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

461–470 of 659 posts

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

#461

Post by rurp »

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?

Sounds like you are Tesla's ideal customer! Most people I know don't want to have to worry about the manufacturer suddenly crippling their car's functionality months after they bought it from a private party.

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

#462

Post by thfuran »

jabbany wrote: post #429
jtbayly wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry, in what world is having an actual 90 physically installed by Tesla, and enabled physically by Tesla, able to be used and reported as such in the Tesla UI less relevant than some row in the Tesla sales db? Tesla did put in the 90 and enable it! The fact that there isn’t a receipt proving that anybody paid for it is irrelevant. It could have been a gift, a reward, a thank you, a bribe, a reasonable business…

> in what world In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it. It's immoral on Tesla's side, for sure, but the previous owner selling it as a…

>If you buy a laptop with a pirated copy of Windows, and later after a couple of updates the OS detects this asks for activation, do you go to Microsoft to ask them to enable your pirated software or do you go to the seller of the laptop?

Except in this scenario, it wasn't pirated by the owner, it was literally installed by Microsoft

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

#463

Post by pskinner »

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.

Well that's just not true.

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

#466

Post by cortesoft »

infogulch wrote: post #69
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…

> "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

They actually did this with my tires on my Model X. I ordered mine with the standard tires, then they called me to say they had my exact order that someone cancelled, except it had the upgraded tire package. They originally said they were going to remove them when I picked it up, but they ended up just leaving them on and saying it was a free upgrade.

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

#467

Post by crooked-v »

balls187 wrote: post #209
crooked-v wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle. There aren't. > If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for? If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're o…

> If a server at a restaurant says "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" In this case, the restaurant offered, which is not a mistake, and IANAL, but arguably "hey, we're out of the strip cut, would you like a filet mignon instead at the same price?" sounds close to a verbal contract.

Tesla installing a larger battery and configuring the car for it is the same kind of 'mistake' as a restaurant server offering and billing something that the restaurant manager disagrees with. "Whoops, our front-line employee wasn't supposed to do that" doesn't mean they then get to take something away literally years later.

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

#468

Post by rootusrootus »

balls187 wrote: post #66

It's not clear of the 3rd owner purchased an S90 or knowingly purchased an S60 that had been "faked" to be an S90. Tesla made a mistake, which benefited 1,2 or even all 3 owners. They then fixed the mistake. I wonder if there are some regulations that prohibit the type of upgrade Tesla did on accident, and the $4,500 fee goes to cover the regulatory requirements necessary to upgrade a vehicle. Otherwise, yes it's kin…

> If you're at a restaurant and you get the final bill and you notice an item wasn't paid for. Do you speak up, or do you leave knowing you ate food you didn't pay for?

I speak up, and 99 times out of 100 they say "ha, whoops, no big deal, it's on us."

> What if you order DoorDash, and you get extra food you didn't pay for?

The feds already have rules on this sort of thing. When someone sends you unsolicited goods you didn't order, they are yours to keep.

> Finally, what if you accidentally receive a high ticket item in from an online order. 3 months later, the online retailer figures out what happened, and asks you for the item back. If you refuse to send it back, should they charge you for it?

That's actually the same example. You're asking moral questions, but they have established legal answers.

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

#469

Post by root_axis »

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…

It should not be legal for any car company to remotely stymie the mobility of a vehicle without the consent of the owner. I'm not saying Tesla shouldn't be allowed to gate range via software, but they should not be allowed to remotely hamstring a vehicle in such a manner, potentially stranding or endangering someone.

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

#470

Post by rootusrootus »

misiti3780 wrote: post #452
rootusrootus wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 comm…

sure they arn't .... let's revisit in 2025

Oh so that's when you think they'll finally release FSD? Ha!
Post reply on HN