Nuclear Fusion
Banned
Elon to Bernie on Twitter: “Bernard Sanders is a docile puppet of big oil!”
What an utter fukcwit
What an utter fukcwit
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, you do seem to spend more of your time complaining about other poster's comments than factually refuting them and providing new data. It has been a long drawn-out process teasing as much as possible from you against your selective withholding of information. It even becomes difficult to know what to believe when your opinions have evolved over time and you leave us unenlightened as to why.(Posts in-depth about the issue. Next reply cherry pick's one point, out of context no less, to point out something they don't agree with, ignores the rest.)
And... I'm just going to be done here.
Unless I can do a thread with real discussion where I can weed out the BS (like, moderate the thread myself to move non sequiturs to a second thread as appropriate), there's just no point trying to contribute here. Rational discussion doesn't seem to have a place on most of this forum anymore it seems, and that's just unfortunate. I've really been trying to get back into contributing, but it's mostly just as useful as banging my head on a wall.
(Oh, hey mods... random thought: I do feel like I'd be an appropriately knowledgeable mod for, oh I don't know, the "Model S: Battery & Charging" sub-forum... hmm)
... certain couple of folks that like trying to say things that are literal FUD like it's unsafe to park your car inside or near your house.
Guess who raised the concern about the safety issue
"If it's a safety issue, which I believe it is, they need to do a recall, not hide it."
Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1147857698672775168
Supporting facts on that "clarification"? Or is that just an unsupported declaration? You know, that thing that so offends you.Yep, this was based on what I found in the software. I later clarified in this very thread that what they were looking for, but did not find, was a safety issue. Instead they found a different issue (which was initially falsely detected as the issue they were looking for, hence my original tweet) while looking for the safety issue that didn't actually exist in the wild. On these points I feel I was particularly clear, even if I did not specify what the issues themselves were.
But, guess we should just ignore that because it doesn't fit the narrative others have been pushing.
Supporting facts on that "clarification"? Or is that just an unsupported declaration? You know, that thing that so offends you.
Ok, this is better. Still, you're in too many places on the safety issue. On one hand we have your July 2019 Twitter posts saying you believe this is a safety issue. In the other hand we have you saying right now there's no unsafe condition. This sounds promising. I think I'm hearing that given what you know right now, no matter the firmware version installed, there's no safety issue outstanding right now related to battery gate. That would certainly make me feel a lot better to have confirmed, and I'd even say thanks!Wow. Way to not actually read what I wrote, folks.
Never said there wasn't an issue, and I never said Tesla was "innocent"... in fact, I rarely defend them on anything at all because the company is run so horribly and they've screwed over so many different groups over the years it's ridiculous.
What I said was that there's nothing for a whistleblower to blow the whistle on. If there were, that'd imply that Tesla's covering up some crime/fraud, which doesn't appear to be the case here at all based on everything I know about this situation.
If somehow this issue ended up in a criminal court, and I was on the jury? Yeah, my vote would be not guilty. I don't feel like they've done anything criminal here. Shady? Disingenuous? Violation of consumer faith and good will? Sure. Something folks can sue them over? Yeah, probably... on a civil case jury for this I'd not side with Tesla over owners.
Do I think there may be some civil recourse for the folks who lost range? Probably... but then again, I thought there would be civil recourse for folks who purchased P85D vehicles advertised has having 691 HP... but I still haven't gotten that particular check in the mail as far as I'm aware (there was the win in the EU somewhere on this, but nothing in the US AFAIK).
The problem is that there are specific people in this thread trying to convince others of completely preposterous things that just have no basis in reality.
My favorite is a certain couple of folks that like trying to say things that are literal FUD like it's unsafe to park your car inside or near your house. Really? Just get a grip. There's two Tesla vehicles parked in my garage right now, with a third right outside, and several more parked inside at my shop... you really think if I thought there was even a snowball's chance in hell of any of them just bursting into flames that I would do so? Of course not.
The issue here is simple: Tesla modified vehicle software OTA in a way that caused range loss and charge speed slowdowns for a more than negligible amount of owners of particular Model S configurations, and afterward they are not doing right by owners in correcting this one way or another (either by a software or hardware change). This should really come as no surprise to anyone following Tesla long term. The company itself is historically horrible when it comes to doing the right thing in almost all cases where the customer loses out (I could make a list, but just ... ugh... do some research. AP1 release timing... 691 HP.... kWh asterisk... etc etc).
Trying to extrapolate out Alex Jones-style into crazy conspiracy theories isn't helpful in any way. Affected owners should be on Tesla like white on rice about this until they get it resolved, whether that's with Tesla directly or through the courts, regardless of why they issued the changes. The NHTSA isn't going to swoop in and help with this no matter how many people throw up random baseless theories. It's just not something they will or need to do anything about. It's a civil issue. As far as I'm concerned, Tesla stole value from affected owners.
Why they did it? Honestly, not super important. Did they do it to correct/mitigate a potential issue? Yeah, seems that way. What's the severity of that issue? No where near what the people pushing the conspiracy theories. Let's put it this way. Unmitigated, your car still isn't going to burst into flames. It could potentially, eventually, have other serious issues however, hence my suggestion last year that people apply the update.
So yeah, pretty tired of people pushing off the wall nonsense.
End of line.
Blow the whistle if Tesla has EVER had a safety issue. You can't claim you didn't know better - you do now. You made accusations of crimes. That means you always knew the whistle needs to be blown. Warranty violating or safety issue - doesn't matter - all of these admissions of federal crimes that you have been party to inside information. Information you are actively trying to keep out of the NHTSA's hands right now. Information you don't want to be party to concealing from federal investigators
Is there a safety issue for anyone that hasn't updated? Was there ever?
Is there a warranty issue?
What exactly is the purpose of the thefts?
Why are you afraid to answer questions like these when you are willing to accuse Tesla? The accusation could get you in trouble if you were wrong, but saying Tesla is safe could only get you into trouble if you were lying for Tesla. When you say there is nothing to blow the whistle over, you are saying there has never been a crime committed over batterygate and we already know that can't possibly be true, which makes what you are trying to say without actually saying now a really strange claim. Say it clear and loud - go on the record and put us all at ease. Don't avoid saying anything.
Takata Executives Criminally Charged in U.S. Probe of Faulty Air Bags
Food for thought. The NHTSA doesn't just punish corporations, it will also file criminal charges against individuals concealing safety or recall issues from them. Blowing the whistle avoids problems like that with total immunity. This thread has been seen by thousands of people, if this problem goes public with a recall you don't want to risk coming out on the wrong side of something like that.
Do the right thing. Please.
Two ideas here:Unless I can do a thread with real discussion where I can weed out the BS (like, moderate the thread myself to move non sequiturs to a second thread as appropriate), there's just no point trying to contribute here.
Two ideas here:
1. Ignore the noise and focus on the signal.
2. Didn't you have your own forums on your website at one point, that you could moderate?
I didn't say I rely upon or take your expertise at face value in either side of the issue you choose to take at any given time. I would first expect you put forth whatever facts you have to support your claims, just as you keep demanding of others. Until then it has no greater validity than anyone else's speculations and opinions.
So wait wait... you're saying it's fine when I say that there may be a safety issue, based on my own personal first-hand knowledge of the situation at the time (ie: reverse engineering examination of the software and hardware in question). That's cool. You take that at face value.
But, it's somehow not fine when I clarify that, as more insight is gained, also based on my own personal first-hand knowledge of the situation at the time (ie: reverse engineering examination of the software and hardware in question)?
(I'd also validated my clarified information with insiders at the time, after independently deriving the information, but I'm obviously not going to throw such folks under the bus... so somewhat irrelevant here anyway, since you're still relying on what is essentially my expert opinion on the matter either way.)
Fact is, there's nothing stopping anyone with sufficient technical expertise (ie, the ability to reverse engineer hardware and software) from following the same path as I to come up with the same data. Honestly, I'm surprised no one has even attempted that route...
I didn't say I rely upon or take your expertise at face value in either side of the issue you choose to take at any given time. I would first expect you put forth whatever facts you have to support your claims, just as you keep demanding of others. Until then it has no greater validity than anyone else's speculations and opinions.
Useful in context, devoid of facts yet nonetheless well worth goading you into.I'll just ignore the absurdity of the above... but f* it, I'll bite:
"Safety" is pretty broad. For example, I would consider a battery exploding/catching fire/etc without an external cause (like tampering, external fire, accident, etc) to be a safety issue. I wouldn't consider the car being or otherwise becoming unusable to be a safety issue. (Others have said that a car dying unexpectedly would be a safety issue, but I don't subscribe to that line of thought, considering cars break down all the time.) I wouldn't consider limited power or limited charging a safety issue. Etc.
With that in mind, to the best of my knowledge, no to both questions.
Open for debate.
The warranty explicitly disclaims capacity loss not related to a failure. Nothing has in fact failed, so I'd say by the letter of the warranty and relevant laws I'm aware of.... probably not. I'm also not a lawyer.
A better question would be, is Tesla allowed to avoid a warranty issue at the expense of the customer's ownership experience? Dunno. Don't think there's any good examples of this in the past, since Tesla's OTA setup is somewhat unique.
Mitigates a potential failure mode of the high voltage battery.
And more lol.
I could have, from a technical perspective, defended my original statements at the time pretty well. (Edit: Keep in mind that the info below is based almost entirely on independent reverse engineering of the software and hardware.)
It was quite obvious from the software that Tesla was testing proactive functions that searched for, predicted, and attempted to prevent a particular potential failure mode (catastrophic and unsafe) (X) in the fleet, and also clearly obvious from analysis of that code that it was definitely not expected to actually be found in the fleet at all.
Instead what they got were loads of false positives from a previously unknown and unrelated condition (one not inherently unsafe) (we'll later define this as Z, but the developers didn't appear to be aware of a distinction just yet). (<<--- This is about the time I initially tweeted. If this test were indeed finding loads of cases of condition X, which it appeared to be doing based on the reports of range loss, then yes, this would have been a problem and a real safety issue. I was still reviewing reverse engineering of code from updates that had been pushed since then at this time, but had not made it past this point just yet.)
That code was updated hastily to implement temporary mitigation that would prevent both X+Z from being failure modes, at the expense of significant range loss (presumable temporary... it was pretty clear that at this point whoever was writing this code was aware there was no way these were all condition X).
The code was again updated to implement separate detection for Z. At this point, both paths led to being mitigated the same way with the temporary function. (<<--- This is about when I posted about the separate conditions.)
Detection for X was updated to also check for Z (since checking for X finds X+Z, but checking for Z only finds Z).
If X found and no Z, the vehicle would be immediately disabled with an error along the lines of "High voltage battery error. Vehicle will shutdown. Contact Tesla Service." (This is not the exact error message. I've seen zero reports of the specific error being noted by anyone, further confirming information from an insider that no cases of condition X, which would be unsafe, exist in the wild).
If Z detected, then mitigation for Z put in place.
Later updates tweaked mitigation for Z to lose significantly less usable capacity.
I had expected this trend to continue, but development seems to have halted/paused shortly after the initial tweaking and small rebound on capacity. I believe there's additional room for improvement, but doesn't seem to be a priority based on limited changes to the relevant functions.
Edit: Also, I've fallen behind on my reverse engineering of the most recent firmwares... so there could be changes I'm unaware of. It takes a significant amount of time to analyze and annotate changes, determine functions, etc. I've even written custom tools to streamline some of this with various modules on the Model S, but it still involves a lot of human brain power to get anything useful. Unfortunately the time I have to set aside for this sort of stuff has been limited lately.
That's as far into this as I'm getting, and way more than is probably deserved by some of this bunch.
I only demand people cite things that are obviously false claims, completely ridiculous statements, or speculation stated as if it were fact. This seems like a reasonable expectation, no?
WK057 has now confirmed he is in possession of evidence Tesla committed a slew of crimes
Actually, I'm just going to call it now... give it less than a day, and at least one of a few different users here is going to find a way to take and twist everything I've said completely out of context to "prove" once and for all that Tesla is being criminally negligent and is covering up a safety problem of apocalyptic proportions.
So, what is this Z?
Is it safe to drive 900km in a S85 with my wife and two children? (not range reduced, but of course charge rate reduced)
You have a place here even while you spread misinformation. Nobody here is trying to silence you, you're the only person trying to silence anyone. In fact, we want you to talk more. You have information at your disposal that could help us and expose the crimes you have suggested yourself. It is illegal for Tesla to mitigate any suspected safety issues without issuing a recall, so while we have your word there is no safety issue, we also have your word they are breaking the law.This person has absolutely no place in a reasonable discussion, has been spreading loads of useless misinformation, and is now openly (and without any basis whatsoever, not that it would be allowed here at all) accusing others of committing fraud/crimes. Seriously, enough is enough.
Edit: Contrary to the outrageous claims of others here, the fact that Tesla was and is proactively looking for a potential failure mode, and didn't actually find it, makes it plainly obviously there's nothing for them to hide from any safety regulators.
YOu accuse Tesla of not reporting and concealing safety. You make criminal accusations. These are facts.
Is there a safety issue for anyone that hasn't updated? Was there ever?
With that in mind, to the best of my knowledge, no to both questions.