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

151–160 of 249 posts

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#151

Post by URSpider94 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #85
nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I would like to understand where you get that information. I've had a lot of experience with rechargeable batteries over the years in doing robotics, and a variety of chemical makeups. My experience is that the "self discharge" function is the result of the anions managing to convert by one means or another not related to electron injection at the anode. The mechanisms that enable this are things like electron tunnel…

Here's a nice graphical rendition of what can happen. The undervoltage situations are not driven by current travelling outside the cell, they can happen even if the cell voltage drops by self-discharge.

http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#152

Post by zaidf »

redthrowaway wrote: post #91
tlb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little different. Replacing the fuel pump and injectors cost maybe 5% of the cost of the vehicle. Replacing roadster batteries costs 40%.

Repair cost doesn't matter. It's up to the owner not to be an idiot, and to take care of the vehicle. The vast majority of owners of early fuel-injected cars knew not to let them run out of gas, and didn't. Similarly, when Tesla tells you not to let the battery go completely flat, you take care of your property and follow their instructions. If I leave my house long enough, the roof will decay and I'll get massive wa…

It's up to the owner not to be an idiot

Actually no, the common wisdom is that you should expect your users to be idiots when developing a product.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#153

Post by Sanddancer »

mansolo wrote: post #46
revelation wrote: post #30

What is wrong with you people? You are really trying to kill off cars because you got a horse carriage at home. The horse can when coupled reproduce itself, all it takes is some food and water to keep going, its unlikely to break down, you can be flexible by changing from a one-seater to carrying raw material in the blink of an eye. Obviously, the horse is vastly superior to its new "car" competitor. Only a moron wou…

I feel you on this one, but building an industry on misinformation is not the way. Another thought: maybe we need to stop being so obsessed and utterly dependent on cars in general. Live locally, support your community, become more self-reliant, leverage personal technogy.

From everything I've seen, Tesla's been pretty up front as far as what the battery needs, and what sorts of behaviors to expect.

As to your other thought, some of us do not want to ghettoize ourselves. Some of us have friends in areas that are, unfortunately, difficult to reach via public transportation. Living locally would mean disconnecting from a great number of people that I care about quite deeply.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#154

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

tocomment wrote: post #22
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.

How did they resolve this with modern fuel injected cars? I routinely drive mine until it runs out of gas (don't ask) and I haven't had any adverse problems.

I believe the problem (or at least one of them) with early fuel injection was that the injectors would overheat if they didn't have have the fuel passing through them to cool the solenoid. Newer cars won't even attempt to fire the injector if a high enough fuel pressure isn't sensed.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#155

Post by stitchy »

jrockway wrote: post #150
stitchy wrote: post #145

The comments here seem to fall into two unrelated categories: "Tesla isn't telling customers the whole story" and "What did people expect to happen when they left their car unplugged for months?" Both are valid points. Why are you arguing? The points don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Tesla has a lot going for it. They make innovative cars, and I would love to own one. That doesn't make the company's PR responses a…

If you can afford a $100,000 car, you are not going to leave it parked at the airport for a month. Tesla does not make cars for people that need a utility vehicle, they make toys for rich people. Some day, this technology will be mass market and the batteries will be more forgiving. Today is not that day.

I agree with you. But now that you mention it, it seems like utility vehicles get used more often. Rich toys often stay in the garage with the other rich toys.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#156

Post by jfasi »

This is a good release, however there is a better way to present it.

By now, gasoline powered cars have been around for a hundred years. Everyone knows they are complex machines with lots of movings parts, and that they require regular maintenance to keep in working shape. What Tesla is putting forward here is the fact that the same principle applies to their electric cars: they need their own kind of TLC to be kept in good shape.

However, there is another point Tesla fails to get across. Over those hundred or so years, not only has the need to care of a gas-powered car entered into the public psyche, but also how that care must be carried out. Everyone knows that cars need oil changes and exhaust checks and all that. It's obvious by now.

However, that sort of awareness doesn't exist when it comes to electric cars. Saying they need care is great, but Tesla is missing an opportunity to develop the same sort of intuitive public awareness with regard to their vehicles. It's not just 'these cars need care,' it's 'these cars need care, and its of a kind you don't expect, that's OK because you haven't need raised on these vehicles since you were young.'

This way, the message would move from being an ever-so-slightly condescending implication that you forgot that electric cars need electricity, and refocuses on the need to augment the way in which people think about maintaining their vehicles.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#157

Post by droithomme »

jm4 wrote: post #144
vannevar wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real PR mastery would be to issue a modification to the warranty to include this condition within X years of owning the vehicle and be done with it. If it really is rare, it will cost them a lot less to cover it than the PR costs of fighting bad press every time it pops up.

I disagree. You buy a car that only needs maintenance once a year, but you have to plug it in at least once every few weeks. They are willing to go well above and beyond what most would expect in order to remind you of that. I think that's a pretty good deal. Responsible owners do not let the battery charge reach zero. The consequences are serious enough that owners with unusual usage patterns that make this difficul…

I screwed up once and my car ran out of gas. Had to walk 3 miles. Didn't cost $40,000 to fix.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#158

Post by ugh »

TDL wrote: post #96
ugh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is Tesla's fault. Clearly. You shouldn't need to read a manual to drive a car. Tesla has to make sure things behave like people expect them to behave. That's how people are going to see it, anyway. Owning up to it would be a small price to pay for Tesla.

How is neglect of the car owner (assuming the rumors of these owners cars "bricking") the car manufacturers fault? If I buy an electric car I expect to plug it in regularly. I'll make an assumption here; most people expect to have to plug in an electric car on a regular basis. The expectation is to plug in the car regularly.

I don’t think you can allow yourself to think that way as a company. Fussy debates about whose fault it was – when your customers didn’t do anything outrageously unusual – lead nowhere, just to bad PR.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#159

Post by mellifluousmind »

Geee wrote: post #34
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?

Of course you have to pay if you are stupid. Same thing if you destroy your gas-powered car on purpose using some other method. It is not a 'fail', which implies a manufacturing error or similar.

The point is that the cost of repair an EV seems way more than a fuel-injected vehicle. It has nothing to do with stupidity

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#160

Post by ugh »

nknight wrote: post #121
seanos wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Imagine the flip side, that electric cars were normal, and internal combustion engines were unusual. Then we could have stories about owners ruining their engines because they never changed their oil." No you wouldn't because an oil change is part of the annual service for the car. Everyone knows that if you neglect to follow the manufacturer's maintenance schedule for a car you might get problems. On the other hand…

And plugging in the damned car is part of the daily routine of owning an EV. You're only making his point for him.

But it’s new and unusual. If there are really only these vague warnings in the manual (manuals tend to have all kinds of crazy warning that you usually don’t have to take all that seriously) then this is absolutely Tesla’s fault and they have to own up to it.
Post reply on HN