|
|
|
|
|
by aetherspawn
2564 days ago
|
|
Right, but it’s not like they’re selling and voltage-limiting like a lead acid battery or something like that ... the battery is full of software to measure the discharge current, temperature of every cell, etc. There’s massive engineering complexity in the battery monitoring system. It’s no different to software providing both free and premium versions in the same binary. What are you paying for? Not the number of bytes.. the R&D hours behind it. So for the battery, what are you actually paying for? Not the physical battery, but the capital they had to put into designing the system - a system they designed and determined was cheaper to produce at mass with a standard battery layout and configuration (hence the same voltage range, fuses, battery discharge profile etc) Now if you start messing around with the battery layout then suddenly all your hundreds of sensors, fuses, etc need the ability to achieve remapping and you have to do independent testing, charge profiling etc on the new design.. possibly even design new inverters if you have to change the maximum voltage. So their approach ends up being basic subtraction and scaling on the state of charge. This can be implemented in literally an hour vs. many months and supply chain headache involving hundreds of new PNs. Disclaimer; I design power systems for a Tesla ‘rival’ kinda. |
|
I think the reason people tolerate this arrangement with software is that they are not actually buying ownership of the IP that this R&D capitalizes; they're buying a license to use that IP.
Here, they're purchasing ownership of an actual car. Tesla is actively denying them full use of something that they own.