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

91–100 of 659 posts

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

#91

Post by crooked-v »

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…

> If it weren't for the crappy dealership model I probably would have bought the Hyundai Ioniq instead.

I went looking for a Bolt EUV recently (that price point for Super Cruise is really attractive), but they were marked up everywhere by upwards of $6K and it's impossible to reserve one from the manufacturer and actually get any guarantee that it will be purchasable at the listed price.

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

#92

Post by stonemetal12 »

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.

Random person's hack maybe not but what about say Shelby, or Saleen? I would be all over a Saleen Model S.

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

#93

Post by cowtools »

AinderS wrote: post #24
Ekaros wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Contracts and DRM are two sides of the same coin when it comes to chipping away at ownership. They want to segment the market as finely as possible, to capture all of the excess value of their product. E.g. they don't want to sell you a general-purpose GPU, but a GPU that's good for one purpose only, and you have to pay extra to use it for anything else [1]. Tesla is leading the way [2], but I'm sure other automakers…

I have always suspected that nvidia's closed source drivers are an intentional result of hiding poorly-implemented limitations (see code 43 error, etc.) for the sake of market segmentation between data-center and gaming models. They would be screwed if data centers realized they could just reuse cheap off-the-shelf components for a fraction of the price.

Not to mention they benefit from building up a proprietary ecosystem (CUDA, etc.) from collecting data from users (geforce now, etc.).

It's something of a conspiracy theory.

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

#94

Post by teawrecks »

gambiting wrote: post #56
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…

>> (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) It says right there that it was done under warranty. If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3…

The customers enforce this. IANAL, but afaik there's no law (in the US) that enforces this.

The only place I know of that may have a relevant law to enforce this is Norway and their Norwegian Marketing Control Act that prohibits withdrawing a key feature after sale. Accidental upgrade after a repair under warranty may or may not be included in this.

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

#95

Post by hinkley »

There was a twitter message that made it to Reddit front page yesterday about being a black man driving an electric car in the rural south and trying to find a recharging station being the plot for Jordan Peele’s next movie. Interesting synchronicity. Also would watch that movie.

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

#96

Post by timmytokyo »

ajconway wrote: post #72
pkulak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tesla is also thousands of brilliant engineers that transformed the industry, and not just one guy who tweets a lot.

In other words, Musk isn't doing his engineers any favors either.

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

#97

Post by toomuchtodo »

dylan604 wrote: post #22
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…

>What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position? Just a few spit balls for you: Do you have another used car for sale that is not a Tesla? Does this Tesla have any features currently enabled that might be disabled when someone realizes I'm no longer the original owner or the current owner realizes their credit card is still paying for services they no…

You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker. Your remedies are always legal or regulatory in nature, and you can’t rely on brand alone to ensure a satisfactory ownership experience.

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

#98

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

gambiting wrote: post #56
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…

>> (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) It says right there that it was done under warranty. If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3…

A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%.

If there was a similar level of binning done for Tesla batteries they should be able to limit the battery especially if there are safety concerns; sounds like that's not the case here though.

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

#99

Post by Ajedi32 »

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.

Whether or not the car is street legal is an entirely separate concern, and certainly not one that should be enforced by allowing the manufacturer to prohibit all software modifications of any sort.

It's like preventing customers from changing their own tires because "they might do it wrong and cause an accident". Yeah, they might. But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that, and it certainly isn't justification for locking down the car to only be drivable with manufacturer-installed tires, or remotely disabling cars that use tires from unapproved brands.

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

#100

Post by izzydata »

ajconway wrote: post #72
pkulak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tesla is also thousands of brilliant engineers that transformed the industry, and not just one guy who tweets a lot.

Exactly, so they should do the only logical thing and vote out Elon as Tesla's CEO so he stops destroying whatever public image they have left. Elon doesn't "do" anything besides be a double edged hype machine.
Post reply on HN