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

Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 241 posts

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#91

Post by qb45 »

skriticos2 wrote: post #83
nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

You want to hack the software of the car that can potentially kill you and others when the controls don't work as expected. Really? Let's see why I think that's not an option: * you loose warranty (on $50k, that's big) * you get liable for any damage your car does because of software failure no matter if it's because of your modifications or not * you can get injured or killed because the car is not obeying your comm…

People already mod cars. Many of these mods are significantly more complicated than changing one number in some EEPROM and yet almost all accidents are still caused by driver error.

There is a very good incentive to not screw up your car.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#92

Post by rdl »

jlgreco wrote: post #40
raldi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/rich//

Not particularly true, since when you start getting into products that could have a "veblen good" status this phenomenon becomes exacerbated.

OTOH, rich people will accept stupid limitations if you pitch them correctly. I mean, a $5 Casio or Timex is technically superior to a $250k mechanical watch on most metrics related to keeping time. And they will especially accept long lead times or otherwise exclusive purchasing processes ("there's a waiting list", or even the country-club style screening process). Poor people also get upset when cheated, but they are more tolerant of some things and less tolerant of others than rich people.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#93

Post by mschuster91 »

revelation wrote: post #86
relix wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I think there's a legal case for not having root on a car. It could mean you can disable safety measures - especially with regards to the battery, i.e. overcharging, temperature, ... - that might endanger you or others on the road. Edit: downvoted for stating a valid point in a neutral tone? Stay classy HN...

I guess thats overly dramatic. The big touchscreen (and I guess the only thing that actually runs a Linux) is called an infotainment system for a reason - it's absolutely non-critical to the operation of the vehicle. In fact, theres a hotkey on the steering wheel controls to reboot it :) All the critical systems are controlled by embedded systems running either no operating system at all or realtime operating systems…

But they're all wired together with CANBus and similar interconnections. I don't exactly remember the details, but some researchers were able to kill acceleration with a MP3 on a CD rom, which exploited a buffer overflow and then sent malicious commands on the CANbus.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#94

Post by lawnchair_larry »

skriticos2 wrote: post #83
nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

You want to hack the software of the car that can potentially kill you and others when the controls don't work as expected. Really? Let's see why I think that's not an option: * you loose warranty (on $50k, that's big) * you get liable for any damage your car does because of software failure no matter if it's because of your modifications or not * you can get injured or killed because the car is not obeying your comm…

None of your points are really correct. Warranty is only void for specific repairs determined to be directly caused by the modification. You are never liable for anything that you didn't cause. It's not as if warranty and liability are a binary value that changes if any part of the car becomes tainted.

We've been modifying cars long before computer games, and in far more intrusive ways.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#95

Post by mschuster91 »

revelation wrote: post #53
marshray wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's an obvious conclusion at all. Many rechargeable battery chemistries experience terrible failures if they are not fully charged or fully discharged on a regular basis. Even still, as a consumer I find it offensive when the same resources are consumed to produce something and then crippled just to sell at a lower price. It's a sign of market inefficiency. For pure software, it's different because t…

By default, the Tesla Model S will never fully charge the battery, no matter what the capacity. You can tell it do this by doing a "range charge", but Tesla warns that doing this regularly will negatively impact the longevity of the pack. Full charge also has other problem, e.g. regen doesn't work anymore since the battery is too full. If I'm to believe reports from 60kWh and 85kWh owners, the cars weigh essentially…

Well the weight difference likely comes from removed ballast in the 85 kWh variant. It's easier to program the ESP/ABS and other safety systems for one weight distribution instead of three.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#96

Post by rdl »

peteforde wrote: post #57
iEricAllen wrote: post #25

I've never believed that Tesla had a viable product. In fact, Electric vehicles make very little sense and are far less "green" than most consumers perceive them to be. It's sad that people tend to believe whatever marketers tell them... Check out this article... By far the most comprehensive analysis on "green" cars so far. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732412850457834...

What definition of viable are you working with? EVs make a certain type of person squirm, and I am really interested to try and understand why that is.

EVs as drop-in replacements for ICE vehicles would still have all the congestion, hazardous-to-pedestrians, spread out, lack of real downtown, etc. issues (i.e. LA) that people such as SF zoning/neighborhood people don't want. I suspect there are some anti-car people who are terrified of EVs because they remove the environmental/pollution/global warming argument against cars (at least, if the energy powering them is from nuclear/wind/solar).

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#97

Post by jotux »

skriticos2 wrote: post #83
nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

You want to hack the software of the car that can potentially kill you and others when the controls don't work as expected. Really? Let's see why I think that's not an option: * you loose warranty (on $50k, that's big) * you get liable for any damage your car does because of software failure no matter if it's because of your modifications or not * you can get injured or killed because the car is not obeying your comm…

So should legislation be introduced to lock the hood of current conventional vehicles to keep people from making modifications to them? Why are software modifications on an EV any more dangerous than software and/or mechanical modifications on a conventional vehicle?

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#98

Post by lawnchair_larry »

jotux wrote: post #90
relix wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I think there's a legal case for not having root on a car. It could mean you can disable safety measures - especially with regards to the battery, i.e. overcharging, temperature, ... - that might endanger you or others on the road. Edit: downvoted for stating a valid point in a neutral tone? Stay classy HN...

>It could mean you can disable safety measures How is this any different from being able to open the hood on a conventional car? Or having a screw driver and socket wrench that fit the nuts/bots/screws on a conventional car?

It's funny what kind of hand wavy fearmongering rhetoric people engage in when computers are involved. Hackers are this generation's witches, and that's why we keep locking them up for trivial and harmless manipulations.

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#99

Post by zwp »

mschuster91 wrote: post #93
revelation wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess thats overly dramatic. The big touchscreen (and I guess the only thing that actually runs a Linux) is called an infotainment system for a reason - it's absolutely non-critical to the operation of the vehicle. In fact, theres a hotkey on the steering wheel controls to reboot it :) All the critical systems are controlled by embedded systems running either no operating system at all or realtime operating systems…

But they're all wired together with CANBus and similar interconnections. I don't exactly remember the details, but some researchers were able to kill acceleration with a MP3 on a CD rom, which exploited a buffer overflow and then sent malicious commands on the CANbus.

"Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces", Checkoway et al.

http://www.autosec.org/publications.html

From the FAQ:

"We explore a number of other communications channels in our August 2011 paper "Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces", including long- and short-range wireless communications, the networked diagnostic tools used by automobile mechanics and the car's CD player."

Re: Tesla Model S Sales Exceed Target

#100

Post by michael_miller »

nikcub wrote: post #21

> The customers who ordered this option will instead receive the 60 kWh pack, but range will be software limited to 40 kWh. can't see anybody hacking that.

It will be interesting to see if anyone is successful hacking the Model S. I assume that the software is signed with Tesla's private key, and verified by the car. If someone finds a way around this without requiring local access to the car, an attacker could cause a lot of damage. I shudder to think what a BackOrfice for Tesla would look like.
Post reply on HN