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

201–210 of 249 posts

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#201

Post by vannevar »

cuu508 wrote: post #178
droithomme wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hadn't heard of prorated battery warranties, but yes, makes sense. This fixes intentional abuse. But I imagine with free brick replacement, people would more easily and frequently forget to keep the battery charged. Without the risk of $40K, brick rate would probably go up.

I imagine with free brick replacement, people would more easily and frequently forget to keep the battery charged.

It wouldn't really be free; the car would be out of service for some time. And Tesla could charge some kind of nominal-but-not-insignificant service fee. I doubt that the bricking rate would be sensitive to the actual dollar cost: as Tesla points out, it isn't that easy to do. Just being careless isn't sufficient, there would have to be other circumstances like a long trip away from the car where the cost of repair wouldn't have any impact.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#202

Post by vacri »

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…

The two-month period to reach 50% has nothing to do with the original poster's issues. He said that in unusual circumstances - driving it heavily, then not charging it for a short time - was sufficient to brick it. If it only takes two months for a 50% charge to drain, how long does it take a 10% charge to drain?

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#203

Post by vacri »

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…

There is a strong negative financial incentive for owners to do a simple thing like plugging in the car.

Which the author of the original article discussed, along with Tesla's obfuscations and downplayng of the issue.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#204

Post by vacri »

schiffern wrote: post #195
droithomme wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And it wouldn't with a Tesla, either. The car shuts down before you can discharge the battery enough to damage it. If, after you ran out of gas, you didn't fill your gas tank for weeks and ignored the car's insistent complaints that it should be filled with gas, then you would have a point. But I doubt you've ever done that.

I've driven my car until the tank was empty, then left home to go on a trip for two weeks. When I came back, there was still enough fuel to let me go get more.

Everyone seems to think that Tesla owners are housebound in these threads.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#205

Post by vacri »

droithomme wrote: post #181
veyron wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually more common with tires, but there are battery manufacturers like Interstate that give prorated battery warranties (of course there are all kinds of stipulations on the warranty protecting them from negligence claims)

Hm, interesting. Anyone who has owned a car has had to replace the battery at some point and they all have warranties and all car battery warranties are pro-rated. (Maybe there is some exception, I've never seen it.) Same for lawn and garden batteries for driving mowers. It's possible some of the overseas readers here have never owned a car though and just haven't ever needed to buy a car battery and weren't familiar…

Not many people would bother keeping the receipt for their vehicle batteries.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#206

Post by vacri »

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…

If I leave my house long enough, the roof will decay and I'll get massive water damage.

If that happens in the space of 1-2 months of no maintenance, you have a very, very, very shoddy house.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#207

Post by ugh »

scott_s wrote: post #186
ugh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars have an uphill battle in front of them. As a company you cannot have fussy debates about whose fault something was.

That may be true, but it's orthogonal to the point I was responding to, which was "You shouldn't need to read a manual to drive a car." The only reason that statement holds with gas-based cars is that the things one needs to do to take care of them is common knowledge. New technologies have new quirks, and those who adopt them will have to read the manual. Eventually, when the technology becomes common, how to take c…

Which is the only perspective that matters for the company.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#208

Post by redthrowaway »

droithomme wrote: post #163
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.

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?

This is the second time[1] you have said precisely the same thing in response to a comment of mine in this thread. I don't care about whatever agenda you're trying to push; stop being so belligerent in your attempts to get me to say something completely orthogonal to my point.

[1] The other: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3631295

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#209

Post by dodedo »

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…

"That's a bad deal for Tesla. It could mean financial ruin if there are too many irresponsible owners."

On the contrary, if there are too many irresponsible owners then Tesla is ruined if they DON'T cover it. Imagine what "too many Tesla bricked cars" would do to their product image.

Look, this is very simple. Warranty systems are underwritten like insurance policies. It's little risk to Tesla -- the question is the underwriter's risk assessment. If the underwriter won't cover it on affordable terms, it suggests the risk is too high and the product is poorly designed. At that point, the path of failure is chosen (expensive underwriting policy vs expensive PR debacle) is irrelevant. The only issue is whether the risk assessment is accurate -- it becomes a gamble.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#210

Post by wtvanhest »

jellicle wrote: post #122
wtvanhest wrote: post #31

What happens if you leave a gasoline car for 6 months without driving it? That is the comparison I would like to see.

If you disconnect one of your car battery terminals, it will be perfectly fine for six months. Reconnect the terminal and drive away. It's not necessary to do anything else. The main danger is things like squirrels moving into your engine block, if it's outside.

Not sure why you were downvoted. Seems reasonable to me. And the animal threat is real.
Post reply on HN