Nowhere in the release does Tesla refute that owners have "bricked" their batteries. Nowhere in the release do they say that the battery can not be bricked by leaving it for a long period without a recharge. All they say is that it would take a period of weeks for a Tesla roadster to reach 0% charge, and that the Model S has battery disconnect technology that can extend this to several months. They also point out that the car will provide increasingly strenuous warnings to plug it in (which, no matter how loud they are, would be hard to hear from across the country, if you've left it in an airport parking lot).
If it were true that a Tesla battery pack couldn't be destroyed by letting it fully discharge, or that it had never happened, then they would have mentioned it in the release. In fact, they take the opposite tack, re-emphasizing near the top of the document that users should always plug the car in when parked.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still very enamored by Teslas, and I don't think that this is any different than the owner of a gas-powered car letting it run out of oil and seizing the engine -- it's neglect. If you don't get it by now, Tesla owners, you need to plug in your cars.
As it stands, this makes me think that Tesla likes to play with words to dance around hard truths. They also didn't mention the privacy implications of them being able to remotely track your car by GPS, which is a bit worrisome.
Also, nowhere in the post do they mention GPS--only that the car (optionally) phones home its charge level. As best I can make out that's an unfounded rumor based on a single incident.
I was very skeptical about the blog post up until now, when tesla essentially agreed to all it's claims, by not refuting any.
TL;DR; version of the blog: "Yes, it's true, we charge a lot of money for forgetting to plug in your tesla, don't do that or you'll regret".
I found the 'no oil' comparison to be weak. Sure if you run your gasoline engine vehicle with no oil it will likely seize up and require an engine block replacement. However, you can leave a gasoline powered car in a barn for 20 years and then re-discover it, fill up all the proper fluids and run it. (assuming it was in running condition when it was stored). You won't have to replace the engine.
The part that is missing from the Tesla response is, if your car is in this state (fully discharged), what can be done. Is there a way to 'reboot' the car? And if so what is the procedure? Can anyone do it or only the factory? And why? If the batteries become disconnected does that also brick your car? Or can you just re-attach them ? Why doesn't the Tesla vehicle have a 'full power down' state for storage?
They are in a difficult situation, as the problem is real, and difficult to address. In fact they are clearly doing a lot trying to address it, which is to their credit -- now if instead of downplaying it, they presented it clearly, and focused on what they are doing and planning to do, and thought about more solutions, it would do them much good.
And solutions don't have to be just technical -- offering insurance (even if high-deductible) would do quite a bit to calm some fears, as would the GPS based service if explained and offered right. Either way, without some kind of fix for such problems, they will never see any adoption beyond the "toys for the rich" market.
Day 1:
We are very sorry that a handful of our thousands of users has had battery problems. It is true that a battery can be irreversibly damaged by a "deep discharge". It has not been covered by our bumper-to-bumper warrantee, as it is considered to be a misuse. This is only possible if a car is not being used on a regular basis, and provided our cars are left with a 50% charge they can last for months without a problem. Please do not leave your Tesla with a low charge if you will be away for a long period of time. This should not be a problem for the vast majority of our customers, but some may need to take special precautions, if they will not be driving their car for a long period of time.
Day 2:
Compare old Tesla to new Tesla. Note how long the new Tesla can last on 50%. Note that all cars have problems (oil, radiators, fan belts); and that it takes time for the new rules to sink in. Note that only a small handful of customers have been bitten, despite it being a completely new system. Note how many people have their engines get cooked, even after 100 years of oil burning cars. Note that electricity is fundamentally simpler, and easier to maintain, and that will only get better with more design work, and as people become accustomed to it.
Then wait a while, and find (or make) some good news. Free replacements for the handful of effected customers?
The more time people spend reading and arguing over the fine points of PR spin, the more time your name is dragged through the mud. Get it over with quickly.
Barring a fuel leak, your car won't run out of gas sitting in your garage while you're on a long business trip.
Secondly, you could leave your fuel injected car idle for months on and end without having to worry about the car slowly slurping the fuel down and then leaving you an empty.
So it is much easier to run a EV out of battery power and far more expensive to fix it when it does happen. No amount of PR spinning, FUD or wishful thinking changes that.
I routinely drive mine until it runs out of gas (don't ask) and I haven't had any adverse problems.
Apparently, some fuel pumps are cooled by the fuel itself. If the level gets too low, it can't dissipate the heat fast enough and the pump fails.
It didn't "brick" right away, but it got increasingly harder to start, because the pump could no longer pressurise que fuel line fast enough.
The original story got play because it was a surprising, unknown, and frankly, sucks.
If all of my fuel-injected laptops had never been damaged when they ran out of fuel, I would be pretty shocked and disappointed when it was a problem with the Kugelfischer. Much like the Tesla owners this affected.
Tesla isn't a "cause" it's just a product. So whatever happens to Tesla one way or the other has a smaller influence on "the rise of EVs" than you can imagine. Mahalo.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the issue: many uninformed people are getting people like you wrong simply because they lack perspective on the Tesla "bricking" issue. Electrical cars are a new technology and people don't have the perspective to shrug off serious but very unlikely problems.
This is why Tesla's post isn't simply "PR bullshit" -- it provides context for the discussion and perspective. As others have pointed out, perspective exists with ICE vehicles today: we know that there are potential bricking issues, but we keep perspective and shrug them off because we understand how unlikely they are.
It's fair to over-focus on the Tesla bricking issue, but it's more fair to place this discussion in a context: how likely is this problem to occur, and what can be done to prevent it, to spot it before it occurs.
And the release doesn't reference the actual blogger which is this:
http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-te...
They reference an ad hominem of sorts about the "rumour" at this link:
http://green.autoblog.com/2012/02/23/tesla-bricked-battery-s...
which has the title: "Tesla bricked battery story may have a short circuit"
Which is presumably why they're doing this:
> Starting with Roadster 2.0, owners can also elect for their car to contact Tesla headquarters once the state of charge falls below a specified level, and we can then contact the owner.
It reminds me of a notice of late payment I received from The Economist magazine some years back. It was so darn polite and diplomatic, I kept it in a shoebox ever since.
Now, whenever there's an outstanding payment issue with a client, I read the letter for inspiration.
I happen to have first-hand experience with a gas-powered Porsche that was left parked for so long (years), with no starts, that the engine eventually became effectively "bricked", and had to be written off. And I had to fork out 1000's of dollars on engine repair (attempts) to even reach the point of deciding it had to be written off. This is with a gas-powered engine, a traditional car. So there is precedent where a car owner can misuse and/or fail to maintain the vehicle properly per the manufacturer's guidelines, and it becomes bricked. This is not a new kind of problem introduced by Tesla.
My iPod goes dead all the time, so does my phone, so does my laptop, my camera, my remote, my everything.
I think that every single battery-powered device I've ever owned has, at some point, gone "dead" (as in it won't power on).
NONE of these things have ever been completely incapacitated because of this. I've never had to replace my laptop because I let it go flat.
I'm sure some of the 5 owners who have had this happened knew that the car would go dead, but I'm sure that all of them figured that that just meant that they would have to charge it.
Tesla: here is how to fix this, and I'm asking that you do this on behalf of all electronic vehicle manufacturers (to keep people from being scared off the things by blogs like this).
Release a statement that follows the standard 3-step press release of oops:
---
1) "Own it". -- We fucked up here. This was our bad. We were stupid to believe that the general public would understand that letting the battery on their car go dead would cost them $40,000. This was incredibly stupid of us, and is 100% our fault. We take responsibility for this.
2) "How we're fixing it" -- The 5 people who have had this happen have all been contacted by Tesla motors. We're shipping a tech and a battery to all of them, and all of their cars will be back on the road by next week.
3) "Why this won't happen again" -- From now on, we're including a physical battery disconnect. A device will attach to the battery terminals that is normally off, and requires that the battery be at 5%[1] charge to close. If the battery drops below this, it physically disconnects the battery from the rest of the system, and doesn't allow for any parasitic electronics to drain it further.
[1]: 5% is a made up number.
---
Of course this won't happen, but a PR-spectator can dream.
Tesla: you bungled this one. Badly. You're hurting the entire EV industry. Suck it up and admit you were wrong.
Tesla cars aren't mass market products (yet). They're for early adopters who can afford what is essentially a $100.000+ toy. If you then don't read the manual and leave the car on a parking lot for months, then yes, you can ruin the battery.
So let's compare it to other early adopter technology. It took decades before motherboards didn't occasionally die during a BIOS update. For decades stereo equipment (and other expensive electronics) had a little slider on the back of the power supply labeled "110v - 220v". It wasn't always in the right position when you bought the device. If you forgot to switch it to the correct setting the device breaks, simple as that. Expensive cameras that you couldn't clean on the inside -- take them to the beach once and they're ruined forever. Cars with breaks that would fade so quickly that driving down a mountain became tantamount to suicide. Or how about power tools? They don't come with any manual and if you use them in the wrong condition you risk severe injury. Forget to turn off the stove before you leave for holiday? Your house might burn down.
So let's not lose perspective here. If you forget to plug in your Roadster before you go on holiday, in the absolute worst case scenario you have to replace the battery. Not the end of the world. As with any other piece of equipment, you can break it if you're sufficiently careless.
Have you read the original blog post? (http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-te...) Battery replacement costs $40k in cash and all of Tesla's documentation only gently "suggests" that the car be plugged in when convenient.
That article includes an incident where someone parked their car at a garage and the battery died within less than 2 months.
This is the best example I've read so far. If you own expensive stuff, you have to be careful. That's life. If you're not careful, don't buy a $100,000 electric car. Buy a $750 used pickup truck or something. That way, if you break it, you'll be able to afford the replacement.
More generally, you jumped to conclusions based on personal anecdotal evidence, ignored the entire preceding discussion, then pretended you were some kind of PR expert based on stuff you just made up.
(Edit: I guess the accusations are that some earlier battery models discharge in a week or a few, not months. I'm told the charge management circuitry of the 6000+ cell battery is extremely complicated, so improvement over time is to be expected. Nevertheless it's not a case of "duh just disconnect the battery"--these things self-discharge and also discharge very slowly over the disconnection circuitry!)
From the manual "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."
I didn't ignore anything, nor did I "jump" to any conclusions. The preceding discussions have been talking about the vehicle doing things like "phoning home" and issuing audible warnings.
This stuff doesn't come for free. You need the battery to power this.
The consequences of failing to maintain the battery are clearly stated by Tesla Motors in the owner's manual.
Is it the fault of Tesla Motors that an owner did not read, understand and follow the maintenance procedures outlined in the owner's manual? Is it not the buyer's responsibility to perform due-diligence in this regard?
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 [...]"
Of course, Tesla may emphasize the point in other ways.
That's the general problem with the omnipresent safety warnings you get with products. The important and possibly non-obvious get drowned out by the all the boilerplate silliness.
For sure they are well documented in the owners manual.
However, the idea of getting a $40,000 repair bill for a car is going to turn many buyers off. Tesla should cover it for the sake of their business. If Tesla was paying for these repairs I guarantee you they'd figure out a way to prevent the failure.
That does not change the fact that the thing -- and especially its' handling -- is an absolute PR disaster that WILL greatly (likely fatally) hurt any wider adoption. If Tesla thinks that saving 5x40 = 200k is worth it, they are free to do whatever they feel like.
They can fix this. They have the technology.
Maybe you're fortunate, but I've definitely had to replace laptop batteries because they got bricked. If you leave your battery discharged for a long enough time, you can never charge it again.
Well at least this whole saga has taught me more about Li-ION batteries. I feel like this information is something that should be more generally known amongst the population, not just for cars but for all the products we use with Li-ION.
The conversation surrounding this issue reminds me of an adult explaining to a child why their goldfish died. If you don't feed the fish, the fish dies. If you don't take care of your toys, your toys break. In this world, entropy is the natural order of things. And there's no world but this world. So stop complaining and plug your car in.
I do wonder why the batteries become 'bricked', though. All I've heard so far is just that 'they do', not why.
He referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Electrochem...
"The overall reaction has its limits. Overdischarge supersaturates lithium cobalt oxide, leading to the production of lithium oxide, possibly by the following irreversible reaction:"
* Edit. Missed the 'No'.
I've had plenty of devices nearly bricked (only working with an external power source, battery lasts seconds/minutes) by leaving them unattended for months. My 1st gen iPod dies in less than an hour after being left at 0% charge for a few weeks.
40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel-injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?
That is the comparison I would like to see.
* Fuel starts to turn into a syrup from evaporation requiring you to drain the tank. (This is a big issue on 2-stroke engines, you need to do a lot more work)
* Oil should be replaced due to acidic oil eating away sediment from crank case.
* Depending on time of year coolant should be flushed (depends on what mix is already in).
* Battery will be dead.
* Brake fluid might need to be changed as well.
Half of these you can ignore but it will cause wear and isn't good thing.
The running down of batteries in an electric car to the point where they're damaged is definitely a corner case. It's not one that's out of the realm of possibility. (Someone goes to winter house for a few months, leaves car in garage, and the charger isn't hooked up properly or something.) It sounds like the current generation vehicles make it even more of a corner case although I have to wonder what the failure modes of the various protection systems are.
The main danger is things like squirrels moving into your engine block, if it's outside.
You are really trying to kill off cars because you got a horse carriage at home. The horse can when coupled reproduce itself, all it takes is some food and water to keep going, its unlikely to break down, you can be flexible by changing from a one-seater to carrying raw material in the blink of an eye.
Obviously, the horse is vastly superior to its new "car" competitor. Only a moron would invest in further developing the car, given that it was irrefutably shown to be inferior.
-- On a more serious note, I really can't believe this. This is supposed to be a technologically informed crowd, but you are instead acting as if we've got an infinite amount of oil "somewhere down there" and that it's unacceptable to deviate from the three ton monster SUVs that roam the streets in the USA.
Another thought: maybe we need to stop being so obsessed and utterly dependent on cars in general. Live locally, support your community, become more self-reliant, leverage personal technogy.
As to your other thought, some of us do not want to ghettoize ourselves. Some of us have friends in areas that are, unfortunately, difficult to reach via public transportation. Living locally would mean disconnecting from a great number of people that I care about quite deeply.
Maybe a big, red warning sticker on the door would make people happy?
Q. Is it true that the battery has catastrophic failure when it drains to zero and is left in that state for a sustained period?
A. The company has built in countless safeguards to ensure that the battery never drains to zero.
Q. That is not what I asked. Please answer the question.
A. It is an unfounded rumor that many owners have incurred such a catastrophic failure and only an irrational fear would permit anyone to believe that.
Q. I didn't ask about many owners, only whether it is possible to incur a catastrophic failure as described. Please answer the question.
A. Our documentation clearly tells owners that it is vital to keep their car plugged in and we give them ever-escalating warnings to ensure that no rational person could ever let the car get close to that state.
Q. I didn't ask about the likelihood of this happening, only whether it can happen. Please answer the question.
A. We value our customers more than you can imagine and it is slanderous to suggest that we would subject them to risks that can be avoided.
Q. Again, not what I asked, please answer the question.
A. Every car has risks of catastrophic failure if it is badly misused.
Q. Does this mean the Tesla does too with its engine?
A. We will not dignify a mere rumor with an answer to that question.
Q. And is it true that it costs $40K to replace the battery?
A. I object to that as irrelevant.
Q. And that it is not covered under warranty?
A. Ditto - irrelevant.
Q. And constitutes an uninsurable risk?
A. We really are off track here. I will not answer.
Q. So you do not regard it as worthy of disclosure to your buyers that, should their battery drain to zero for any sustained period, the only remedy is to replace it at their own expense at a $40K cost.
A. That disclosure would not fit with our marketing plans. Plus we say something of the sort at page 487 of our owner's manual.
Q.Well I guess this was all pretty pointless.
A. Of course, nothing wrong here. Ignore the man behind the curtain. What a stupid thing to ask about anyway. The revolution is apace and you shouldn't bother me with little details.
This question is answered multiple times in the owner's manual and buyer contract (where buyer is required to initial after reading). I'm not sure why it would need to come up in a depo.
Why can't I down vote your post? :(
PS: Don't buy any RC model (or diesel engines!), they all suffer from the same "catastrophic failure".
All that over the span of ten years and I still drive it actually the engine is the best part the rest of the truck is falling apart around the engine.
Add to those no spark plugs, no spark plug wires, no distributor, a more durable engine design, higher efficiency compared to a gasoline engine.
Bricking, at least in my mind, is something that happens suddenly usually when attempting something at least slightly risky. Jailbreaking iPhones, replacing your laptop harddrive, desoldering components in an audio amplifier and other 'warranty voiding' all carry some 'bricking' risk.
The situation with Tesla is more akin to leaving your (very expensive) bike out in the rain: Given enough time it will rust up and need to be extensively repaired but I don't think you would say you 'bricked' it...
> "something that causes something to lose all function and become inert"
add "suddenly and without warning" and I'd agree with that definition.
If you are, in fact, unable to grasp that, then you will pay the cost.
How is this even a thing?
You don't keep your laptop or phone charged on penalty of battery replacement, so why pretend that you're not surprised at the Tesla result?
Also, quite obviously, the batteries used in the Tesla are the same kind used in your laptop or phone, just a vastly greater number of them.
So yes, maintaining a laptop means keeping it charged.
(How do people not know this? Battery 101)
Who just leaves his car for 12 months somewhere, without caring about it? I know someone who left his motorcycle outside for too long and now rust killed it.
In this case a lot of folks are getting emotionally involved because this story serves as proof that electric cars can't be maintained with the exact same habits that an ICE car is maintained. Habits are a personal things, and can be difficult to change. A lot of people will fight to preserve them rather than adapt them.
If Tesla cars come with a bright red warning on the driver's side window saying IF YOU DO NOT KEEP THIS CAR CHARGED THEN YOU RUN THE RISK OF REPAIRS COSTING UP TO $40,000 then I'd say Tesla is completely in the right here.
If they didn't mention this anywhere and it's just something owners discover because they use it in a way that Tesla didn't think they should, then Tesla is completely in the wrong.
If they did something in between, then it's in between. I may have missed it, but so far I haven't seen this explained.
"Please to be using this when leaving vehicle at airport. Thank you much, Tesla."
Maybe there's some reason this won't work, but... you need to work with your customers' expectations. Some of them are going to leave the vehicle unplugged for a while, and they're going to be pissed if the vehicle battery is destroyed.
Won't work in the parking garage, snow, or Seattle. Just don't leave your tesla at the airport of 12 weeks. That's expensive all by itself.
Both are valid points. Why are you arguing? The points don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Tesla has a lot going for it. They make innovative cars, and I would love to own one. That doesn't make the company's PR responses any less defensive and cagey. The response for this particular issue is a big turn off for me. I would definitely prefer that they didn't contradict themselves within the first three paragraphs.
I get it. Owners of Tesla cars need to charge their cars or they will be out $40,000. That makes sense to me. Batteries don't last forever. My Mother however doesn't care how the car works. She just wants it to work. She'll do the maintenance that you ask her to do, but she's not going to know why. So, she won't know why she can't leave the car at the airport for a month.
That's why it's important for Tesla to say, "yes this is an important issue that is part of maintaining your car." Not, "A single blogger is spreading a rumor about electric vehicles becoming inoperable." If my Mother read that last sentence, she might say to herself, "oh, I guess that blogger was just lying," and move on without reading the whole article, now assuming that it's not possible to "brick" her car.
I also lay some blame at Michael Degusta's feet. I don't think that it was appropriate for him to title his article "'It’s A Brick' – Tesla Motors’ Devastating Design Problem." I don't see this as a design problem. It works. The potential for bricking your car is just something you'll have to watch out for, just like not changing your oil is something you need to watch out for.
I think that Tesla was just reacting against the accusation that they had a design flaw. As long as they make sure that all of their customers know of the issue, it's not a design flaw. At that point it's maintenance. That's where I think that Tesla failed today. They skimped on their responsibility of informing the customer of important facts, so that they could come out smelling like roses.
P.S. Incidentally, if I were to take a trip to my mountain home in Italy for half a year, roughly how much would I expect to pay in electricity to keep my Tesla vehicle charged? Does it draw a constant amount of power for the entire time that I'm away?
I would like to ask if it's true or not that any batteries have become inoperable due to being drained completely. Also If that does occur, what is the cost of replacement, and is it at all covered by warranty.
It doesn't seem like that answer is forthcoming...
Seriously, I find it breathtaking, for all the reasons people have already given. It's a case study in saying "yes" while giving the impression of saying "no".
Tesla, stop beating around the bush like a politician, grow up and answer the million-dollar question like a man:
What will happen once the car's battery is completely depleted?
(life-line hint: it will get bricked)
In Australia (where I'm originally from) LPG (Propane to everyone in the US & Canada) conversions on Petrol (Gas?) cars is a common thing. Its the same situation, LPG is not available everywhere, and while most LPG cars can run on both fuels...you simply think ahead before you go on some unusual route. It becomes part of your planning for a long trip and that's all there is to it. If you run out of LPG, its a bad situation...you cant just go grab bottle of LPG, its a compressed gas, you actually need to either run the car on normal fuel (Petrol) or get it towed.
My bias opinion here is that someone probably mistreated their car, and Tesla told them something like "We tried to help you before this happened, but you ignored us...its in the terms you signed when you bought the car and now there is nothing else we can do to help"
Completely reasonable.
PR mastery indeed..
By now, gasoline powered cars have been around for a hundred years. Everyone knows they are complex machines with lots of movings parts, and that they require regular maintenance to keep in working shape. What Tesla is putting forward here is the fact that the same principle applies to their electric cars: they need their own kind of TLC to be kept in good shape.
However, there is another point Tesla fails to get across. Over those hundred or so years, not only has the need to care of a gas-powered car entered into the public psyche, but also how that care must be carried out. Everyone knows that cars need oil changes and exhaust checks and all that. It's obvious by now.
However, that sort of awareness doesn't exist when it comes to electric cars. Saying they need care is great, but Tesla is missing an opportunity to develop the same sort of intuitive public awareness with regard to their vehicles. It's not just 'these cars need care,' it's 'these cars need care, and its of a kind you don't expect, that's OK because you haven't need raised on these vehicles since you were young.'
This way, the message would move from being an ever-so-slightly condescending implication that you forgot that electric cars need electricity, and refocuses on the need to augment the way in which people think about maintaining their vehicles.
What exactly are the conditions for this statement to be true? My laptop battery has lost some of its capacity over the past 2 years - how much capacity do Roadsters lose over time? If I had bought one of the first 100 or whatever, what would that discharge figure be now?
There is also a jab at a "single blogger" bringing the issue up, as if he is some rogue on a vendetta or looking for attention. But then not denying his claims makes this look like an insidious corporate attack on a journalist who actually brought to the public's attention a serious flaw with a product. Very similar to how GM's attacks on Ralph Nader back in the 1970s started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed#Industry_re...
On the other hand, I manage to keep my cell phone charged at all times, so I can imagine that I'd be able to keep my car charged at all times. But I ride a bike, so this doesn't really affect me.
1- All modern battery packs, including laptops, have internal management circuitry that, among other things (like controlling charge so that they will not explode) not allow the damn thing to deplete. When 0% charge is reported the battery still has plenty of juice left.
2- With the given parasitic drain, the battery will last for at least a month left at 0% charge
3- If you leave you car at the airport, you kinda expect to be able to get back, so you won't leave the car at 0% when you depart. And even at 0%, you have a month to plug it in
So, barring a zombie apocalypse, what is the expected use-case that actual owners would encounter, to be able to destroy the batteries? It is certainly not normal usage.
I mean seriously. Cost doesn't matter? Time doesn't matter? Equating going on vacation without your car to never changing your oil?
Just because someone says it's neglect, or even has a contract that defines it that way, doesn't mean it's reasonable or even anywhere near the realm of common sense. That's just lawyer speak that is.
On my car that's a $6-7000 fix if it happens. I bet if there were only 2,500 of those engines in the world it would be a $40k fix, but economies of scale have made it cheaper.
turns out in this case the rumor is true...
well the first automobiles needed to be started with a crank on the front grill. sometimes the crank would catch and whip around an break the user's arm.
its a neat thing that even in this day and age, people aren't completely shielded from being on the cutting edge.
the 2020 Teslas are going to be amazing.
edit: and yes, I realize it would probably make sense to check it out when buying a type of car that is relatively new, but that doesn't mean even a significant minority of new owners will.
Quote - "Nissan spokeswoman Katherine Zachary tells Motoramic that the all-electric Nissan Leaf "will never discharge completely, thanks to an advanced battery management system designed to protect the battery from damage." Thanks to a combination of different management and battery cells custom-designed for the car, Nissan has sold 22,000 Leafs and never suffered a similar failure. Tesla's acolytes may find no fault in the charges, but other automakers know there's little margin in blaming customers for not asking the right questions."
All this has happened before, etc.
Here we learn that they need juice constantly to run "vital systems" and therefore consume energy at all times, even when not running. The owner cannot choose to let his car unplugged because then it'll break down completely and need to be repaired at a cost of 40% of the original price.
This is not progress.
The blogger should write a follow-up article: "Tesla admits that cars can be bricked. They are just a little harder to brick than assumed."
Just to add to the PR observations, I like how they have a few positive comments, but it is actually impossible to make comments on the post.
