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

311–320 of 659 posts

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

#311

Post by csa »

mikestew wrote: post #124
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 th…

> no, FSD does not transfer to the next owner

It does transfer to a new owner in private sales.

I think you are referring to the point that you can buy it for one Tesla, and it doesn’t transfer if you upgrade to a new Tesla.

I have a model y, and I will say that all of the “little duck bites” are vastly overrated for my use case. I can imagine someone for whom these duck bites may be an issue, but I am not one of them, and none of my friends who own teslas are either.

I imagine that you will enjoy your new Tesla immensely, and you will wonder what all of the negativity was/is about. Imho, it’s just contrarian yipping against something trendy.

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

#312

Post by [deleted] »

rootusrootus wrote: post #303
infogulch wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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

In other words, the Apple Solution, most of the time. Many things they do I don't agree with, but customer service is one of their stronger points. Friend of mine had a laptop go in for repair, they couldn't repair it, sent him a brand new current equivalent of his nearly three year old laptop. Now that's customer service. For the remainder of his life he's going to sing happy Apple praises to anyone who asks.

[deleted]

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

#313

Post by powerhour »

edude03 wrote: post #267
powerhour wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is this isn't a defect. Say my brand new house came with a 40 gallon water tank and it failed (didn't flood, just stopped heating). The home warranty company provided a 45 gallon replacement. Nobody would expect that to be disclosed years down the line.

I think the difference is more in how you (or in this case the previous owner) sells it. To stay with the water heater analogy - what if when the water heater needs to be replaced under warranty and the company says oh hey we have 40s in stock again so we're sending you what you should have had?

Whether or not they get the smaller units in stock, I don't have to let them into my house to install it, nor will a new owner of the home be expected to pay the difference between the 40 and 45. It's a permanent fixture. As is a battery in an electric car.

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

#314

Post by rootusrootus »

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…

It didn't need to be fixed, though. It's as if they consider it a moral error -- can't be giving free stuff out, ya know! The money was spent long ago, so the fix didn't save Tesla any money, no recurring costs, etc. It was purely a "fuck you" move, and any halfway competent employee should have seen this shitstorm coming a mile away.

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

#315

Post by faeriechangling »

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 honestly want to see this taken to court, it would be an interesting case.

I mean I'm not convinced at all what Tesla did is even lawful. To me, it seems like Tesla and the owner came to a mutual agreement repairing warranty service years earlier, and Tesla's only real arguments is that that either the customer agreed to the downgrade happening eventually (probably not true) or that they didn't understand they were giving the customer all this capacity (maybe?), but I don't think that in turn gives them the right to sabotage a car arbitrarily without notice to remediate this. I think they have an obligation to restore the status quo before the sabotage.

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

#316

Post by Zenst »

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…

Interesting comparision given didn't Nvidia sell people some 30xx series graphics cards and then limit their has rate with a driver update! Giving a situation were some people brought a card for X ability of the card for an update to artificially limit it?

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

#317

Post by rootusrootus »

clintonb wrote: post #301
matsemann wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

All upgrades (e.g., FSD, acceleration boost) stay with the car. This is huge source of frustration for those of us who purchased FSD, but want to move to another car while retaining FSD.

All upgrades stay with the car unless the used car dealer is Tesla themselves.

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

#318

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

> when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time?

This May when my landlord was taking a piss with his obligations.

A single letter set him staight real fast.

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

#319

Post by alexmr »

panopticon wrote: post #52
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 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…

Tesla buying experience is way better but the ETAs are famously off. Mine has been pushed back 4-5 times and always about 3-4 weeks before it's due to get delivered, so it's impossible to plan around.

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

#320

Post by 015a »

sverhagen wrote: post #177
015a wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90" I'm not as sure about this take. Imagine if this were something not connected to The Cloud; the seller sells the car they have, its not their responsibility, nor should it be, nor has it ever been, to know that this is a component that's Cloud Connected…

Isn't it a bit akin to disclosing hidden defects for a house? If you have known about those defects, or they were properly disclosed to you when you bought the house, in many jurisdictions you're responsible to disclose them to the next buyer, are you not? I'm not on Tesla's side here: I have an expectation of reasonability that they're not meeting, and I feel that they've forfeited their "rights" to locking this con…

Well, I think the issue is, no reasonable person would consider "Tesla upgraded something under warranty" as a defect.

Here's another example: many car brands sell larger tires as a feature of upper trim models. Hypothetically, I take my car to the dealer to get new 17" wheels, but they're out; so they do the insane thing of saying "but we've got 19" wheels here, we'll throw those on free of charge". Four years later the next owner gets a knock on their door: "we got a crew out in the driveway swapping your wheels, you didn't pay for those".

This sounds insane, but I think it only sounds insane because we're talking about software vs hardware. Since its invention, humanity has had a weird stance with software; we tolerate a lot more shit, and that toleration has allowed companies to basically get away with highway robbery. Whether that's Amazon selling eBooks then revoking them years later, game companies releasing unfinished games then promising patches months later, or Tesla issuing OTA updates, it all factors down to a really similar issue in that: software has enabled companies project greed in previously impossible ways.

Maybe the previous owner misrepresented the car; or maybe they didn't, because what reasonable person would have guessed that Tesla would do this? The statement "you didn't pay for those wheels" isn't even accurate; the new buyer probably did pay for them; maybe not in this case, but hypothetically: if it looks like a P90 and quacks like a P90, its a P90, and that's the resale value. If it looks like its got 19" wheels, and it quacks like its got 19" wheels, its priced like its got 19" wheels. The buyer just didn't pay the right person.

Post reply on HN