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

571–580 of 659 posts

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

#571

Post by judge2020 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #99
slg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this is a controversial opinion here, but I think software locks aren't inherently bad in a car that can be driven by software. I don't really trust Tesla's self-driving software as is, I certainly don't trust some random person's hack of already questionable Tesla code. This isn't an iPhone. Someone mucking about in the software can kill people.

Whether or not the car is street legal is an entirely separate concern, and certainly not one that should be enforced by allowing the manufacturer to prohibit all software modifications of any sort. It's like preventing customers from changing their own tires because "they might do it wrong and cause an accident". Yeah, they might. But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that, and it certainly i…

> But it's not the car manufacturer's responsibility to prevent that

Imagine someone installs a cheap third-party ADAS in a Tesla that causes a multi-car pile-up. Should we expect highway patrol officers be able to determine if some third-party software interfered with the normal operation of the car? And, even if Tesla Inc is legally in the clear because the customer did it, they are the #1 target for bad news headlines because they're 'the Apple of Cars' (at least in terms of how much hype they attract), so by the time they set the record straight they've already lost some good-will.

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

#573

Post by [deleted] »

jabbany wrote: post #503
cycomanic wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > in what world > In our world? Based on the thread, Tesla did a battery service on a model of car with a 60 battery. Unless it was stated as upgraded, after the service it is still a 60 car to the manufacturer. A 60 car that just happened to be able to run at the performance level of a 90 version. They then state this is a bug and fixed it. It is completely irrelevant what type of car it is, they installed a 90 ba…

> and enabled it Did they though...? If they did you'd think there'd be documentation of that provided as a part of the service. The problem with this is that there is no direct comparable parallel. Physical removal is not allowed, and that most agree with. But this is not the same, there was no physical change, only a software lock. You and I would maybe like it to be treated the same, but it isn't yet. Software lic…

[deleted]

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

#574

Post by cynix »

p1esk wrote: post #568
cynix wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. Is the bank in the right to remove that when they discover the mistake?

Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. In this scenario, the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”. Then, 3 years later, someone else at the same bank says: “oopsies, we actually made a mistake, so we withdrew that million from your account”. It’s even worse, imagine you actually received that million, as a payment…

> the bank also tells you: “we are giving you a million dollars, it’s yours”.

This doesn’t seem to be the case with the larger battery though? Nothing in the tweet thread indicates that Tesla explicitly stated the car is now a 90 and the original owner can keep it forever.

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

#575

Post by cynix »

__alexs wrote: post #570
cynix wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. Is the bank in the right to remove that when they discover the mistake?

The answer in the UK is "No." Misdirected payments can be disputed by the reciever in which case it gets settled with legal action by the sender.

There must be a difference between “misdirected” payments vs “they accidentally added a few extra zeros at the end” though. Surely the receiver has no recourse for the latter.

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

#576

Post by mynameisvlad »

balls187 wrote: post #442
mynameisvlad wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taking this back to cars. If an when I sell my Golf R, I will disclose it has received a Stage 1 Turbo upgrade (and hopefully use that to increase the resale value--though it typically does not except to other enthusiasts). But you're only doing this because it benefits you. If the upgrade reduced your resale value, would you still disclose it? Did you disclose it to insurance companies when you had it done, since…

> If the upgrade reduced your resale value, would you still disclose it? Did you disclose it to insurance companies when you had it done, since it could impact your rates? Yes and No. Yes--simply because I'd rather cover my ass from a lawsuit down the line if the new owner discovered the aftermarket tune. No, as to my knowledge the insurance company doesn't care about street legal aftermarket upgrades.

You are technically supposed to inform the insurance company of any and all upgrades you make, street legal or not. They are insuring the car as it came from the factory, and while most upgrades won't change things substantially, there could be increased wear and tear, for instance, depending on the tune.

You may not be legally required to, but the insurance company will pretend the upgrade doesn't exist at best, and actively claim it caused the damage, depending on the upgrade.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/special-auto-insurance-coverage...

https://www.askadamskutner.com/auto-accident/insurance-for-a...

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

#577

Post by __alexs »

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #98
gambiting wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> (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…

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.

I would hope for a safety critical and potentially hazardous part like the battery they would do more than toggle a license bit in the software.

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

#578

Post by cynix »

gambiting wrote: post #569
cynix wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Your bank makes a mistake and adds a million dollars to your account balance when you tried to deposit $100. Is the bank in the right to remove that when they discover the mistake?

Yes, because it's their account and their system - that does happen in fact, plenty of stories like that. If you take the money out, or move it elsewhere, they cannot just break into your house and take the cash however - they would need a court order to recover it, and the court would need to agree that it was a reasonable mistake(and that's not always the case! plenty of cases where people/companies send money to t…

> If you take the money out, or move it elsewhere, they cannot just break into your house and take the cash however

That’s because they don’t have the technical means to extract that money from your house without entering it. I’m sure they would gladly do it if they could.

> Also you haven't answered my question, which I think compares better to this situation than a random million dollars deposited into my account.

In your “car with unpaid option” example I think the manufacturer is in the right to remove it if they didn’t explicitly say you can keep it.

> No one randomly gave this guy an upgrade - it was a warranty replacement with a better item, that happens literally all the time in all kinds of industries. What doesn't happen is the manufacturer turning around few years later and taking the item back.

It’s not clear from the tweet thread if Tesla actually said “sure, you can keep the larger battery”. It seems it was an assumption made by the original owner based on… passage of time and Tesla’s inaction I guess?

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

#579

Post by dylan604 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #560
dylan604 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curiosity is too strong. For what reason does Chevy want you to volunteer to lower your capacity?

its part of a massive recall on the bolt. They completely halted production for months and months and are now going to recall and replace the battery of every bolt on the road. Before the replacements go in they want owners to agree to have their capacity cut as an extra precaution.

So is it better to do this, or do an Apple and just have the software silently start handling things for you in order to protect your battery therefore protecting you? I don't mean that in a rhetorical way either. Things happen in the real world that means products sometimes misbehave outside of the expected. To me, the ultimate thing would be for the company to revalue the item based on the new limited capabilities and refund the difference as well as making it safe. Should they be expected to buy back entirely for something losing 30% of capabilities?

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

#580

Post by __alexs »

cynix wrote: post #575
__alexs wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer in the UK is "No." Misdirected payments can be disputed by the reciever in which case it gets settled with legal action by the sender.

There must be a difference between “misdirected” payments vs “they accidentally added a few extra zeros at the end” though. Surely the receiver has no recourse for the latter.

It's the same situation. The money doesn't legally belong to the reciever, but there is little you can do outside of the courts if they want to be a dick about it.
Post reply on HN