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

241–250 of 659 posts

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

#241

Post by ajross »

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'…

> I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this [...] [Tesla's] business plan and practices is creating [...] huge cognitive dissonance in your customers

I think you forgot to spare anything.

Meh. This is a software configuration issue like we've seen before. Like lots of devices in the modern world, the cars can be configured with common hardware but disjoint behavior. You might have the hardware for FSD, but you didn't buy it so you can't use it. You might have the same motor as the performance car, but the current limit is set to long range. You might have the mobile radio, but if you don't pay for the service you won't get satellite pictures.

Or you might have a large battery, but be configured to use only a fraction. And in this case they messed up and accidentally granted a customer access to a feature they hadn't paid for. And the mistake wasn't discovered until the car got reconfigured when it was sold.

I just don't see the "ransom" here. It's a messup. No one ever paid for that extra battery capacity they enabled. Should they honor the mistake? Maybe. But we really need to turn down the rhetoric in this community.

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

#242

Post by sandworm101 »

landryraccoon wrote: post #168
balls187 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

Then stick to buying Hondas and BMWs. There is a great ad about a farmer bringing in his 100 year-old Porsche tractor to a current Porsche car dealer for service. That is true to life. Those who want a multi-decade relationship with a manufacturer don't buy from the likes of Tesla. They have not yet earned access to that customer base. Ask Tesla to fix your classic Tesla from decades past and they would probably laugh in your face.

https://youtu.be/R8-9oIq1hxw

Note how the dealer shows the customer the new part before it is installed. Note how the customer doesn't hand over the keys until fully knowing what is going to be done. Note that this old customer then decided to double down by buying a new car from the company fixing his tractor. Tesla has no respect for such concepts.

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

#244

Post by oittaa »

Seems like this had a happy ending after all. It just sucks that nowadays you have to make a fuss on social media when a company fucks up and doesn't own their mistake.

https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1551986133780889602

"While I don't think it's ideal to need a huge social media push to get things accomplished, thanks to the momentum this thread has generated it seems like we've got a path forward with Tesla towards getting this taken care of the right way.

Thanks to those who've reached out!"

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

#245

Post by mlyle »

agloeregrets wrote: post #237
mlyle wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 entir…

> A Software locked 90>60 gets less range than a native 60kWh

Yah, a little less, this is true. It also is less damaged by charging to 100%, has better regen, charges faster, and can be expected to have a much better lifespan. You could make a lot of arguments both ways for which one is better.

> A 60kWh battery is not a defective 90kWh pack at all,

The point I'm making is that most 6 core parts are 8 core parts with no defect, so the distinction becomes an artificial one for the purpose of price discrimination rather quickly.

> locking down the hardware via software with no yield reason

In addition to the market segmentation reason, there's also the much-better-warranty-yields reason, and the less-need-to-predict-what-buyers-will-want reason.

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

#246

Post by JamesSwift »

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…

> Rivian I put my order in and at least I have an order date and understand that I'm in the queue and should be sometime MY24

Is that "Model Year 24"? So they gave you an estimate of a year-long window, but also did not guarantee the date? How is that much different than "Youre on the list" with a traditional dealership?

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

#247

Post by saynay »

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…

We are going to be seeing this more frequently in cars, and probably hardware overall. Having a single hardware spec that is license-limited to various levels is just cheaper for the manufacturer in how it simplifies their logistics. It also provides additional revenue options from existing customers that might want to "upgrade" at a later date.

On the plus side, if you can figure out how to sideload your car you get a free range extension on your battery.

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

#248

Post by ratg13 »

superchroma wrote: post #4

"I feel like this is more mundane on Tesla's part than many are making it out to be. A mistake was made years ago. An employee recently discovered and "fixed" it. Terrible communication and customer service, but nefarious? Nah." At this point I feel like terrible communication and service is an intentional business strategy for some companies who found that by making support so baroque as to be inaccessible or just e…

Imagine you bought a home, and 10+ years after you bought it, not the previous owner, but the owner before that comes to take the chimney off the house because they had a clause in the contract between the previous two owners where the chimney was not part of the sale. This was not in your contract.

You gonna let the original owner take his chimney over some deal that happened a decade ago that you had no idea about?

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

#250

Post by beebeepka »

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.

More than a decade ago. ATi 9800SE could also be modded to 9800pro which was probably the best card at the time.
Post reply on HN