Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 249 posts

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#11

Post by vidarh »

URSpider94 wrote: post #2

This is PR mastery. Nowhere in the release does Tesla refute that owners have "bricked" their batteries. Nowhere in the release do they say that the battery can not be bricked by leaving it for a long period without a recharge. All they say is that it would take a period of weeks for a Tesla roadster to reach 0% charge, and that the Model S has battery disconnect technology that can extend this to several months. The…

> (which, no matter how loud they are, would be hard to hear from across the country, if you've left it in an airport parking lot).

Which is presumably why they're doing this:

> Starting with Roadster 2.0, owners can also elect for their car to contact Tesla headquarters once the state of charge falls below a specified level, and we can then contact the owner.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#12

Post by ssharp »

larrydag wrote: post #7
redthrowaway wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really no different than early fuel-injected cars being damaged by running out of gas. The solution? Don't run out of fucking gas. That didn't stop fuel injection from becoming the dominant technology, and neither will this halt the rise of EVs.

I would think its a little different since the infrastructure was already in place for gasoline. There isn't the same infrastructure nation-wide for electric vehicles.

I'd say it was significantly worse under gasoline. Then, if you ran out of gas, the car was bricked.

Tesla is saying that even if you drain your battery driving, it would still take 30 days of failing to charge it to brick it. While the infrastructure for just "filling up real quick" may not exist for electric cars, the infrastructure certainly exists at a person's home, otherwise, they wouldn't buy an electric car.

I think there would be a much more compelling case for this if electric cars were being mass-adopted, and the education for maintaining them was poor. Neither is the case here. Electric cars are still largely in the early adopters phase, and Tesla is telling people to not leave their car unplugged for months on end.

Much ado about nothing.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#13

Post by mellifluousmind »

One key issue that Tesla PR accidentally omits is whether owners are still responsible for 40K replacement if battery does indeed fail.

40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel-injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#15

Post by nuclear_eclipse »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #6
fijal wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"mastery" is not a very correct word in my opinion. What they do is they provide absolutely 0 information, while still calling the blog a rumor. I was very skeptical about the blog post up until now, when tesla essentially agreed to all it's claims, by not refuting any. TL;DR; version of the blog: "Yes, it's true, we charge a lot of money for forgetting to plug in your tesla, don't do that or you'll regret".

This was my take away as well but the mastery part is where it sounds like they are refuting something. Basically, having read that post three times, I conclude that if you ignore the warnings and let your battery pack completely discharge your car will be unusable, aka a 'brick'. Which completely validates the 'rogue bloggers' point that it is a 'known issue' and one to be aware of. I found the 'no oil' comparison t…

"Why doesn't the Tesla vehicle have a 'full power down' state for storage?"

I assume this is because of the nature of Li-ion batteries. Even if you aren't pulling any current from the battery, they will still discharge over time, and eventually go through a chemical process rendering them unusable and/or dangerous. Having a "long-term storage" mode for the vehicle would only serve to make it more likely to happen by lulling owners into a false sense of security. Better to simply reinforce the need to constantly keep the vehicle in a charged-or-charging state.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#16

Post by ceejayoz »

redthrowaway wrote: post #5
URSpider94 wrote: post #2

This is PR mastery. Nowhere in the release does Tesla refute that owners have "bricked" their batteries. Nowhere in the release do they say that the battery can not be bricked by leaving it for a long period without a recharge. All they say is that it would take a period of weeks for a Tesla roadster to reach 0% charge, and that the Model S has battery disconnect technology that can extend this to several months. The…

It's really no different than early fuel-injected cars being damaged by running out of gas. The solution? Don't run out of fucking gas. That didn't stop fuel injection from becoming the dominant technology, and neither will this halt the rise of EVs.

> It's really no different than early fuel-injected cars being damaged by running out of gas.

Barring a fuel leak, your car won't run out of gas sitting in your garage while you're on a long business trip.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#17

Post by Kynlyn »

redthrowaway wrote: post #5
URSpider94 wrote: post #2

This is PR mastery. Nowhere in the release does Tesla refute that owners have "bricked" their batteries. Nowhere in the release do they say that the battery can not be bricked by leaving it for a long period without a recharge. All they say is that it would take a period of weeks for a Tesla roadster to reach 0% charge, and that the Model S has battery disconnect technology that can extend this to several months. The…

It's really no different than early fuel-injected cars being damaged by running out of gas. The solution? Don't run out of fucking gas. That didn't stop fuel injection from becoming the dominant technology, and neither will this halt the rise of EVs.

Yes, it is entirely different. Running an early fuel-injected vehicle out of gas didn't result in a repair bill that is approximately half the purchase cost of the car.

Secondly, you could leave your fuel injected car idle for months on and end without having to worry about the car slowly slurping the fuel down and then leaving you an empty.

So it is much easier to run a EV out of battery power and far more expensive to fix it when it does happen. No amount of PR spinning, FUD or wishful thinking changes that.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#18

Post by ceejayoz »

mellifluousmind wrote: post #13

One key issue that Tesla PR accidentally omits is whether owners are still responsible for 40K replacement if battery does indeed fail. 40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel-injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?

I doubt that was accidental.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#19

Post by verelo »

No technology or system is perfect, there is a certain level of "acceptable use" that we always need to comply with. I don't think charging a Tesla is that big of an issue, and if you're fortunate enough to own one, you're probably also intelligent enough to plan ahead.

In Australia (where I'm originally from) LPG (Propane to everyone in the US & Canada) conversions on Petrol (Gas?) cars is a common thing. Its the same situation, LPG is not available everywhere, and while most LPG cars can run on both fuels...you simply think ahead before you go on some unusual route. It becomes part of your planning for a long trip and that's all there is to it. If you run out of LPG, its a bad situation...you cant just go grab bottle of LPG, its a compressed gas, you actually need to either run the car on normal fuel (Petrol) or get it towed.

My bias opinion here is that someone probably mistreated their car, and Tesla told them something like "We tried to help you before this happened, but you ignored us...its in the terms you signed when you bought the car and now there is nothing else we can do to help"

Completely reasonable.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#20

Post by larrys »

URSpider94 wrote: post #2

This is PR mastery. Nowhere in the release does Tesla refute that owners have "bricked" their batteries. Nowhere in the release do they say that the battery can not be bricked by leaving it for a long period without a recharge. All they say is that it would take a period of weeks for a Tesla roadster to reach 0% charge, and that the Model S has battery disconnect technology that can extend this to several months. The…

Agree with the mastery.

And the release doesn't reference the actual blogger which is this:

http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-te...

They reference an ad hominem of sorts about the "rumour" at this link:

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/02/23/tesla-bricked-battery-s...

which has the title: "Tesla bricked battery story may have a short circuit"

Post reply on HN