This is why I'll stick to dumb cars.
Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
111–120 of 659 posts
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#112Earlier 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.
Until all manufacturers do this. And they will because it makes money.
Which is why you sue to establish precedent.
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#113The 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…
> The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers. 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.…
Or. And I know this is radical. But stop selling the 6 core and sell the 8 core for the price of the 6.
Yes revenue will fall, but your costs fell as well. Your margin should be roughly the same. Anyway, I thought that's what progress was supposed to be. We get better at making things, those things become cheaper.
If the only difference between two physical items is that I'm not allowed to use all of one, what is the actual difference?
Why are we justifying these corporations taking us for a ride?
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#114I'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'…
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…
> but I have not heard one ounce of buyer's remorse from any of the other brands.
The only solid reason I've heard to buy Tesla over others is for the Supercharger network if you travel a lot or can't charge at home. Everything else comes down to preference.
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#115Sounds like this should be a lawsuit instead
Very yes. Litigate in small claims, win, and move on with life.
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#116Reason 547 why you should not connect your car to the internet. Today it is limiting range because mistake several years ago, tomorrow it will be mandatory ads every time when you start a car.
The trouble is, the new buyer can't charge the thing from a Tesla station until they have a "Tesla account", which means accepting Tesla's EULA, which means giving them control of the vehicle again. Muahahaha!
Now, if someone bought the vehicle, and never signed up for a Tesla account, they might have a good criminal case for "exceeds authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Because the original owner's obligations to the seller don't bind the new owner. (This is called "privity" in law. If A has an obligation to B, and B has an obligation to C, A does not have an obligation to C.)
This usually comes up in the other direction, where someone bought a used Tesla, the relevant DMV recognizes the transaction, but Tesla does not.[1] But it sometimes comes up when someone moves a Tesla to another country, which apparently causes Tesla to treat the vehicle as "unsupported".
Expect this to become more of an issue as more used Teslas are around, and there are more third party repair operations.
[1] https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/can-i-supercharge-wi...
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#117Earlier 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.
That one guy who tweets a lot can overrule and/or fire any one of those brilliant engineers.
He can overpromise to the point of outright lying about functionality and delivery schedule.
The CEO is not 'just one guy'
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#118Internet of Extortion. What a time to be alive.
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a huge difference here compared to binning: binning generally involves chips that are physically incapable of performing to the higher spec because of defects.
As I stated in my comment: this is true at the beginning of a process node with a new design. But yields improve, and eventually you end up with too many parts in the high bins and nowhere near enough in the value bins-- so you end up blowing fuses on parts that test fully OK to make them be 4 cores or 6 cores. (And now, Intel is about to let Xeon customers pay to unlock additional cores...)
I was going to mention this also, software defined processors, where you have to pay intel to unlock features. But the original buyer unlocks and sells the PC, it should revert to the stock and limited cpu.
Here they gave the owner a 90, then came back and limited it to 60, after the fact, years later.
Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range
#120My perspective is that this simply begs the question, "How does one buy and sell a used Tesla vehicle?"
And by doing a bit of research, we arrive at the throat of the issue. Tesla is a competing Used Tesla Dealer, this is listed in their 10K as a part of their automotive segment: - https://www.tesla.com/support/ordering-used-tesla
This page provides no clear guidance on how licenses transfer for "upgrades." Presumably that's in the licensing details for each "upgrade." In other instances, such as Full-Self Driving it's called a "subscription" which has a clearer implication. I seek the EULA for the vehicle itself, which should detail that part of the ownership lifecycle, but it doesn't seem to be public.
The consumer may be able to work a state-permitted return: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/o...
Under the "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Model_3_...
Tesla has performed an unneeded repair and broken their own obligation... "but when replacing a Battery, Tesla will ensure that the energy capacity of the replacement Battery is at least equal to that of the original Battery before the failure occurred"