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

Jailbreaking Used Teslas

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 296 posts

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#21

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

crazygringo wrote: post #12

None of this adds up -- there must be details missing. First, if a dealer advertises a car with a feature and the car is missing that feature, then you have recourse -- with the dealer. Second, how does Tesla even know that a car has changed owners? What triggered Tesla disabling the feature at this time for this car? I mean look, if you want to sell your Tesla back to an official Tesla dealer and they have an agreem…

So the story is that the dealer had it enabled for demos and included it in the sale info but didn't actually pay for the actual customer to have the product.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#22

Post by maxerickson »

gtfoutttt wrote: post #13
giantg2 wrote: post #6

All I want is the work truck equivalent. I don't want all the features. I want it to be cheap and just have basic features. It needs to be reasonably repairable too.

The new hummer ev is a step in the right direction. The original hummers had a pickup style so hopefully that's next. Edit- I've always missed the true small trucks like the 90's era rangers and b2000's. I feel like that's an excellent place for a new ev truck startup to begin. The new rangers and colorados are as big as the old f-150's.

Ford has an electric F-150 scheduled for 2022, and it appears to be less of a "special project" than the Hummer.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#23

Post by giantg2 »

ncallaway wrote: post #10
giantg2 wrote: post #6

All I want is the work truck equivalent. I don't want all the features. I want it to be cheap and just have basic features. It needs to be reasonably repairable too.

I'm wondering how the Cybertruck will care on that front. Aren't other Tesla models pretty awful on the repairability front? I bet there's a market niche for what you're describing

I'm guessing Ford and GM might have better repair options. I forget who they partnered with. I think Ford and Rivian have a "skateboard" they can use which is self-conatained. I'm guessing that one might not be super repairable, but might not have the same restrictions that Tesla does. I think GM is with Lordstown Motors. Not sure on their implementation.

I think price is the big issue. The batteries and motors are expensive in a variable cost way. Most of the features use relatively inexpensive sensors or components and have low variable cost. So a consumer sees all these features as justifying the high cost. Removing those features probably wont make it much cheaper (unless maybe you're a separate company that doesn't develop/engineer those features at all).

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#24

Post by giantg2 »

maxerickson wrote: post #22
gtfoutttt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new hummer ev is a step in the right direction. The original hummers had a pickup style so hopefully that's next. Edit- I've always missed the true small trucks like the 90's era rangers and b2000's. I feel like that's an excellent place for a new ev truck startup to begin. The new rangers and colorados are as big as the old f-150's.

Ford has an electric F-150 scheduled for 2022, and it appears to be less of a "special project" than the Hummer.

Yeah, I think they are with Rivian. It was marketed as a regular powertrain option.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#25

Post by maxerickson »

eightysixfour wrote: post #16

While I don’t believe any of this is acceptable, I understand the supercharger disable for salvage title vehicles. Tesla has no idea what damage has been done to the battery pack and how they were or were not repaired. If the car catches fire while supercharging then Tesla is the one in the news, not the company that rebuilt the car. Battery safety and compliance testing is going to be a big industry in the next deca…

They don't allow Supercharging in the case where they've had a good close look at the battery:

meaning all warranties are voided and Supercharging is disabled, even after the repaired vehicle passes a high-voltage inspection by Tesla’s own repair staff.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#26

Post by refurb »

malka wrote: post #7
sheepdestroyer wrote: post #4

As I understand, The FSD package (and I guess the performance package too) is linked to the car, not your account. It doesn't follow you from car to car. Then, what is the justification of Telsa's " you did not pay for it" given to second hand owners as seen in this article? This is really disingenuous and in total contradiction with Musk's "your car is an appreciating asset".

> what is the justification of Telsa' [...] "fuck you, give us money".

Sure. But isn't that every company that has every sold a product? I mean, they aren't giving it away.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#27

Post by ponker »

The Tesla model is the iPhone model... you pay good money for the device, but it remains in the full control of the manufacturer. As Apple has had more time to demonstrate, this model has advantages and disadvantages. If you don’t want this business model, don’t buy a Tesla.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#28

Post by toomuchtodo »

refurb wrote: post #26
malka wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is the justification of Telsa' [...] "fuck you, give us money".

Sure. But isn't that every company that has every sold a product? I mean, they aren't giving it away.

There is a belief running around that Tesla should act like a charity instead of a business while trying to claw its way up to a volume automaker. Software sales are high margin compared to physical auto sales.

Tesla is free to do whatever is supported by contract law as it relates to software licensing, including stripping licenses off vehicles when transfers (like trade ins) done through Tesla (versus a private transfer).

Disclosure: We own several Teslas.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#30

Post by grecy »

sheepdestroyer wrote: post #4

As I understand, The FSD package (and I guess the performance package too) is linked to the car, not your account. It doesn't follow you from car to car. Then, what is the justification of Telsa's " you did not pay for it" given to second hand owners as seen in this article? This is really disingenuous and in total contradiction with Musk's "your car is an appreciating asset".

On the lastest earnings call someone asked Musk if FSD could stay with the owner as they moved to new cars.

He paused and thought about it and said "we'll look into it".

So there's hope.

Post reply on HN