He said that they required an NDA, so he can't.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
My request that the Arizona Attorney General's office investigate Tesla's changes to Ludicrous Mode
- Thread starter azdryheat
- Start date
He said that they required an NDA, so he can't.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yep. Par for the course for Tesla. This is obviously a special case resolution. @Walta has a pretty unique case in that he started with a v1 battery that had range problems and was replaced by a v3 (after a pretty long ordeal). So the things he had been through (and thus the solution Tesla is willing to offer him) can't be generally applied to others.
This claim had absolutely nothing to do with his earlier battery capacity problems. His claim, which was accepted by the CDSP, was about how Tesla had made it more difficult to access a feature he had paid for. This is not unique to him. Every person who purchased a P90DL v3 has suffered similar restrictions. The NDAs are so that others don't see what kind of concession were made, so that they can continue to push back on future customer claims. Each of us has to start over from scratch rather learning from other people's experiences.
Last edited:
This whole NDA business reminds me of something someone once said that seems quite pertinent
That was about discounts but I believe it goes beyond that and holds true for all business decisions.
That was about discounts but I believe it goes beyond that and holds true for all business decisions.
jerjozwik
Active Member
lol, my "loaner" pack is insane then... max kw ever seen now is just around 431. granted thats without waiting the 45 min to heat the battery.
Walta
Member
For most of us - I would guess the typical day would consist of using the car with the battery at 90 percent. Then driving without waiting for MBR , or using launch mode?
That is how I drive my car - except when testing power levels. So for me that is my typical use case. Which is the most pertinent power level to indicate the daily performance I can expect when lining up against a predator,
I still need to run a test with 90 SOC and no MB or launch mode with insane, to compare against what I used to get with ludicrous in that same setup ( which was around 466 kw ). That would be the most telling example of the impact of removing ludicrous mode on your daily use of the performance.
I will get that test done soon.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I should have made it more clear. I know the recent claim was about the ludicrous mode, but Tesla offered this solution to @Walta given his previous history with the company with the battery issues. I doubt Tesla would be willing to offer the same to any random ludicrous owner.
How do you know this? Tesla did nothing for Walta in either case before he filed a lemon law case against them. I don't think they gave any consideration to his previous woes, in a sudden fit of compassion. They settled this case on the merits of the ludicrous claim alone, under duress.
Walta
Member
The way Tesla dealt with me on my ludicrous mode complaint - was completely independent of the prior battery issue. Since we never went to arbitration - the complaint I filed to CDSP was sufficient in Tesla's thinking to want to settle.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Walta
Member
I did a test this morning.. with the car in the most common mode I typically drive it in.
P90D Insane - No MB or launch mode.
At 80 SOC 419 kw 0-60 3.0 seconds.
I was really surprised to see the 3.0 on the display - the only thing I noticed was the car did hook up really well to the road that run.
P90D Insane - No MB or launch mode.
At 80 SOC 419 kw 0-60 3.0 seconds.
I was really surprised to see the 3.0 on the display - the only thing I noticed was the car did hook up really well to the road that run.
St Charles
Tesla, not TSLA!
That is terrifying. I am assuming that you tested at 100% SoC? This alone makes me want to never upgrade past 7.1.
Yes it should since many owners are affected by this, but Tesla wants to fight each person instead of doing the right thing. Tesla insists on a NDA or I would have settled long ago.
Walta
Member
I hope things work out for you... can you share any status on your request for investigation?
Talked to the AZ AG office last week. Tesla has not responded to any requests for information. I have asked them if they planned on letting Tesla walk on this and they said they were meeting to see what the next move is. I will probably call them again next week.
Tesla finally responded to the AZ AG. They are sending a written response and have until July 7th to submit to the AG. AZ AG said they would be sending me a letter after hearing from Tesla to let me know what the next step(s) are.
zanary
Active Member
Here is the update.
When the AZ AG told me that Tesla was not responding to their letters and calls, I waited about 10 days and then filed a small claims court suit.
This got Tesla to call me and they asked what I wanted. I told them if they restored everyone's car, I would drop all the complaints and they didn't need to pay me anything. I also told them that if they were not willing to do that, I would not want to sign a NDA for any settlement since all owners needed to be corrected for this error.
Then on the last day for the AZ AG, Tesla filed the letter attached.
Some of it is correct, and some is incorrect.
Because of the small claims complaint, the AZ AG is putting this on hold and they told me that whatever the outcome they will probably not re-open it because it would be settled in that court. When I told them that other AZ residents were affected, he said they would have to file to get this started again. Any AZ residents interested in filing?
Tesla had a deadline of 7-10-17 to respond to the small claims court. I am certain they have responded and am waiting to be contacted by the court.
Incomplete: There was also the expectation of "always on" behavior -- like every other Tesla vehicle and firmware version to date -- not "magic incantation for parlor trick usage only".
Nitpick: I've never met anyone that uses "several" as a fuzzy replacement for "2-3". When use several, it means 6-8.
I find this defense troubling. Nothing about a countdown was publicly discussed or demonstrated before or after Ludicrous vehicles were offered and delivered to customers until after Launch Mode was later introduced. If I introduce "OMG this is gonna be awesome" speech and music as an easter egg into the firmware that no customer ever sees, I can then make an argument that customers should have some expectation that experience of the product might have countdowns of this type in the future? This would set a pretty horrid precedent if the court accepts this. "Please wait 7 hours while Windows loads (because we did it as an April fools joke in beta firmware last week)."
Tesla, you can do better.
Similar threads
- Article