[mellifluousmind]

One key issue that Tesla PR accidentally omits is whether owners are still responsible for 40K replacement if battery does indeed fail.

40K replacement basically tells user that go get a gas-powered car. If a fuel-injected engine fails, would it still cost just as much to replace? How about a BMW? or Mercedes? or Lexus?

[cnyc]

Exactly. The first article didn't attack the fact that the "bricking" occurs nearly as much as it attached the cost of replacement.

[ceejayoz]

I doubt that was accidental.

[Geee]

Of course you have to pay if you are stupid. Same thing if you destroy your gas-powered car on purpose using some other method. It is not a 'fail', which implies a manufacturing error or similar.

[shock-value]

Except in this case you wouldn't be destroying the battery "on purpose" obviously, but rather through neglect or ignorance. It's a fail in the sense that this technology has been exposed to be clearly unready for wide-scale adoption, and the company in question has barely even acknowledged the issue, let alone outlined steps it is taking to fix it or improve the design.

[tfb]

You can neglect and ignore maintenance of gas-powered engines too. Stop getting oil changes and never check/refill it and see what happens to your engine.

It will eventually be "bricked".

Just like gas-powered vehicles need to be maintained, so do electric ones. EVs actually happen to require less maintenance. Simpler too. I would say that the EV equivalent of oil changes is to keep it charged above some minimum.

[jaggs]

Err...it will take a very long time for a conventional gas engine to get 'bricked' as you put it. And the cost to repair will not be $40K. This line of argument from the apologists it a little weak methinks.

[mellifluousmind]

The point is that the cost of repair an EV seems way more than a fuel-injected vehicle. It has nothing to do with stupidity