41–50 of 659 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said, I’m potentially in the market for a car and this is like reason #5 I’m ruling out Tesla.
Same, though there were about a dozen previous reasons, starting with "pedo guy". This won't help, but I was pretty much long gone as a customer.
And like many, Musk's behavior has dissuaded me from purchasing one, and instead likely a Ford.
EDIT: Meant to paste unrolled link: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1551713024171548672.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.
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…
I have mixed feelings about schemes like this, but I don't think they're inherently bad.
You start off making 60kWh and 90kWh cars. Customers are happy buying both.
You notice you can save costs overall by just selling the 90kWh cars at the 60kWh price-- but revenue will fall if you don't lock the pack down to 60kWh.
Would it be better to force Tesla to maintain two different physical pack SKUs and incur more costs if they want different pricing for the different capacities?
And you do save some money, even, with the locking-- after all, the 90kWh pack used as a 60kWh one is far less likely to need warranty service-- it has spent less time at the extremes of charge and it can fall all the way from 90 to 54kWh instead of 90 to 81kWh.
This is just like binning with CPUs-- at first, the yields control whether something is an 8 core or 6 core part. Later, you lock some 8 core parts down to be 6 cores so you can sell them at a lower price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A year ago, I would have chosen a new Tesla, hands down (disclosure: I am probably not gonna actually buy an EV for as many years as I can eke out of my trusty Subie). Nowadays, I have chatted with numerous folks that have purchased alternative EVs. The Tesla owners still seem the giddiest (There's a lot of 'em around here), but I have not heard one ounce of buyer's remorse from any of the other brands. The one that…
Bit of buyer's remorse from a Nissan Leaf now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO.
Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Tesla, being notified, should have just enabled the 90 and made the customer happy. How exactly are people supposed to abuse this? Tesla put the 90 in there and they're the only ones who are going to be doing that. Presumably this cost them a fortune to do it in the first place. Why not get some good will out of it? "Hey sorry about your battery. We only had a 90 so we threw that in there. Enjoy. Tell everyone you know about how awesome Tesla was about fixing the problem and remember that next time you go to buy your next car"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I assume you meant that the car in question was a 90 by virtue of a "random person's hack". Would you mind describing why you think this? The car is a 90 (effectively) because Tesla set it up that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A year ago, I would have chosen a new Tesla, hands down (disclosure: I am probably not gonna actually buy an EV for as many years as I can eke out of my trusty Subie). Nowadays, I have chatted with numerous folks that have purchased alternative EVs. The Tesla owners still seem the giddiest (There's a lot of 'em around here), but I have not heard one ounce of buyer's remorse from any of the other brands. The one that…
Bit of buyer's remorse from a Nissan Leaf now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO.
The charging situation for electric cars for road trips is still a thing... It seems to have found a standard in CSS. I expected there to be adapters, but apparently making adapters is slightly non trivial as there is a lot of chatting between the car and charger.