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

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#161

Post by dupe »

jskopek wrote: post #140
mansolo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is PR mastery (not convinced) it's in the tone of the writing. It reminds me of a notice of late payment I received from The Economist magazine some years back. It was so darn polite and diplomatic, I kept it in a shoebox ever since. Now, whenever there's an outstanding payment issue with a client, I read the letter for inspiration.

I'd love to read that letter! Any chance you could scan it or type it up?

Hey, sorry it took me so long. HN was giving me a "you're submitting too fast" error for some unknown reason. Had to open up another account.

Anyway, here`s the link: http://www.picamatic.com/view/8244745_economist-invoice/

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#162

Post by droithomme »

cuu508 wrote: post #142
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.

Such condition would be tempting to abuse. Warranty expires in 6 months--drive to 0%, wait a month and call dealer. Instead manufacturer could make it very clear in on webpages, in owner manuals, PR materials etc. the importance of keeping batteries charged. Make it common knowledge. Then they would be morally right to treat bricked batteries same as running with no oil or with flat tires.

I never heard of a battery warranty that wasn't prorated over the life of the battery. You know, if it fails 1 month before the end of a 5 year warranty, you get a credit for 1/60 the replacement value, often redeemable only as a credit towards purchase of a new battery of the same brand from an authorized dealer.

I am sure you have heard of prorated battery warranties and are familiar with them, aren't you? Granted that, why would you make such an intentionally misleading post suggesting that warranties are prone to abuse when this is a solved problem?

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#163

Post by droithomme »

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.

So you agree, as we all do, that if you do what the "blogger starting an unfounded rumor" describes, then you will brick the car, as he claims will be the result. So you agree the blogger is telling the truth and the PR release from tesla is a lie, correct?

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#164

Post by droithomme »

zaidf wrote: post #152
redthrowaway wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder, is running the batteries down when driving an electric car with a very limited range and general unavailability of high current outlets more, or less likely than running out of gas in a car with a very large range and widespread availability of refilling stations?

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#165

Post by mellifluousmind »

jrockway wrote: post #149
jd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to point out how Tesla car batteries have to follow the laws of physics. Other people did that already. Tesla cars aren't mass market products (yet). They're for early adopters who can afford what is essentially a $100.000+ toy. If you then don't read the manual and leave the car on a parking lot for months , then yes, you can ruin the battery. So let's compare it to other early adopter technology. It t…

Forget to turn off the stove before you leave for holiday? Your house might burn down. This is the best example I've read so far. If you own expensive stuff, you have to be careful. That's life. If you're not careful, don't buy a $100,000 electric car. Buy a $750 used pickup truck or something. That way, if you break it, you'll be able to afford the replacement.

No, if you pay good money for something, you expect the product has good feature to pamper its user. It is more true with a car where if you pay good money for a car, the car should take care of you more than the other way around. If not, it is not worth the money to buy in the first place.

Your way of reasoning is pretty much the same as when iPhone 4 first came out. You pay good money for something that shatters easily. At least, in iPhone case, Apple came out, admitted faults and tried to make its user happy.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#166

Post by droithomme »

onemoreact wrote: post #81
Kynlyn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you leave an IC car for a long period of time with 1/2 a tank of gas you can destroy the engine. Gas like everything else breaks down and if you left leave your car sitting for a long time you may need to completely drain the gas tank. PS: Gas can noticeably degrade in as little as one month depending on ambient conditions. But, condensation is the largest risk for mid term storage. After 1 year you will probably…

I've done this plenty of times. It's a common risk in cold climates when tractors, cars and lawnmowers are parked outside and one forgets to drain the tank. It gums up the carburetor. So you rebuild the carburetor, which takes 1 hr and $5 to do at home, or $100 at the dealer. Not $40,000. It also doesn't "destroy the engine". There is a high probability either don't know what you are talking about and made that claim up, or you are intentionally being misleading in order to promote a viewpoint using false claims.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#167

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

Thanks guys for the links, one of the references in the Wikipedia section was this one: http://www.gpbatteries.com/html/pdf/Li-ion_handbook.pdf which has a bit more information.

According to the GPBatteries guys LiON have no self discharge if they aren't being drawn down by a monitoring circuit. But they also mention that embedded safety circuits can run the batteries down a bit until those circuits stop working because there is insufficient charge in the battery to run them, and then the battery can't be charged (aka its a brick).

Of course you could charge it if you could get around the safety chip in that case it would just require a bit of cleverness.

Again my experience with LiON cells is that once they get to about 3V if you don't put a load on them they don't discharge any further on their own. That would seem to be supported by the chemical energy needed to absorb the anions but I am not a chemist, just an aging EE. Thanks for the links.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#168

Post by pwpwp »

xixi77 wrote: post #78
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…

IMO, this was horrible, horrible PR. They basically confirmed all allegations, while still coming out as snotty jerks (talking about "unfounded rumors"?!). Linking the ad-hominem attack was just low. They are in a difficult situation, as the problem is real, and difficult to address. In fact they are clearly doing a lot trying to address it, which is to their credit -- now if instead of downplaying it, they presented…

My thoughts exactly. Very bad response, indeed.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#169

Post by MortenK »

marvin wrote: post #118
Kynlyn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I really don't see the problem. Tesla clearly states in the manual that completely depleting the battery and then leaving it without charging it will cause damage to the car. This would be completely analogous to running a brand-new early car without oil, destroying the engine. It's a serious neglect of your maintenance duties. I mean, yes. You can "destroy" your car by not charging it. You can also destroy it by acc…

The problem is that obviously some people have not been aware of the issue. Tesla has (supposedly) only given very vague warnings in the instruction manual, without much emphasis and with no clear description of the consequences of reaching 0% charge. Except for a "You may risk damaging your battery".

It's not reasonable to assume that ordinary people know the inherent risks in lithium ion batteries. As such, the massive risk should have extreme emphasis in the instruction manuals, be explained in detail by the sales people, exist as clear warnings in the car, and so on.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#170

Post by droithomme »

redthrowaway wrote: post #110
burgreblast wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you knew all along that the Tesla battery could be bricked by running out of charge? That would make you one of a very small minority. The original story got play because it was a surprising, unknown, and frankly, sucks. If all of my fuel-injected laptops had never been damaged when they ran out of fuel, I would be pretty shocked and disappointed when it was a problem with the Kugelfischer. Much like the…

>Sounds like you knew all along that the Tesla battery could be bricked by running out of charge? That would make you one of a very small minority. Comprising all Tesla owners. It's in the Owner's Manual, and I would be very surprised if new owners aren't informed of it when they purchase the car.

It's good to know that you agree with the blogger who wrote the article, and agree that Tesla is lying when they say his claims are unfounded rumors.
Post reply on HN