Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnicholas | Hacker News Reader

How can a potential buyer verify that a used Tesla they are considering purchasing is not subject to some sort of pullback like this?

I feel like there's an information asymmetry between the used car buyer (who has likely never owned a Tesla before, and certainly doesn't know the history of the vehicle he's considering purchasing), the seller (who may specifically be aware that the car appears to have functionality that could be revoked at a later date), and Tesla (who have records of what has been paid for).

What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?

View on HN

>What are the right questions for a buyer to ask in order to ensure they're not left in this unfortunate position?

Just a few spit balls for you:

Do you have another used car for sale that is not a Tesla?

Does this Tesla have any features currently enabled that might be disabled when someone realizes I'm no longer the original owner or the current owner realizes their credit card is still paying for services they no longer use, etc?

In what ways will Tesla fuck me after purchasing this car?

You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker. Your remedies are always legal or regulatory in nature, and you can’t rely on brand alone to ensure a satisfactory ownership experience.

I've never had a legacy car that could over-the-air disable things. Maybe OnStar or similar could do something, but not like the level that Tesla took things.

You're "remedies are always legal" is a bit flat. Tell to the parent that is in a rush to take their 2.34 kids to school before heading to work that they need to contact a lawyer before starting their day. And when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time? So now you're without a car until lawyers "fix" things.

I agree we need better laws around right to repair and what “ownership” means when software and telematics are involved.

> when is the last time a call to a lawyer fixed anything within any kind of quick turn time?

This May when my landlord was taking a piss with his obligations.

A single letter set him staight real fast.

> You could just as easily get screwed by GM, Ford, or any other legacy automaker

That is purely hypothetical, however -- as far as I know, this kind of stunt has only become a thing since Tesla started doing it. Chevy wants to reduce the capacity of my wife's Bolt by 20%, but they are asking for her permission to do that, not just sending an OTA update to do it against her wishes.

When I look at what car to buy, I am not going to care so much about regulations or legal ramifications, I'm going to look primarily at how likely it is that I will have to resort to those remedies in the future because the manufacturer likes to modify already-sold vehicles after the fact without even asking.

Stunts like this are why we are looking at a Mach-E to replace my wife's Bolt, not a Model Y.

I'm not in line for a Tesla either, and the Mach-E does look nice. Their latent flaw is that they shed range much more than other EVs in cold weather: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/winter-ev-range-loss

Curiosity is too strong. For what reason does Chevy want you to volunteer to lower your capacity?

They blow up otherwise. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/19/gm-tells-bolt-owners-to...

its part of a massive recall on the bolt. They completely halted production for months and months and are now going to recall and replace the battery of every bolt on the road. Before the replacements go in they want owners to agree to have their capacity cut as an extra precaution.

So is it better to do this, or do an Apple and just have the software silently start handling things for you in order to protect your battery therefore protecting you? I don't mean that in a rhetorical way either. Things happen in the real world that means products sometimes misbehave outside of the expected. To me, the ultimate thing would be for the company to revalue the item based on the new limited capabilities and refund the difference as well as making it safe. Should they be expected to buy back entirely for something losing 30% of capabilities?

Better isn’t the question I would say. It’s “what remedy is fair to owners, within regulatory and legal requirements, and performed with full disclosure?”

If an owner wants a buyback, the automaker buys it back. If the owner wants to keep the vehicle with whatever changes need to be made to make the vehicle safe, they keep the car and a check is cut to make them whole for the diminished value of the vehicle.

> So is it better to do this, or do an Apple and just have the software silently start handling things for you in order to protect your battery therefore protecting you?

I always thought Apple should have offered free battery replacements, ideally ones that had been re-engineered to better maintain voltage, so I think Chevy's approach is good here given the predicament.

Having to accept a very small risk of fire or lose range temporarily is really unfortunate, but all 2017-2019 owners are getting a 6kWh (20ish mile) upgrade in addition to everyone getting a brand new battery with a fresh battery warranty. Options for buy back or partial refund would be good to present as options but idk how many people would take it in this car market and/or with the option to get a brand new battery.

In the US that would be the Monroney Sticker that every new car comes with. Instead of throwing it out, sounds like most new car buyers should keep it as a fundamental record of ownership now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroney_sticker

I don't understand people who throw away monroney stickers. They fit perfectly in the back of every owners manual pouch.

What about addons that were purchased later, like FSD or BMW's heated seats? Does a simple receipt do the trick? It feels like we need some way to know that a record was (and still is) valid.

Hmm, the Carfax report for the car should show it as what it is originally, right? All features that are not in that should then be considered absent.

But that's not a complete list. FSD, etc. won't transfer either. You're right. This would be a useful page on some Tesla owners' wiki.

It's bigger than just Tesla. Someone should make a site with a checklist for the type of car you're buying, so you know what to ask about. And then have a contract that the seller signs indicating what he paid for and if it will transfer. Think BMW heated seats, for example.

>Should I be buying a car from a company that thinks I'm leasing a car?

Seems like the most obvious first question.

Tesla wants you to buy a new one

Why would I buy a new one if no one will want to buy it from me in 5 years? Sounds like Tesla wants me to buy a new Ford.

Tesla's not the only one who pulls shenanigans like this. BMW was charging annually for CarPlay for a while, and now they're testing the same for heated seats. If this trend continues, people will actually want a checklist of things to ask about, and perhaps a contract that says what features were paid for, how, and whether there are any transfer fees so the new owner can use them. Sad state of affairs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com