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

161–170 of 659 posts

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

#161

Post by 1shooner »

infogulch wrote: post #69
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

Any rational marketer or PR officer would gladly give up that $4,500 to avoid this HN post.

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

#162

Post by Consultant32452 »

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…

Yep, as soon as the car leaves the shop configured as 90, if Tesla discovers the error they should just laugh it off and move on. The most they should do is inform the customer of their error and be like "Bank error in your favor, keep your 90."

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

#163

Post by bgirard »

_ea1k wrote: post #29
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…

I wondered that too. It'd be extremely unusual for Tesla to go as far as changing the badge. OTOH, a car dealer along the way might do that if they noticed the discrepancy between the badge and what the software reported. It'd be hard to blame them too, since people do sometimes downgrade the badging on cars (eg, this "218i", lol: https://carsandbids.com/auctions/Kmm4AgbK/2016-bmw-m2 ). It still leaves Tesla as the b…

> It still leaves Tesla as the bad guy.

I mostly agree. I think good customer service norms do dictate a reasonable statute of limitation here.

I think where it becomes interesting is if someone acted negligently in the chain when they bought a P60 and sold it off as a P90. If someone wasn't paying too much attention, they might not have noticed at all. I for instance had no idea which engine variant my car had (1.5L vs 2.0L) until I realized my mpg was poor. So maybe it's a legit mistake. The changing of the physical badge is very suspicious however. But if Tesla changed the software badge then yes, I think they deserve the blame.

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

#164

Post by chrisseaton »

spookie wrote: post #130
chrisseaton wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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

> Not the same person.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford

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

#165

Post by agluszak »

There should be a law forbidding software locking. Otherwise I'm afraid it will keep getting more and more popular (like the "seat heating subscription"[1]). If I buy a piece of hardware, I own it.

1 - https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/14/business/bmw-subscription...

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

#166

Post by walrus01 »

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…

> 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

You underestimate the potential for straight up evil in $BIGCORP, nvidia treating video cards like HP treats consumer inkjet printers in the future is something I would be totally unsurprised by.

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

#168

Post by landryraccoon »

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…

I think the main issue as a consumer is, do I trust Tesla to try to provide me with the best experience? Or are they going to squeeze me and hit me with "aha, gotcha! you should have read the fine print!" every time there's an issue?

As a consumer, it's extremely expensive to remain well informed. I want to purchase from brands where I feel that the company wants me to be happy, ESPECIALLY with such a premium brand as Tesla. I certainly don't want to need a lawyer on hand to figure out if I'm going to buy a lemon or not.

If Tesla makes an error, it should be resolved in the Customer's favor, period. Why would anyone buy a Premium (read: highly expensive) product if they know the company is going to try to hit them with monkeys-paw customer service terms?

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

#169

Post by noasaservice »

horsawlarway wrote: post #77
nr2x wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a rental car, you just don’t know that when you “buy” it.

This fucking exactly. I'm fucking over it. If I "own" the device - legally I should own a key to EVERY fucking lock inside it. Digital or physical. This attitude that it's acceptable to put a little green man inside of something you sell, and then retain control over that sold item using your little green man is insidious and immoral. I want it fucking banned yesterday, and it's rapidly becoming one of my strongest p…

"Any digital restriction or otherwise arbitrary lock that tries to supersede physical ownership or first-sale doctrine or Magnuson Moss Warranty Act shall have all congressional protections, DMCA, copyright, patent, and trademarks stripped from those products.

Any remote access after sale has occurred shall be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and shall hold Chief * Officers, upper tier executive positions, and boards of directors fully liable, up to and including reimbursements of 3x per device to the citizens affected, and prison times no less than 1 week to a maximum of 10 years.

Enforcement of this law shall be done by the Federal Trade Commission."

I would LOVE to see something like this.

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

dylan604 wrote: post #151
toomuchtodo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've never had a legacy car that could over-the-air disable things. Maybe OnStar or similar could do something, but not like the level that Tesla took things. You're "remedies are always legal" is a bit flat. Tell to the parent that is in a rush to take their 2.34 kids to school before heading to work that they need to contact a lawyer before starting their day. And when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anyt…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN