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

Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 555 posts

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#391

Post by bluGill »

anon291 wrote: post #187
bluGill wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but are you are farmer? Suburbs can support great public transit, and it would be cheaper than cars for everyone. Suburbs cannot support the bad public transport options they get though. The lack of density makes it harder to design a great network (network is critical here!), you cannot make mistakes as there is no density to save you from mistakes.

> Suburbs can support great public transit, and it would be cheaper than cars for everyone. While I agree... there is no way Americans will forgo cars. Americans love our rural and public and wild lands too much to not be able to simply visit at moment's notice. Having lived in Europe, I understand how this works there. Europeans don't have the same relationship with nature that Americans often do. The ones that do u…

Americans do not have to forgo their cars. They just need to forgo a single car. Most families I know have a car per adult, and often a spare in case one breaks. However they could easily drop down to one truck (not car, though maybe a SUV or minivan) for those rural/wildlands trips and other things that need a truck. All we need to do is give them a good option for the 90% of trips that are not those things: getting to work, getting groceries, running to schools, going to church, the game, the bar...

Just because we can't eliminate all cars doesn't mean we can't/shouldn't have great transit. Focus on make a system that is useful for people for the 90% of trips at less cost than the one car they are getting rid of to pay for it.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#392

Post by mysterydip »

phantom784 wrote: post #310
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

Even worse - if you pay for the subscription and then later sell the car, you don't get anything back and the next owner doesn't get the feature unless they pay as well. If you pay to have it permanently, you can probably recoup some of the cost when you sell. (Unless Mercedes does something so that the feature is gone once you sell, which I wouldn't put past them)

This is the same thing people found out trying to sell their used game consoles with a bunch of downloaded games. No extra value to the buyer, because as soon as the seller disconnects their account, all those games disappear. And in the case of the WiiU and 3DS, are now unavailable for purchase.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#393

Post by adrr »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #256

>You can make your Mercedes EV go faster for $60 a month Umm, no. Allow me to correct this misprint. Unless you pay an extra $60 monthly your already-expensive vehicle will not give the full outstanding performance that your particular hardware was engineered to do.

You can chip most turbo engines for higher boost which means higher HP and torque. Current 911 vs the 911S is 13PSI vs 16PSI on the exact same engine. If you want Sports Plus mode which adds a little more boost, more aggressive shifting, tighter suspension, and launch control its also just software changes that porsche bundles with a dash clock.

Companies have been doing this for awhile. Whats new is the subscription charge. Tesla has performance mode for $2k that you can buy and install over the air.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#394

Post by uguuo_o »

wcarron wrote: post #182
ajross wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t want [my car] to be connected [...] to the internet Really? No remote access, security notifications, navigation facilities? No watching TV while charging? No OTA updates that obviate the need to take it to the dealership for routine fixes? No open source location analytic API? I mean, I'm sure there's some bad stuff that happens too. But this is very much throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I won't t…

IT. IS. A. CAR! It takes you from Point A to Point B! Nobody needs to watch TV in their car! Nobody needs subscription services for heated seats or 0.2s off your 0-60mph time! Nobody needs cameras replacing their sideview mirrors! Get rid off all this bullshit in vehicles. 6-speed manual, adjustable seats, a GPS/nav screen and radio/aux, and a damn cupholder is all anyone needs from a car. Everything else is just a b…

This is why it'd take some catastrophe for me to get rid of my 04 WRX STI. The interesting part has been seeing how got here.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#395

Post by w0m »

MisterSandman wrote: post #376
iknowstuff wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until you find out about binning or software limited engines

Binning is completely different, an i5 may be able to perform as fast an i7 if you overclock it, but it depends on your luck on how your i5 was, and it will almost certainly be unstable. Binning is the equivalent of making really fancy chocolates, and selling the slightly worse-looking chocolates for worse.

> and it will almost certainly be unstable

TBF - this depends how well they streamlined their manufacturing process. As yield goes up; getting a perfectly stable 3ghz chip binned as a 2ghz before a flash lock becomes increasingly common. It became common to hunt for specific chips for this reason back when I actually had time to pay attention to it.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#396

Post by rootusrootus »

my_usernam3 wrote: post #119
gwbas1c wrote: post #86

I've had this (cough) "opportunity" in my Tesla for as long as I can remember. (Dual-motor Model 3, it's well-known that it's mostly software differences to make it the performance version.) Guess what: My Tesla is fast enough. I don't feel any need to pay more money to make it go faster. (I'm not going to whine about rent-seeking or how I own it and I should be able to do what I want with it. Instead, I'm going to p…

> it's well-known that it's mostly software differences to make it the performance version. Do you have a source of this, news to me

It's true for early AWD LR Model 3s. The motors were the same used on the P version, just software limited. It's no longer true, current LRs do not get the same motor the P does, so cannot be software unlocked to full P performance.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#397

Post by s3p »

kingcharles wrote: post #385
krono wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already posses the capability to perform to the implied specifications with or without that $60/mo.

I understand the technical part: they are unlocking the extra power electronically. What I don't understand is what is different between the headline saying that you can pay $60 for your car to go faster (true) and parent poster saying "pay an extra $60 monthly your already-expensive vehicle will not give the full outstanding performance that your particular hardware was engineered to do"? Those two statements seem t…

The perspective. It makes customers think that the software update is tuning the engine or doing something special to get non-standard performance, which is a lie. Mercedes (and I know many other companies) will intentionally nerf their cars and LIMIT their performance, and in this case Mercedes is flat out saying they will limit their customers' performance unless they pay $$.

So it's really about who is saying what. Mercedes is trying to make customers think in their head that this is a value-added bonus that's not there by default, but it IS there by default, and it's locked behind a paywall. Rewriting the statement in OP's voice helps the customer recognize the scam that is taking place. In my opinion, at least.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#398

Post by mattnewton »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #70
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

I want to see this legislated out of existence. To be clear, because every time this comes up some dickfucks come in here and start making excuses about how it's better to rent in some cases and that this is just amortizing the whole payment, and there are some people who want this: No. This is a fucking terrible deal even just using mercedes numbers. It takes a whopping 30 months (2.5 years) for the monthly payment…

These complaints remind me of complaints I've heard about "day one" DLC (DownLoadable Content) in video games. For those unfamiliar, it's content which is available in the game upon its release but you have to pay extra for it. Sometimes, players are given the option to buy the Ultra Digital Deluxe Collector's Edition which comes with the DLC and "exclusive" shit (and also costs extra). If it's not rent seeking, it's…

The problem is that capital intensive industries like car manufacturing (or airlines as was mentioned elsewhere in this thread) tend to have low margins, high volume and high barrier to new entrants. This means unless you can convince a lot of the volume to boycott with you, minority purchasing decisions of people doing the math and taking a principled stance can’t really affect the behavior of the incumbents or attract new players. Then your choices quickly turn into not using the good or service _at all_ or engaging with the pricing scheme you find abhorrent.

Re: Mercedes EVs can go faster for $60 a month

#399

Post by azinman2 »

foxyv wrote: post #115
notnotjake wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tram will never come to the farm land. cars seem useful in low-density, very spread out regions.

Cars should be the exception rather than the rule. We have spent so long catering to them that we have ruined our downtowns and public transit systems. We have diverted funding that should have been spent on transportation for everyone to individual transportation. This has left North American elderly, disabled, and youth trapped and unable to move around our hostile and ugly cities. A farm truck or tractor makes a l…

This all maybe true, but how do you undo the actual placement of where people live? That’s kind of step one…
Post reply on HN