any mission critical system connected to the internet is just butt stupid and arrogant. Sure other companies do this and I will gladly call them butt stupid and arrogant. How many cars have already been hacked to disable things like brakes and steering?
And you're right people are spied on every day by the likes of Google. But I have the option to turn my phone off or use Firefox with duckduckgo on Linux. That's much harder to do on a car. You physically have to alter the car to not uplink.
Uhhh....No. You might want to update your "man card" to tech from the last 10 years. Stand alone gauges such as the SCG-1 or eboost2 have enough processing power and sampling time to control it on it's own no less a ECU. Your statement about electronic boost control is not based anywhere in fact. WG is minimal boost pressure in electronic boost control, the days of selecting a higher WG spring pressure to be able to "turn up" the boost higher is long gone as electronic does not have the same limits as mechanical controllers like the Hallman, where you need to change out both the WG spring and Hallman spring to go from low to high boost applications. Which on my turbo car has a max of 12psi on the low WG spring, yet on that same spring I can sit in my car and turn it up to 30psi+ with my electronic control. I can also adjust for gain (due to boost taper) as well as boost spikes that you are just SOL with on mechanical control. Electronic control works using vacuum and intake manifold pressure to control when the WG opens, which is why BOV's are not even needed anymore on newer setups, big time with turbos like the EFR line. You are speaking about electronic control as mechanical, without ever trying to understand that WG works as a minimal pressure control in those situations and is why with these setups low WG springs are used.
I guess your mechanical control being better is why almost all competitive race teams all use electronic boost control, because mechanical boost control is capable of boost by RPM and boost by gear, boost taper/gain and spike control or boost cut just like electronic right?
Way to go on understanding a system before trying to bad mouth it.
While there are performance benefits to variable boost control, mechanical safety overrides are still superior. Sensors are subject to failure, noise and lag. In a turbo they are subject to extreme stress and heat. most turbos don't last much past 100,000 miles. It's why I'll never buy a Ford eco boost. Yes you use sensors to control things like fuel feed/mix and timing. But being off a couple percent usually won't damage your engine. You over boost without a fast acting mechanical safety you are asking for real trouble.
It's the difference between fine tuning performance and protecting the engine.
And it's called a wastegate because excess pressure causes it to vent to atmosphere (on the best designs) as waste. I should note they can be cycled back in to the exhaust system but I've never been a fan of this in high performance apps.
So yer sayin' the cheaper model has some overclocking headroom?
Y'all need to quit your bitching and figure out how to unlock this potential!
you're deflecting because that isn't what I wrote and you know it.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that performance is artificially locked off in the Tesla products and that they can remotely modify your vehicle without permission. That said, however, I think I would be equally uncomfortable with a computer controlled vehicle that could be easily unlocked and tampered with even if it means that owners can't "overclock" their cars. For example, I totally think that the BIOS of a graphics card or the bootloader of a phone should be unlocked to allow me to do whatever I want with them. The difference is that neither of those things can kill me or injure others if something goes wrong or if some malware gets installed. As such, I personally think that some of the arguments for locking down car software are legit.
That said, I would be very angry if a software update reduced features/performance (which has happened before). I don't know if you all remember but last December, Tesla implemented an update that dropped the max horsepower of some cars if you used the launch mode to go fast too much. People were upset and rightly so that an artificial limit was applied to save on warranty/repair costs rather than for a safety reason. For example, I was okay with Tesla temporarily removing certain Autopilot features on new cars until they could polish it up and release a major update so that it was safe. Reducing performance to prevent wear and tear to the drivetrain/battery in order to lower warranty costs was not and is not acceptable. The ONLY acceptable reason for an update that removes functionality is safety.
A Tesla Representative was quoted as saying: (SEE: https://electrek.co/2016/12/23/tesla-limiting-power-performance-launch-mode/)
Note that this limitation was eventually removed after customer outcry.
Then yer not O'clocking 'em cards enough, risk of death* is needed to keep overclocking a type A sport.
So sensors are subject to failure, but mechanical parts are not? Uhhh....You have not been around forced induction cars much have you? Stuck closed or open WGs are a real thing, failed springs or stuck balls in manual controllers etc etc. The devices work off of vacuum and pressure from the engine (the WG it self would have to fail), so the engine is self would have to stop working. But being mechanical is so much better and more reliable, I guess we should go back to distributors and mechanical fuel injection. After all, an ECU, fuel injectors, etc are all electrical.
Sensors do not make noise, nor do they have anymore lag than mechanical. Mechanical parts can however. You seem to be very confused on which is which, as you seem to be taking all the positives from electrical and applying them to mechanical. Your sweeping statement backed by nothing on not lasting past 100k miles is also not true. As most use floating bearings and being centrifugal in nature they have very little wearing parts and almost all failures are related to improper engine maintenance, mostly dealing with to low oil levels or not changing the oil enough, in some extreme cases it can also be the result of poor oil choice and the result of it coking. In cases where proper maintenance is performed, the turbo will often outlast the motor. Back in the day even turbos lasted forever that were not abused, it was common for DYI guys to pick old turbo Volvos with 150-200k miles on the clock, slap the turbo onto a new build and have it go another 100k miles, this was back before the whole market of turbo options we have today.
Vent to atmosphere is not always the best design, and is something that is often not done anymore, most WG are integrated into the exhaust housing and those tend to be dumped back into the downpipe not to atmosphere other than on show and drift cars for the extra noise, but it is a case by case basis. Street cars often do this because it is more DIY and setting up proper exhaust flow requires computer simulations and testing, when an exhaust shop can just cut a short dump pipe, outside of full blow drag cars etc, however the gain loss between two good examples of both is just about moot. You seem to be really behind the times on FI cars and I would suggest at least getting some hands on time with the new stuff before trying to talk down about it.
Deflecting what? I covered everything said point by point.
I like this.
I'll take the Tesla "whatever", but I'll only make half payments. You can make my battery have half the capacity.
Or, "Help! My Tesla's been stolen by my au pair!" "Don't worry sir, we're draining the battery as we speak."
Maybe not in this thread, but a lot of people complain about Intel's arbitrary segmentation where it basically requires a spreadsheet to understand to understand their CPU lineup.
That's a different unconnected issue, ambiguous naming schemes, but by far the worst offender there is AMD (GPU side).
Then your reading comprehension is awful because your point by point response has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Being mad at Tesla for this is like being mad at the cable company for giving higher speeds and more channels to those customers who pay more.
Let's call it product expectation. It is the very reason why people who use Android phones and gmail complain about telemetry and forced updates in Windows 10. Once we are used to the way a certain product works, we don't expect certain limitations to be imposed, while when there is a different technology available that we have only known with those limitations, it doesn't bother us - that's just the way things are. For automobiles, we have come to expect that performance (MPG, HP, etc.,) is based on the actual parts installed in the vehicle. The difference between a 200HP car and a 250HP car isn't the flip of a switch - it is a different engine, intake, exhaust, etc. Sure, there is tuning you can do, but it isn't something that is "locked" by the dealer that you pay extra money for them to "unlock" your car. This is especially true for Range/MPG - as the manufacturers have a great incentive (government mandate) to make your car go as far as possible on as little fuel as possible.
Additionally, yours is not a good comparison. The cable companies pay the backbone providers for the bandwidth they provide to their customers. The more you as a customer use, the more it costs the cable company. For Tesla and range of the cars, it doesn't cost Tesla any more to give you the full range of the battery vs. limiting the battery life. The same battery is in the car either way.
product expectation? The consumers who bought this car got exactly what they paid for, they should not be expecting anything more.
no one imposed any limits...quite the contrary.They got more than they paid for
I think its a fine example, you're welcome to disagree though
I was more referring to Intel arbitrarily locking/disabling certain features on their CPUs that would work perfectly fine without their intervention. Like paying extra for them to flip an unlocked multiplier switch, hyper-threading, etc. I think Tesla actually has a much more "consumer friendly" reason for doing this than Intel does. Batteries would die fast and cost a lot to replace if they did full charges all the time. Unlocking a multiplier on a CPU doesn't do that.
Even the naming thing is a connected issue though. When product names/prices aren't indicative of actual specs then the naming/marketing is a big part of the problem (or the solution if your aim is confuse consumers). I certainly agree AMD has been horrible in this regard as well. Nvidia has been better lately but they were getting pretty ridiculous for awhile too (there were what 3 or 4 different names for what was basically a 8800GT?)
Don't get me wrong I think there's a certain amount of caveat emptor and people failing to do proper research, but these companies do often make things confusing/uninformative on purpose as well.