Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 659 posts

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#11

Post by mattnewton »

noasaservice wrote: post #8
superchroma wrote: post #4

"I feel like this is more mundane on Tesla's part than many are making it out to be. A mistake was made years ago. An employee recently discovered and "fixed" it. Terrible communication and customer service, but nefarious? Nah." At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just e…

Maybe. Maybe not. If I sold you my car, and I wanted my stereo but forgot it, the first sale doctrine covers the whole thing as delivered. If I was to go to the car, while in your ownership and possession, and attempt to remove the stereo, you'd call the cops for vehicular theft. That's because it's covered under first sale doctrine. And being a vehicle (unlike most other goods) has an attached ownership registered w…

> If I sold you my car, and I wanted my stereo but forgot it, the first sale doctrine covers the whole thing as delivered. If I was to go to the car, while in your ownership and possession, and attempt to remove the stereo, you'd call the cops for vehicular theft.

You could just have included the stereo explicitly in the contract. This happens all the time in large purchases like real estate. You would of course need to enforce the contract in a different way than breaking into their car, but it would be enforceable as long as the contract as worded doesn’t run afoul of state and local laws. Not doing that, and forgetting to remove it, well… it seems like consumers are giving up a very large concept of ownership for marginal seller use cases, charitably. Uncharitably it seeks to be a lower grab and cut contract law out of the equation.

Edit: slight rephrasing because I misread your argument, I think we are in agreement

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#13

Post by nr2x »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #10

I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this: The real moral of the story here is that if your business plan and practices is creating occasional weird issues and huge cognitive dissonance in your customers, it's the wrong business plan. Also... the number of people this applies to is likely so low that Tesla really screwed up by not erring on the side of the customer. (They didn't buy from Tesla, but they'…

Well said, I’m potentially in the market for a car and this is like reason #5 I’m ruling out Tesla.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#15

Post by nr2x »

AinderS wrote: post #6
superchroma wrote: post #4

"I feel like this is more mundane on Tesla's part than many are making it out to be. A mistake was made years ago. An employee recently discovered and "fixed" it. Terrible communication and customer service, but nefarious? Nah." At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just e…

Software locks themselves are nefarious. Is it the owner's car, or Tesla's?

It’s a rental car, you just don’t know that when you “buy” it.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#16

Post by gnicholas »

How can a potential buyer verify that a used Tesla they are considering purchasing is not subject to some sort of pullback like this?

I feel like there's an information asymmetry between the used car buyer (who has likely never owned a Tesla before, and certainly doesn't know the history of the vehicle he's considering purchasing), the seller (who may specifically be aware that the car appears to have functionality that could be revoked at a later date), and Tesla (who have records of what has been paid for).

What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#17

Post by slg »

AinderS wrote: post #6
superchroma wrote: post #4

"I feel like this is more mundane on Tesla's part than many are making it out to be. A mistake was made years ago. An employee recently discovered and "fixed" it. Terrible communication and customer service, but nefarious? Nah." At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just e…

Software locks themselves are nefarious. Is it the owner's car, or Tesla's?

Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesla's self-driving software as is, I certainly don't trust some random person's hack of already questionable Tesla code. This isn't an iPhone. Someone mucking about in the software can kill people.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#18

Post by noasaservice »

Ekaros wrote: post #9
AinderS wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software locks themselves are nefarious. Is it the owner's car, or Tesla's?

I wonder if there is some nice fine print somewhere that they only sold a "licence" to use the car. Not the car itself... Kinda like software has...

If they want to *lease* the vehicles, that's fine. They need to make it explicitly known it is a lease for X term, and at Y cost per month of the lease. Modifying their property would be completely in the clear, or at least a hell of a lot less ethically ambiguous.

But they're selling these vehicles. As in, transfer of title to the person they're selling to. Taxes are paid. Transfer is registered with the state(s). Insurance is purchased on vehicles in your possession. And full coverage is required for vehicle loans (another set of showing proper legal transfer).

And, just because some click-wrap software has "We are allowed to murder your family and eat your children" does not make illegal clauses legal. And given in this instance, it was tesla->first owner->second owner->third owner , any click-wrap garbage would have been done by the first owner.

Basically, this is the end-run around physical ownership for all the IoT companies and companies that pay for/demand 100% connectivity. All of these companies that have these always-on remote tie ins are the Darth Vader here - "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."

All the EV companies are doing this. I so want to buy an EV. I'm not willing to subvert my ownership rights for that.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#19

Post by bena »

The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers.

There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock.

That's labor that was not necessary. All the work needed to software lock the charge capacity of the battery could have been avoided. The only way it makes sense is if you get to charge more for the exact same thing. Which is what Tesla is apparently doing.

Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#20

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #5
nathanaldensr wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily I don't have to imagine because I will never, ever buy a vehicle that allows for this sort of behavior. The person should hire a lawyer and sue Tesla.

Even for actual crimes there’s statute of limitations…

the clock starts when the crime was committed which is when Tesla cut the range
Post reply on HN