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

121–130 of 659 posts

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

#121

Post by masklinn »

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #98
gambiting wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> (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.

> 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%.

That also used to happen a lot with Intel CPUs, especially late in a product cycle: after refining fab their yields would be so good there wasn't any "bad" part to bin down, so they'd just soft-disable cores on high-end parts (I think after a while manufacturers started fusing the cores).

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

#122

Post by codazoda »

oangemangut wrote: post #89
panopticon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not just the ETAs that are pushing me away, but just the entire dealership process generally is annoying. I wanted to order a vehicle from GM and I have tried close at least 10 dealerships at this point in the PNW. No one is straight up on the process of either getting an order in or what pricing will look like or when they might get an allocation. Some just say "sure, you're on the list" but who knows what that…

I think this is why Ford has said it’s going to do electric vehicles direct. I can’t remember if they’ll use a different brand or not.

In Utah, where I am, it’s going to be a bit of a hill. I hear we have some laws to protect the local dealerships. Tesla dealers are just showrooms here and I don’t think they sell anything on-site. Could be wrong about all this.

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

#123

Post by 10000truths »

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.

This sort of justification would never fly if we were talking about modding ICE vehicles:

* Illegal to replace your own brake rotors or pads, as faulty ones can cause safety issues.

* Illegal to replace your own headlights, as bad ones could be too dim or too bright and cause safety issues.

* Illegal to change your own oil, as bad ones could seize up your engine in the middle of the road and cause safety issues.

* Illegal to install a turbocharger, as that makes your car accelerate faster than the manufacturer likes and could cause safety issues.

The end result of this line of thinking leads to a million dollar tractor that a farmer can't fix when they need it most. I much prefer the idea that people are individually responsible for any modifications they choose to make to their cars.

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

#124

Post by mikestew »

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'…

As one who bought TSLA when it was in the low double digits, I thought for sure that we'd one day own a Tesla (we sure made enough off TSLA to justify one). But this situation is but one of many little duck bites that have now put us off the brand. Sure, a duck doesn't bite all that hard, but enough of those little nibbles can cause some harm. And so "pedo guy", "taking TSLA private", "no, FSD does not transfer to the next owner" (EDIT: bad example, apparently it does), "FSD for realsies this year", yada, yada, yada, and eventually it adds up to "I'm not validating that bullshit with a $75K purchase."

At the end of the day, given that Hyundai/Kia, VW, Ford, et. al, are all sold out of EVs for the year, we decided we'd just rather do without a new car than buy a Tesla. Hang in there, l'il 2011 Leaf; you've served us well so far.

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

#125

Post by undersuit »

balls187 wrote: post #86
gambiting wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> (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…

> 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 3080Ti, because....that's what it is. What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti? What about an RTX3080 Card that Nvidia drivers…

There were some very powerful software upgrades you could preform on GPUs... https://verrytechnical.info/safely-unlocking-extra-shaders-i...

Would AMD have been in the right to force a bios downgrade in the next driver release?

Also that LTT and a related Gamers Nexus video convinced me to buy an obviously counterfeit "Nvidia GTX 970" from ebay, report the seller for the sale, I got to keep it, I got refunded, and then with the money I bought a bios writer and flashed the card back to a "Nvidia GTX 550 Ti".

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

#126

Post by Robotbeat »

teawrecks wrote: post #94
gambiting wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> (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.

I agree with the parent poster that the seller carries some of the blame, here, but that sounds like a good law.

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

#127

Post by TheLoafOfBread »

speedgoose wrote: post #108
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #35

Reason 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.

It’s convenient though. You get live traffic data, international radio in high quality, maps with background pictures, music and video streaming, the possibility to pre-heat or pre-cool the car while walking to it and a few other things.

Or... you can just use your phone + Android Auto / CarPlay. You will achieve same effect without connecting your car to the internet. And I will rather sacrifice preheating / precooling if it means, that I will keep control over my car.

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

#128

Post by Nextgrid »

speedgoose wrote: post #108
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #35

Reason 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.

It’s convenient though. You get live traffic data, international radio in high quality, maps with background pictures, music and video streaming, the possibility to pre-heat or pre-cool the car while walking to it and a few other things.

Most of these are possible with the smartphone you've already got and using the car as a dumb display + sound system (via CarPlay or equivalent), with the advantage that the smartphone knows its place and the little amount of leverage it has on you compared to a car.

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

#129

Post by colordrops »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #27
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'…

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've heard people complain about buying the Bolt, and also about low range of certain other models.

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

#130

Post by spookie »

chrisseaton wrote: post #109
balls187 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough, it was test driving a Tesla that got me interested in getting an EV as my next vehicle. And like many, Musk's behavior has dissuaded me from purchasing one, and instead likely a Ford.

Quoted post unavailable.

> actual anti-semite Who? Current Ford's great-grandfather? Not the same person.
Post reply on HN