-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I just did as well and mentioned my service visit as well as sending my Service Report document.
Here's the problem:
1. If they admit no wrong, Tesla will face a class action suit for not fixing the problem for the 1st 2000+ customers. Expensive and they will lose likely. Not everyone will join, but surely they have angered at least one attorney interested in making some bank and getting a new battery.
You can't post this on your website: "Superchargers provide half a charge in about 20 minutes and are strategically placed to allow owners to drive from station to station with minimal stops," and not have it be true for 10% of the cars you have made. IT's like free money to a class action attorney as are some of Tesla's other statements. A purchase agreement stating we can make a change at any time won't save them. Consents and agreements can be broken by either party if false advertising or bait/switch activity has occurred. Settlements would occur because a jury isn't going to side with Tesla on this.
2. If they admit wrong, Tesla will have to cover the cost of all of the 1st 2000+ customers packs. Expensive and they admit loss.
You can't post this on your website: "Tesla Superchargers represent the most advanced charging technology in the world, capable of charging Model S 20x faster than most public charging stations. We will soon roll out 120 kW Superchargers, which are 33% faster than our current version." They indicate the Superchargers themselves determine the rate and indicate Model S are be able to move up to this new rate. Put an asterisk in there if it isn't true for 10% or more of your cars.
It'd be nice to see option 2 happen, but it won't likely occur. We may see a "we'll discount you service" or some minimal offer like $1000 but that will still lead to option 1 occurring. Either way its a lose lose and expensive. They should have nipped this long ago when they learned of it instead of selling cars implying that 120 kW charging was available to everyone. Finding out over 1 year after is not sitting well with many it would seem.
1. If they admit no wrong, Tesla will face a class action suit for not fixing the problem for the 1st 2000+ customers. Expensive and they will lose likely. Not everyone will join, but surely they have angered at least one attorney interested in making some bank and getting a new battery.
You can't post this on your website: "Superchargers provide half a charge in about 20 minutes and are strategically placed to allow owners to drive from station to station with minimal stops," and not have it be true for 10% of the cars you have made. IT's like free money to a class action attorney as are some of Tesla's other statements. A purchase agreement stating we can make a change at any time won't save them. Consents and agreements can be broken by either party if false advertising or bait/switch activity has occurred. Settlements would occur because a jury isn't going to side with Tesla on this.
2. If they admit wrong, Tesla will have to cover the cost of all of the 1st 2000+ customers packs. Expensive and they admit loss.
You can't post this on your website: "Tesla Superchargers represent the most advanced charging technology in the world, capable of charging Model S 20x faster than most public charging stations. We will soon roll out 120 kW Superchargers, which are 33% faster than our current version." They indicate the Superchargers themselves determine the rate and indicate Model S are be able to move up to this new rate. Put an asterisk in there if it isn't true for 10% or more of your cars.
It'd be nice to see option 2 happen, but it won't likely occur. We may see a "we'll discount you service" or some minimal offer like $1000 but that will still lead to option 1 occurring. Either way its a lose lose and expensive. They should have nipped this long ago when they learned of it instead of selling cars implying that 120 kW charging was available to everyone. Finding out over 1 year after is not sitting well with many it would seem.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I don't see Tesla as stating that Supercharging it available on all Model S cars. In fact, it's a $2,000 option on the 60 kWh cars ($2,500 for Canada). Tesla's Supercharging advertising uses the word "properly equipped" so no asterisk is needed:
"A properly equipped Model S can charge for free at any Supercharger once enabled, unlike gas stations that require you to pay for each fill-up."
hans
P631
Every Model S delivered in 2012 had Supercharging included because they were all Sigs or 85kWh non-Sigs.
I'm curious what other impacts this may have. If the older cells are more limited on charging, is that also true for discharging? If so, does that mean 120kwh cars are faster than 90kwh cars or faster through more of the battery cycle (e.g. same speed with full charge, but faster with a 50% charge)? Is the degradation profile different? The battery is a main component of the drive train and a huge part of the value of the car.
^This. Supercharging has one spec guys and that is 120 kw. There's not A or B, lite or full. Don't think anyone with the P+ would like to find out that there was an undisclosed change that affects the performance.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
But that's not true. 60s don't charge at 120kW. And that's not disclosed, either.
So there is a full and a light. Sig owners might feel more entitled, but S60 owners are in a similar boat (OK, ours do 102kW)
dennis
Model S Plaid
We do know that it had stiffer bushings, revised shocks and sway bars etc. long before the P+ was announced...
How about this for a possible solution. TM sets up a couple of battery swap facilities, as planned. Then allows the first 2,000 MS's to swap there battery for a fee that would be computed based on the number of miles "consumed" on the battery. Tesla then uses that battery in the swap program, with disclosure.
Fedderman
Original: 2012 Model S (85); Current: 2024 Model S
This sounds like an elegant solution, if there is a real intent to roll out the battery swap any time soon. I would be interested in the initial swap to get 120 kW charging (and improved taper), but until details emerge cannot say if I'd be interested in using the swap beyond this initial method to get the "upgrade". Seems this may have to be tied to some form of battery lease... haven't looked but I imagine there are threads on this.
Older Tesla's limited to 90kW super charging
Of the three superchargers I have used so far, two were 90 KW and one was 120kW. In Europe there are 133kW (or is it135?) chargers. So there are at least 3 specs for the max outpost of a Supercharger.
Of the three superchargers I have used so far, two were 90 KW and one was 120kW. In Europe there are 133kW (or is it135?) chargers. So there are at least 3 specs for the max outpost of a Supercharger.
> I had the choice of delivery in either December or January [Ditpixs]
Reason To Be Cheerful #183:
Choosing December ensured buyer eligible for $7500- EV credit on US Income Tax which was better than gambling on Congress renewing for following year. So I'm sure glad TM busted chops so I could take delivery on 24 Dec. :biggrin: [$7500- grin]
--
Reason To Be Cheerful #183:
Choosing December ensured buyer eligible for $7500- EV credit on US Income Tax which was better than gambling on Congress renewing for following year. So I'm sure glad TM busted chops so I could take delivery on 24 Dec. :biggrin: [$7500- grin]
--
Good idea, but here are a few things to consider:
1. We have yet to even see the initial stages of a battery swapper in the works. It may be another 6-12 months before we see the first station.
2. The ones built this year will be in CA only. What about folks that live elsewhere?
3. The swap fee will likely amount to somewhere in the range of $2,000-6,000 depending on the miles consumed. I guarantee that it will be very steep. Many folks don't think we should have to pay something that ought to be considered a hardware upgrade or a fix.
4. Tesla may consider using the packs for grid storage instead of swap packs. They need batteries anyway (for supercharger battery backup) and there is likely very little degradation on our packs so it actually isn't that big of a hit on Tesla to absorb the full cost of replacing the affected packs.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
It's pretty clear to me Tesla will win if a lawsuit happens. Even if you discount the paperwork saying things are subject to change, when people affected locked in their car, the only type of supercharger that existed and was promised was 90kW. They made some statements that 120kW may be available in the future, but no promises all cars would get it (back then everyone was happy to even have 90kW!). What really people are having issue with is after the 120kW roll out, Tesla didn't make it clear it doesn't apply to everyone, but at that point people already owned their cars for a long while already.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...harging/page36?p=532339&viewfull=1#post532339
Legally, Tesla is under no obligation to do anything, but it's mainly an argument over what's the "right" thing to do.
Last edited:
I agree. All tech quickly becomes obsolete. In some cases it's as soon as you buy it.
This thread reeks of entitlement.
Kraken
Member
Napabill brings up a good point, which leads to another thought...maybe tesla doesn't think of the battery as part of the car because it will soon be swappable. Thus all cars are capable of 120 as advertised.
Similar threads
