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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 659 posts

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

#371

Post by vkk8 »

gambiting wrote: post #56
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…

>> (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) It says right there that it was done under warranty. If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3…

> Maybe, but again, I don't see why that should be necessary. Tesla should not have been able to do this, period.

Maybe you're right. However, much of the modern hardware business operates this way. At least Nvidia and Intel have been known to sell the same chips as different models, but just some part of the chip disabled via firmware.

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

#372

Post by jabbany »

sverhagen wrote: post #177
015a wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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" I'm not as sure about this take. Imagine if this were something not connected to The Cloud; the seller sells the car they have, its not their responsibility, nor should it be, nor has it ever been, to know that this is a component that's Cloud Connected…

Isn't it a bit akin to disclosing hidden defects for a house? If you have known about those defects, or they were properly disclosed to you when you bought the house, in many jurisdictions you're responsible to disclose them to the next buyer, are you not? I'm not on Tesla's side here: I have an expectation of reasonability that they're not meeting, and I feel that they've forfeited their "rights" to locking this con…

Yep! If the buyer really wanted to go for someone, and assuming Tesla didn't cave re-enable the upgrade, their best bet is to go after the previous seller for misrepresentation of a 60 model for a 90. This also happens for cars sold as-is but where the dealer knows of defects and does not disclose. To quote someone else, "as-is does not cover fraud".

All in all, it probably wouldn't be worth the time and effort to actually do that though. And because the current buyer is two steps removed from the actual person who was around for the swap, they probably wouldn't actually get anything back for that effort since the middle person is also protected as they bought and sold in good faith.

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

#373

Post by yreg »

tomrod wrote: post #347
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 first bad decision is allowing a manufacturer to control how elements of a car are used after its gone on the market.

The manufacturer has that control only if you want to use their services. If you are fine cutting the cord, 3rd parties can change the configuration for you.

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

#374

Post by gambiting »

jabbany wrote: post #354
jtbayly wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the post? It said it was a 90.

Actually it didn't. The post said the battery had a 90 badge and the car reported capacity as if it were 90. Neither of these are direct claims by Tesla that an "upgrade" happened. Some 2060s also have dies marked for 2080s that are then fused (re: badging doesn't imply performance). Similarly, you could potentially overclock a GPU and end up having measured performance that matched a higher model (re: car reported c…

No I don't think I agree.

To use a different example someone brought up - imagine your CPU breaks in your laptop. You send it to the manufacturer, and they replace it with a higher model CPU because - cool, right? You sell it advertised with that better CPU, then the next owner has to send it in for another, completely unrelated repair, and the manufacturer then says "oh we noticed the last repair fitted more powerful CPU than intended, so we removed it and fitted the original spec CPU".

That wouldn't be just immoral, that would be actual theft.

The matter of fact is, after the warranty repair the guy was given a car with a bigger battery and the bigger capacity enabled in software. Whether Tesla intended to do this or not, is completely and utterly irrelevant - it was his to keep and sell. Now Tesla taking this away should be(but probably isn't) illegal. You have a product with a feature X, Tesla removed that feature and in fact holds it ransom for payment - the fact that they never intended to install it is irrelevant.

To use a different example again - imagine you buy a new car and the factory made a mistake and fitted an extra option that you didn't order. Is the manufacturer in the right to remove that part during your next service?

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

#375

Post by kytazo »

kranke155 wrote: post #83
bambax wrote: post #80

> To be extra clear, I don't post this stuff because I hate Tesla or anything. In fact, it's just the opposite. I hate seeing Tesla derail themselves with this kind of nonsense. I respect the OP for saying this. But I have a hard time respecting people buying Teslas, or anything from Musk. Is it not obvious that the guy is a charlatan? (and that the fish rots from the head?) How likely is it that you won't be robbed…

Tim Dillon said it best. “I met him and guy is a genius. But he’s also a carnival barker.”

I don't know Tim Dillon but you have to be equally 'smart' to call this pothead puppet a genius

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

#376

Post by Enginerrrd »

ajross wrote: post #241
Enginerrrd wrote: post #10

I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this: The real moral of the story here is that if your business plan and practices is creating occasional weird issues and huge cognitive dissonance in your customers, it's the wrong business plan. Also... the number of people this applies to is likely so low that Tesla really screwed up by not erring on the side of the customer. (They didn't buy from Tesla, but they'…

> I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this [...] [Tesla's] business plan and practices is creating [...] huge cognitive dissonance in your customers I think you forgot to spare anything. Meh. This is a software configuration issue like we've seen before. Like lots of devices in the modern world, the cars can be configured with common hardware but disjoint behavior. You might have the hardware for FSD, b…

Oh I did. I'm not calling it "ransom" or other rhetoric. You did a fantastic job of justifying what they did though.

The fact that you can do so was actually my whole point: You can totally justify this! ...and yet... someone still feels like they got fucked. ...and people on the internet agree. That is the antithesis of harmony. Some amount of dissonance is unavoidable, but there are many brands and businesses out there that make sure if a mistake was made, customers leave feeling good. The point is that there are better ways to do business and maintain more harmony between you and your customers, and I've seen many companies be deeply rewarded for that as a whole. It does however often come at the expense of degraded metrics middle managers are commonly evaluated by. Penny-wise pound-foolish is very old wisdom. I think the real key is to evaluate from a systems perspective how that kind of dissonance can be avoided.

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

#378

Post by kube-system »

thayne wrote: post #322
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…

Just the fact that they can do this makes me not want to own a tesla.

I find it less concerning that they can do it, and more concerning that they do do it. If a company treats their customers like crap, they have more avenues to do so than OTAs.

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

#379

Post by datavirtue »

landryraccoon wrote: post #168
balls187 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3080Ti, because....that's what it is. What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti? What about an RTX3080 Card that Nvidia drivers…

I think the main issue as a consumer is, do I trust Tesla to try to provide me with the best experience? Or are they going to squeeze me and hit me with "aha, gotcha! you should have read the fine print!" every time there's an issue? As a consumer, it's extremely expensive to remain well informed. I want to purchase from brands where I feel that the company wants me to be happy, ESPECIALLY with such a premium brand a…

Premium brand? Tesla build quality is right up there with a 1940s hand built one-off car from any of the manufacturers of the time (no down-voters, I'm not exaggerating).

Shit doesn't line up so they push on it real hard while the glue dries.

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

#380

Post by kytazo »

noasaservice wrote: post #2

--------Transcript of tweets, for those that don't want to go to birdsite-------- Tesla really fires me up sometimes. I have a customer who's the ~3rd owner of a 2013 Model S 60. At some point years ago the battery pack was swapped under warranty with a 90 pack. It wasn't software limited. It was effectively made into a 90 by Tesla. Years went by. Car is sold twice since, and now has a new owner (my customer). It say…

https://notabird.site/wk057/status/1551713024171548672 https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/wiki/Instances for alternative instances to the nitter frontend
Post reply on HN