If anything, this confirms the other post. Making the parallel between standard automobiles and the Tesla makes some sense to me, as does comparing motorcycles to the Tesla. I feel like even given these comparisons, it does not seem acceptable that they can permanently brick in the way that they do. I can understand why the owners would feel upset.

Do you think it's acceptable that Ford will not honour their warranty if you don't change the oil in your car?

I think that it would have been reasonable for Ford to honor the warranty for cars in the Model T era. Fully electric vehicles have not been around long enough for it to be common knowledge that draining a battery is as serious an offensive as never changing the oil in your car. I understand the reasons that they aren't honoring the warranty. I think that Tesla could consider replacing the battery for the early adopters that got surprised by this and make it more clear to future consumers that bricking can happen.

Where's the nonsense? This doesn't seem to debunk the claim that if the batteries go totally dead you are screwed, out a $40K battery pack.

> Tesla batteries can remain unplugged for weeks (or even months), without reaching zero state of charge.

Maybe I'm trying to find a conspiracy here, but the batteries generally aren't unplugged; they are connected to the car and it's drawing a small current. That drain from the mostly-idle Tesla's electronics are enough to flatten the battery faster than if it was truly unplugged.

That quote should be read as "tesla batteries can remain unplugged from a power source for weeks".

I agree this article doesn't debunk the other article.

I haven't read the Tesla documentation, but if "bricking" is real I'd expect some firm warnings about it. The other article said that those warnings were absent; it also claimed that the documents played down the risk.

The TC story doesn't seem to back up the headline "It's Nonsense," it just shifts the blame to the car owners.

Why is everyone complaining about a Techcrunch headline? It's Techcrunch^^

I don't get how the story remotely supports the headline. Nothing in Tesla's long-winded statement says the bricking story is not true.

IMO, this is a huge problem for the future of electric cars. If you own one, you will always have to worry about this when going away for extended periods. When I had my honda insight, just leaving it un-driven for 2 weeks would seriously deplete the battery. I never killed the battery, but after the car had 130k miles, just leaving it garaged for a few days would noticeably deplete the charge. I'm afraid that electric cars will become the new disposable car at some point because no one wants to flip the bill for a new battery pack.

I thought the story was a bit overblown when it was first posted, and still do, but I don't see how you can call out another article as "nonsense" without refuting a single factual claim it made.

"The Tesla Bricking Story? It's Overblown"... okay, yeah... but "Nonsense"? Prove it.

And what about Tesla remotely tracking vehicles without the owner's knowing?

I used to read techcrunch pretty often.. often enough to know that this "article" is damage control then anything.