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

281–290 of 659 posts

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

#281

Post by bradleysmith »

sjm-lbm wrote: post #63
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…

> If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them. I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this - they didn't just modify the badge, they also provided the additional rage from a P90. As a thought experiment: if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you? Perhaps - I'm hone…

> if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you?

Amongst car people, I think you have. Motor swaps come with all sorts of other risks. Hell, it’s good manners to disclose if you swapped a motor for equivalent power, for helping the next owner diagnose any problems or be aware of mileage discrepancies.

It’d be good manners at the very least to disclose something was purchased as one model, but made to be equal to a different model by whatever means. It could have future implications to the buyer, just like the ones in this story.

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

#282

Post by lwhi »

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 agree it's a rat's nest of bad decisons.

But ultimately, all it reinforces to me is that there is no chance in hell I will ever give money to a company that can remotely perform this type of sanction on a product I own.

I will never buy a Tesla.

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

#283

Post by judge2020 »

skyyler wrote: post #182
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?

Why use analogies at all? Tesla replaced a 60 with a 90, the owner now has a 90. They list it as a 90 when selling it. The new owner gets hit with the update to turn it back into a 60. New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla.

Tesla replaces a 60 with a 90, HQ says 'set this to be 60', service center doesn't do it. Years later another center looks at the config and fixes the mistake, probably because there's a big warning and the technicians before them ignored it out of goodwill.

The OP is right in that Tesla should codify in the goodwill of free upgrades when logistics doesn't allow it, but they didn't, so the car being rebadged by the owner as a 90 is an issue.

This is the same argument as the Tesla heated seats microtransaction: Tesla actually loses money on cars without rear heated seats if they have to separate "heated rear seats" and "non-heated rear seats" into a new configuration, as it increases manufacturing complexity and logistics (ie. the ability to reassign same-spec cars to new owners if the existing owner backs out of their reservation at the last minute). It makes everything simpler to not make a M3 SR+ customer pay for the heated rear sets and allow them to opt for it later.

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

#284

Post by thereddaikon »

jabbany wrote: post #227
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…

> no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update I think the problem is that there are 2 different types of "can't": can't as in technologically impossible, and can't as in legally disallowed. In the past, the former was usually the case. Vendors literally could not technologically take away features because things either were not controlled by software or software could not tell the h…

>Heck, they could even cut down all legitimate 3080Tis to what would be 3080 or even 1060 performance via drivers after 3 years and you'd be able to do nothing besides complain on social media -- you still have exactly the amount of hardware sold, and they never promised any performance levels (just check their site, you only get things like compute units, clock speed, ram etc. not performance guarantees like FLOPs or FPS)

They can't legally do that now either. Apple was challenged in court for doing something similar and lost. There's already legal precedent. The problem is while that can't do that legally, they can do it technically and the path to recourse for the individual is difficult and often not worth it. Which means they can usually get away with it.

We need a way for the legal system do deal with these kinds of things that don't involve actually going to the over worked and too expensive courts to settle it.

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

#285

Post by forgetfulness »

dfbsdfbwe2ef2e wrote: post #234
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.

Whereas other auto companies set high barriers to entry to the aftermarket for used cars of their brand by making them impossibly costly to fix after their parts began to fail, Tesla skips all steps and gets down to the core of how you discourage it: generating fear and ill will. A more efficient way to discourage your "users" from "transferring" your product.

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

#286

Post by matsemann »

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…

It's actually a bit scary. When considering what upgrades to buy, I'm afraid those won't be able to be transferred. So if I pay $XXXX for a feature, I have to account for that being worth $0 if I were to sell the car. Is the price point then really worth it?

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

#287

Post by muttled »

cameronh90 wrote: post #219
10000truths wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. * Il…

In the UK, many modifications are restricted. For example, if I was to replace my halogen car headlights with LED ones, the car would be technically illegal, uninsured and fail inspection (if they notice). Exhausts can't be noisier than factory, which means in practice all aftermarket sports exhausts are illegal. At some point, I assume modifying drive-by-wire systems will become legally restricted.

In the US, for a while, car manufacturers could void your warranty over modifications. Something happened some-odd years back that made it so that they had to prove that the modification is what caused the issue to refuse service.

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

#288

Post by dreamcompiler »

Yet another example of why we need open-source information about how to find the LTE modem in cars and disable it.

Longer term, we need firewalls and deep packet inspection devices we can install inline with the LTE modem, so people can still get maps and traffic info, but reject all software "upgrades." We need ublock origin for cars.

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

#289

Post by mgdlbp »

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…

The general concept of software and hardware impaired by the maker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crippleware

Relevantly,

> ==Automobiles==

> Tesla limits the range on lower-end versions of the Model S in software, as well as disabling Autopilot functions if those functions weren't purchased.

> Some high-end BMW cars in [list of countries] have the option to pay a subscription fee for features such as heated seats, advanced cruise control, and automatic beam switching. The components and functionality already exist within the vehicle, but BMW has a software block that prevent them from being used without paying.

(#2 was recently on HN)

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

#290

Post by adrianmonk »

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…

> Was the badge on the back changed to P90? That doesn't sound like a 'mistake' Tesla would make when making a warranty repair.

It's conceivable. As far as I can tell, Tesla seems to offer battery replacement as a paid, after-the-fact upgrade. Presumably/hopefully that comes with a new badge since it affects the resale value.

The mechanics could have, through lack of communication or coordination, performed that same procedure for this warranty repair.

(But that's speculation, and really we just need more info.)

Post reply on HN