There are many ways to effectively demonstrate that "principle" (Lemon Law, public awareness, etc) so those of you with unlimited funds and time should pursue whatever you choose but for most litigation is the option of last resort not the first. Tesla has already published their "theory" that what they are doing is consistent within the automotive industry and have put everyone on notice. They have effectively circled their wagons around this legal theory. I doubt they did that without thought or outside legal opinion.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Pack Performance and Launch Mode Limits
- Thread starter Ingineer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Seriously, I've heard you mention "Lemon Law" in this thread more than once.
Do you even have any idea as to how the Lemon Law works?
Also with regard to the rest of the jibber jabber in that above pile of nonsense, you do realize that Tesla never said anything to pre existing owners about this, yes?
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but personally I must disagree here. The notion that one must one a specific set of products to care or discuss the actions of a company and responses thereto is IMO ludicrous.
All you need is an account on TMC to have a valid voice on this thread IMO. Better still if you are knowledgeable of Tesla, which clearly @msnow with his history is.
People - all the time, everywhere in the world - have valuable experience, knowhow and skills that is applicable in a wide variety of ways, even if they have not gone through an exact same scenario, or do not have the exact same personal connection to the matter.
That is the whole basis of higher education and learning.
They have, on multiple occasions, through their SCs.
It is not like this is a question where nobody just bothered to ask Tesla and went to war instead. Clearly Tesla has had ample opportunity to communicate pre-emptively and have so far chosen pretty much not to.
Publicity may change that stance quicker than a lawsuit would, though of course both can be effective in affecting change or resolutions in their different ways.
I thought you changed and you made comments I agreed with then today you lost your way again. Very sad and I'm mildly curious what triggers that behavior but not enough to care to have you explain it.
As to my standing to offer my views based on my experience well just look at how many are rejecting your position versus the rest of us. That speaks for itself. Bye...back in the box you go
.When did Tesla inform previous buyers of this?
When did anyone, who bought their Ludicrous car, prior to about 2 weeks ago, get word that their car would be subject to have it's power cut?
Before they bought their cars???
At the time that the papers were signed?
When?
No, that's the problem. Tesla said nothing about cutting anyone's power later on up the road.
Feel free, however I don't see the logic in that. Why would personal lack of ownership make his views less relevant? A perfectly valid view would be they actually can ne quite useful, because he is more of an impartial party.
What would it change if he had a Ludicrous car on the driveway? Would it somehow add to his views on dealing with complaints? All it probably would do is make him more biased and emotional about the matter. (Not that there's anything wrong with that in a customer complaint situation.)
(Besides, we don't know if this affects just Ludicrous, as Tesla's disclaimer talks of Performance cars in general.)
I thought you changed and you made comments I agreed with then today you lost your way again. Very sad and I'm mildly curious what triggers that behavior but not enough to care to have you explain it.
As to my standing to offer my views based on my experience well just look at how many are rejecting your position versus the rest of us. That speaks for itself. Bye...back in the box you go
LOL, where have I heard this before folks?
No. Of course you full well know Tesla informed the people in question after the fact. We are not in disagreement about that being wrong.
I am merely saying Tesla has admitted to several existing owners this is going on. Basically Tesla has admitted they are counting the full-throttles and are employing limiting controls based on them.
I just thought it was important to make that distiction for clarity, lest anyone read your message in a way that suggests Tesla has not said anything on the matter of pre-existing owners and their cars being limited.
Yet for months you offered your views on P90DL's ability to achieve 10.9 quarter mile times when your P85 was not even in the discussion to achieve anything close nor were you motivated to try. The point here is you are not the arbitrator of which views have value or credibility. Clearly you are in the minority.
Well then what else is there to discuss with regard to what is likely the most effective means of gaining relief for me should I have my power cut?
"Admitting" that you're screwing people, doesn't get you off the hook.
Their "admitting" that they are deciding to alter the power in my car, when we never had an agreement to do such in the first place, is worthless.
What, I sell you something, and then days, weeks, months, years, later, i "admit" that I'm headed over to your house to take a hammer to it???
No.
Timing is everything.
That they didn't say anything to existing owners about this, BEFORE, they bought and drove off in their cars is what's important here.
They cut my power, I sue them. It really is as simple as that. No point in even mincing words.
Sell me a car, have me pay to have it upgraded for more power, and then cut that power?
No sir.
Last edited:
I do and I know it's the process we all agreed to settle warranty issues. It's also different in each state that it applies. Some countries don't have it. So far one car has standing. You should do a little more reading and a lot less spewing. "Jibber jabber" eh? Well argued.
Discussion with P85DEE is creating unnecessary noise here, could you guys try to ignore, please?
--
I've noticed that the UK order page doesn't have the performance disclaimer yet. Order a Tesla Model S | Tesla UK
Does it mean that only the cars in the US are affected?
--
I've noticed that the UK order page doesn't have the performance disclaimer yet. Order a Tesla Model S | Tesla UK
Does it mean that only the cars in the US are affected?
I would assume for many of us the purpose of this discussion is not merely seeking means for gaining personal, specific relief. That is almost secondary. What we want to see is Tesla doing and being better overall - as that will, in turn, lead to personal benefits for many of us. Failing that, at least we'd be generating knowledge to other owners like us.
As said, we agree on this. My point was a different one than the one you responded to. I merely added a clarification to your comment that Tesla has not said anything to pre-existing owners. They have. But we both agree that this has happened only after sale, there is no disagreement on that - or the immorality of it.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
It doesn't affect my intended use, as currently described, because:
a) I don't believe the P85DL can make more than 1500 amps, and
b) My wife and I drive very conservatively, and would probably never hit the current counters
But that doesn't mean I am unconcerned.
I am concerned for the people it DOES affect, whether they know it or not. I am concerned because it is another example of Tesla doing or considering doing something I think is morally and ethically wrong.
I want Tesla to succeed. I am concerned because if they continue down the road they started going down with the 691 HP fiasco and seem to be continuing down now with Countergate, they may, eventually go down for good.
I don't think any of us participating in this thread want that.
Last edited:
Similar threads
