Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#101

Post by mikeash » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:25 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

It has happened already.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/58951-Let-the-...

(That starts out with parts, but the guy eventually roots his own car.)

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#102

Post by Vivtek » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:26 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

It's painful to brick your phone, which is the risk when trying to jailbreak it. It's devastating to brick your $100,000 car, though.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#103

Post by toomuchtodo » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #83

gioele wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? If you break your engine control module, who, if not the original manufacturer, can provide you a new one that works for your car? (Serious question, no sarcasm.)

> How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? What do you mean with manufacturer's permission? The parts are sold independently of the vehicle as far as I'm aware. You can buy loads of ECUs for modern cars on the internet and there is no consequence of installing it.

Can you get the source code for the ECU? You cannot.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#104

Post by noselasd » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

gioele wrote: post #58

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? If you break your engine control module, who, if not the original manufacturer, can provide you a new one that works for your car? (Serious question, no sarcasm.)

You go to a car junkyard and find the parts you need. Parts from 3. parties aren't that uncommon either.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#105

Post by userbinator » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

mizzao wrote: post #69

userbinator wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think that out of the thousands of people who have already bought one of these cars, there might be one out there with both the skills and desire to actually own what they paid for On the other hand, it could just be that those who want to really own their cars would not consider buying a Tesla anyway, and those who have the skills are too scared of the legal aspects. I think at the moment, electric cars are st…

Accidentally melting your power electronics doesn't activate your smelly, smoky, aggressive, obnoxious monster senses?

That's just a failure mode, not the normal "nature of the beast" as is the case with non-electric cars.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#106

Post by reitanqild » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #80

qume wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, and one more thing. Go walk around the yard of a tow company. Be prepared to feel sick. You'll come away with the conclusion that the standard crash tests, which are well designed for common accidents, are still just a small minority of serious accidents. And the most horrifying thing that I came away with is the number of wrecks where there is 'car' where the passengers should be. Even in trucks and SUVs. The st…

Volvos definitely have a well-deserved reputation; for many years, their slogan was "Drive Safely", and they took it seriously. Here's another video where the Volvo's passenger compartment doesn't even change shape while the other car's is completely crushed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt0oQsRvtWI Although a downside is that, as the joke goes, "a Volvo doesn't need a crumple zone; it uses the other car." Not so…

Older models are a popular choice for the low budget motorcross competitions :-)

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#107

Post by amelius » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

> A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer.

Yes, but on the other hand it is best to view a car as a service, because this makes sure that the interests of the manufacturer (or service provider) are aligned with those of the user: no more "planned obsolescence"; and the manufacturer will plan ahead for recycling of materials because this is in their best interest (unlike when you buy a product, where the manufacturer couldn't care less).

This is becoming a new trend, and it is a good thing. The user pays for a service, and the provider has to provide the service for the optimal cost, without hidden costs such as for replacement, repair, etc.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#108

Post by x0054 » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #65

gioele wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? If you break your engine control module, who, if not the original manufacturer, can provide you a new one that works for your car? (Serious question, no sarcasm.)

I've never bought a 2016 model car (maybe something changed this year?) so I have never heard about the concept of having to ask a manufacturer to "activate" your car before reading this article. I buy used cars and repair them myself. I wonder if this disqualifies me from ever owning an electric car? While more recent cars have begun down the troubling path of making less and less user-serviceable, most cars still h…

If you a replacing an ECU on a car with a new one, you have to flash it with the right firmware for the vin number of the car. At least that's the case with Chrysler. My friend works at a Chrysler dealership as a tech, and he says that basically anything you now put in on the car, be it something complex, like the ECU, or something simple, like the windshield washer control module, it has to be programmed. If you don't program it, it doesn't work. On BMW M3 you even need a computer to "program" a new battery.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#109

Post by icebraining » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

qume wrote: post #33

huuu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not environment friendly in cities. That's why a lot of European cities are banning them.

It's gasoline. You're thinking of diesel.

Here in Lisbon no such distinction is made, any diesel or gasoline car built before 2000 is banned from the city center.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#110

Post by ericd » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #54

valine wrote: post #12

This is very troubling to read. I can understand that tampering with an automobile might pose safety concerns. I can also understand that Tesla is trying to protect its brand. That being said, the fact that Tesla is monitoring individual cars in a way that they can detect when you're used the Ethernet port is seriously Orwellian. I can only imagine this will get worse as cars become more autonomous.

The ability to potentially break your car has never stopped any other car in history from having an accessible engine compartment. This is basically in tandem with the John Deere story - the consequences of proprietary software bleed into the physical world and cause an incredible amount of difficulty for people who do not even recognize what the problem is. Tesla can only get away with all this because of how digita…

Tinkering with an electric car when you don't know what you're doing will kill you so much more easily than a gasoline car will. That probably has something to do with it?