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

231–240 of 659 posts

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

#231

Post by winternett »

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 TON of hardware related things are hobbled and even retired by manufacturers in driver updates and the lack thereof now. Entire pre built computers can easily be rendered obsolete by dropping support for network cards, peripherals, video drivers, almost anything when OS updates, software upgrades, or other dependencies are issued...

Non-Technical people suffer the most from this game... The person who doesn't know how to look up and install drivers (Your Dad or Grandma) usually then needs to go out an buy a brand new computer every 2-3 years, simply because the device stops working.. A relatively easy fix to us generates billions of dollars for companies that know the system is broken, and they conveniently don't want to fix that system because it would cut their revenue.

As software permeates the car making industry, they actually wouldn't mind making all cars leased and/or disposable like computer devices, they run online campaigns on reddit against car ownership, and brigade endlessly about the environmental benefits of EVs, which still to this day use tons of toxic materials in batteries and non-bio-degradable plastics as well.

Even the madness over each new minorly adjusted variation of video card that comes out is driven by this drive to maximize company profit is quite harmful to the environment and our health, without any sense of responsibility held by the companies that drive this consumerism.

We pay a lor for these products, we need to all be better at demanding proper product support and quality, and we need to stop continually and carelessly renewing everything tech that we buy, even if we have the extra money burning a hole in our pocket... Because ultimately it's destroying us all.

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

#232

Post by astrange »

hinkley wrote: post #101
bambax wrote: post #80

> To be extra clear, I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense. I respect the OP for saying this. But I have a hard time respecting people buying Teslas, or anything from Musk. Is it not obvious that the guy is a charlatan? (and that the fish rots from the head?) How likely is it that you won't be robbed…

Someone called him out on twitter for his flirtation with toxic conservatism. They asked if he remembers what demographic buys 99% of his vehicles. I didn’t see if he replied.

He needs electric vehicles to be associated with conservatism, otherwise they're going to ban them and make rolling coal mandatory. It's probably the greatest thing he could do for climate change.

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

#233

Post by balls187 »

chris_wot wrote: post #181
balls187 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Upon closer analysis, all analogies will break down. I'd argue the car in the sumtotal of all the parts in it. So rather your analogy about Alienware is: You own a dell gaming pc. Under warranty repair, Dell replaces some of the parts with parts from an Alienware build. Are you allowed to put on Alienware decals on your Dell desktop and re-sell it as an Alienware?

If it has Alienware parts, then: yes. Do you think that Dell should remotely access you computer and artificially nobble it?

> Do you think that Dell should remotely access you computer and artificially nobble it?

No. Just like I disagreed when Sony disabled Linux support in the PS3 via Firmware update (they were hit with a Class-Action for that).

To my knowledge, on of the features of Tesla is that it supports upgrades via OTA software updates. As another commenter pointed it, by treating a Tesla vehicle as a software platform, it allows Tesla to engage in behavior which is quasi normal for say a smartphone, but causes cognitive dissonance when you think of it as a car.

E.g. Apple mistakenly allowing an unsupported feature on an iphone SE, then removing that ability in a future IOS update vs Toyota disabling AWD support on what should have been a FWD vehicle SKU.

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

#234

Post by dfbsdfbwe2ef2e »

meltyness wrote: post #120

My 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." Presumabl…

Maybe this is Tesla's strategy. Create fear around the sale of their used cars so that they're the only company that people will buy used teslas from.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

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

#235

Post by thinkingemote »

chad_strategic wrote: post #208

Would it kill the twitter author to write a simple post and not some 10 part twitter explanation. Please be kind to those that suffer from Attention Surplus Disorder. (ASD)

Basically, it would kill the author to write a blog post.

Death as in the death of sympathy, attention, notice, psychological affirmation, pride, sharing, hype, superficial outrage and the death of this comment thread of hundreds of comments after only a handful of hours.

There's a reason why people use Twitter, because it really would be their (superficial) death not to.

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

#236

Post by mcguire »

Zigurd wrote: post #142
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 hear this a lot about Tesla: "I would have chosen a Tesla, but now..." But now, your choices are among legacy car makers and their dealer networks, which were never a joy to interact with most of whom, Hyundai and maybe Nissan excepted, are just bringing out their first serious EVs. Yeah, Tesla is overhyped. But their competition mostly, still, sucks. Nobody has, and nobody will for at least another year or two, ma…

It kinda sounds like the Tesla after-purchase support is less than a joy, though.

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

#237

Post by agloeregrets »

mlyle wrote: post #45
bena wrote: post #19

The 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.…

There is actually a second catch here. A Software locked 90>60 gets less range than a native 60kWh car for the exact reason why your binning example makes no sense here. Tesla is building the same packs and locking down the hardware via software with no yield reason but more importantly, in binning a 6 core part is a 8 Core part with a defect or not.

A 60kWh battery is not a defective 90kWh pack at all, it's an entirely different component weighing hundreds of pounds less. the 90kWh pack cars eat tires faster, have worse MPGe, and overall are Ewaste.

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

#238

Post by mlyle »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #144
bena wrote: post #19

The 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…

"Extort customers" is another way of saying "perform price segmentation". Customers hate it, especially when coupled with economies of scale that make building one physical thing and selling two software-separated different things, but it's perfectly rational if abhorrent capitalism. As I quoted literally yesterday regarding the BMW heated seat subscription [1]: > And God help you if an A-list blogger finds out that…

> but it's perfectly rational

Indeed, price discrimination eliminates deadweight losses and improves economic efficiency.

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

#239

Post by kvetching »

_fat_santa wrote: post #189
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…

The problem I have is Tesla even having the ability to do something like that. The idea of car manufacturers having remote access to my car to enable and disable features is a very scary proposition. It’s adds another point of failure to something your life can sometimes depend on, imagine if you’re in a cyber truck on a backroad trail and Tesla finds out the last owner didn’t pay for 4WD, you could easily get strand…

> The idea of car manufacturers having remote access to my car to enable and disable features is a very scary proposition.

"BMW starts selling heated seat subscriptions for $18 a month" "The auto industry is racing towards a future full of microtransactions"

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...

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

#240

Post by rendall »

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'…

> If the bad publicity alone causes even a tiny fraction of the population to choose another manufacturer

Yeah, that's me. With all of the nonsense with Tesla, why would anyone do that to themselves? Just buy another car. It's not like there aren't plenty of other EV options in the world.

Post reply on HN