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.
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.<p>> Tesla batteries can remain unplugged for weeks (or even months), without reaching zero state of charge.<p>Maybe I'm trying to find a conspiracy here, but the batteries generally <i>aren't</i> 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.
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.<p>"The Tesla Bricking Story? It's Overblown"... okay, yeah... but "Nonsense"? Prove it.