Do we have an answer on how long, from 100% and 80% charges, it would take for a Roadster to get bricked? That would strongly effect any judgement on the reasonableness of Tesla not prominently disclosing this risk.
Tesla: Not so easily bricked
21–30 of 161 posts
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#22I think the issue is that Tesla has a warranty problem, not a design flaw. With batteries, even if the battery management system shuts itself down and all subsystems, the battery cells will still internally drain to damaging levels. Until battery technology improves that will be a real problem with all electric cars. Unlike driving with no oil and needing an engine replacement, this is primarily a problem with the car (not driver negligence), so it should probably be covered under warranty, or qualify for the cheaper $12k replacement.
Note: I do not know how Tesla designed their systems, they possibly could do a better job to extend the storage time, but it will still be a problem. Any car with an electric start has this problem, if you don't charge the battery in storage it will require service/replacement. Of course it won't be $40k...
Do anyone have similar stories from other electric cars? Is there a maximum storage time listed for the Prius, Volt, or Leaf?
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#23Hang on, at what point did anyone claim they were 'easy' to brick? The argument is not about how easy they are to brick, it's about the fact that the entire car is rendered useless if bricked unless you're willing to pay $40k to get your vehicle back on the road again. If the cars were easy to brick there would be a significantly larger number of documented cases than what currently exist.
When I read the blog post in question, and the comments here, I left with the understanding that if you left a Tesla car unused for a dozen or so weeks, it would be bricked and it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery. This post directly contradicts that notion.
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original blog isn't exactly sussed out either. We have an anonymous source giving vague anecdotes about 5 cars whose owners haven't been contacted to verify details.
The link to this article is down unfortunately, so I can't comment on it. But Tesla's statement did nothing to refute the article, it just stated that you have to put oil in a regular car, and that you can optionally have the car contact Tesla if it gets low. The oil analogy Tesla and others are using just doesn't work. A normal car doesn't total itself after sitting idle for a few weeks to few months depending on wh…
A normal car engine unused for a long time has to be handled just as well. If you're lucky the worst you'll have is a dead battery. If you're unlucky the engine has seized and the tires are deformed and need to be replaced. Ask any university town mechanic what happens when students leave cars parked in the lot, untouched, for months.
Actually as a former car owner (city dweller now), my biggest concern was making sure the car was still there when I came back later.
Really the biggest responsibility this car has is for the owner to keep batteris charged up, not check the oil, not check the coolant, nor check the break fluid or transmission fluid. When did spending a lot of money on a car mean you could also switch your brain off.
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#25Hang on, at what point did anyone claim they were 'easy' to brick? The argument is not about how easy they are to brick, it's about the fact that the entire car is rendered useless if bricked unless you're willing to pay $40k to get your vehicle back on the road again. If the cars were easy to brick there would be a significantly larger number of documented cases than what currently exist.
When I read the blog post in question, and the comments here, I left with the understanding that if you left a Tesla car unused for a dozen or so weeks, it would be bricked and it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery. This post directly contradicts that notion.
The response from Tesla does not contradict that notion. Note this quote: "It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. " Notice that "can potentially be damaging" is a weasel phrase for "brick". Further Tesla argues that to avoid discharge to zero percent "all that needs to be done is to tow the vehicle to a charger". Again, this misses the main point of the OP -- what happens if the vehicle doesn't get towed to the charger. The OP argues that then it discharges to zero percent which in Tesla's own words will be potentially damaging.
Tesla's PR people are particularly misleading by comparing the situation described above to someone draining oil and then taking a car on a cross country trip. Draining the oil requires action by car's owner. Leave a car in a garage for six months and the oil will still be there. The whole point of the OP is that inaction destroys Tesla's vehicles.
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#26Hang on, at what point did anyone claim they were 'easy' to brick? The argument is not about how easy they are to brick, it's about the fact that the entire car is rendered useless if bricked unless you're willing to pay $40k to get your vehicle back on the road again. If the cars were easy to brick there would be a significantly larger number of documented cases than what currently exist.
When I read the blog post in question, and the comments here, I left with the understanding that if you left a Tesla car unused for a dozen or so weeks, it would be bricked and it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery. This post directly contradicts that notion.
It contradicts it, but which account is correct. This new blog post says 'you just need to re-charge to fix'. The original post says 'you just need $40,000' to fix.
The orignial post appears to have better sources than this one, so I would say that it has been contradicted, but not refuted.
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I read the blog post in question, and the comments here, I left with the understanding that if you left a Tesla car unused for a dozen or so weeks, it would be bricked and it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery. This post directly contradicts that notion.
The response from Tesla does not contradict that notion. Note this quote: "It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. " Notice that "can potentially be damaging" is a weasel phrase for "brick". Further Tesla argues that to avoid discharge to zero percent "all that needs to be done is to tow the vehicle to a charger". Again, this misses the main point of t…
My understanding of what this post meant is that a full discharge is prevented by the controller in the battery itself - much like in laptops, and much like everyone here was surprised that the Tesla battery does not have.
So, to be clear, my understanding of this post, with full clarity, is: "A full discharge is disastrous. However, the situations reported were not full discharges. The controller in the battery shut them off before full discharge. The reported situations did require being towed, but once towed, it was trivial to recharge the batteries."
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#28Doesn't explain away the previous post - if repair is so trivial, why were 40k repair bills being discussed?
Maybe the $ 40k repair bills never existed in the first place...
Then why didn't this Tesla representative say so? Why didn't he say, "We have followed up with the source(s) of this story and been unable to find any instance of a need to replace all the battery cells in a so-called 'bricked' Tesla. All instances only required a charge and reboot with service costs never exceeding $2k." ... or something like that?
I like the trashing of a bad rumor against technology as much as the next geek, but this Tesla response was spin and speculation thrown against more substantial-sounding reports of a problem. It was weak and since the strong alternatives are easily imaginable, it was likely weak for a reason -- ie, the reports of $40k bills were relatively accurate.
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#29This is an exceptionally lame rebuttal.
> There is a fundamental problem when any rechargeable battery is discharged and then left to sit for months. Any boat owner understands that that's why you plug in a trickle charger when the craft is put into storage.
Yes, it's an excellent strategy to assume that your car buyers will also be boat owners, and therefore know all the things that boat owners know without you needing to explain them. Because who doesn't own a boat, right?
Re: Tesla: Not so easily bricked
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The response from Tesla does not contradict that notion. Note this quote: "It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. " Notice that "can potentially be damaging" is a weasel phrase for "brick". Further Tesla argues that to avoid discharge to zero percent "all that needs to be done is to tow the vehicle to a charger". Again, this misses the main point of t…
My understanding of what this post meant is that a full discharge is prevented by the controller in the battery itself - much like in laptops, and much like everyone here was surprised that the Tesla battery does not have. So, to be clear, my understanding of this post, with full clarity, is: "A full discharge is disastrous. However, the situations reported were not full discharges. The controller in the battery shut…
I interpret this post in the same way, but this contradicts the original post, which said that a car was sitting at a Tesla service center and required $$$ for battery replacement. If all that it takes is a recharge, why is the owner unable to pay?