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

511–520 of 659 posts

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

#511

Post by simion314 »

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…

And on top of that you will always have extra stuff to worry about when buy a Tesla, on top of all the risks of buying a used car you have the extra risks that Tesla will push an update and cripple your stuff , so in the end you don't own a functional car , you own some useless material stuff and a license to use it, Tesla pushes an software update and you are screwed. No wonder people prefer to buy very old cars that are simpler to own and fix.

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

#513

Post by Lazare »

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".

I mean, it's actually is a 90, and it was configured as a 90 when sold, and we have no idea why that happened, nor what the original owner knew or (crucially) was told by Tesla.

> Why not get some good will out of it? "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"

We have zero reason to think that's not a literal transcript of what the original owner was told when their car was repaired under warranty.

Even if it wasn't, if you take a product in for a repair under warranty, you expect it to be returned in same or better configuration (that's actually a legal requirement), so if you drop off a broken Widget 500X, and then you pick it up and it's now a newer Widget 600X, the absolutely inevitable conclusion is "oh, I bet they were out of stock of the 500Xs, so they gave me a 600X, score", and then you think nothing of it, and years later you sell the 600X on Ebay when you upgrade to the latest Widget 800Z. That's just how it works, and I suspect most people here will have experienced that exact sequence of events.

(There's also a non-zero chance, given Tesla's general level of customer service, that it was locked to be a 60, a previous owner already paid to unlock it to a 90, and then they lost the records.)

The only way I can see we can blame the original owner is if they were told during the warranty process "hey, we're installing a 90, but we'll be locking it to a 60", then Tesla accidentally failed to do it. Which sure, could happen, but it really seems like the least likely result.

I certainly agree that Tesla today is handling this in the worst way possible.

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

#514

Post by dangrossman »

skykooler wrote: post #38
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…

Bit of buyer's remorse from a Nissan Leaf now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO.

> now that most fast-charging stations don't support CHAdeMO

According to the US DOE, we have 4450 CHAdeMO stations and 4583 CCS stations in the US at the moment. No major charging network has started building CCS-only stations yet, though EA plans to in the future. I don't see why you're feeling that remorse, your charging network is large and continues to grow, despite your car being discontinued in the next 2-3 years.

I've owned two Nissan LEAFs (2012, 2018). The things that would give me buyers' remorse are faults of the car, not anything external. Like, not charging any faster than 40-50 kW, charging at half that speed once the battery gets hot, losing 10% of its range to battery degradation after just 3 years, and offering no upgrade path to keep the connectivity features working after AT&T shut down its 2G then 3G networks.

I drive a VW ID.4 now.

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

#516

Post by simondotau »

andruby wrote: post #272
Retric wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, a software limited 90kWh battery is worse than a 60kWh battery pack due to weight. So, Tesla can’t fulfill their warranty obligations with a software locked higher capacity battery. A full capacity battery on the other hand could reasonably qualify as an as good or better replacement which is fine. Therefore whoever did this change at Tesla is exposing them to liability. Technically if car identified as ha…

It’s worse because you carry more weight, but it’s also better because you can charge to 100% without risking much degradation. And you also have less/no degradation. Not sure if that balances out.

One would hope that Tesla’s software lock gives users the middle 60 kWh of battery capacity by locking off both extremes. If so, you’d be correct and this would be a lot better than a “real” 60 kWh battery. Especially if the software limiter continues to guarantee 60 kWh as the battery ages/degrades.

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

#517

Post by isametry »

danudey wrote: post #483
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…

Imagine Apple replacing your broken Macbook Pro M1 base model with the upgraded model because they didn't have any exact replacements in stock, and then years later deciding to disable two of the CPU cores, two of the GPU cores, and half the SSD space (1 TB to 512 GB). People, especially on HN, would lose their freaking minds. They would also lose their minds if Apple only sold the highest-end model but firmware-lock…

We’ve come a full circle where rather than using the “Car Analogy” to picture the consumer realities of personal electronics (”imagine if they locked the performance of your car like they do with your phone”), it’s now the other way around (“imagine if they locked down your laptop like they do with your car”).

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

#518

Post by donalhunt »

giarc wrote: post #79
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 odd part is the OP said it was "badged as a 90" which to me implies Tesla also removed the physical badges on the car and replaced them to indicate it was a P90. That, to me, really implies they wanted to make this a P90 car.

I believe they are referring to the battery and not the car.

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

#520

Post by Willish42 »

noasaservice wrote: post #169
horsawlarway wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fucking exactly. I'm fucking over it. If I "own" the device - legally I should own a key to EVERY fucking lock inside it. Digital or physical. This attitude that it's acceptable to put a little green man inside of something you sell, and then retain control over that sold item using your little green man is insidious and immoral. I want it fucking banned yesterday, and it's rapidly becoming one of my strongest p…

"Any digital restriction or otherwise arbitrary lock that tries to supersede physical ownership or first-sale doctrine or Magnuson Moss Warranty Act shall have all congressional protections, DMCA, copyright, patent, and trademarks stripped from those products. Any remote access after sale has occurred shall be considered a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and shall hold Chief * Officers, upper tier exec…

Unfortunately this kind of law is like, at least 2 revolutions away from now w.r.t. US politics. No way this would ever pass even in the house under the current political system (see: Patriot Act, Citizens United, etc.)

It's a nice idea though!

Post reply on HN