“It’s A Brick” – Tesla Motors’ Devastating Design Problem
Tesla Motors’ lineup of all-electric vehicles — its existing Roadster, almost certainly its impending Model S, and possibly its future Model X — apparently suffer from a severe limitation that can largely destroy the value of the vehicle. If the battery is ever totally discharged, the owner is left with what Tesla describes as a “brick”: a completely immobile vehicle that cannot be started or even pushed down the street. The only known remedy is for the owner to pay Tesla approximately $40,000 to replace the entire battery. Unlike practically every other modern car problem, neither Tesla’s warranty nor typical car insurance policies provide any protection from this major financial loss.
<snip>
Unfortunately for current and future Tesla owners who encounter this problem, it’s also not covered by normal automobile insurance policies. This makes the situation almost unique in modern car-ownership: a $40,000 or more exposure that cannot be insured. After all, car insurance is designed to protect owners and drivers even when they are neglectful or at fault. The affected customers probably would have been in a better financial situation if they’d accidentally rolled their Teslas off a cliff, as insurance would generally cover much of those costs.
<snip>
Tesla Motors is a public company that’s valued at over $3.5 billion and has received $465 million in US government loans, all on the back of the promise that it can deliver a real world, all-electric car to the mainstream market. Yet today, in my opinion, Tesla seems to be knowingly selling cars that can turn into bricks without any financial protection for the customer.
Until there’s a fundamental change in Tesla’s technology, it would seem the only other option for Tesla is to help its customers insure against this problem. As consumers become aware that a Tesla is possibly just a long trip, a bad extension cord, or an accidental unplugging away from disaster, how many will choose to gamble $40,000 on that not happening? Would you?
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
Yet the clueless greenies keep pushing this still-born thechnology upon us all.
IDIOTS!
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
For the over-inflated price, one one think that those over-priced designers at Tesla (in the silicon valley, no less) could design some type of fail-safe circuitry in the event of such an occurance.
I forsee the IC engine being around for several decades more.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
Jarlaxle wrote:Expected, actually...NEVER, NEVER, NEVER completely discharge deep-cycle batteries! It's on the same level as running an engine with no oil.
I must say, though: I am surprised the car's electronics will LET the batteries completely discharge.
It's unlikely it would Jarl. The motor should cut out when the voltage dropped to a set level.
I suspect that the warning is for those who might manually discharge the rest of the battery thinking that they would get a better charge from scratch...
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
For the moment full electric is too limited (in range, infrastucture, and carge time) to be a viable alterative on it's own. But I do suspect Hybrids are going to become more and more prevalent in the coming decade.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
I drove a hybrid for the first time the other day, we had it as a one way hire from Sydney airport back to Canberra. No different to drive than a standard car, but fucking incredible mileage!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Tesla’s latest libel lawsuit dismissed by the London High Court.
North American electric-car maker Tesla has once again left a London High Court battle with Top Gear and Jeremy Clarkson with its power cord between its legs.
The same judge who ruled on the original case last October has again deemed the British TV show did nothing libellous or maliciously false in its 2008 review of the electric sports car, which depicted it had run out of power when it had not.
The judge dismissed an amended lawsuit from Tesla, finding that the Top Gear segment was “not capable of being defamatory at all, or, if it is, it is not capable of being a sufficiently serious defamatory meaning to constitute a real and substantial tort.”
Advertisement: Story continues below
In the original story which first aired in 2008, host Jeremy Clarkson said the roadster would run out of battery power after 55 miles (88km) if driven fast around its race track – about a quarter of the distance Tesla claims it can achieve in ideal conditions.
Clarkson's commentary said: “This car was really shaping up to be something wonderful but then … (with the sound of a dying motor in the background and music slowing down to a stop) … although Tesla say it will do 200 miles we have worked out that on our track it will run out after just 55 miles and if it does run out it is not a quick job to charge it up again.”
Tesla tried to sue Top Gear because although the footage showed the vehicle being pushed, it had power during the filming.
At the time Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla, said the show was “completely phoney” because it had staged the event.
Musk told The Detroit News: “The fundamental thing with Top Gear is that the show was about as authentic as a Milli Vanilli concert, but the problem is most viewers don’t know that.
“For European investors, every single one, except one, specifically asked us why our car broke down on Top Gear. It was f---ed up.”
However, in his most recent ruling the judge said: “As any reasonable motorist knows, a manufacturer's statement about the range of a motor vehicle is always qualified by a statement as to the driving conditions under which that range may be expected.
“For example, one range may be given for urban driving, and another for other conditions. But such statements are rarely, if ever, given to the public by reference to racing on a test track.
“This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road […] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road.”
In a statement following the ruling, the BBC said: “We are pleased Mr Justice Tugendhat has ruled in favour of the BBC on both the issues before the court, first in striking out Tesla's libel claim against the BBC; and secondly in describing Tesla's malicious falsehood claim as so 'gravely deficient' it too could not be allowed to proceed.”
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
