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

41–50 of 249 posts

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#41

Post by revelation »

blhack wrote: post #36

Here's one of the problems that I have with this whole thing: My iPod goes dead all the time, so does my phone, so does my laptop, my camera, my remote, my everything. I think that every single battery-powered device I've ever owned has, at some point, gone "dead" (as in it won't power on). NONE of these things have ever been completely incapacitated because of this. I've never had to replace my laptop because I let…

The hell? Batteries are not magic black boxes, that when disconnected, will be removed from this world only to be recovered at a pleasing time from a distant galaxy back to you. They will continue to discharge, even if you completely disconnect them. Which is a stupid thing to do, because then the microcontroller drawing <~500mA won't be able to warn you of the impeding battery death.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#42

Post by shock-value »

Geee wrote: post #34
mellifluousmind wrote: post #13

One key issue that Tesla PR accidentally omits is whether owners are still responsible for 40K replacement if battery does indeed fail. 40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel-injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?

Of course you have to pay if you are stupid. Same thing if you destroy your gas-powered car on purpose using some other method. It is not a 'fail', which implies a manufacturing error or similar.

Except in this case you wouldn't be destroying the battery "on purpose" obviously, but rather through neglect or ignorance. It's a fail in the sense that this technology has been exposed to be clearly unready for wide-scale adoption, and the company in question has barely even acknowledged the issue, let alone outlined steps it is taking to fix it or improve the design.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#43

Post by ghaff »

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.

Typically? You'll probably have to jumpstart it. If it is sitting outside you could end up with the parking brake, in particular, stuck. It's not good practice to just walk away from a car for this long (should disconnect battery, put it up on blocks, etc.) but nothing terrible is likely to happen--especially if it's protected from the elements.

The running down of batteries in an electric car to the point where they're damaged is definitely a corner case. It's not one that's out of the realm of possibility. (Someone goes to winter house for a few months, leaves car in garage, and the charger isn't hooked up properly or something.) It sounds like the current generation vehicles make it even more of a corner case although I have to wonder what the failure modes of the various protection systems are.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#44

Post by sr3d »

This is the weakest "anti-rumor" corporate response ever. After all that lengthy passive-aggressive "We're great, but you need to charge your battery", there's not a single statement about what would happen if the battery runs out, which is precisely what the original article is about.

Tesla, stop beating around the bush like a politician, grow up and answer the million-dollar question like a man:

What will happen once the car's battery is completely depleted?

(life-line hint: it will get bricked)

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#45

Post by mikeash »

Here's something I'm still unclear on: how strongly were owners warned about this beforehand?

If Tesla cars come with a bright red warning on the driver's side window saying IF YOU DO NOT KEEP THIS CAR CHARGED THEN YOU RUN THE RISK OF REPAIRS COSTING UP TO $40,000 then I'd say Tesla is completely in the right here.

If they didn't mention this anywhere and it's just something owners discover because they use it in a way that Tesla didn't think they should, then Tesla is completely in the wrong.

If they did something in between, then it's in between. I may have missed it, but so far I haven't seen this explained.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#46

Post by mansolo »

revelation wrote: post #30

What is wrong with you people? You are really trying to kill off cars because you got a horse carriage at home. The horse can when coupled reproduce itself, all it takes is some food and water to keep going, its unlikely to break down, you can be flexible by changing from a one-seater to carrying raw material in the blink of an eye. Obviously, the horse is vastly superior to its new "car" competitor. Only a moron wou…

I feel you on this one, but building an industry on misinformation is not the way.

Another thought: maybe we need to stop being so obsessed and utterly dependent on cars in general. Live locally, support your community, become more self-reliant, leverage personal technogy.

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#47

Post by [deleted] »

revelation wrote: post #30

What is wrong with you people? You are really trying to kill off cars because you got a horse carriage at home. The horse can when coupled reproduce itself, all it takes is some food and water to keep going, its unlikely to break down, you can be flexible by changing from a one-seater to carrying raw material in the blink of an eye. Obviously, the horse is vastly superior to its new "car" competitor. Only a moron wou…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#49

Post by moomin »

TL;DR; A single blogger is spreading a rumor about electric vehicles becoming inoperable. We'd like to confirm the rumour.

Seriously, I find it breathtaking, for all the reasons people have already given. It's a case study in saying "yes" while giving the impression of saying "no".

Re: Tesla responds to "bricking" issue

#50

Post by nwmcsween »

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.

Not 6 months but about a year:

* Fuel starts to turn into a syrup from evaporation requiring you to drain the tank. (This is a big issue on 2-stroke engines, you need to do a lot more work)

* Oil should be replaced due to acidic oil eating away sediment from crank case.

* Depending on time of year coolant should be flushed (depends on what mix is already in).

* Battery will be dead.

* Brake fluid might need to be changed as well.

Half of these you can ignore but it will cause wear and isn't good thing.

Post reply on HN