4 ms·

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

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.
Bud 15y ago
I don't think you are noticing how, if you read the wording closely, this is NOT a rebuttal of the bricking claims. The rebuttal talks about "normal driving conditions". This is non-responsive to the claim in question, which is that if you drive the Tesla for a while til the battery is somewhat low, and then don't plug the car in to charge properly, it can become completely disabled in as little as a week. So in other words, the original blogger was not claiming that "normal driving" will brick the Tesla. So talking about how the battery management system won't let it brick itself while you are driving it is a misdirection tactic. It does not rebut the claim.
Someone 15y ago
"However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge." In that case, Homer Simpson would never want one in his house. Also, why are they in the car business? I what their battery management system. It, apparently, can make energy out of thin air, to counteract the losses in the batteries.
dkarl 15y ago
The "article" confirms that Teslas can be bricked in exactly the way reported: 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 same should be done for any electric vehicle. However, to imply that the Tesla Roadster has a fundamental design flaw because of the nature of electrochemistry.... The rest is the lovely art of spin. It reads like a rebuttal of the bricking claims and vindication for Tesla, doesn't it? In every superficial aspect, that's what it is, but the substance doesn't match the form and tone. Welcome to PR.

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.

Bud 15y ago

I don't think you are noticing how, if you read the wording closely, this is NOT a rebuttal of the bricking claims. The rebuttal talks about "normal driving conditions". This is non-responsive to the claim in question, which is that if you drive the Tesla for a while til the battery is somewhat low, and then don't plug the car in to charge properly, it can become completely disabled in as little as a week. So in other words, the original blogger was not claiming that "normal driving" will brick the Tesla. So talking about how the battery management system won't let it brick itself while you are driving it is a misdirection tactic. It does not rebut the claim.

Someone 15y ago

"However the battery management system of the Roadster won't allow the car to reach that low level of charge." In that case, Homer Simpson would never want one in his house. Also, why are they in the car business? I what their battery management system. It, apparently, can make energy out of thin air, to counteract the losses in the batteries.

dkarl 15y ago

The "article" confirms that Teslas can be bricked in exactly the way reported: 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 same should be done for any electric vehicle. However, to imply that the Tesla Roadster has a fundamental design flaw because of the nature of electrochemistry.... The rest is the lovely art of spin. It reads like a rebuttal of the bricking claims and vindication for Tesla, doesn't it? In every superficial aspect, that's what it is, but the substance doesn't match the form and tone. Welcome to PR.