My request that the Arizona Attorney General's office investigate Tesla's changes to Ludicrous Mode

[jeffro01]

No, the rest of us just got tired of talking about it, and dealing with the several pro-tesla trolls.

Tens of thousands of dollars given to Tesla to deliver something based on a bunch of lies, which they didn't deliver anyway, is not "petty"


The hell it does... Stop trolling us.

Pro-Tesla trolls? That's a new one... It's also a ridiculous statement to make but obviously that didn't stop you from making it. Again, the car performs as advertised, this is not disputable. However, for some of you "as advertised" clearly means something else all together... I'm still quite confused here, if the car meets the advertised specifications (which again it does without question) then what is the issue here? That the calculated kWh number isn't high enough? That's the thing I've been trying to figure out from the very start... What exactly is the issue here? I've asked a few times, I get no answer. I call out that the car meets advertised specifications, I get "no it doesn't"... Well gee... That's freaking helpful...

Stop trolling you? Man this world is falling apart quick when the definition of trolling has now expanded to asking for justifications for a claim that X doesn't do Y.

I'm an odd example of this new fangled "pro-Tesla troll" title in that I have plenty of documented issues with Tesla and I haven't purchased a second one and still don't know if I'm going to get another Tesla when my Model S lease runs out...

Jeff

 

[jeffro01]

Wow... that is very poor customer service. Looks from your info that you are in CA? If so, after all this time and no response from Tesla, I would contact CDSP. Unfortunately CDSP has been the only way for me to get Tesla to act on warranty issues.

Yeah take one side and run with it... Go figure...

Jeff

 

[azdryheat]

No, but you are costing Tesla wayyy more than zero dollars for absolutely no justifiable reason at all... NONE. The car performs AS ADVERTISED which is something a few of you simply cannot get through your heads no matter how many times it's repeated to you...

Some people just love litigation for some odd and unexplainable reason... Perhaps Tesla will appreciate this and blacklist you... Some customers aren't worth the effort.

Jeff

The judge found that my car did not perform as advertised. Both Tesla and the judge asked for proof of this. They also both agreed that my car's performance was less after the update. The issue in court was not if my car had less power or not (even though Tesla asked for proof). The issue that I went to court for and wanted an answer to, was can Tesla legally reduce the power of the car at will without any compensation to the owner.

Tesla could have, and should have fixed this a long time ago. I even told them they could have avoided flying two people over yesterday. Tesla decided what money they did or do not want to spend on this, not me.

 

[azdryheat]

Pro-Tesla trolls? That's a new one... It's also a ridiculous statement to make but obviously that didn't stop you from making it. Again, the car performs as advertised, this is not disputable. However, for some of you "as advertised" clearly means something else all together... I'm still quite confused here, if the car meets the advertised specifications (which again it does without question) then what is the issue here? That the calculated kWh number isn't high enough? That's the thing I've been trying to figure out from the very start... What exactly is the issue here? I've asked a few times, I get no answer. I call out that the car meets advertised specifications, I get "no it doesn't"... Well gee... That's freaking helpful...

Stop trolling you? Man this world is falling apart quick when the definition of trolling has now expanded to asking for justifications for a claim that X doesn't do Y.

I'm an odd example of this new fangled "pro-Tesla troll" title in that I have plenty of documented issues with Tesla and I haven't purchased a second one and still don't know if I'm going to get another Tesla when my Model S lease runs out...

Jeff

Would you tell me what specs you think the car should achieve, because I do dispute it? Then maybe I can give you a better answer.

 

[jeffro01]

The judge found that my car did not perform as advertised. Both Tesla and the judge asked for proof of this. They also both agreed that my car's performance was less after the update. The issue in court was not if my car had less power or not (even though Tesla asked for proof). The issue that I went to court for and wanted an answer to, was can Tesla legally reduce the power of the car at will without any compensation to the owner.

Tesla could have, and should have fixed this a long time ago. I even told them they could have avoided flying two people over yesterday. Tesla decided what money they did or do not want to spend on this, not me.

All of this and you still refuse to explain or provide any context as to what you're talking about when you say the car doesn't meet the advertised specifications. The only thing I've gathered in this thread is that the max kWh output of the battery pack isn't where you think it should be...??? If the car is advertised to do 0-60 in X time and it does, which it actually does, then what exactly is your issue?

Would you tell me what specs you think the car should achieve? Then maybe I can give you a better answer.

Nice... So you claim the car doesn't meet some advertised spec and instead of providing me with what advertised spec you claim your car doesn't meet you come to me and ask me to justify your argument for you? You're the one making this claim your car isn't up to snuff so it's on you to prove that, not me...

Jeff

 

[azdryheat]

All of this and you still refuse to explain or provide any context as to what you're talking about when you say the car doesn't meet the advertised specifications. The only thing I've gathered in this thread is that the max kWh output of the battery pack isn't where you think it should be...??? If the car is advertised to do 0-60 in X time and it does, which it actually does, then what exactly is your issue?



Nice... So you claim the car doesn't meet some advertised spec and instead of providing me with what advertised spec you claim your car doesn't meet you come to me and ask me to justify your argument for you? You're the one making this claim your car isn't up to snuff so it's on you to prove that, not me...

Jeff

You are the one that posted that the car absolutely meets specs, not me. If you know this, tell me what they are. Obviously you know very little about this car or what the issue has been.

 

[jeffro01]

You are the one that posted that the car absolutely meets specs, not me. If you know this, tell me what they are. Obviously you know very little about this car or what the issue has been.

Quit deflecting. Answer the question. You made the claim it doesn't. Back it up. Until such time you do I'm going to continue you demand to do so. Trying to call me an idiot won't help your cause or get me to back off one bit. So... I ask for the umpteenth time in this thread, what advertised specification does your car not meet???

A logical person would conclude that your refusal to answer the most simplest of questions indicates you know your answer would undermine your entire argument. If what Tesla has done to you is so egregious that you felt the need to litigate it, surely you should be able to explain in a few sentences what exactly your issue is and how Tesla has sold you a car that doesn't meet the advertised specifications.

Or not...

I'm waiting...

Jeff

 

[azdryheat]

Quit deflecting. Answer the question. You made the claim it doesn't. Back it up. Until such time you do I'm going to continue you demand to do so. Trying to call me an idiot won't help your cause or get me to back off one bit. So... I ask for the umpteenth time in this thread, what advertised specification does your car not meet???

A logical person would conclude that your refusal to answer the most simplest of questions indicates you know your answer would undermine your entire argument. If what Tesla has done to you is so egregious that you felt the need to litigate it, surely you should be able to explain in a few sentences what exactly your issue is and how Tesla has sold you a car that doesn't meet the advertised specifications.

Or not...

I'm waiting...

Jeff

Your logic is illogical.

0-60 2.8 seconds: had recorded 2.8 and 2.9 before mod. now 3.0 to 3.1

1/4 mile 10.9 seconds: car ran 10.991 before ( I explained to the judge that this was an acceptable tolerance). After mod, the car runs 11.09 to 11.2, even with Launch Mode.

Your turn.
Explain to me how it is not disputable that the car performs to advertised specs.

 

[jeffro01]

Your logic is illogical.

0-60 2.8 seconds: had recorded 2.8 and 2.9 before mod. now 3.0 to 3.1

1/4 mile 10.9 seconds: car ran 10.991 before ( I explained to the judge that this was an acceptable tolerance). After mod, the car runs 11.09 to 11.2, even with Launch Mode.

Your turn.
Explain to me how it is not disputable that the car performs to advertised specs.

THANK YOU!!! I mean that honestly. Thank you. I have been quite belligerent in demanding someone, anyone, answer that very simple question of mine as so far as I could tell from reading the thread, those stats aren't anywhere in it. If so, then I would have expected someone to say "look at post #...".

I make no apologies for my posting style or content and that rubs some people the wrong way as I don't back down easily and can be a bit hyper aggressive when I'm trying to prove a point. However, and I keep saying this because I think it's important, I'm not insane enough to keep making a point that turns out to be invalid. In other words, when I'm wrong I'll admit it...

I was wrong. This is, to my knowledge which absolutely could be incorrect, the first time anyones put it that point blank or really provided any real justifications. So again, thank you. I was wrong and I will not continue to push this narrative any further at this point. I'm still not a fan of the litigation angle you took but I'm not you and your not me so how we handle things is naturally going to be different.

Jeff

 

[azdryheat]

THANK YOU!!! I mean that honestly. Thank you. I have been quite belligerent in demanding someone, anyone, answer that very simple question of mine as so far as I could tell from reading the thread, those stats aren't anywhere in it. If so, then I would have expected someone to say "look at post #...".

I make no apologies for my posting style or content and that rubs some people the wrong way as I don't back down easily and can be a bit hyper aggressive when I'm trying to prove a point. However, and I keep saying this because I think it's important, I'm not insane enough to keep making a point that turns out to be invalid. In other words, when I'm wrong I'll admit it...

I was wrong. This is, to my knowledge which absolutely could be incorrect, the first time anyones put it that point blank or really provided any real justifications. So again, thank you. I was wrong and I will not continue to push this narrative any further at this point. I'm still not a fan of the litigation angle you took but I'm not you and your not me so how we handle things is naturally going to be different.

Jeff

Apology accepted.

I told Tesla that the picture uploaded sent me over the edge on this. I don't want any more or less than I paid for. And I hate when someone lies to me.
This update is when they REDUCED the power of the car.

 

[jeffro01]

Apology accepted.

I told Tesla that the picture uploaded sent me over the edge on this. I don't want any more or less than I paid for. And I hate when someone lies to me.
This update is when they REDUCED the power of the car.View attachment 241021

I hear you there... I said in the counters thread that Tesla's behavior in this has all but completely talked me out of ever buying a "P" version of any of their cars again. Granted, I left myself some wiggle room to change my mind but I am not interested in paying a premium for something that can be neutered at any point without me having any say so in the matter...

Jeff

 

[JohnnyG]

0-60 2.8 seconds: had recorded 2.8 and 2.9 before mod. now 3.0 to 3.1

1/4 mile 10.9 seconds: car ran 10.991 before ( I explained to the judge that this was an acceptable tolerance). After mod, the car runs 11.09 to 11.2, even with Launch Mode.

Not to mention us V1 battery guys who were never able to achieve those advertised figures from day 1.

 

[Walta]

Not to mention us V1 battery guys who were never able to achieve those advertised figures from day 1.

Good point.

If I was still a V1 owner.... I would not hesitate to get compensated for the ludicrous fiasco. Trust me - the car in insane mode is a lot of car. The only true ludicrous owners have a V3 battery. And they have the battery fault issue when driving the car aggressively too often. Which I hope is resolved with @azdryheat efforts. The real issue I have with the hole ludicrous mode fiasco is - they sold it to me as a simple selection of ludicrous mode would get me the specified performance. Now it has evolved ( via over the air updates ) to require so much more to get to that specified power . That cannot be an acceptable way for Tesla to operate going forward. It appears @azdryheat has given owners hope that things will be different in the future.

 

[azdryheat]

Not to mention us V1 battery guys who were never able to achieve those advertised figures from day 1.

That's probably a whole new case.

 

[bhzmark]

0-60 2.8 seconds: had recorded 2.8 and 2.9 before mod. now 3.0 to 3.1

1/4 mile 10.9 seconds: car ran 10.991 before ( I explained to the judge that this was an acceptable tolerance). After mod, the car runs 11.09 to 11.2, even with Launch Mode.

Can you please post your own dragstrip timeslips and vbox logs showing all your before and after for the above data for your car? (and not just cherry picked data, but all the data -- and the information about the relevant conditions under which the data was collected and the variability in the data collection efforts. And also the specific advertisements or published claims that you relied on when you purchased your car?

[Don't read this: I predict that you won't answer my question -- instead you will write a lot of words that are not responsive.]

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I find @jeffro01 's latest couple of responses tremendeously helpful in moving the conversation and conclusions along.

I appreciate them. Bygones be bygones.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Thank you @azdryheat, your work to IMO the benefit of all Tesla owerns and Tesla the company is appreciated.

The sooner Tesla ends short-sighted shenanigans like the pack performance limitations were and moves onto facing and fixing issues properly instead, the less liability issues they will have down the road and the better user experience its customers will have - who will in turn rewards them with more long-term sales.

You taking this to court in such a measured way could be the serious, but reasonably sized sting that pushes them into making this right. Until we see what the results are (we all remember that JonMc post that promised the moon on this and instead delivered the court case we have here now) things remain uncertain, but I appreciate the effort nevertheless.

 

[TIppy]

Can you please post your own dragstrip timeslips and vbox logs showing all your before and after for the above data for your car? (and not just cherry picked data, but all the data -- and the information about the relevant conditions under which the data was collected and the variability in the data collection efforts. And also the specific advertisements or published claims that you relied on when you purchased your car?

[Don't read this: I predict that you won't answer my question -- instead you will write a lot of words that are not responsive.]

I think it's you that needs to provide the evidence that only things that are explicitly advertised are covered under warranty. The judge in this case said that if the car wasn't as fast as when azdryheat purchased it, he would award damages. The question before the court was whether Tesla could remove power from the car post purchase without compensating the owner. The judge said no.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

0-60 2.8 seconds: had recorded 2.8 and 2.9 before mod. now 3.0 to 3.1

1/4 mile 10.9 seconds: car ran 10.991 before ( I explained to the judge that this was an acceptable tolerance). After mod, the car runs 11.09 to 11.2, even with Launch Mode.

Can you please post your own dragstrip timeslips and vbox logs showing all your before and after for the above data for your car? (and not just cherry picked data, but all the data -- and the information about the relevant conditions under which the data was collected and the variability in the data collection efforts. And also the specific advertisements or published claims that you relied on when you purchased your car?

The bolded part @bhzmark is not helpful. It is common knowledge Tesla advertised 0-60 time of 2.8 secs and quarter-mile time of 10.9 secs for the 90 kWh Ludicrous model. It is reasonable to assume and not put under question that anyone buying a 90DL saw them. And even if they didn't, it changes nothing considering those are the specs Tesla did advertise for the vehicle.

We never get forward with any kind of concensus if we get bogged down on trying to prove meaningless stuff or basic common knowledge. Tesla's public specs for their cars are not a matter for debate, not in clear-cut cases like this one anyway. 90DL was specced at 0-60 2.8 sec and 1/4 mile 10.9 sec by Tesla. @azdryheat clearly referenced these numbers in his post. There is no debate on what his issue is.

But in case you really doubt it, here is one news from the time repeating Tesla's PR: New Tesla Model S Options: 90 kWh Battery, Ludicrous Mode, Cheaper Base Model It was also posted on their website and Design Studio, as screenshotted in the story.

Asking for proof on the numeric claims, now that is of course fair.

 

[azdryheat]

Can you please post your own dragstrip timeslips and vbox logs showing all your before and after for the above data for your car? (and not just cherry picked data, but all the data -- and the information about the relevant conditions under which the data was collected and the variability in the data collection efforts. And also the specific advertisements or published claims that you relied on when you purchased your car?

[Don't read this: I predict that you won't answer my question -- instead you will write a lot of words that are not responsive.]

This would be way more than possible to post here. The stack of papers I brought to court were about 8 inches high.

Why do you want this? Are you involved or planning an action against Tesla?

What Model Tesla do you have and is it affected by the Ludicrous fiasco?

Tesla is very aware that I have held back a lot of information and have avoided social media. They also agreed with the court as to my power levels before and after. This was never in dispute and Tesla has admitted this both to the AZ Atty General and in SC Court. The dispute I have with Tesla is if what they did is legal and can reduce power at will.