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

601–610 of 659 posts

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

#601

Post by addicted »

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…

Yeah, this is ridiculous.

I had the exact same situation with, weirdly enough, InstantPot.

My device had a clear warranty-covered issue during the warranty period.

The model I had had been discontinued (and I suspect because of supply chain issues they didn’t have any in stock stateside anyways).

They sent me the new upgraded model as a replacement which was at least twice as expensive.

I would be mad as hell if a few years in now, if they had the ability, they would decide to degrade it to the older model.

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

#602

Post by nr2x »

chitowneats wrote: post #25
nr2x wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said, I’m potentially in the market for a car and this is like reason #5 I’m ruling out Tesla.

Care to share the others? I'm weighing my options as well. Anything you are leaning towards buying?

Battery issues being a cost of early adoption aside, I love my Bolt. It’s a hatchback and with the 0-60 of an EV it handles like Mario Kart. Super fun.

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

#603

Post by chii »

htrp wrote: post #529
isametry wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”).

And welcome to the dystopian nightmare that is a subscription based service for features like heated seats.

It stems from the desire to receive revenue without actually performing new work.

Physical objects sold never had that option before the advent of a persistent internet connection, and you at least fully owned it.

Now, software updates which are mandatory, are making physical objects not be truly owned by the buyers.

There needs to be new laws to allow consumers to retain the rights of ownership that is being erroded at record pace.

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

#604

Post by chii »

jabbany wrote: post #422
gambiting wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I don't think I agree. To use a different example someone brought up - imagine your CPU breaks in your laptop. You send it to the manufacturer, and they replace it with a higher model CPU because - cool, right? You sell it advertised with that better CPU, then the next owner has to send it in for another, completely unrelated repair, and the manufacturer then says "oh we noticed the last repair fitted more powerfu…

I think there is a difference with Tesla though, because they do segment based on software. So some of their actual 60 level cars are sold with 90 batteries limited in software. This is more akin motherboard manufacturers who would unofficially unlock overclocking on unsupported chipsets in first version firmware. If someone bought such a board, overclocked the CPU, sold it, and then the next owner sent the board bac…

The segmentation being purely in software makes no difference in the principal. Software segmentation merely makes the effects technically achievable (whereas it'd be hard or impossible via physical means).

But the principle that a consumer's product shouldn't be modified without asking for explicit permission from the owner still stands regardless of segmentation methods.

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

#605

Post by Tao3300 »

Verdex wrote: post #75
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.

Verdex presents: A Plausible Future Driver: Okay Car are you ready to go? Car: Sure thing driver, let's just hook up to the T-Network. Okay, we're in! Where's our destination? D: Well, first thing is that I'm going to want a Mocha Frappe from the local Starbucks. C: Sounds great! Off we go. D: Wait, Car what are we doing at McDonalds? C: McDonald's offers a wide variety of cafe style drinks at competitive prices. Thi…

"I’ll sue you," the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, "I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it."

Ubik (1969)

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

#606

Post by Retric »

HWR_14 wrote: post #268
Retric wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The batteries weigh different amounts so it isn’t just software locking at the factory. https://themotordigest.com/how-much-do-tesla-batteries-weigh... It’s more likely they didn’t have a 60kWh battery at the time pack to do the replacement. Which brings up an interesting point, a 90kWh battery software locked to 60kWh is a defective part as the added weight takes more energy to move around, has worse acceleration, m…

That might be a new change that happened in the past few years ago. But it certainly was the way Tesla made cars in 2019: https://insideevs.com/news/342746/more-on-the-return-of-tesl...

Tesla software locked a few 75kWh batteries in 2019 to 60 kWh because so few people bought 60kWh cars and battery prices had fallen a great deal. They didn’t software lock 90kWh to 60kWh batteries in 2013.

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

#607

Post by muzika »

HWR_14 wrote: post #268
Retric wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The batteries weigh different amounts so it isn’t just software locking at the factory. https://themotordigest.com/how-much-do-tesla-batteries-weigh... It’s more likely they didn’t have a 60kWh battery at the time pack to do the replacement. Which brings up an interesting point, a 90kWh battery software locked to 60kWh is a defective part as the added weight takes more energy to move around, has worse acceleration, m…

That might be a new change that happened in the past few years ago. But it certainly was the way Tesla made cars in 2019: https://insideevs.com/news/342746/more-on-the-return-of-tesl...

They did this only for very short time period only.

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

#608

Post by judge2020 »

ok_dad wrote: post #597
judge2020 wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When's the last time you saw Toyota in the headline for one of their cars catching on fire on the highway? Tesla has hype on the same level of Apple, so any time anything goes wrong with a car catching on fire or crashing, or having a terrible time with getting the car serviced, they're in the news. Tesla's first-party service centers are usually a plus for consumers, but Ford GM et al. benefit from dealerships being…

I don’t understand how a business’s PR concerns should affect my freedom.

As far as I can tell nobody is stopping you from doing this. Just as you can legally hack iPhones if you figure out how, so can you hack your Tesla. The only slightly illegal thing might be the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, but you'd have to take that up with Howard Coble and the members of the 105th congress.

My comment is reasoning for why Tesla has a stake in protecting their reputation; if you don't like it, please don't support their practices by buying their cars.

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

#609

Post by balls187 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #468
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 yo…

Yes, they were ethical questions, and thank you, I now know that for unordered items, you are under no obligation to return them.

Likewise, if Amazon sends the wrong item to a customer, they have to send the right item, or refund the purchase.

I wonder if this also applies to packages being delivered to the wrong address.

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

#610

Post by renonce »

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 worst thing about this is the idea that Tesla has the power to change whatever configuration they want on your car, rendering it totally unusable. Whether 90 or 60 was desired, such changes shouldn't have been able to be done remotely and without consent.
Post reply on HN