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

61–70 of 659 posts

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

#61

Post by seeekr »

Last update on Twitter:

"While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way."

Tesla is a big company by now. Probably a lot more people working there in Service Centers than in the core manufacturing & engineering. Hard to get everything right. Lots of room for improvement for sure. Rooting for Tesla to work these things out over time! (Disclaimer: Owner + shareholder, both out of conviction.)

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

#62

Post by raisin_churn »

duncan_idaho wrote: post #30
nr2x wrote: post #13

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.

I'd say this is a great reason to not a used one. Which Tesla doesn't care about at all and probably want to discourage.

You don't think car makers have a vested interest in there being a robust secondary market for their cars? If I have a choice between a $50k car that will have a $25k resale value after 5 years, and one that will have a $10k resale value, that's a strong incentive to buy the former. That's another $15k in my budget for my next car, and if I liked the last one, there's a good chance that money is going right back to that same manufacturer.

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

#63

Post by sjm-lbm »

bgirard wrote: post #7

> Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range. When they bought the car from the 3rd party, did they buy it as a P60 or a P90? Did someone mis-represent the car when sold? Was it Tesla or the previous owner? Was the badge on the back changed to P90? That doesn't sound like a 'mistake' Tesla would make when making a warranty repair. Curial information here i…

> If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them.

I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this - they didn't just modify the badge, they also provided the additional rage from a P90.

As a thought experiment: if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you? Perhaps - I'm honestly not sure - but I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also includes the modifications needed to have that car act as a P90 is automatically wrong.

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

#64

Post by renewiltord »

gnicholas wrote: post #16

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 t…

Hmm, the Carfax report for the car should show it as what it is originally, right? All features that are not in that should then be considered absent.

But that's not a complete list. FSD, etc. won't transfer either. You're right. This would be a useful page on some Tesla owners' wiki.

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

#65

Post by toss1 »

slg wrote: post #17
AinderS wrote: post #6

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.

Absolutely true, in the realm of anything related to self-driving or even fly-by-wire controls.

However, the software that artificially controls how much range the battery pack will produce (outside of the charging & self-protection algos) - that's borderline unethical to DRM.

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

#66

Post by balls187 »

It's not clear of the 3rd owner purchased an S90 or knowingly purchased an S60 that had been "faked" to be an S90.

Tesla made a mistake, which benefited 1,2 or even all 3 owners. They then fixed the mistake.

I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle.

Otherwise, yes it's kind of bad move from a customer service point of view.

As another commenter wrote, the first blame lies with who ever rebadged the S60 as an S90 and then sold it as an S90. At somepoint one owner realized they had benefited from something without paying for it, and it's unclear if they ever tried to rectify it with Tesla.

Edit to Add Ethical Questions:

If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for?

What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for? Do you message Doordash to charge you?

What if it's the opposite, you don't get food you did pay for? Ask DoorDash for a refund?

Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?

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

#67

Post by crooked-v »

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'…

> They didn't buy from Tesla, but they're still a customer buying servicing from them.

This strikes me as a result of Tesla's whole "ignore everything known by car companies and act like software companies" approach. So far the software industry is young enough that most companies can expect that anyone approaching them for support is the same person who bought the software... but that's not at all the case for cars, what with resales, inheritances, etc being standard practice.

I think a lot of software companies are going to be in for a rude awakening over the next 25 years or so, as hand-me-down devices and accounts become increasingly common. I wonder how many lawsuits it's going to take before companies purporting to "sell" software actually take wills into account.

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

#68

Post by js2 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #39
skykooler wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit of buyer's remorse from a Nissan Leaf now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO.

I don't know any Leaf or Volt owners. I know a Bolt owner though, and they seem pleased. I also know someone that has a Fusion plug-in hybrid. He loves it. I have seen the F-150 Lightnings around, but don't know anyone that got one (yet).

Hi, I'm a Volt owner. We purchased it almost 6 years ago and are still thrilled with it. The 50'ish miles of EV range covers 95% of my wife's driving, but she can also take it on road trips w/o having to find a place to plug it in.

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

#69

Post by infogulch »

zcw100 wrote: post #48

So the way I'm reading the post is Tesla swapped out a battery pack for a 60 with a 90 and enabled the 90. Tesla, years later, discovers that even though the hardware for a 90 was installed it should have been software limited to be a 60. (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90). They go and "fix the glitch" and set it back to the 60. Sin…

> "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"

That would be such a great solution

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

#70

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

panopticon wrote: post #52
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #27

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…

I bought an EV earlier this year. I ended up with a LR Model 3 because the dealership model really sucks still. I called Hyundai and VW dealerships in the tri-state area around me, and none of them could say when I'd be able to actually get a car. Instead I went to Tesla's website, placed an order, and got an ETA. Super simple; loved that experience. If it weren't for the crappy dealership model I probably would have…

I have seen quite a few Ioniq's around. They seem to have just hit the streets.

I have also been seeing various flavors of BMW electrics, for some time.

A chap around here, owns one of those BMW electric "supercar" looking things (i8?). I don't know him, personally.

Post reply on HN