9 ms·

This whole bricking story is a little ridiculous. There are any number of easy ways to 'brick' an internal combustion engine, and yet we're not all torches 'n'

This whole bricking story is a little ridiculous. There are any number of easy ways to 'brick' an internal combustion engine, and yet we're not all torches 'n' pitchforks over them. Partially because ICEs have been around so long that the relatively short list of "things to avoid" is burned indelibly into the popular consciousness. Partially because over a hundred-odd years of continuous engineering, a typical ICE can take a hell of a lot of abuse before it fails. And note that the "shit that might happen to you" column still isn't trivially dismissed on the ICE side, even after 100+ years of safety engineering. We physically pump highly-flammable liquids into our gas tasks; people still occasionally get burned or even die doing that shit! Couldn't find many stats, but this is interesting: http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Research/FireSafetyVehicles.pdf http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Research/FireSafetyVehi... Let's assume the $40k figure is at all likely for a vehicle owner that RTFM'd. I'm pretty sure anyone ever burned in a gas-fueled vehicle fire would gladly go back in time to fork over $40k to avoid that experience.

Nelson69 15y ago
Many of the things that "brick" an ICE can be repaired at relatively low costs. And almost all of those things brick the car by using it, Teslas will brick when you don't use them, you lock it safely in the temperature controlled garage and go away for too long and it dies. It strikes me as a design problem of sorts, you've got a relatively expensive and sophisticated sports car with piles of electronics. I would think that maybe they could detect a certain critical level of energy is left in the batteries and flip a toggle that just shuts them off which wouldn't last forever but could buy you some more time maybe. My grandfather's Buick has GM's onstar stuff in it, couldn't your roadster send a text message or something? Maybe they could have some sort of emergency mechanism to just plug a normal car battery in to gain a little charge from. I like what Tesla is trying to do, they're changing the conversation and ultimately when I look at the auto industry I think more startups are needed. They're a startup though, the Top Gear story, I don't think it was bad or inaccurate, the Tesla just doesn't look like it's in the same league as many of the other sports cars they drive around and then this battery thing, rare as it might be they need a good story for it. How many drivers have run out of gas when they are experienced and know better? Stuff happens, it's more common than you might think, with an ICE it's just embarrassing and inconvenient, with a Tesla it might set you back some serious money.
- sephlietz 15y ago
  From the article: "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. It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge."
  - Arjuna 15y ago
    "However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge." I realize that you are quoting the article, but the owner's manual is simply not in agreement with this sentence. From the Roadster 2/Roadster Sport owner's manual (italic emphasis is mine): "Important! Caution: If the battery’s charge level falls to 0%, it must be plugged in immediately. Failure to do so can permanently damage the battery and this damage is not covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty. Also, if you allow the battery to fall to a critically low level it may not be possible to charge the vehicle. If you are unable to charge the vehicle, contact Tesla Motors." [...] "However, situations may arise in which you must leave the vehicle unplugged for an extended time (for example, at an airport when traveling for a couple of weeks). If this is the case, it is your responsibility to ensure that the battery does not become fully depleted." [...] "If for some reason, you are unable to keep the vehicle plugged in when it is not being used, it is up to you to preserve battery life by paying attention to the charge level and the temperature [...]"
    - ubernostrum 15y ago
      There's a lot of conflation going on here. The original article seemed to be stating or implying that the car's own on-board systems would continue to draw power well past the danger point, drastically reducing the time to destroy the battery. This article seems to be stating that the car's systems will stop drawing power. The battery will continue to discharge in this situation, due to natural processes, but discharging to a point that destroys the battery takes much longer in that case. This means there is still a risk that, if left unattended for extended periods (on the order of at least weeks, perhaps longer), the battery will become unusable. But this is not the same as the original claims which seemed to be arguing for design flaws which would hasten that process.
abruzzi 15y ago
If you run your ICE without oil, yes, you will kill it. And maybe these should be thought of in the same way, but people worry about this because draining a battery to zero seems like running out of gas, and most of us have run out of gas at some point or another. Granted it's not the same because in the short term the battery management system should reserve the bottom 5% for the health of the battery. But the second reason people are worried about this is killing that last 5% and bricking the battery happens by doing nothing. Bricking an ICE while it is unused, sitting in your driveway takes decades. With a replacement $50 battery and $30 oil change I've restarted engines that have been sitting unused in junkyards for 40 years.
- feralchimp 15y ago
  "If you leave your $40k battery pack alone for months without a trickle charger, you will kill it" is no more challenging to communicate or implement than "if you run your ICE without oil, you will kill it."
  - politician 15y ago
    There is a world of difference between overuse leading to failure, and non-use leading to failure. It's disingenuous to claim that the messages are similar because they have abOut the same number of words.
    - feralchimp 15y ago
      From a marketing and CRM perspective, the messages are identical: "Here is a simple and cheap routine maintenance behavior that will prevent a catastrophic repair bill: X". In the ICE case, X is "maintain a minimum oil level while the engine is running." In the Tesla case, it's "maintain a minimum battery level, even during storage." Given that the underlying drivetrain technologies actually are worlds-of-difference apart from each other, that strikes me as a pretty minimal difference in terms of routine maintenance. Unless it's somehow difficult to understand or costly to implement, we should assume Tesla customers aren't f'ing morons and go about our business.
krschultz 15y ago
When my grandfather was 85, he forgot to do all of the maitenance on his car. He drove like 40,000 miles without ever changing the oil and blew up the engine in his BMW 7 series. It wasn't exactly a cheap car. Replacing the engine in the car was something like $7,000. I see your point about safety - gas clearly isn't the safest substance in the world. But neither is electricity. My cousin is currently a police officer, and before that he was a first responder for car accidents. He has had specific official training to deal with hybrids becuase you have to avoid the battery cables after an accident when using the jaws of life and what not. And those batteries are more stable than lithium ion, in those cases they are simply concerned about compromising the battery cables. So it kind of cuts both ways. This is a problem lithium ion powered electric cars. We shouldn't sweep it under the rug. It should be solved now while there are 10,000 electric cars and not 10,000,000 electric cars. It seems like the solution is a combination of educating/warning owners & notifying them by phone or email if the car starts to get too low. That isn't exactly the end of the world. But ignoring it is not the solution.
- feralchimp 15y ago
  > Replacing the engine in the car was something like $7,000. Which, for many drivers, may as well be $40k. > the solution is a combination of educating/warning owners & notifying them by phone or email if the car starts to get too low I never advocated ignoring anything. My point is not that "Tesla is great" or "boo ICE yay electric," it's that all the hysteria around "OMG car bricking" doesn't actually promote whatever communication/engineering solutions would actually make the product better or more consumable for people.
  - quanticle 15y ago
    >Which, for many drivers, may as well be $40k. Did you really go ahead and conflate $7,000 and and $40,000? $7000 buys me a decent used car. $40,000 buys me a brand new Toyota Prius (MSRP $24,700) with almost enough change left over to buy a brand new Hyundai Elantra (MSRP $15,345). $7,000 is not a small chunk of change, by any means. It's a lot less, however, than $40,000. Conflating the two does no one any good.
ams6110 15y ago
I'm pretty sure anyone ever burned in a gas-fueled vehicle fire would gladly go back in time to fork over $40k to avoid that experience. The reason gasoline is dangerous is that it stores a lot of energy. You need a lot of energy to move a heavy car a couple of hundred miles, and keep the occupants comfortable with heat and/or air conditioning. A battery in a Tesla contains a lot of energy. The dangers compared to a tank of gasoline are different, but in either case, the sudden and uncontrolled release of that energy can do a lot of damage.
- vacri 15y ago
  The real issue is that those events are extremely rare given the intensely frequent use of ICE vehicles. Replace all the ICE with electric vehicles, and you'd see just as many electrocuted people. It's simply not a real argument.
  - Ralith 15y ago
    It's a hell of a lot harder to electrocute yourself with a standard charging station than to set gasoline alight.
    - vacri 15y ago
      A "gas-fueled vehicle fire" happens during an accident, not at the refuelling station.
- eridius 15y ago
  A glass of water has a lot of energy stored in its atoms. The sudden and uncontrolled release of that energy could be catastrophic. The question isn't how much energy is in the system, but how hard is it for that energy to be released in an uncontrolled fashion.
ruby_on_rails 15y ago
I think the fact that you are agreeing with an article either written directly by Tesla PR or paid for by Tesla PR, which has a minority opinion on the matter, which is backed up by statements which are in disagreement to both knowledgeable parties and the Tesla owner's manual, is frankly unflattering. I bet I can find some blogger who can make a better argument about the holocaust never happening, then this lousy excuse for a journalist. Then again, that individual would still be a minority among the knowledgeable populace. Hey, lets give it a go here. Electric is the new comer to the party. They have to prove themselves. ICE proved itself. ICE isn't on trial here.
- feralchimp 15y ago
  I stated an opinion and my reasons for holding it. I don't owe you a disclaimer about whether the linked article (which I didn't reference, btw) happens to be full of shit. If you form all of your opinions worrying about all the idiots or evil people who might happen to agree with you, or use your arguments to further their own nefarious ends, you're destined to lead a very quiet life. > ICE proved itself. ICE isn't on trial here. The usability and cost/benefit of electric drivetrains versus the status quo is relevant. My point was not "we should distrust ICE," so much as "we should discuss cost/benefit tradeoffs of technology like reasonable people instead of resorting to ZOMG BRICKING".
  - chives 15y ago
    I agree cost benefit analysis is relevant. Instead your argument stated how unreliable ICE is by comparison. Ice isn't on trial. Ice is proven to be reasonably safe/reliable ect. Secondly, my argument is not that you should worry about who also supports your argument, -but if you are going to agree with an article, find a better poster child. Otherwise, your argument holds little value as the original article refuses to support itself with research or references. I am certain that there is an article that accomplishes your opinion AND supports itself with evidence of some kind. Instead it sounds like before you even read the article you had your opinion, found the first article that agreed with your opinion, and called it a day.

Nelson69 15y ago

Many of the things that "brick" an ICE can be repaired at relatively low costs. And almost all of those things brick the car by using it, Teslas will brick when you don't use them, you lock it safely in the temperature controlled garage and go away for too long and it dies. It strikes me as a design problem of sorts, you've got a relatively expensive and sophisticated sports car with piles of electronics. I would think that maybe they could detect a certain critical level of energy is left in the batteries and flip a toggle that just shuts them off which wouldn't last forever but could buy you some more time maybe. My grandfather's Buick has GM's onstar stuff in it, couldn't your roadster send a text message or something? Maybe they could have some sort of emergency mechanism to just plug a normal car battery in to gain a little charge from. I like what Tesla is trying to do, they're changing the conversation and ultimately when I look at the auto industry I think more startups are needed. They're a startup though, the Top Gear story, I don't think it was bad or inaccurate, the Tesla just doesn't look like it's in the same league as many of the other sports cars they drive around and then this battery thing, rare as it might be they need a good story for it. How many drivers have run out of gas when they are experienced and know better? Stuff happens, it's more common than you might think, with an ICE it's just embarrassing and inconvenient, with a Tesla it might set you back some serious money.

sephlietz 15y ago
From the article: "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. It's true that a full discharge to zero percent state of charge can potentially be damaging to a battery. However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge."
- Arjuna 15y ago
  "However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge." I realize that you are quoting the article, but the owner's manual is simply not in agreement with this sentence. From the Roadster 2/Roadster Sport owner's manual (italic emphasis is mine): "Important! Caution: If the battery’s charge level falls to 0%, it must be plugged in immediately. Failure to do so can permanently damage the battery and this damage is not covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty. Also, if you allow the battery to fall to a critically low level it may not be possible to charge the vehicle. If you are unable to charge the vehicle, contact Tesla Motors." [...] "However, situations may arise in which you must leave the vehicle unplugged for an extended time (for example, at an airport when traveling for a couple of weeks). If this is the case, it is your responsibility to ensure that the battery does not become fully depleted." [...] "If for some reason, you are unable to keep the vehicle plugged in when it is not being used, it is up to you to preserve battery life by paying attention to the charge level and the temperature [...]"
  - ubernostrum 15y ago
    There's a lot of conflation going on here. The original article seemed to be stating or implying that the car's own on-board systems would continue to draw power well past the danger point, drastically reducing the time to destroy the battery. This article seems to be stating that the car's systems will stop drawing power. The battery will continue to discharge in this situation, due to natural processes, but discharging to a point that destroys the battery takes much longer in that case. This means there is still a risk that, if left unattended for extended periods (on the order of at least weeks, perhaps longer), the battery will become unusable. But this is not the same as the original claims which seemed to be arguing for design flaws which would hasten that process.

abruzzi 15y ago

If you run your ICE without oil, yes, you will kill it. And maybe these should be thought of in the same way, but people worry about this because draining a battery to zero seems like running out of gas, and most of us have run out of gas at some point or another. Granted it's not the same because in the short term the battery management system should reserve the bottom 5% for the health of the battery. But the second reason people are worried about this is killing that last 5% and bricking the battery happens by doing nothing. Bricking an ICE while it is unused, sitting in your driveway takes decades. With a replacement $50 battery and $30 oil change I've restarted engines that have been sitting unused in junkyards for 40 years.

feralchimp 15y ago
"If you leave your $40k battery pack alone for months without a trickle charger, you will kill it" is no more challenging to communicate or implement than "if you run your ICE without oil, you will kill it."
- politician 15y ago
  There is a world of difference between overuse leading to failure, and non-use leading to failure. It's disingenuous to claim that the messages are similar because they have abOut the same number of words.
  - feralchimp 15y ago
    From a marketing and CRM perspective, the messages are identical: "Here is a simple and cheap routine maintenance behavior that will prevent a catastrophic repair bill: X". In the ICE case, X is "maintain a minimum oil level while the engine is running." In the Tesla case, it's "maintain a minimum battery level, even during storage." Given that the underlying drivetrain technologies actually are worlds-of-difference apart from each other, that strikes me as a pretty minimal difference in terms of routine maintenance. Unless it's somehow difficult to understand or costly to implement, we should assume Tesla customers aren't f'ing morons and go about our business.

krschultz 15y ago

When my grandfather was 85, he forgot to do all of the maitenance on his car. He drove like 40,000 miles without ever changing the oil and blew up the engine in his BMW 7 series. It wasn't exactly a cheap car. Replacing the engine in the car was something like $7,000. I see your point about safety - gas clearly isn't the safest substance in the world. But neither is electricity. My cousin is currently a police officer, and before that he was a first responder for car accidents. He has had specific official training to deal with hybrids becuase you have to avoid the battery cables after an accident when using the jaws of life and what not. And those batteries are more stable than lithium ion, in those cases they are simply concerned about compromising the battery cables. So it kind of cuts both ways. This is a problem lithium ion powered electric cars. We shouldn't sweep it under the rug. It should be solved now while there are 10,000 electric cars and not 10,000,000 electric cars. It seems like the solution is a combination of educating/warning owners & notifying them by phone or email if the car starts to get too low. That isn't exactly the end of the world. But ignoring it is not the solution.

feralchimp 15y ago
> Replacing the engine in the car was something like $7,000. Which, for many drivers, may as well be $40k. > the solution is a combination of educating/warning owners & notifying them by phone or email if the car starts to get too low I never advocated ignoring anything. My point is not that "Tesla is great" or "boo ICE yay electric," it's that all the hysteria around "OMG car bricking" doesn't actually promote whatever communication/engineering solutions would actually make the product better or more consumable for people.
- quanticle 15y ago
  >Which, for many drivers, may as well be $40k. Did you really go ahead and conflate $7,000 and and $40,000? $7000 buys me a decent used car. $40,000 buys me a brand new Toyota Prius (MSRP $24,700) with almost enough change left over to buy a brand new Hyundai Elantra (MSRP $15,345). $7,000 is not a small chunk of change, by any means. It's a lot less, however, than $40,000. Conflating the two does no one any good.

ams6110 15y ago

I'm pretty sure anyone ever burned in a gas-fueled vehicle fire would gladly go back in time to fork over $40k to avoid that experience. The reason gasoline is dangerous is that it stores a lot of energy. You need a lot of energy to move a heavy car a couple of hundred miles, and keep the occupants comfortable with heat and/or air conditioning. A battery in a Tesla contains a lot of energy. The dangers compared to a tank of gasoline are different, but in either case, the sudden and uncontrolled release of that energy can do a lot of damage.

vacri 15y ago
The real issue is that those events are extremely rare given the intensely frequent use of ICE vehicles. Replace all the ICE with electric vehicles, and you'd see just as many electrocuted people. It's simply not a real argument.
- Ralith 15y ago
  It's a hell of a lot harder to electrocute yourself with a standard charging station than to set gasoline alight.
  - vacri 15y ago
    A "gas-fueled vehicle fire" happens during an accident, not at the refuelling station.
eridius 15y ago
A glass of water has a lot of energy stored in its atoms. The sudden and uncontrolled release of that energy could be catastrophic. The question isn't how much energy is in the system, but how hard is it for that energy to be released in an uncontrolled fashion.

ruby_on_rails 15y ago

I think the fact that you are agreeing with an article either written directly by Tesla PR or paid for by Tesla PR, which has a minority opinion on the matter, which is backed up by statements which are in disagreement to both knowledgeable parties and the Tesla owner's manual, is frankly unflattering. I bet I can find some blogger who can make a better argument about the holocaust never happening, then this lousy excuse for a journalist. Then again, that individual would still be a minority among the knowledgeable populace. Hey, lets give it a go here. Electric is the new comer to the party. They have to prove themselves. ICE proved itself. ICE isn't on trial here.

feralchimp 15y ago
I stated an opinion and my reasons for holding it. I don't owe you a disclaimer about whether the linked article (which I didn't reference, btw) happens to be full of shit. If you form all of your opinions worrying about all the idiots or evil people who might happen to agree with you, or use your arguments to further their own nefarious ends, you're destined to lead a very quiet life. > ICE proved itself. ICE isn't on trial here. The usability and cost/benefit of electric drivetrains versus the status quo is relevant. My point was not "we should distrust ICE," so much as "we should discuss cost/benefit tradeoffs of technology like reasonable people instead of resorting to ZOMG BRICKING".
- chives 15y ago
  I agree cost benefit analysis is relevant. Instead your argument stated how unreliable ICE is by comparison. Ice isn't on trial. Ice is proven to be reasonably safe/reliable ect. Secondly, my argument is not that you should worry about who also supports your argument, -but if you are going to agree with an article, find a better poster child. Otherwise, your argument holds little value as the original article refuses to support itself with research or references. I am certain that there is an article that accomplishes your opinion AND supports itself with evidence of some kind. Instead it sounds like before you even read the article you had your opinion, found the first article that agreed with your opinion, and called it a day.