6 ms·

Hang on, at what point did anyone claim they were 'easy' to brick? The argument is not about how easy they are to brick, it's about the fact that the entire car

by Peroni 15y ago

Hang on, at what point did anyone claim they were 'easy' to brick? The argument is not about how easy they are to brick, it's about the fact that the entire car is rendered useless if bricked unless you're willing to pay $40k to get your vehicle back on the road again. If the cars were easy to brick there would be a significantly larger number of documented cases than what currently exist.

steve8918 15y ago
Exactly. The above article is answering a question that the first article didn't ask. The first article never said it was "easy", it said it was "possible". It was the possibility of bricking your car that is completely unexpected, as well as the $40k price tag if you do. And the point of the article was that as you increase the number of users from 2500 to 25000, the number of bricked cars will increase substantially and will lead to bad headline risk for Tesla.
scott_s 15y ago
When I read the blog post in question, and the comments here, I left with the understanding that if you left a Tesla car unused for a dozen or so weeks, it would be bricked and it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery. This post directly contradicts that notion.
- osipov 15y ago
  The response from Tesla does not contradict that notion. Note this quote: "It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. " Notice that "can potentially be damaging" is a weasel phrase for "brick". Further Tesla argues that to avoid discharge to zero percent "all that needs to be done is to tow the vehicle to a charger". Again, this misses the main point of the OP -- what happens if the vehicle doesn't get towed to the charger. The OP argues that then it discharges to zero percent which in Tesla's own words will be potentially damaging. Tesla's PR people are particularly misleading by comparing the situation described above to someone draining oil and then taking a car on a cross country trip. Draining the oil requires action by car's owner. Leave a car in a garage for six months and the oil will still be there. The whole point of the OP is that inaction destroys Tesla's vehicles.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    My understanding of what this post meant is that a full discharge is prevented by the controller in the battery itself - much like in laptops, and much like everyone here was surprised that the Tesla battery does not have. So, to be clear, my understanding of this post, with full clarity, is: "A full discharge is disastrous. However, the situations reported were not full discharges. The controller in the battery shut them off before full discharge. The reported situations did require being towed, but once towed, it was trivial to recharge the batteries."
    - rlpb 15y ago
      I interpret this post in the same way, but this contradicts the original post, which said that a car was sitting at a Tesla service center and required $$$ for battery replacement. If all that it takes is a recharge, why is the owner unable to pay?
    - swombat 15y ago
      Actually, it seems to me the article doesn't really contradict the accusation at all. There is a fundamental problem when any rechargeable battery is discharged and then left to sit for months. Any boat owner understands that that's why you plug in a trickle charger when the craft is put into storage. The line above indicates, on the contrary, that yes, if you don't drive it for a while and it wasn't plugged in to a sufficient power source, your car will in fact be bricked, and potentially damage its batteries. Apparently this is a problem with boats too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a problem with electric cars. This "response" is in fact full of double speak... Check this one out: Another error on the part of the blogger is the claim that if the cars discharge fully, the battery packs will be damaged. This is blatantly false. The battery management system of the Tesla Roadster keeps the battery from being discharged to a damagingly low state of charge under normal driving conditions. "This is blatantly false"......."under normal driving conditions". The original article was not talking about normal driving conditions. This reads like a deliberate attempt to mislead. If anything, it seems to me that this article validates the claims made in the other article. It states: This is the most likely explanation for the five "bricks" that the blogger claims to have heard about. They probably aren't actually bricks, but cars in need of servicing. This is hardly the kind of certainty-filled rebuttal that one would expect if the original article's claims were, in fact, incorrect.
- Angostura 15y ago
  It contradicts it, but which account is correct. This new blog post says 'you just need to re-charge to fix'. The original post says 'you just need $40,000' to fix. The orignial post appears to have better sources than this one, so I would say that it has been contradicted, but not refuted.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    If $40k is not needed why would Tesla charge that then for a re-charge? That would be terrible, terrible PR for them.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      As this article points out, after deep discharge you need to 'reboot the battery management system' which means many 'bricked' cars can be brought back without buying a new battery. Battery chemistry means they lose capacity after a deep discharge, but that does not make the battery pack useless. However, many of the people that bought a first gen Tesla are also the type of people when told 'you just lost 2-5% of your total range don't do that again.' Will say, just replace the battery. And when told 'That's 40k' they will say 'I don't care just replace it'. Which is a different situation. PS: Don't forget you need to buy a 100,000$ car and not drive it for months before this becomes a real problem. Most people that can afford to do that have a vary different view of money than the average person on HN.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  > This post directly contradicts that notion. How does it _directly_ contradict that? Ok so he mentions how the management system will stop the charge from dropping too low. How does it do that, does have a robotic arm and goes and finds the nearest outlet, does it expand solar panels, because batteries will discharge even if completely disconnected. And it also highly depends on the ambient temperature. So I don't see a direct contradiction I see this post building a straw man and then proceeded to demolish it. Look at this another way. So let's say this post is correct and those Tesla roadsters were not bricks. Why in the world would Tesla then charge owner $40k then? Is it saying that a routine recharge and tow costs $40k? Or did Tesla, like a shady mechanic decided to scam the guy and make $40k off of him?
  - scott_s 15y ago
    Why in the world would Tesla then charge owner $40k then? Did they? I'm not being glib. Was that conjecture in the previous post, or was it an established fact?
    - rdtsc 15y ago
      Well I am running with what the original post had in it. Yeah it could be an lie, and if it is, it would be very easy to check, it is not a nebulous claim. Tesla just has to respond and say "no we never charged $40k" if it is in fact not true.
      - scott_s 15y ago
        This is my frustration with getting news from blogs. Had this appeared in a standard newspaper, I am confident the reporter would have contacted Tesla and asked them directly if they did indeed charge $40,000. Hence, I am not comfortable taking the original post completely at face value, since the author (from what I can tell) did not perform the kind of reporting I expect from journalists. That leads me to doubt basic questions of fact, such as whether or not Tesla charged those people $40,000.
        15y ago

by Peroni 15y ago

steve8918 15y ago

Exactly. The above article is answering a question that the first article didn't ask. The first article never said it was "easy", it said it was "possible". It was the possibility of bricking your car that is completely unexpected, as well as the $40k price tag if you do. And the point of the article was that as you increase the number of users from 2500 to 25000, the number of bricked cars will increase substantially and will lead to bad headline risk for Tesla.

scott_s 15y ago

When I read the blog post in question, and the comments here, I left with the understanding that if you left a Tesla car unused for a dozen or so weeks, it would be bricked and it would cost $40,000 to replace the battery. This post directly contradicts that notion.

osipov 15y ago
The response from Tesla does not contradict that notion. Note this quote: "It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. " Notice that "can potentially be damaging" is a weasel phrase for "brick". Further Tesla argues that to avoid discharge to zero percent "all that needs to be done is to tow the vehicle to a charger". Again, this misses the main point of the OP -- what happens if the vehicle doesn't get towed to the charger. The OP argues that then it discharges to zero percent which in Tesla's own words will be potentially damaging. Tesla's PR people are particularly misleading by comparing the situation described above to someone draining oil and then taking a car on a cross country trip. Draining the oil requires action by car's owner. Leave a car in a garage for six months and the oil will still be there. The whole point of the OP is that inaction destroys Tesla's vehicles.
- scott_s 15y ago
  My understanding of what this post meant is that a full discharge is prevented by the controller in the battery itself - much like in laptops, and much like everyone here was surprised that the Tesla battery does not have. So, to be clear, my understanding of this post, with full clarity, is: "A full discharge is disastrous. However, the situations reported were not full discharges. The controller in the battery shut them off before full discharge. The reported situations did require being towed, but once towed, it was trivial to recharge the batteries."
  - rlpb 15y ago
    I interpret this post in the same way, but this contradicts the original post, which said that a car was sitting at a Tesla service center and required $$$ for battery replacement. If all that it takes is a recharge, why is the owner unable to pay?
  - swombat 15y ago
    Actually, it seems to me the article doesn't really contradict the accusation at all. There is a fundamental problem when any rechargeable battery is discharged and then left to sit for months. Any boat owner understands that that's why you plug in a trickle charger when the craft is put into storage. The line above indicates, on the contrary, that yes, if you don't drive it for a while and it wasn't plugged in to a sufficient power source, your car will in fact be bricked, and potentially damage its batteries. Apparently this is a problem with boats too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a problem with electric cars. This "response" is in fact full of double speak... Check this one out: Another error on the part of the blogger is the claim that if the cars discharge fully, the battery packs will be damaged. This is blatantly false. The battery management system of the Tesla Roadster keeps the battery from being discharged to a damagingly low state of charge under normal driving conditions. "This is blatantly false"......."under normal driving conditions". The original article was not talking about normal driving conditions. This reads like a deliberate attempt to mislead. If anything, it seems to me that this article validates the claims made in the other article. It states: This is the most likely explanation for the five "bricks" that the blogger claims to have heard about. They probably aren't actually bricks, but cars in need of servicing. This is hardly the kind of certainty-filled rebuttal that one would expect if the original article's claims were, in fact, incorrect.
Angostura 15y ago
It contradicts it, but which account is correct. This new blog post says 'you just need to re-charge to fix'. The original post says 'you just need $40,000' to fix. The orignial post appears to have better sources than this one, so I would say that it has been contradicted, but not refuted.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  If $40k is not needed why would Tesla charge that then for a re-charge? That would be terrible, terrible PR for them.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    As this article points out, after deep discharge you need to 'reboot the battery management system' which means many 'bricked' cars can be brought back without buying a new battery. Battery chemistry means they lose capacity after a deep discharge, but that does not make the battery pack useless. However, many of the people that bought a first gen Tesla are also the type of people when told 'you just lost 2-5% of your total range don't do that again.' Will say, just replace the battery. And when told 'That's 40k' they will say 'I don't care just replace it'. Which is a different situation. PS: Don't forget you need to buy a 100,000$ car and not drive it for months before this becomes a real problem. Most people that can afford to do that have a vary different view of money than the average person on HN.
rdtsc 15y ago
> This post directly contradicts that notion. How does it _directly_ contradict that? Ok so he mentions how the management system will stop the charge from dropping too low. How does it do that, does have a robotic arm and goes and finds the nearest outlet, does it expand solar panels, because batteries will discharge even if completely disconnected. And it also highly depends on the ambient temperature. So I don't see a direct contradiction I see this post building a straw man and then proceeded to demolish it. Look at this another way. So let's say this post is correct and those Tesla roadsters were not bricks. Why in the world would Tesla then charge owner $40k then? Is it saying that a routine recharge and tow costs $40k? Or did Tesla, like a shady mechanic decided to scam the guy and make $40k off of him?
- scott_s 15y ago
  Why in the world would Tesla then charge owner $40k then? Did they? I'm not being glib. Was that conjecture in the previous post, or was it an established fact?
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    Well I am running with what the original post had in it. Yeah it could be an lie, and if it is, it would be very easy to check, it is not a nebulous claim. Tesla just has to respond and say "no we never charged $40k" if it is in fact not true.
    - scott_s 15y ago
      This is my frustration with getting news from blogs. Had this appeared in a standard newspaper, I am confident the reporter would have contacted Tesla and asked them directly if they did indeed charge $40,000. Hence, I am not comfortable taking the original post completely at face value, since the author (from what I can tell) did not perform the kind of reporting I expect from journalists. That leads me to doubt basic questions of fact, such as whether or not Tesla charged those people $40,000.
      - 15y ago