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

431–440 of 659 posts

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

#431

Post by sacrosancty »

faeriechangling wrote: post #315
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…

I wonder who the parties would be. Perhaps the current owner's claim should be against the person who sold it to them as a 90, and that person against their seller, and that original owner against Tesla?

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

#432

Post by jabbany »

JadeNB wrote: post #389
jabbany wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Socially disallowed" is not a thing that can be implied through "can't" though, as that's just a convention and courtesy. OP probably would like to have the legal guarantee, but it's a fight that's still in-progress.

> "Socially disallowed" is not a thing that can be implied through "can't" though …. You are actually implicitly doing it right there! A slight re-wording of your post is "'Socially disallowed' can't be implied through 'can't'" … meaning that it is socially/linguistically unable to be so implied (though I disagree), not legally or technically so. And of course there are tons of other examples—when I say that "you can…

I mean if the goal is "Socially disallowed" it should be "shouldn't".

"Can't" implies some kind of enforcement/compelling force preventing that, either from nature, or some authority (a nation state, a workplace superior, a parent of a child etc.). As much as we might want it, society doesn't act as an authority for this kind of stuff...

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

#433

Post by dragonwriter »

jabbany wrote: post #432
JadeNB wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Socially disallowed" is not a thing that can be implied through "can't" though …. You are actually implicitly doing it right there! A slight re-wording of your post is "'Socially disallowed' can't be implied through 'can't'" … meaning that it is socially/linguistically unable to be so implied (though I disagree), not legally or technically so. And of course there are tons of other examples—when I say that "you can…

I mean if the goal is "Socially disallowed" it should be "shouldn't". "Can't" implies some kind of enforcement/compelling force preventing that, either from nature, or some authority (a nation state, a workplace superior, a parent of a child etc.). As much as we might want it, society doesn't act as an authority for this kind of stuff...

Social sanction is an enforcement mechanism.

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

#434

Post by tomatotomato37 »

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…

While it doesn't apply to the Tesla case, this does bring up an interesting question: if both cards share the same PCB with differing QA standards, the card you got failed those standards but was accidentally given a TI bios anyway, and doesn't seem to crash in everyday workloads, is it ethical to still sell it on as a TI, not knowing how stable it is at extreme workloads?

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

#435

Post by kelnos »

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 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".

This is a couple new owners downstream, though. The most recent owner to sell the car might not have known about this, or may not have remembered it or understood the implications of it.

And, regardless, while I think many of us here are very familiar with the idea of more-capable hardware being software-locked to be less capable, with monetary upgrade options, I think it's reasonable to assume that the average consumer would be very surprised that it would be even possible that they could drive a car into a service station for a completely unrelated issue, and then drive it out with a software-enforced "smaller" battery.

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

#436

Post by tonymet »

Consumers have the power here and are giving up more and more rights every day.

In the EU they can now remotely speed limit your car.

If you think the push for EVs is for the environment think again, they are a dubious tradeoff with a bigger environmental impact.

The EV push is meant to take away your control over the assets that you "own".

If you don't fight back now, you won't be able to own anything in 5 years.

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

#437

Post by rootusrootus »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #97
dylan604 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position? Just a few spit balls for you: Do you have another used car for sale that is not a Tesla? Does this Tesla have any features currently enabled that might be disabled when someone realizes I'm no longer the original owner or the current owner realizes their credit card is still paying for services they no…

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.

> You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker

That is purely hypothetical, however -- as far as I know, this kind of stunt has only become a thing since Tesla started doing it. Chevy wants to reduce the capacity of my wife's Bolt by 20%, but they are asking for her permission to do that, not just sending an OTA update to do it against her wishes.

When I look at what car to buy, I am not going to care so much about regulations or legal ramifications, I'm going to look primarily at how likely it is that I will have to resort to those remedies in the future because the manufacturer likes to modify already-sold vehicles after the fact without even asking.

Stunts like this are why we are looking at a Mach-E to replace my wife's Bolt, not a Model Y.

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

#438

Post by thrownaway561 »

it's so scary that at any point Tesla can do whatever they want to your car and you are basically powerless to do anything about it. this is why i will never own a Tesla no matter if it was given to me. the horror stories i have heard and this is just another drop in the bucket.

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

#439

Post by ipqk »

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…

Also, not buying a new car (EV or not) is the most environmentally friendly choice you can make.

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

#440

Post by unixbane »

What the absolute hell is wrong with consumers that they put up with this kind of shit?

1. I would never want any kind of software in my car, because this is precisely the kind of bullshit I would expect to happen, given being a person who knows the state of the software industry. That and death due to uConnect etc.

2. I even less would want any kind of remote access

3. I also don't want UN*X crap in my car like sh scripts or C code, you have billions of dollars, make a real language or use assembly since the software should be small anyway

4. The fact that someone will bring up GNU+Car just proves even more how dipshit you consumers are; you can't even understand how simple things are to fix (just stop putting software in things) and just reason about the major players of the tech industry in an abstract, dilettante way.

> 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.

Uhh no, I hate Tesla after seeing this post and hope they actually get cancer and die (admittedly, the same probably applies to every tech company).

What if you put a "90 pack" in yourself, do they also downgrade it for you?

Post reply on HN