6 ms·

How would you feel about a regular petrol car having extended range as an option, but you knew the shorter range model had exactly the same tank but the fuel ga

How would you feel about a regular petrol car having extended range as an option, but you knew the shorter range model had exactly the same tank but the fuel gauge was calibrated differently, and the fuel pump stopped pumping before the tank was really empty.

cptskippy 8y ago
The differentiator the consumer is paying for is range, not # of cells in the battery. If you buy a 2ghz CPU and it turns out it can run at 2.5ghz but is locked at 2ghz, are you being cheated or getting what you paid for?
- geggam 8y ago
  If you buy a car with a speed limiter are you being cheated or can you remove it ? This ruling says you have the right to remove that limit.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    I'm not arguing your question. I am calling it a lie to say Tesla was ransoming extended range. They weren't ransoming anything. They gave the customer the range they paid for and never took anything away.
    - quadrangle 8y ago
      I said in another comment: ransom is the part you do after you took something. It doesn't describe the taking part. The context here is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system#Ransom_model_in_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system#Ransom...
      - cptskippy 8y ago
        And my point is that nothing was taken, therefore it cannot be ransomed. This isn't a Threshold Pledge System either because there's no contracted good being withheld.
- danShumway 8y ago
  > The differentiator the consumer is paying for is range, not # of cells in the battery. It's not that simple. If your battery breaks out of warranty or starts loosing charge, you can't go to Tesla and say, "hey, I paid for X range and I'm not getting it anymore, fix it." If you do, they'll say, "sorry, physical batteries decay, not our problem", which most of us would agree is a reasonable response. Tesla gave you the hardware, it's not their responsibility to make sure you take care of it. So in this scenario you're not just purely paying for range, you're also paying for hardware, which has its own warranty period and physical constraints/downsides that Tesla is not responsible for. In the same vein, if somebody came out with magical tires for the Tesla that managed to effectively increase your range by a substantial amount by having better grip or less friction or something, you wouldn't expect Tesla to go to drivers and say, "hey, you're paying for range. You can't install those tires because they would cause you to get more range than you payed for!" Most of us would call that reaction unreasonable. So in that scenario, you're also not really paying for the actual range you get, you're paying for a kind of "potential" range that could be increased or decreased depending on other factors outside of both yours and Tesla's control. The reality is you're not really paying for the range or the # of cells. You're paying for a kind of bizarre combination of both. The physical hardware is your responsibility to take care of, but also you're not allowed to use it in a way that Tesla doesn't like. If you come up with an unrelated way to increase your range, you can do that. You haven't signed a contract that says, "I will stop driving if I've gone more than X miles without a refill, period." It's understandable to me that different people have different opinions about how those two things should be combined and where it's reasonable for each party's responsibilities to end. For example, the CPU scenario you've listed is fairly common, but most people don't mind because it's not illegal to overclock your CPU. That's a big differentiating factor. I understand that you disagree with the word "ransom" but it seems pretty obvious to me that that's an opinion, not a statement of fact. The original poster was using a shorthand to suggest that Tesla's attitudes toward consumer rights were unreasonable. I don't see a problem with that.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    Technically you're paying for a battery capacity measured in kWh, not range or # of cells. You do raise an interesting point though about failure. Cells don't fail at the same rate and packs are designed to disable cells (possibly groups of cells) that aren't performing within acceptable operational parameters. So given that these "ransom packs" are capable of 75 kWh but only deliver the 60 kWh the customer paid for, how do failing cells impact overall capacity? Since over charging and completely discharging lithium cells shortens their life does that mean because they're never allowed to use their full potential would they actually last longer than a true 60 kWh pack?
- a1369209993 8y ago
  Even if I buy a CPU that will melt at 2.5GHz and I can't[0] overclock it to 2.5GHz I'm being cheated. Nominal clock rate is just that: nominal. 0: given sufficient digging around in low-level settings and availablity of a appropriate clock source on the motherboard

cptskippy 8y ago

The differentiator the consumer is paying for is range, not # of cells in the battery. If you buy a 2ghz CPU and it turns out it can run at 2.5ghz but is locked at 2ghz, are you being cheated or getting what you paid for?

geggam 8y ago
If you buy a car with a speed limiter are you being cheated or can you remove it ? This ruling says you have the right to remove that limit.
- cptskippy 8y ago
  I'm not arguing your question. I am calling it a lie to say Tesla was ransoming extended range. They weren't ransoming anything. They gave the customer the range they paid for and never took anything away.
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    I said in another comment: ransom is the part you do after you took something. It doesn't describe the taking part. The context here is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system#Ransom_model_in_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_pledge_system#Ransom...
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      And my point is that nothing was taken, therefore it cannot be ransomed. This isn't a Threshold Pledge System either because there's no contracted good being withheld.
danShumway 8y ago
> The differentiator the consumer is paying for is range, not # of cells in the battery. It's not that simple. If your battery breaks out of warranty or starts loosing charge, you can't go to Tesla and say, "hey, I paid for X range and I'm not getting it anymore, fix it." If you do, they'll say, "sorry, physical batteries decay, not our problem", which most of us would agree is a reasonable response. Tesla gave you the hardware, it's not their responsibility to make sure you take care of it. So in this scenario you're not just purely paying for range, you're also paying for hardware, which has its own warranty period and physical constraints/downsides that Tesla is not responsible for. In the same vein, if somebody came out with magical tires for the Tesla that managed to effectively increase your range by a substantial amount by having better grip or less friction or something, you wouldn't expect Tesla to go to drivers and say, "hey, you're paying for range. You can't install those tires because they would cause you to get more range than you payed for!" Most of us would call that reaction unreasonable. So in that scenario, you're also not really paying for the actual range you get, you're paying for a kind of "potential" range that could be increased or decreased depending on other factors outside of both yours and Tesla's control. The reality is you're not really paying for the range or the # of cells. You're paying for a kind of bizarre combination of both. The physical hardware is your responsibility to take care of, but also you're not allowed to use it in a way that Tesla doesn't like. If you come up with an unrelated way to increase your range, you can do that. You haven't signed a contract that says, "I will stop driving if I've gone more than X miles without a refill, period." It's understandable to me that different people have different opinions about how those two things should be combined and where it's reasonable for each party's responsibilities to end. For example, the CPU scenario you've listed is fairly common, but most people don't mind because it's not illegal to overclock your CPU. That's a big differentiating factor. I understand that you disagree with the word "ransom" but it seems pretty obvious to me that that's an opinion, not a statement of fact. The original poster was using a shorthand to suggest that Tesla's attitudes toward consumer rights were unreasonable. I don't see a problem with that.
- cptskippy 8y ago
  Technically you're paying for a battery capacity measured in kWh, not range or # of cells. You do raise an interesting point though about failure. Cells don't fail at the same rate and packs are designed to disable cells (possibly groups of cells) that aren't performing within acceptable operational parameters. So given that these "ransom packs" are capable of 75 kWh but only deliver the 60 kWh the customer paid for, how do failing cells impact overall capacity? Since over charging and completely discharging lithium cells shortens their life does that mean because they're never allowed to use their full potential would they actually last longer than a true 60 kWh pack?
a1369209993 8y ago
Even if I buy a CPU that will melt at 2.5GHz and I can't[0] overclock it to 2.5GHz I'm being cheated. Nominal clock rate is just that: nominal. 0: given sufficient digging around in low-level settings and availablity of a appropriate clock source on the motherboard