Poster Yggdrassill, posted:
My expectation is the poster based his statement on the ruling:
Some translation would be helpful.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter
- Thread starter kseitzberg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Poster Yggdrassill, posted:
My expectation is the poster based his statement on the ruling:
Some translation would be helpful.
Is this the "conclusion" of Tesla's argument or position?
I ask because this is written on Tesla letterhead.
https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf
7 Conclusion Tesla has specified engine power, acceleration measurements and upgrades for P85D edition of Model S. The published performance data and performance is independently been proven and verified, which means that the petitioners have received both an acceleration of 0-100 km / h and the performance they paid for. Plaintiff's claim is thus unfounded ogbør awise.
With best regards
Gystad Area Manager Norway
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
As I noted to Canuck, that is not the ruling. That is Tesla's letter to the Council. Basically it is Tesla's argument. So far there have been no link posted to the Council's actual decision.
I agree.
This appears to be Tesla's argument, and step 2 and possibly even step 3 will have to come about.
It would appear though that Tesla is not going to take this matter lying down and is prepared to fight.
This stance indicates to me at least, that Tesla could be somewhat aggressive when it comes to doing what they can to help those customers "move on", whom they feel they may need to part ways with, as in their following statement.
"In the rare case when a customer finds their Model S isn’t for them, we’ll do what we can to help them move on.”
Read more: Watchdog: Owner bemused by Tesla’s power shortfall | Carbuyer http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/1513...used-by-tesla-s-power-shortfall#ixzz3smvzmOj6
They apparently intend to offer some resistance in this matter.
Last edited:
It seems they made cash offers of a significant part of the price difference between the P85D and the 85D already, and some people instead of taking it stomped their feed, held their breath, and demanded 700HP be delivered. That would have been a real bargain in Norway, or anywhere really...
On a closer look, posted document looks like 7 page document, which could be Tesla's defence.
It is 5am in Norway now. Hopefully someone will provide a link to the ruling soon.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm not convinced there is a step 2 or 3 yet. So far only two Norwegians have posted about it, their conclusions are completely different. One says the Council itself has ruled in favor of Tesla. The other said only the mediation phase is done and there is a next phase where the Council will gather more evidence and that phase has not come yet. No offense to either, but I would rather see the actual text of the decision given the two interpretations are completely different.
- - - Updated - - -
Looking more closely at the translation, you are right. Tesla says they made significant cash offers for the difference between P85D and 85D out of goodwill. I'm sure a lot of people in the US would jump at that chance.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the fact that posters who have typically been on the other side of this argument from me have pretty much been the ones pointing out, against their own normal arguing interests, that what we've been seeing is probably not the ruling, but rather Tesla's response.
Thanks stopcrazypp, Canuck, P85DEE, and others.
Thanks stopcrazypp, Canuck, P85DEE, and others.
It is nice of you to point this out.
Hopefully you would be able to adjust your assumption about "their own normal arguing interests" as well. Your *reading* of what they see as "their normal arguing interest" might not match what *they* see as such. It just might be that their "normal arguing interest" is not to defend Tesla as often, sometimes very aggressively, dismissively portrayed by some on your side of the argument, but to express their view and understanding of the situation, as it (situation) presents itself. The fact that they come to a different than the unhappy owners conclusion does not mean that their motivation is to defend Tesla. As was implied in your post, if that would be the case (that their motivation is just to defend Tesla) one would expect that their posts would be interpreting the information about today's events in Norway differently.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I was specifically referring to their arguing interests on this topic. I purposely did not say anything about defending Tesla because I know that the people arguing on the opposite side of this from me do not defend Tesla "no matter what," and implying that they do would be insulting to them. Similarly I defend Tesla on topics when I think they are being unfairly criticized.
There was no implication in my post that because the posters I was commending were typically on the other side of this argument from me that their motivation is simply to defend Tesla. I'm not sure what I wrote that would have caused you to infer that. It was certainly not my intention.
Edit: Rereading my original post, and your response, I think the disconnect is that when I wrote "their own normal arguing interests" implied in the rest of that statement was "on this particular topic." I think you may have taken that part of what I wrote much more broadly, thinking I was saying "their general, pro-Tesla interests." I definitely did not mean that.
Last edited:
Yes, I saw mention of that in the translation as well. From what I was able to gather from reading it, there was a an attempt to get a rebate which would essentially reduce the purchase price of a P85D to an 85D.
Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter - Page 67
" Even complainant, who has owned three Tesla, acknowledges Van high standard of customer service. To preserve a good relationship with our customers, we have been in direct contact with many of those who have complained, and we have offered goodwill payments even though there is no legal grururlag for or obligation ã give concessions. We have done this because we are primarily dedicated to satisfy customers ir¡ren reasonable limits. Complaints have continued, however, to require a completely unjustified rebate would essentially reduce the purchase price of his P85D lil price for a 85D, despite all the significant, real and obvious differences between these variant "ne. ' "
The more I read this, the less I see how anyone involved in it, and Tesla apparently has the names of at least some of the complainants, as they indicate that they have been in direct contact with many of those who have complained, can ever expect to purchase another new Tesla from Tesla, no matter how this ultimately turns out.
Last edited:
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I should have been more explicit in what I said about some members here aggressively and dismissively portraying those on the other side of the argument as Tesla "defenders" - that I certainty did not mean to say that *you* are one of those members. Having said that, however, your assumption that today's posts about Norwegian events by Stopcrazypp, Canuck, P85DEE and others were "against their own normal arguing interests" is based on *your* view of what these interests are. Their *own* view of these interests might be different, i.e. they do not see these posts as going against "their own normal arguing interests" and that is the reason that they are freely discussing what you view is "against of their own arguing interests".
So my reason for posting was to point this out and hopefully prompt some adjustment in what you see as the motivation of those TMC members whose opinions on the whole P85D situation are different from your own. I certainly do not intend to stir another debate here, just was hoping that you can see this.
You mean the "affected customers" would get a refund equal to the price difference between a similarly equipped P85D and 85D?
Have you ever seen any form of legal issues being solved by having each part only write one letter?
By the way Tesla went to big lengths to document the 0-100 km/t without 1-foot rollout time of 3.3s by showing Motortrend and Dragtimes 3.1s with rollout 0-60 mph and links to videos of people screaming in videos as the accelerates. They even had the vbox graph from Dragtimes that shows the time stating when the car is going 3 or 4 mph
I do not know anything about you as a lawyer, but I will bet that you could easily argue that 0-100 km/t in not the same as 0-92 km/t.
Tesla just did the classic thing, they just threw in a lot of unrelated data in the hope some of it will stick. They are going the Clinton way in their defense at this point.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Tesla only offered an amount less than that as a goodwill payment. The complainants are requesting the full difference between a 85D and P85D (no mention of similarly equipped), but Tesla disagreed given there are other differences between the 85D and P85D even ignoring the parts under dispute.
I tend to agree with rns-e's characterization.
Perhaps it's lost in the (poor) translation (that I posted) but I don't see Tesla contributing any internal data (numbers, charts, etc.). I really wish they'd pony up some internal testing data rather than just pointing to external evaluations. Just providing internal testing alone -- even if found to be flawed -- shows they attempted to measure and have nothing to hide about how and what they measured. Not including any of it is... troubling.
Perhaps it's lost in the (poor) translation (that I posted) but I don't see Tesla contributing any internal data (numbers, charts, etc.). I really wish they'd pony up some internal testing data rather than just pointing to external evaluations. Just providing internal testing alone -- even if found to be flawed -- shows they attempted to measure and have nothing to hide about how and what they measured. Not including any of it is... troubling.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I doubt anywhere other than an actual court battle would Tesla have to disclose internal testing data and get engineers involved. We don't actually have a copy of the original complaint, but Tesla's argument seems to be saying the other side has provided little evidence to support their claims.
All the things shown in the Tesla letter so far seem to be readily available from some internet research even by a regular Tesla employee (other than perhaps the type approval document) and that is probably sufficient for the purposes of a response in this case.
Similar threads
