Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

Post by buffington » Tue, Jul 26, 2022, 8:00 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #171

zcw100 wrote: post #48

So the way I'm reading the post is Tesla swapped out a battery pack for a 60 with a 90 and enabled the 90. Tesla, years later, discovers that even though the hardware for a 90 was installed it should have been software limited to be a 60. (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90). They go and "fix the glitch" and set it back to the 60. Sin…

> The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". Why not? Tesla not only replaced the battery, but REBADGED the car for him. Putting this on the customer is asinine.

Post by yreg » Tue, Jul 26, 2022, 8:01 PM UTC

andruby wrote: post #272

Retric wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite, a software limited 90kWh battery is worse than a 60kWh battery pack due to weight. So, Tesla can’t fulfill their warranty obligations with a software locked higher capacity battery. A full capacity battery on the other hand could reasonably qualify as an as good or better replacement which is fine. Therefore whoever did this change at Tesla is exposing them to liability. Technically if car identified as ha…

It’s worse because you carry more weight, but it’s also better because you can charge to 100% without risking much degradation. And you also have less/no degradation. Not sure if that balances out.

Post by bb88 » Tue, Jul 26, 2022, 8:02 PM UTC

corrral wrote: post #304

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decade or so ago you used to be able to unlock cores on certain AMD CPU's; there was no guarantee that the core would be stable though. The core could be fine without heavy load and have errors when pushed closer to 100%. If there was a similar level of binning done for Tesla batteries they should be able to limit the battery especially if there are safety concerns; sounds like that's not the case here though.

At least as early as the late 90s, servers were sometimes sold with parts—disks, controller cards, CPUs (in the days when multi-socket was more common), et c—disabled in software, unlockable if you paid for an upgrade.

Post by kytazo » Tue, Jul 26, 2022, 8:02 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #333

"You'll Own Nothing and Be Happy" Or maybe you won't be happy but your only option would be to complain about it on social media and hope there's enough people that matter in your follows to raise a stink and get your particular case looked on.

Post by bena » Tue, Jul 26, 2022, 8:03 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #179

bena wrote: post #19

The only reason to software lock the capacity of the battery in this manner is to extort customers. There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock. That's labor that was not necessary. All the work needed to software lock the charge capacity of the battery could have been avoided. The only way it makes sense is if you get…

> There is apparently absolutely no additional labor, no additional material, nothing to distinguish a P90 from a P60 except for a software lock. > Essentially, every P90 should be $4500 cheaper and every P60 should have the range of a P90. Oh come on, don't take this to a ridiculous extreme. I'm pretty sure this logic would say that if a store has a loss-leader then they should sell everything at a negative 20 perce…