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.

Responsible owners do not let the battery charge reach zero. The consequences are serious enough that owners with unusual usage patterns that make this difficult will go out of their way to make sure it doesn't happen. There is a strong negative financial incentive for owners to do a simple thing like plugging in the car.

Modifying the warranty means Tesla accepts financial accountability for owners' (in)actions that are beyond Tesla's control. That's a bad deal for Tesla. It could mean financial ruin if there are too many irresponsible owners.

This thing is so blown out of proportion. When I first read the blog article I was thinking it was pretty bad. Once I had some time to think about it I realized there isn't anything unreasonable about this except the price of a new battery, but that's the cost of being an early adopter.

If you let a high end sports car sit in a garage for months with a tank full of gas and then go drive it fast you are going to wreck it. It's going to be expensive to fix. That's if you can even get it to start in the first place. A responsible owner starts the car every couple weeks or has someone else do it while they are out of town. What's the difference in effort between that and plugging in a Tesla? The only difference with the Tesla is the cost of the repair.

I think this is a case of some people being ignorant of their responsibilities as owners and failing to properly maintain their cars.

On the contrary, if there are too many irresponsible owners then Tesla is ruined if they DON'T cover it. Imagine what "too many Tesla bricked cars" would do to their product image.

Look, this is very simple. Warranty systems are underwritten like insurance policies. It's little risk to Tesla -- the question is the underwriter's risk assessment. If the underwriter won't cover it on affordable terms, it suggests the risk is too high and the product is poorly designed. At that point, the path of failure is chosen (expensive underwriting policy vs expensive PR debacle) is irrelevant. The only issue is whether the risk assessment is accurate -- it becomes a gamble.

You're absolutely right. Nonetheless, it's Tesla's problem. Why? Because electric cars are new. After 100 years of internal combustion, there's a common understanding that cars need their oil replaced if it all leaks out. No one would gain any traction with a story about ruining their engine by running it with no oil. But a story about a driver who left his car at the airport for a month and bricked it will gain traction, and will cost Tesla money by spreading FUD in the market. More money than simply covering that case in its warranty, which I predict is exactly where they're going to end up if this story gets picked up by the mainstream media. They're just taking the long way around to get there.

If, after you ran out of gas, you didn't fill your gas tank for weeks and ignored the car's insistent complaints that it should be filled with gas, then you would have a point. But I doubt you've ever done that.

Everyone seems to think that Tesla owners are housebound in these threads.

To fix this problem you need your car in a garage, a replacement pack of 6000 high-tech niche market batteries shipped from wherever they are made, mechanics skilled on a niche sportscar, and responsible disposal of of the old battery pack.

To 'fix' your problem, you need to pour easily available cheap liquid into an empty container. There's no comparison and it's not a Tesla design flaw, it's a battery technology limitation which applies to other li-ion cars, laptops, etc. too, if left long enough to drain past the controller reporting 'empty'.

If you buy and wear a $20k watch, and you irresponsibly destroy it or lose it, it'll probably cost you $20k to replace it. And the obvious lesson for people considering buying $20k watches is you shouldn't buy one if you couldn't afford to lose it or pay to replace it. "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it."

If we were talking about a regular gas car - many families have cars worth $60k and we'd still be asking serious questions if, by inaction, we ended up with a $24k repair bill.

R < B and R (is proportional to) B

The pattern being that sometimes things which are expensive to buy are also expensive to repair. In a gas-powered car, the engine+transmission is probably the most expensive component to brick and replace. In an electric car, it seems to be the battery system.

Neglected maintenance on a $500k house can easily create situations requiring $100k in repairs or liability.

Even if you didn't change the engine and transmission oil for 18 months that wouldn't happen. I bet it wouldn't happen if you didn't change it for 24 months.

Compare and contrast with not plugging in a car for < 4 weeks.

Which the author of the original article discussed, along with Tesla's obfuscations and downplayng of the issue.

Instead manufacturer could make it very clear in on webpages, in owner manuals, PR materials etc. the importance of keeping batteries charged. Make it common knowledge. Then they would be morally right to treat bricked batteries same as running with no oil or with flat tires.

I am sure you have heard of prorated battery warranties and are familiar with them, aren't you? Granted that, why would you make such an intentionally misleading post suggesting that warranties are prone to abuse when this is a solved problem?

It wouldn't really be free; the car would be out of service for some time. And Tesla could charge some kind of nominal-but-not-insignificant service fee. I doubt that the bricking rate would be sensitive to the actual dollar cost: as Tesla points out, it isn't that easy to do. Just being careless isn't sufficient, there would have to be other circumstances like a long trip away from the car where the cost of repair wouldn't have any impact.

I'm not. I've never heard of any such thing. Perhaps it is you being misleading?

There are definitely car owners who have never dealt with battery warranties.

http://s.shld.net/is/image/Sears/02833023000-2

Sears has a nationwide network of car maintenance shops called Sears Auto Center that has been quite popular for tire, battery, and alignment work for decades.

http://www.sears.com/automotive-services/c-1023947

Information about its warranty are printed in large letters on the side. It would be quite difficult to purchase this battery without understanding it has a warranty. This is not atypical. It is extremely common for batteries to have such information printed legibly on the side. Furthermore, car batteries typically have a punch out on the top designating the month and year of purchase. These are punched out at time of purchase and enable the warranty can be honored even in the event of losing one's receipt.

Battery displays in stores nearly always contain comparative information about the warranty periods, with premium batteries highlighted for having longer warranty periods.

I find it astonishing that people can buy batteries and never notice any of this, and some of these people are here claiming that owners whose Teslas become bricked are at fault because the manual obliquely suggests in an obscure section that bricking is possible, a possibility that is at the same time denied by the same group.

My BMW, for example, has its battery in a very obscure location (behind the seats) and there are mere terminals in the hood for jumping.

If you don't want to be challenged on your assertions, you should probably find somewhere other than HN to make them. It's kind of what we do here.

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?

I assume this is because of the nature of Li-ion batteries. Even if you aren't pulling any current from the battery, they will still discharge over time, and eventually go through a chemical process rendering them unusable and/or dangerous. Having a "long-term storage" mode for the vehicle would only serve to make it more likely to happen by lulling owners into a false sense of security. Better to simply reinforce the need to constantly keep the vehicle in a charged-or-charging state.

I've had a lot of experience with rechargeable batteries over the years in doing robotics, and a variety of chemical makeups. My experience is that the "self discharge" function is the result of the anions managing to convert by one means or another not related to electron injection at the anode. The mechanisms that enable this are things like electron tunneling which are probablistic, such that the discharge curve is asymptotic toward zero charge while never achieving it. That sort of discharge does not lead to the development of dendrites in the battery which would create shorts or other hazards to recharging.

My understanding is that because the Tesla has a constant drain on the battery it can drive the battery to zero.

It would be interesting to know the answer to the question can you just disconnect the battery for storage. Not willing to invest $100,000 to find out :-)

According to the GPBatteries guys LiON have no self discharge if they aren't being drawn down by a monitoring circuit. But they also mention that embedded safety circuits can run the batteries down a bit until those circuits stop working because there is insufficient charge in the battery to run them, and then the battery can't be charged (aka its a brick).

Of course you could charge it if you could get around the safety chip in that case it would just require a bit of cleverness.

Again my experience with LiON cells is that once they get to about 3V if you don't put a load on them they don't discharge any further on their own. That would seem to be supported by the chemical energy needed to absorb the anions but I am not a chemist, just an aging EE. Thanks for the links.

http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithium_failures.htm

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.

There's a lot of variables at play here. The fact that the battery is so expensive vs. what a consumer has become accustomed to paying for vehicle maintenance on a traditional gasoline car. The tech is new. The way the vehicles operate is fundamentally different, and require different attention to different things. But it's all noise convoluting the argument.

The root: if you neglect your vehicle -- any vehicle -- you are in store for an expensive repair bill. It could be a $2,000 transmission. It could be a $10,000 engine replacement. Or it could be a $40,000 electric car battery. Because of all the aforementioned variables, the largest of which being the cost associated, there has been a massive amount of FUD surrounding bricking your Tesla. This response from the company is attempting to bring things back down to earth. If you plug in your car, you won't brick your car.

Which should really be common sense for anything at this point. Regardless of cost, if you take care of your possessions, they will last longer.

It might be the tires (check your owner's manual!), it might be the AC (again, manual - it should be turned on from time to time), you might now notice a strange smoke due to new oil leaks inside the combustion chamber, it might make horrible noises for a couple of seconds (because the oil drained to the bottom of the engine), etc, etc.

Hell, last extended trip we went on, we had someone to start the engines (and the damn AC) for a few minutes at least every week. It is just good practice.

If indeed the battery management system on a Tesla is able to keep the batteries alive for months at 0% reported charge, then it is a non-issue. Noone is going to leave such a car unattended for months, really. Specially if it is a Roadster.

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.

PS: Gas can noticeably degrade in as little as one month depending on ambient conditions. But, condensation is the largest risk for mid term storage. After 1 year you will probably have trouble starting the engine even after replacing the battery. And 3-7 years your probably looking at major repair work.

The point is simply that Tesla should give more warning and attention to the very high cost of repair when you forget to plug the vehicle in or leave it unattended for long periods of time.

Second most cars don't cost 40k, but if your talking about a say a bugatti veyron it's not that hard to do 40k of damage. If you want to compare it to the cost of the car then for an older car having a few thousand dollar repair bill can easily cost more than the car is worth.

I mean, yes. You can "destroy" your car by not charging it. You can also destroy it by accidentally running it into a brick wall. No PR spin will change that either. That the repair would be very expensive is a moot point - this is a maintenance responsibility to you as the owner. As long as you are aware that this is an issue - just plug it in. It's not like you can forget by accident when you're aware that letting it completely deplete over a couple of months will cause an incredibly expensive repair job.

So where is the problem?

Is this Tesla's fault? Not entirely. But let's be honest, a small warning in the middle of the owners manual is not good enough.

I'm sure they feel it would be stupid to advertise something that to the general public looks like a defect with the technology. But I think it would have been better for them in the long-run if they were more informative. Now they are doing damage control, and a number of people have probably been turned off due to this whole saga.

tl;dr This information needs to be common knowledge amongst owners, Tesla could have avoided this if they handled it upfront instead of waiting for it to leak out on a blog.

They definitely inform the owner that completely depleting the battery will damage it. Why does everyone seem to think they don't?

The newer Roadsters even come with a system to notify Tesla if the batteries are too low. What else could they do to educate the owners? Make them take a weekend class?

You can destroy a Tesla by running it into a brick wall too. Yet there is no warning in the manual for that. Probably because it's not a risk unique to Teslas. Leaving your car at the airport for two weeks and coming back to find it suddenly worth $40K less than when you left it is more-so unique.

Tesla seems to be somewhat downplaying the high costs involved in forgetting to plug it in or leaving it too long.

It's not reasonable to assume that ordinary people know the inherent risks in lithium ion batteries. As such, the massive risk should have extreme emphasis in the instruction manuals, be explained in detail by the sales people, exist as clear warnings in the car, and so on.

If I leave my house long enough, the roof will decay and I'll get massive water damage. Halfway-intelligent homeowners know they need to get their roof done once in a while. Bike owners know that if they leave their bike in the rain, it will rust.

Many of the trappings of modern day life require active measures to ensure they work properly, and this is no different.

Actually no, the common wisdom is that you should expect your users to be idiots when developing a product.

It's different because people are familiar with all the things you mention: roofs and rain, bikes and rust. People aren't familiar with electric automobiles. Once someone buys them, sure, they'll become familiar and the vast majority won't brick them. Tesla's problem isn't the owners, it's the people thinking about becoming owners. And those people (if they've heard the story) are now fearful of bricking their cars, where they're not at all afraid of bricking the Mercedes they were considering as an alternative to the Tesla. Now they're thinking, maybe I'll wait another few years on this electric car thing. That's Tesla's problem right now. Not bricked cars, but the fear of bricked cars. And that's why they should cover this under warranty.

If that happens in the space of 1-2 months of no maintenance, you have a very, very, very shoddy house.

I routinely drive mine until it runs out of gas (don't ask) and I haven't had any adverse problems.

There were some natural gas kits sold that would not disable the fuel pump when you switched to gas. Some owners, when running out of gasoline, would switch to the gas. The fuel pump would keep running dry and melt. Something like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_WafeVL7IZss/S5VP0fVNvuI/AAAAAAAAJP...

Tesla is saying that even if you drain your battery driving, it would still take 30 days of failing to charge it to brick it. While the infrastructure for just "filling up real quick" may not exist for electric cars, the infrastructure certainly exists at a person's home, otherwise, they wouldn't buy an electric car.

I think there would be a much more compelling case for this if electric cars were being mass-adopted, and the education for maintaining them was poor. Neither is the case here. Electric cars are still largely in the early adopters phase, and Tesla is telling people to not leave their car unplugged for months on end.

Much ado about nothing.

I'm sure in the early days of gas-powered vehicles, plenty of engines seized up because people were unaware they had to change the oil and keep it at a certain level. And it certainly still happens on occasion.

See my other post in this submission: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3630466

Assumine new vehicles, doing nothing to a Tesla for ~30 days means $40k. Changing your oil 6 month later than the service schedule in most cases means inmeasurable (by owner) reduction in overall engine lifetime.

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.

And even so, Tesla (and others like Nissan) has made available a warning system just in case, and all the blogger managed to do was to point out the privacy concerns with this solution.

Comprising all Tesla owners. It's in the Owner's Manual, and I would be very surprised if new owners aren't informed of it when they purchase the car.

[1] The other: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3631295

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.

Plus, it means the company gets to have a personal connection to all of their users, and when you're talking about a $100k buy-in, that might be the sort of attention a lot of these owners are expecting.

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.

Anyway, here`s the link: http://www.picamatic.com/view/8244745_economist-invoice/

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.