-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Snippiness 2.0
- Thread starter TexasEV
- Start date
- Status
(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)
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)
Guy V
Member
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)
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
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
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.
Guy V
Member
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.
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...
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!
It's probably worth editing the first post with this info if not there at the moment.
Last edited:
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
Go on the record with answers:
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.
Go on the record with answers:
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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?
Well, we'll see how it goes. My final attempt at getting this thread on track is above. I can't waste time sifting through the noise.
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.
Alrighty let's call it here. No safety issue on any software. Potential unexpected battery failure being stop-gapped with a capping update. Batteries gimp along through end of warranty. Attempts to reduce severity of range loss abandoned out of laziness/boredom/need to update the fart app.
Let's update the first post. I think resolving the safety issue (only 13k posts in...) is a big step for this thread.
Let's update the first post. I think resolving the safety issue (only 13k posts in...) is a big step for this thread.
Guy V
Member
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 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?
For myself, I generally note pretty clearly the source of information I post, and make clear what is speculation and what is not.
When it comes to information about Tesla's batteries, battery management software, hardware, etc... well, I'm quite honestly the only person here (that I'm aware of) who can be considered an expert source on such information. If you know anyone else here in this thread who works with these batteries on a technical level on a near-daily basis, has fully reverse engineered the hardware and software of the Tesla BMS (among other things), and otherwise has years of detailed knowledge and experience with the Model S batteries.... well, let me know.
If that expertise can be discounted as having "no greater validity than anyone else's speculations" ... then I honestly don't know what to tell you other than... well, I'll just skip the unkind words.
Guy V
Member
Useful in context, devoid of facts yet nonetheless well worth goading you into.
But all of that and you still won't just say what you found?
Trying to imagine why not only leads to dark places where I don't want to go. It seems odd that you think anyone has to be deserving of truth.
Now we are getting somewhere.
WK057 has now confirmed he is in possession of evidence Tesla committed a slew of crimes when they released this:
Tesla to update battery software following car fires
Knowingly hiding that from us and the NHTSA is a strange choice, especially after I posted how the NHTSA responds to individuals who do that sort of thing.
Before you changed your story you were openly discussing the capacity thefts. You need to blow the whistle on these felonies. Why are you exposing yourself? I assume you are OK if I already gave your contact info and some of your quoted claims of the evidence you supposedly have in your possession to the NHTSA investigator that has been on this case? Your denial of whistle blower protections make me think that was OK. You have admitted dozens of times and just recently clarified with certainty that you have evidence of fraud, grand theft, etc in your possession and do not want any kind of immunity for what you have been participating in. You're willing to submit everything when the Feds knock I assume, it's just us you're trying to conceal the evidence from right? You woudn't be concealing anything from law enforcement after being advised - that wouldn't be smart. I wish you hadn't been concealing evidence from any of us intentionally, but you are making some bold claims they should be asking you for what you have regarding what you know and when, sooner or later. Your statements here should interest them, they will probably want to see what you claim to have.
Everyone here wants you to read those words and follow through.
WK057 has now confirmed he is in possession of evidence Tesla committed a slew of crimes when they released this:
Tesla to update battery software following car fires
Knowingly hiding that from us and the NHTSA is a strange choice, especially after I posted how the NHTSA responds to individuals who do that sort of thing.
Before you changed your story you were openly discussing the capacity thefts. You need to blow the whistle on these felonies. Why are you exposing yourself? I assume you are OK if I already gave your contact info and some of your quoted claims of the evidence you supposedly have in your possession to the NHTSA investigator that has been on this case? Your denial of whistle blower protections make me think that was OK. You have admitted dozens of times and just recently clarified with certainty that you have evidence of fraud, grand theft, etc in your possession and do not want any kind of immunity for what you have been participating in. You're willing to submit everything when the Feds knock I assume, it's just us you're trying to conceal the evidence from right? You woudn't be concealing anything from law enforcement after being advised - that wouldn't be smart. I wish you hadn't been concealing evidence from any of us intentionally, but you are making some bold claims they should be asking you for what you have regarding what you know and when, sooner or later. Your statements here should interest them, they will probably want to see what you claim to have.
Everyone here wants you to read those words and follow through.
Last edited:
*deep breath*
hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha
*deeper breath*
hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha haaa
*recovering from nearly dying of laughter*
I'm just going to leave this here:
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.
Oh, and you obviously didn't read anything I wrote... because what you've written is exactly the opposite of what I posted.
----
Here we go again. Seriously, mods/admins, it's ban hammer time. Now this person is outright calling out folks and accusing them of committing crimes/fraud/etc with no basis in reality, even saying they're sharing personal information with others without permission. Enough is enough. This is just ridiculous. 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.
I've reported the above post to the forum admins. Hopefully they do the right thing here finally.
Last edited:
Wk is probably playing with words to hide what Tesla knew and when they knew it because he is waist deep in some criminal accusations he himself levied against Tesla and he knows people that work(-ed? Teslas average employment is 2 years they mighht have left already) at Tesla that could get into trouble and he is personally afraid of their illegal retribution against him too, putting him in a precarious position, but reading between the lines isn't difficult. He didn't know they would make his words an accusation that went on this long. It sounds like he didn't even know he was making criminal accusations in the first place - but he should. Theft and fraud to conceal safety problems are the sort of things that can be assumed illegal. Wk has established a time line with these last few posts - and that goes to the NHTSA's investigators questions of specific dates too. They are on the same page.
The fires in parked cars were likely something like David's "shorts" error Tesla introduced in their "improved diagnostics" so they are still looking for short circuits caused by lithium dendrite formations puncturing the cell membrane and causing uncontrollable thermal reactions. Every batterygate / chargegate mitigation effort after 2019.16 seems to be aimed at 2 things: slowing thermal runaway from dendrites already formed, and limiting the formation of new dendrite. To that end both are mitigated with lower temperatures and lower charge voltage, at the expense of capacity just like wk057 accuses Tesla of doing.
As for X to Z? Early on, Tesla thought there was something else. We have WK's uncited claims to that point but also the one cited owner of a car fire whose boyfriend talked makes it sound like the coolant excuse since Tesla asked about parking on inclines at one fire site and lowered voltage alone might mitigate electrolysis / shorting in a partially submerged anode. WK says that probably never happened in reality and I believe him. The conditions are just too unusual, and too numerous. Coolant is probably something they looked at only because of those 2012 recalls news stories recently - Tesla knew it might be possible to have some in there, so they asked.
Z - the more likely scenario - is dendrites. Every Tesla was subjected to conditions that are perfect for dendrite formation: Often repeated strings of high C charging, long term, with regen adding its own stresses, and often without any preconditioning leading to rapid cool to hot as the battery allowed extremely sharp thermal changes back in those days compared to now. Once dendrites are formed the only solution is replacing it - but reduced volts decreases the chances it will short circuit into thermal runaway and constant cooling until the charge voltage is low enough to stop shorting on its own decreases the chances of a fire even more.
Another hypothesis that multiplies all of these conditions are "dead cells" - fried fuses on individual cells, causing the rest of a brick or string to work much harder, get much hotter, charge and discharge much deeper faster and hotter, dip outside of voltage range, and ultimately fail. These dead cells would accelerate the formation of dendrites in cells around them, necessitating everything above. 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.
@wk057 - you are the one making the accusations. Your testimony is helpful and you shouldn't be banned for coming forward. The accusations are against Tesla - you aren't Tesla.
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.
YOu accuse Tesla of not reporting and concealing safety. You make criminal accusations! Just LOOKING without reporting is a crime. Taking action (batterygate / chargegate) is a much bigger crime. You confirmed Tesla was looking for and took action action against a safety issue without report and without recall. You confirmed Tesla committed those crimes and you have evidence of it. These are facts. Don't try to silence voices - YET AGAIN - when you are uncomfortable with what you have said. You might not realize the crimes you're accusing Tesla of making, but you made those accusations. You should blow the whistle. Please read and understand more carefully. I've urged you to take what you have said here to the authorities, and you tell us you are fine with not doing that. You say you have evidence that the "abundance of caution" press release" was definitely a safety recall dodge - a crime Tesla committed that you brought up on your own - and your evidence to that statement is helpful to restoring all of us.
Am I too close to the truth? Are you trying to silence anyone that gets too close to the facts?
If you're panicking, settle down. They won't go after you, they will ask you for evidence of what and when you have evidence of Tesla, that basically confirms what you already said. You might want whistle blower protections just in case, but your evidence is against Tesla knowing things to compare against what Tesla told them. You should reconsider the whistle blower status just in case but were reasonably open here and only recently said anything that looks like misinformation.
Last edited:
@doug, @TMC_admin Chaserr is continually violating the TOS of the site by posting knowingly false accusations against other members. @wk057 clearly stated that he thought that there was no safety issue to cover up but yet they are claiming the exact opposite. The mods for this forum appear to refuse to do anything about this member's violations of the TOS so I am asking you to step up and help by enforcing them.
For easy review:
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
