At least with the 2008 manual I looked through, the warning (which doesn't seem to be as detailed as the more recent one) appears in section 5-2 of the manual. Well past all the dire warnings about using seat belts and how the car may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer. I wouldn't conclude--based solely on this evidence--that everyone would be fully aware of the seriousness of letting the car discharge fully.

Of course, Tesla may emphasize the point in other ways.

That's the general problem with the omnipresent safety warnings you get with products. The important and possibly non-obvious get drowned out by the all the boilerplate silliness.

You really can't fault Tesla for putting the battery warnings after the legally required warnings. They most likely have no choice. Now, if the battery warnings aren't immediately after the legally mandated warnings, that is Tesla's fault, but you have to keep in mind that it is totally reasonable to expect a first-time EV owner to read the section on charging.

They're not: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24701291/Tesla-Owners-Manual

I don't really disagree with you though.

"The consequences of failing to maintain the battery are clearly stated by Tesla Motors in the owner's manual."

For sure they are well documented in the owners manual.

However, the idea of getting a $40,000 repair bill for a car is going to turn many buyers off. Tesla should cover it for the sake of their business. If Tesla was paying for these repairs I guarantee you they'd figure out a way to prevent the failure.

Yes, if these kinds of failures are truly rare it won't cost Tesla much to cover them. Then they can reduce the loss rate further both by improving technology and emphasizing to their salespeople to ensure that the buyer knows to never let the battery discharge. The prospect of having their car out of commission for the replacement, and maybe a token service fee, should be enough disincentive to keep owners from being cavalier about charging.

You are absolutely right, and Tesla has no liability for these batteries.

That does not change the fact that the thing -- and especially its' handling -- is an absolute PR disaster that WILL greatly (likely fatally) hurt any wider adoption. If Tesla thinks that saving 5x40 = 200k is worth it, they are free to do whatever they feel like.

You can put whatever you'd like into the warning. The fact of the matter is that this is a car. When a car runs out of gas, it's not forever bricked. People will, due to a hundred years of experience, expect the same from a new car that has a different power source.

They can fix this. They have the technology.

What kind of technology is going to keep a battery magically charged if left alone? Self-discharge is a built-in phenomenon of these batteries. The fix they have is that the car can "phone home", and that's what Tesla and other car manufacturers are doing.

I know two people who have bricked their gas-powered cars by going too long between oil changes. This isn't a novel problem for complex machines. You need to maintain them if you'd like to continue using them.

No, but if it runs out of oil, and especially if you let it sit for a while, your engine can make a very good mimicry of a steel brick, and that's one of the more expensive pieces of your car to replace. Probably more than 4/10ths of the cost of the car, in many situations.

We haven't fixed this. Have we the technology?

The only reason that we don't need to read a manual for normal cars is that we have grown up knowing that they need basic maintenance, and what that maintenance is.

Imagine the flip side, that electric cars were normal, and internal combustion engines were unusual. Then we could have stories about owners ruining their engines because they never changed their oil.

And plugging in the damned car is part of the daily routine of owning an EV. You're only making his point for him.

First of all, the warnings in the manual are anything but vague.

Second, again you're proving the point. If EVs were the norm and suddenly internal combustion engines burst onto the scene, people would be breaking those because they're not used to what you can or can't do.

That may be true, but it's orthogonal to the point I was responding to, which was "You shouldn't need to read a manual to drive a car." The only reason that statement holds with gas-based cars is that the things one needs to do to take care of them is common knowledge. New technologies have new quirks, and those who adopt them will have to read the manual. Eventually, when the technology becomes common, how to take care of them will become common knowledge, and then no one will read the manuals.

You're making a point about what is best for Tesla from a marketing perspective.

Which is a fine position to have, but a non-sequitur in this discussion.

> You shouldn't need to read a manual to drive a car

I thought it would be clear enough that this is not "your average car".

Everyone buying electric car would automatically know the difference. If I would buy it, first thing I would ask myself is: OK this is $50,000 piece of machinery [a car] and there is new key element here: there is no gas injection, rather electronic plug. here come the question: "how do I maintenance the battery/vehicle not to fuck this up".

Simple.

How is neglect of the car owner (assuming the rumors of these owners cars "bricking") the car manufacturers fault? If I buy an electric car I expect to plug it in regularly.

I'll make an assumption here; most people expect to have to plug in an electric car on a regular basis. The expectation is to plug in the car regularly.

They did something outrageously stupid. No conventional car should be left sitting for months at a time without appropriate preparatory steps, and neither should an EV unless it's connected to power.

The EV actually has a distinct advantage here -- all you really have to do is plug in a power cord. A conventional car has several much more involved steps to be taken.