-
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
Im not really interested in arguing with you over this. You obviously dont own a Tesla, or have much experience with dealers. Even shatty John Deere doesnt force their updated software on your farm equipment when you visit the dealer. A dealership wants your repeat business, and a good one will treat you right. With Tesla, you buy a car with certain specs, and then the company takes them away at will. They don't care about repeat business, which is why gasoline cars will be here for a very long time. Its kind of ironic how Tesla both started, and destroyed the EV revolution....
You say you don't want to argue and then proceed to argue. I do own a Tesla. And when I owned a bmw, they updated the firmware every time I went in for an oil change. Invariably the user memory settings for seats and steering wheel would be lost when I got the car back. They told me this was because they had updated the firmware. When I had problems with rough shifting, they said the manufacturer had just sent new firmware to correct that.
I share your outrage at them decreasing the power in my p90dl. I just don't see how the dealership model prevents this. Tesla can still send firmware to your car even if there is a middle man.
And don't even get me started about how unresponsive Mercedes is to customer complaints.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
They aren't doing it because they don't have OTA capabilities yet. As soon as they do, this will be common. And the other manufacturers (unlike Tesla) will actually make you sign an EULA.
You made a similar argument elsewhere, but again, this is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Doesn't actually solve the real problem.
You can be a Tesla apologist all you want, and put your head in the sand, but it doesnt change the fact that Tesla is shady, and we will all be breathing in gasoline fumes for the rest of our lives because of it....
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Maybe, maybe not, but the current way Tesla operates is not working.
I can see "not making excuses, Tesla is just a big corporation" line is your new angle over multiple posts, but I must point out IMO you are making excuses for Tesla with this. You are suggesting a large corporation could not be different, hence this was inevitable, hence it is an excuse. Obviously they could choose to be different.
If you don't want to make excuses for Tesla, condemning their behavior would IMO be a better approach.
We can now add the reduced supercharging speed to that
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Okay, I condemn Tesla for making the changes to ludicrous mode. Does that make you feel better?
In reality, it changes nothing.
I am not suggesting it. I am telling you this is the reality of the world we live in.
If you wish to live in a fairy land, where large corporations will be different if we only condemn them, then that's fine by me. I say it's delusional thinking that does not accord with the world we live in. My view of the corporation is in line with this 2003 Canadian documentary on the subject:
But we can agree to disagree on this point.
Enough people and media joining in, sure things can change. With a dismissive tone as yours, nothing obviously will.
Tesla could choose to be different.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
You're missing my point completely. Please watch the documentary, just for a few minutes from the point where I started it. I would prefer if you watched the entire film so you would understand what we are up against. Another good analysis of the corporation is in the book Sapiens since it explains how we humans came to create such a concept, and how it fundamentally changed the way we live.
What you also fail to understand is that I am trying to direct people to the root cause of the problem since until we understand and change that, we won't be changing anything by having "enough people and the media joining in." Yes, you may get the ludicrous problem resolved, but like a game of whack-a-mole you'll just see another one pop up. Nothing is really changed.
You can call me dismissive. I'll call you naive -- and I mean no offence to you in doing so, nor do I take offence when you call me dismissive. Again, we will agree to disagree.
Two cases come to mind. The Mazda RX-8 and the 1999 Ford Mustang Cobra.
Both MFR's admitted to advertising more power than the cars actually produced. In both cases, the MFRs settled.
If Tesla plants their feet, it could backfire. Or it could be fine.
Successful Class Action law firms are almost political in nature. Step one is a marketing campaign to make the target into a villain. Once the general public knows that the defendant is inherently evil, the filing amount can skyrocket. Because taking it to court would be suicide if the defendant has to wear a devil's suit to the proceedings. So what was a $5m sting, can quickly climb to $50m by investing $1m in marketing and press releases.
But the $50m isn't the problem. The damage is done. You will always remember that Ford murdered thousands of people by deliberately putting the gas tank at risk. You won't remember that Ford deaths were not significantly higher than other brands at the time, because that was never the point. It wasn't about safety, it was about a big check for the law firm. They sent info (some say with a fat check) for an article to Mother Jones, and got the ball rolling. This had worked for lawyers with the Nader/Corvair case, so they just repeated a good strategy.
True body count from Ford Pinto tanks out of 2,200,000 cars? 27 to 180 depending whether the law firm had any credibility after the supposed Mother Jones payoff. Not different than other brand/model death rates with rear tanks per 100,000 cars.
Ford Pinto Fuel Tanks: Epic Auto Failures
Now back to Tesla. If a Class Action law firm sets it's sights on Tesla Motors, the publicity damage could be immense to a company who sells their products almost purely on reputation, not advertising.
I think it will blow over. Or I hope it blows over. The damage those cases cause becomes historic like crushing cars that nobody wanted to pay for. Damage far, far beyond any rational thought.
Both MFR's admitted to advertising more power than the cars actually produced. In both cases, the MFRs settled.
If Tesla plants their feet, it could backfire. Or it could be fine.
Successful Class Action law firms are almost political in nature. Step one is a marketing campaign to make the target into a villain. Once the general public knows that the defendant is inherently evil, the filing amount can skyrocket. Because taking it to court would be suicide if the defendant has to wear a devil's suit to the proceedings. So what was a $5m sting, can quickly climb to $50m by investing $1m in marketing and press releases.
But the $50m isn't the problem. The damage is done. You will always remember that Ford murdered thousands of people by deliberately putting the gas tank at risk. You won't remember that Ford deaths were not significantly higher than other brands at the time, because that was never the point. It wasn't about safety, it was about a big check for the law firm. They sent info (some say with a fat check) for an article to Mother Jones, and got the ball rolling. This had worked for lawyers with the Nader/Corvair case, so they just repeated a good strategy.
True body count from Ford Pinto tanks out of 2,200,000 cars? 27 to 180 depending whether the law firm had any credibility after the supposed Mother Jones payoff. Not different than other brand/model death rates with rear tanks per 100,000 cars.
Ford Pinto Fuel Tanks: Epic Auto Failures
Now back to Tesla. If a Class Action law firm sets it's sights on Tesla Motors, the publicity damage could be immense to a company who sells their products almost purely on reputation, not advertising.
I think it will blow over. Or I hope it blows over. The damage those cases cause becomes historic like crushing cars that nobody wanted to pay for. Damage far, far beyond any rational thought.
@Canuck I am not ignorant of the ability of the corporation to loose all humanity and decency in its layers. No doubt that is in its nature.
That said, there are better and worse corporations. Tesla who we knew more as the former has been increasingly flirting with the latter. Which I do not believe has to be so.
Besides nothing wrong with a little whack-a-mole, rather that than giving up.
That said, there are better and worse corporations. Tesla who we knew more as the former has been increasingly flirting with the latter. Which I do not believe has to be so.
Besides nothing wrong with a little whack-a-mole, rather that than giving up.
God people... do you hear yourselves? Talk about first world problems. One guy lost 1/8 of a second, another has to stay 5 extra minutes at a supercharger.. call out the lawyers, file complaints, hell boycott Tesla... seriously? How about people just CALM DOWN, realize Tesla ALWAYS corrects these things once a fix is developed (anyone remember losing the lowering suspension?)
Complain to Tesla... then RELAX.
Complain to Tesla... then RELAX.
It's the fact that these are unforced errors that is so painful to watch. They are doing more damage to the brand by letting everyone know that just because you paid for something and took delivery, doesn't mean you get to keep it.
How many drive units were going to fail from 1600A usage? What would that cost in warranty repair dollars and what is the cost in reputation. We estimate these numbers in the industry and make decisions based on those estimates. These aren't safety matters, so it's just straight economics.
In this case, Tesla is betting that the lost value in brand reputation and customers from this post-delivery limitation is less than the warranty repair cost.
Tesla has been very vocal about how the backwards, 'old' auto industry just doesn't know how to innovate like Tesla. Well, part of that is the old OEMs with something to lose figure this stuff out during development because they know it's very expensive to find issues in the market.
Tesla didn't find this issue before they started selling the cars. Now they want customers to bear the 'cost'. (Actually, that is the most generous explanation...in reality, I suspect the engineers knew exactly how much power the drive unit could tolerate and that this was not going to last.)
I see it as a bad strategy. Now we have a long thread, letting everyone know:
1) Tesla may change the performance or features of your purchase unilaterally to serve their interests at a cost to your interests as a customer
2) Tesla doesn't have an effective validation method. In addition to being a new company, they are more comfortable with placing unproven designs in the marketplace than existing automakers.
3) The power level applied to Ludicrous Tesla vehicles exceeds the sustainable level the gearbox or some other components can tolerate. Thus, an off-warranty or second owner vehicle is at high risk of an expensive failure. This will have an obvious effect on the value of these vehicles.
Anyway, Tesla knows all this. Their current customer base includes a high percentage of 'true believers' that WILL accept this behavior. (And even defend it, as seen here). But, what about a model 3 buyer? Less disposable income, less able to absorb the cost of drive unit failure, etc...
How many drive units were going to fail from 1600A usage? What would that cost in warranty repair dollars and what is the cost in reputation. We estimate these numbers in the industry and make decisions based on those estimates. These aren't safety matters, so it's just straight economics.
In this case, Tesla is betting that the lost value in brand reputation and customers from this post-delivery limitation is less than the warranty repair cost.
Tesla has been very vocal about how the backwards, 'old' auto industry just doesn't know how to innovate like Tesla. Well, part of that is the old OEMs with something to lose figure this stuff out during development because they know it's very expensive to find issues in the market.
Tesla didn't find this issue before they started selling the cars. Now they want customers to bear the 'cost'. (Actually, that is the most generous explanation...in reality, I suspect the engineers knew exactly how much power the drive unit could tolerate and that this was not going to last.)
I see it as a bad strategy. Now we have a long thread, letting everyone know:
1) Tesla may change the performance or features of your purchase unilaterally to serve their interests at a cost to your interests as a customer
2) Tesla doesn't have an effective validation method. In addition to being a new company, they are more comfortable with placing unproven designs in the marketplace than existing automakers.
3) The power level applied to Ludicrous Tesla vehicles exceeds the sustainable level the gearbox or some other components can tolerate. Thus, an off-warranty or second owner vehicle is at high risk of an expensive failure. This will have an obvious effect on the value of these vehicles.
Anyway, Tesla knows all this. Their current customer base includes a high percentage of 'true believers' that WILL accept this behavior. (And even defend it, as seen here). But, what about a model 3 buyer? Less disposable income, less able to absorb the cost of drive unit failure, etc...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I'm not sure adding another layer of crooks will improve things. Dealers do not have a good reputation, for a reason.
Similar threads
