Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Snippiness 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.

wk057

Vendor & Senior Tinkerer
Feb 23, 2014
5,784
12,602
Hickory, NC, USA
You make criminal accusations! Just LOOKING without reporting is a crime.

Ok, sorry... I have to have another laugh here.

So, apparently even LOOKING for a potential issue without telling the NHTSA is a crime now. I would love to see that law. Massive citation needed.

By that logic, nearly every vehicle manufacturer runs a criminal operation. You know, when the ECU looks for faults and shuts down the vehicle for problems it detects? LOOKING for problems is apparently illegal!

For example, you know what would be a safety issue? If say, a vehicle allowed a faulty accelerator pedal sensor to continue to command torque. Oh wait, Tesla (and other manufacturers) LOOK for this exceedingly rare potential condition and mitigate it if it happens. But according to @Chaserr and some imaginary law he found, this is criminal conduct! We can't even LOOK for problems that may or may not exist without reporting them to the NHTSA! Doesn't matter if we don't actually FIND any problems... we can't even LOOK now.

lol

(In case it wasn't obvious, the above is mostly sarcasm)
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
17,234
41,819
Oregon
Dead cells decrease capacity on their own, but the sharp instant decreases we all saw (and some now deny) are from Wk's voltage reducing capacity theft.

Just as a reminder someone has already gone down the "theft" claim and was told that legally restricting range isn't theft. Legally theft requires the physical taking of something, and Tesla did not take possession of the battery capacity that people are now unable to access:

I met with Detective Peterson of the LA County Sheriff’s Office, and we reviewed the California Penal Code Handbook, specifically Chapter 5, Section 484 a). Detective Peterson did not agree Tesla’s action was theft (larceny), by this definition. As it turns out this verbiage is about real property, so I agreed.
 

qwk

P130DL
Dec 19, 2008
3,024
856
This thread has turned into a complete hypocrisy. Due to the last few pages of posts, Jason is about as credible now as chaserr. Everything he posts now is the exact opposite of a different post in the past.

Good grief people, it’s a crime for anybody to access your electronic device, and alter/take information without your permission. Period. Look up past case law if you don’t believe me. Theft doesn’t only apply to physical items....
 

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,666
6,524
Logan
So, apparently even LOOKING for a potential issue without telling the NHTSA is a crime now. I would love to see that law. Massive citation needed.
49 CFR Part 573 - DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTS
All manufacturers are required to look. They are also required to report and issue a recall before actions are taken. They are not allowed to unilaterally bypass the recall system. When they do bypass the regulations, the law exists to set an example of them so other manufacturers don't think they can do the same thing again. Tesla had 5 days to report and 60 days to inform owners. It has been more than 60 days since they took action and the NHTSA wasn't even informed until November of last year. Your accusations establish when tesla knew it was breaking the law. Your evidence should help the investigators convince Tesla doing the right thing should always be their first and only reaction to safety concerns.

I've shown you my sources, why won't you show yours? Are you spreading misinformation? Did Tesla know they were covering up safety recall when you claim they knew? Did they know they were stealing capacity like you claimed? This is your testimony - were you spreading misinformation or is it accurate?

At this point it sounds like what we know is, Tesla accidentally found condition Z and saw a big warranty monsoon coming, decided to reduce cars' range to sidestep it.

Illegal. M-M Warranty Act. @wk057 already threw that accusation at Tesla a year ago and it's named in the class action.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
Reactions: MP3Mike

wk057

Vendor & Senior Tinkerer
Feb 23, 2014
5,784
12,602
Hickory, NC, USA
I would NEVER accept treatment from a doctor who wouldn't explain the facts of his diagnosis. I would run from his office.

I certainly wouldn't pay you to remedy my car on that basis.

The worth of your post was that it provided a solid context of all that you had previously said on this topic, even with the lack of any actual facts. I can think of no other poster here who has withheld facts at the disposal.

giphy.gif
 

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,666
6,524
Logan
@Guy V Either there was never a safety problem or there is always a safety problem. They can't have it both ways, and we have recently been given insider-access confirmation that Tesla absolutely knew they needed to serve recall notifications to the NHTSA no later than 5 days days after 2019.16 was released and informed all of us owners after no later than 60 days (July 15, 2019 - and that assumes Tesla wrote and released the capping responses to those safety concerns the same day they learned about the problem). The NHTSA wasn't informed for months after that and we still have not been informed.

Around that same time wk057 said Z was also a safety issue which is why they never removed the caps:
Oh, another interesting thing is that they do seem to care about Z. I specifically asked why don't they pull the update until they can get a better grip on the situation, and was told that if the update is protecting owners as it is, "we'll deal with it" in order to keep safety first.
So he's indicated Tesla still believes Z is also a safety issue which is why they never pulled it, but unfortunately none of them felt strongly enough about safety to actually comply with legal requirements governing safety. We are still being misinformed to this day, but since we have been consistently told all along that Tesla is covering up a safety problem from inception through the 60 day deadline we all had to be notified personally, we know Tesla is still breaking laws. Why? Who knows but I think your conjecture breaks it all down succinctly. It sounds like the "we'll deal with it" moment isn't far off, want to take bets it coincidentally happens to fall shortly after Battery Day?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: MP3Mike

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,666
6,524
Logan
That won't hold up in court, if they get there. Tesla gives no release notes and frankly actively hides them. Also, for every one that authorizes it there's another person who accidentally got hit by the "not hitting X to close it so it went ahead and updated without further input" bug. Choosing not to do anything is not authorization. This one straight up won't hold up under 5 minutes of scrutiny in court.
They also made engineers remote into peoples' cars to force some updates. There's a thread dedicated to forced updates. One person's tesla had been connected to a neighbor's cable internet shared wifi (common-SSID & password available to any subscriber) by someone at Tesla to speed the download!
 

wk057

Vendor & Senior Tinkerer
Feb 23, 2014
5,784
12,602
Hickory, NC, USA
Moderators seem to have carved out a bunch of back and forth between myself and another individual that I've been instructed not to mention further. They also did not note here that they did this.

Probably the most important post that got moved was here: Snippiness 2.0

(Edit: Super amusing that a post in the top 10 most informative of the week is now in Snippiness... lol Most Informative Posts | Tesla Motors Club)

But anyway, seems that instead of stopping the spread of misinformation here, the moderators seem to be fine with allowing and amplifying it. What's the point of having Terms of Service if they're not enforced?

Unless an appropriate clean up of nonsense is done by the moderators/admins, perma bans handed out to obvious trolls, etc... I'm done with this. What the heck is the point of posting relevant information if it's going to be buried by trolls, and even buried further by the moderators?
 

tga

Active Member
Apr 8, 2014
4,062
3,087
New Hampshire
Multiple, but probably not all that should, posts have been moved to the Snippiness 2.0 thread. There is some objective, reasonable content in several of the posts there, but, unfortunately, certain members seem to be unable to control their own behavior and are resorting to ad hominums and falsehoods.

This is a very important thread, there are a lot of questions that are unclear. And when we have information, that should be shared. But attacks and rudeness toward those you disagree with won't be tolerated.
It seems some people (not @wk057) have carte blanche to violate the TOS, up to and including libeling fellow TMC members, with no repercussion. I would like to see some justification from the mods, but of course that won't happen... :rolleyes:
 

trayloader

Member
Nov 21, 2016
427
506
GERMANY

@Chaserr
It’s getting beyond annoying.
It’s beginning to sound pathological in your sheer egocentric obsession. The doublette of Whompy Wheel and Ed Niedermeyer.
The moment you instrumentalized the golf cart incident for your personal satisfaction is the moment you lost any credibility here. You are trying to deliberately destroy any fruitful discussion. The moment the discussions begin to flower again is the moment you try to sabotage.
 

Keshk

Member
Aug 10, 2019
98
257
Orlando
I think you wasting too much time reading the completely useless self-contradicting posts of wk075. If you skip doing that, like what I did, you will in much better shape.

I keep reading this and can't figure out how you reach that conclusion.

A: Some number of Tesla Model S vehicles have burned without any apparent external source of heat.
Do you disagree?

B: They released software to prevent condition X, which has never occurred, and adjust for condition Z, which is not dangerous.
Correct me if I got something wrong there.

C: From what I can find, with only a limited amount of efforting, there are at least two subsequent fires with no published explanation.
Is this incorrect?

D: So the vehicle has a non-zero number of fire incidents and no corrective action to avoid them.

E: There remains a non-zero risk of another of these vehicles encountering a fire incident.
Can you tell me where I went wrong in getting from A to E?

Edit to add some color.
I have a child whose room is above the garage hosting our Tesla Model S. My wife and I are downstairs on the other side of the house. Originally there would be no alarm until off gassing from a fire reached either my child's or an adjacent room. There is no opening or air ducting between the garage and the living space.

I researched modern house fires and learned the window for escape is much lower than it was when I was younger and fumes from modern textiles and other sources are far more toxic.

I cannot count on my child reacting rationally to a smoke alarm in the middle of the night and escaping in the proper direction.

For these reasons I chose to install a couple of Zigbee smoke alarms to provide earlier detection if there is a fire.

The risk is non-zero. The cost to achieve earlier detection is negligible. What kind of fool would I be not to take this action?
I keep reading this and can't figure out how you reach that conclusion.

A: Some number of Tesla Model S vehicles have burned without any apparent external source of heat.
Do you disagree?

B: They released software to prevent condition X, which has never occurred, and adjust for condition Z, which is not dangerous.
Correct me if I got something wrong there.

C: From what I can find, with only a limited amount of efforting, there are at least two subsequent fires with no published explanation.
Is this incorrect?

D: So the vehicle has a non-zero number of fire incidents and no corrective action to avoid them.

E: There remains a non-zero risk of another of these vehicles encountering a fire incident.
Can you tell me where I went wrong in getting from A to E?

Edit to add some color.
I have a child whose room is above the garage hosting our Tesla Model S. My wife and I are downstairs on the other side of the house. Originally there would be no alarm until off gassing from a fire reached either my child's or an adjacent room. There is no opening or air ducting between the garage and the living space.

I researched modern house fires and learned the window for escape is much lower than it was when I was younger and fumes from modern textiles and other sources are far more toxic.

I cannot count on my child reacting rationally to a smoke alarm in the middle of the night and escaping in the proper direction.

For these reasons I chose to install a couple of Zigbee smoke alarms to provide earlier detection if there is a fire.

The risk is non-zero. The cost to achieve earlier detection is negligible. What kind of fool would I be not to take this action?
I keep reading this and can't figure out how you reach that conclusion.

A: Some number of Tesla Model S vehicles have burned without any apparent external source of heat.
Do you disagree?

B: They released software to prevent condition X, which has never occurred, and adjust for condition Z, which is not dangerous.
Correct me if I got something wrong there.

C: From what I can find, with only a limited amount of efforting, there are at least two subsequent fires with no published explanation.
Is this incorrect?

D: So the vehicle has a non-zero number of fire incidents and no corrective action to avoid them.

E: There remains a non-zero risk of another of these vehicles encountering a fire incident.
Can you tell me where I went wrong in getting from A to E?

Edit to add some color.
I have a child whose room is above the garage hosting our Tesla Model S. My wife and I are downstairs on the other side of the house. Originally there would be no alarm until off gassing from a fire reached either my child's or an adjacent room. There is no opening or air ducting between the garage and the living space.

I researched modern house fires and learned the window for escape is much lower than it was when I was younger and fumes from modern textiles and other sources are far more toxic.

I cannot count on my child reacting rationally to a smoke alarm in the middle of the night and escaping in the proper direction.

For these reasons I chose to install a couple of Zigbee smoke alarms to provide earlier detection if there is a fire.

The risk is non-zero. The cost to achieve earlier detection is negligible. What kind of fool would I be not to take this action?
 

Keshk

Member
Aug 10, 2019
98
257
Orlando
For me personally I plan to keep my car way past the warranty so I think that Tesla making changes to extend the life of the battery pack is a good thing.

Even if it was a different car than the one you thought you getting? even if it was NOT what you bargained for?

This is one of the most misguided posts, no rational or unbiased buyer will accept.
 

ucmndd

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2016
7,677
14,926
California
You are not seeing the posted part numbers from people in many threads then.

The issue with not installing MCU2 in cars is because its only bundled with HW3.0? Send me a case of what you are drinking.
I’m not saying it’s sensical. It’s Tesla. Nothing is sensical, but it’s apparently what they’re telling people right now. I’m not quite sure why you’re being a dick.

If you want to show me an infotainment upgrade part number for AP2.0 or 2.5 that doesn’t also reference HW3, I’ll be interested to see it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: P85_DA

ucmndd

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2016
7,677
14,926
California
I'm not going to bother with showing you anything. Not really concerned with what you think. Lost interest when you started the insulting remarks.
You’re not going to “bother” because kits for AP2.0/2.5 without the HW3 computer don’t currently exist, and you know it.

We can all speculate as to why, and how dumb that is, but those are the facts right now.

Nice try at gaslighting though, coming in swinging with sarcasm and insults and then clutching your pearls when someone calls you on it. Stay classy.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: SucreTease
This was the first time you acknowledged curb rash. Your original post left out this crucial detail and the pictures are not the best so its actually pretty hard to see how bad it actually is and I was looking for a little clarity or maybe even better pics but obviously you rather blame someone else for your misgivings.......just because they are for sale as used does not mean they are damaged, and this is not an aftermarket for sale section. You can sell OEM or aftermarket.....no big deal like I said.

If you can't read and understand an ad then go elsewhere. Bro, get a clue. Nobody trying to steal your mommy breast milk so stop whining like a big spoiled baby. Haha. Next!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top