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

441–450 of 659 posts

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

#441

Post by gnicholas »

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #327
gnicholas wrote: post #16

How can a potential buyer verify that a used Tesla they are considering purchasing is not subject to some sort of pullback like this? I feel like there's an information asymmetry between the used car buyer (who has likely never owned a Tesla before, and certainly doesn't know the history of the vehicle he's considering purchasing), the seller (who may specifically be aware that the car appears to have functionality t…

In the US that would be the Monroney Sticker that every new car comes with. Instead of throwing it out, sounds like most new car buyers should keep it as a fundamental record of ownership now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroney_sticker

What about addons that were purchased later, like FSD or BMW's heated seats? Does a simple receipt do the trick? It feels like we need some way to know that a record was (and still is) valid.

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

#442

Post by balls187 »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #356
balls187 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect it may be an Alienware PC. If so, why wouldn't we call it that? You could call it an Alienware PC. My question: Would it be ethical for you to represent it as an Alienware PC, and sell it as an Alienware PC by purposefully attempt pass it off by changing the appearance to make it look like an Alienware PC? To add to the gray area: Say DELL XPS 1000 and Alienware 90210 are essentially the same machine, sav…

> Taking this back to cars. If an when I sell my Golf R, I will disclose it has received a Stage 1 Turbo upgrade (and hopefully use that to increase the resale value--though it typically does not except to other enthusiasts). But you're only doing this because it benefits you. If the upgrade reduced your resale value, would you still disclose it? Did you disclose it to insurance companies when you had it done, since…

> If the upgrade reduced your resale value, would you still disclose it? Did you disclose it to insurance companies when you had it done, since it could impact your rates?

Yes and No.

Yes--simply because I'd rather cover my ass from a lawsuit down the line if the new owner discovered the aftermarket tune.

No, as to my knowledge the insurance company doesn't care about street legal aftermarket upgrades.

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

#444

Post by unixbane »

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…

What the fuck, if I RMA something and they replace a component in it with a better one, and I happen to be informed of which one they replaced, I need to resell it as if it doesn't have the better component, because I just assume the worst case possible which I would have only imagined if I read this thread? (I don't think it was resold "as a 90", unless that was the sole differentiator, yeah I'm not an expert in meme cars)

inb4: Yes, I'm an expert at cucking myself to vaguely justifiable corporate laws and behavior.

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

#445

Post by rootusrootus »

misiti3780 wrote: post #350
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #35

Reason 547 why you should not connect your car to the internet. Today it is limiting range because mistake several years ago, tomorrow it will be mandatory ads every time when you start a car.

As a tesla owner, this story does not make me want to unhook my car from the internet (Tesla did what was legally in their right to do, this is a nothing-burger.) I would imagine 99% of other Tesla owners feel them same. You feeling nostalgia for the good old days with MapQuest?

> Tesla did what was legally in their right to do, this is a nothing-burger.

Put me in the 1%. I won't buy another Tesla ever, until there is an ironclad guarantee that what's mine is mine. I did not license the car from them, I bought it outright.

> You feeling nostalgia for the good old days with MapQuest?

Everybody but Tesla has CarPlay. Most have 360* cameras, too, and physical switches and knobs for certain commonly used things, etc.

The real joke is this idea that Tesla is leading technologically. No, they aren't. They're behind everyone else at this point. A touchscreen-for-everything only seems futuristic to a certain niche demographic.

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

#446

Post by balls187 »

skyyler wrote: post #271
TillE wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is endlessly baffling to me that people love making analogies (and arguing about analogies!) when the situation is fairly simple to explain. Like another comment suggested, this is a small error in the customer's favor, and companies who care about customer satisfaction should really just eat the minimal cost when stuff like this happens instead of getting bogged down in technicalities.

I understand it entirely (analogy is the core of cognition, after all) but I do find it very troublesome when simple concepts are mystified into religious debates because someone or a small group of people feel the need to flex how ULTIMATELY UNDERSTANDING they are. Like, no, if you can't use simple words to explain things and you have to rely on extended metaphors to explain things, you probably don't have the holis…

If you take your previous comment, you wrote:

> New owner is pissed at old owner, when they should be pissed at tesla.

The analogies are trying to explain why or why not the owner should be pissed at Tesla, which if I understand your argument is because it was Tesla who made the change.

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

#447

Post by rootusrootus »

speedgoose wrote: post #108
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #35

Reason 547 why you should not connect your car to the internet. Today it is limiting range because mistake several years ago, tomorrow it will be mandatory ads every time when you start a car.

It’s convenient though. You get live traffic data, international radio in high quality, maps with background pictures, music and video streaming, the possibility to pre-heat or pre-cool the car while walking to it and a few other things.

LMAO. My wife's Bolt has CarPlay and I can go in the app and pre-condition the climate inside the car. And CarPlay has many features Tesla does not offer.

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

#448

Post by rootusrootus »

speedgoose wrote: post #256
TheLoafOfBread wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... you can just use your phone + Android Auto / CarPlay. You will achieve same effect without connecting your car to the internet. And I will rather sacrifice preheating / precooling if it means, that I will keep control over my car.

It’s difficult to sacrifice that once you experience it.

You don't have to. Other cars have apps, too, that allow you to turn on the air conditioning from afar.

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

#449

Post by gnicholas »

rootusrootus wrote: post #437
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.

> 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 a…

I'm not in line for a Tesla either, and the Mach-E does look nice. Their latent flaw is that they shed range much more than other EVs in cold weather: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss

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

#450

Post by rootusrootus »

tonymet wrote: post #436

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.

Oh jeez. This has nothing to do with EVs. Most EVs, in fact, are nowhere near as intrusively leashed to the mothership as Teslas are. My wife's Bolt is just a car that happens to use electric motors instead of gas. As are most EVs.

Also, if you think EVs are worse for the environment, then you are exposing your ideologically-driven ignorance.

Post reply on HN