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

Sold my Model S after 5.5 years...moving on

Status
Not open for further replies.

Uncle Paul

Well-Known Member
Nov 1, 2013
6,296
6,858
Canyon Lake,CA
Tilting is from a jousting tournament. The ornately festooned knight in shining armor, on his huge, and also fully armored steed will face off against his opponent.
During the charge he will modify his lance from pointing straight up to pointing horizontally towards his fast approaching opponent.(tilting)

The lance will be taken from it's foot scabbard and repositioned to lock into his armor locking point. Will then charge at full speed and using momentum try to impale or knock his opponent off his horse.

Made the analogy to point out that perhaps the OP is making more of his offense than possibly necessary.

Only thing I see happening is that Tesla has reduced their previously agressive charging rate in light of a vehicle fire and the potential legal damages they could see if they did not do something to mitigate it from happening again.

I understand that people are not happy that Tesla is forced to do something to save the company that will also negatively effect some of his early customers, but sometimes decisions don't make everybody happy.
 

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,664
5,591
Logan
They have not decided to open an official investigation

It's confusing because the NHTSA calls it an "OPEN INVESTIGATION" in ALL CAPS red letters huge red letters but let me help you understand why people call it an open investigation - it's because that's what the NHTSA calls it too:
2013 TESLA MODEL S 5 HB RWD

TESLA MODEL S
3 Investigations

October 1, 2019 NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: DP19005 OPEN INVESTIGATION
Battery Management Software Updates

i8EkLw7.png


 
Last edited:

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
15,802
35,197
Oregon
It's confusing because the NHTSA calls it an "open investigation" in ALL CAPS red letters huge red letters but let me help you not make that mistake again.

2013 TESLA MODEL S 5 HB RWD

TESLA MODEL S
3 Investigations

October 1, 2019 NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: DP19005 OPEN INVESTIGATION
Battery Management Software Updates

i8EkLw7.png

Yes, it is an open investigation. But it is an investigation of the defect petition that was submitted by DJRas's lawyer, not of Tesla. If the defect petition is granted, which it hasn't been yet, they will start an actual investigation of Tesla and the BMS updates.

But you already know this, and have seen the evidence that NHTSA even reached out to a reporter to have an article corrected to have it not say that an investigation has started. But you still like to misrepresent the facts.

And if it takes them more than 7 months to even open an investigation how long do you think an actual investigation which take. (Assuming that they actually decide to start one.)

For an example look at this defect petition into the Honda Passport: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2001/HONDA/PASSPORT/4%2520DR#investigations

Passport DP.png


It took them just under two years to conclude their investigation into the submitted defect petition and deny it.
 
Last edited:

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,664
5,591
Logan
but sometimes decisions don't make everybody happy
If Tesla's decisions to break laws topple the company, it will probably make you unhappy as well - but personal victimhood should not be the only reason anyone changes how they feel about crimes. The perpetrator needs to be stopped, preferably before they commit crimes that are unforgivable enough to put them away for life or on death row. If your aggression against Tesla's victims is an attempt to save the company, you above all others should be trying to get them to stop putting the company at risk and change its ways right now. As you yourself seem to be putting it, it's Tesla's actions that are what is putting Tesla in a place wher eit needs to be saved. We are trying to save it - now, before they cannot be saved. Perhaps if they had changed a year ago when we started begging them to save themselves, you wouldn't feel they had made their situation so dire. This is an intervention. Tesla is out all night stealing, and we want them to cut it out, study, go to college, and make something of themself instead of spending their future in a penitentary. Interventions can save people from their terrible life choices.

No customer has created this problem for Tesla. It's Tesla's creation, and we customers want to help them get through it. Tesla wants to continue to escalate. We're still pleading with them to give talking a try. Tesla isn't a toddler any more, it's a teenager and should know how to talk - and more importantly it's old enough to be tried as an adult if it wants to willingly keep comitting the crimes you're worried threaten its future.

I have said it dozens of times and will keep saying it:

TESLA, TALK TO US. YOU MAKE THINGS WORSE WHEN YOU WANT TO FIGHT. WE WANT TO TALK. YOU NEED TO TALK. TRY TALKING.

I will literally buy my way out of this. Not everyone will but if one paid upgrade pays for 2 batteries, that's one free recall. They just need to make upgrades possible, and offer them at a conciliatory cost like Apple was forced to offer when they lost their class actions over downgrades. Apple did fine after that, Tesla put the future at risk instead, and I get that you worry about them, but don't blame tesla owners for Tesla's actions.

@MP3Mike, I know it's confusing but you missed the huge red OPEN INVESTIGATION letters. Investigations that aren't open like the one you linked by accident don't show it because they aren't OPEN INVESTIGATION

I'm surprised someone who disagrees with everything would disagree with that too, but it would be understandable if you hadn't already repeated that same mistake so many times before when trying to disagree with this topic. If only disagreeing with owners fixed their problems... you'd have repaired every battery by now!
 
Last edited:

vbaker

Member
May 19, 2018
146
96
Ohio
There’s a reason why you were considered an “early adopter”. There are going to be unknowns over time. I have a 2017 S90D and so far so good. I have 45k miles on it in 3 years and that’s with it being stored for several months of the year in the winter.

WHYYYY??? I have had my X for two years 5 months and 84k miles. Best winter car I have ever owned (not fun-wise; I grew up in the snow belt when it had snow and I love drifting/donuts and 180 degree flips on side roads, can't do any of those in a Tesla)

Anecdotally, while doing Uber, I had a Model 3 owner that told me he has had his 3 SHIPPED to Florida twice for winter and had never tried the supercharger network or even a road trip. We sat as long as I could at his destination discussing things he didn't know about his 3 after two years of ownership. (Got a tip too!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SO16

Mike Smith

Active Member
Jul 2, 2016
2,221
30,079
Toronto
Yes, it is an open investigation. But it is an investigation of the defect petition that was submitted by DJRas's lawyer, not of Tesla. If the defect petition is granted, which it hasn't been yet, they will start an actual investigation of Tesla and the BMS updates.

But you already know this, and have seen the evidence that NHTSA even reached out to a reporter to have an article corrected to have it not say that an investigation has started. But you still like to misrepresent the facts.

And if it takes them more than 7 months to even open an investigation how long do you think an actual investigation which take. (Assuming that they actually decide to start one.)

For an example look at his defect petition into the Honda Passport: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2001/HONDA/PASSPORT/4%2520DR#investigations

View attachment 535124

It took them just under two years to conclude their investigation into the submitted defect petition and deny it.

This is correct. You can tell it's still at the defect petition stage because of the case number: DP19005. The 'DP' stands for defect petition. If a formal investigation is started, the first stage is a preliminary evaluation, and the case number will start with 'PE'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3 and MP3Mike

Mike Smith

Active Member
Jul 2, 2016
2,221
30,079
Toronto
It's confusing because the NHTSA calls it an "open investigation" in ALL CAPS red letters huge red letters but let me help you understand why people call it an open investigation - it's because that's what the NHTSA calls it too:
2013 TESLA MODEL S 5 HB RWD

TESLA MODEL S
3 Investigations

October 1, 2019 NHTSA ACTION NUMBER: DP19005 OPEN INVESTIGATION
Battery Management Software Updates

i8EkLw7.png


This is stupid on NHTSA's part. Until an official investigation is started they should call it an 'open petition', not an 'open investigation'.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
15,802
35,197
Oregon
As far as your insistence that NHTSA is totally in it for your safety I present this recall: 2010 HYUNDAI ELANTRA 4 DR FWD

Hyundai Elantra Fire.png


The recall only prevents the cars from catching fire while they are turned off. So it appears that it is fine for the car to catch fire as long as it is on. o_O
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Droschke

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,664
5,591
Logan
The petition was filed by the class actions' lawyers on behalf of you and all other Tesla owners. NHTSA doesn't open a petition, they open an investigation in response to a petition filed by someone else. I know it's more confusing but hopefully the giant red capital letters help see the difference. Investigations are where the NHTSA investigates something - like when it demanded Tesla turn over all of the code and notes that went into the software updates they made Tesla turn over. Turning over that data was not optional - Tesla had to because they are legally required to cooperate with NHTSA investigations. Tesla is not required to respond to petitions, but fortunately the NHTSA chose to open an investigation in response to ours.

SUMMARY:
Petition = "Please open an investigation! -Tesla Owners"
Investigation = "OPEN INVESTIGATION" - NHTSA

You can download the petition to the NHTSA to open an investigation from the NHTSA website too, it's stored in the open investigation's
downloads area, along with the NHTSA's demand for Tesla to supply update data to them. This again underscores the difference between us petitioning the NHTSA to investigate, and the NHTSA's response to open an active investigation. The definition of "Investigate" being "the action of investigating something or someone; formal or systematic examination or research" we know they are formally collecting the data and analyzing it. The next step you will hear from the NHTSA is a final decision from the investigation - recall notification, most likely, so you will get that in the mail like you did from the Takata recall.
 
Last edited:

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,664
5,591
Logan
Are you joking? I haven't been able to park in my own garage for almost a year for fear my family can be killed at any moment. I'll benefit from Tesla coming clean on the fire risk they alluded to before clamming up, even all they are forced to do is uncap my original battery. I want peace of mind, I saw how violently rapid the affected batteries burn and I once had a race car roll off the ramp in the garage and put a dent in the wall while we were all sleeping - nobody heard a thing. A fire would be deadly, and I want to park inside. I win just from learning the truth and knowing I can or eventually will be able to do that once again.

This is a big part of why I will buy my way out of batterygate. Tesla told me my battery might catch fire, they weren't shy about admitting it on day 1... I will buy a safe battery today if they let me. We just need the NHTSA to tell us if they have a safe battery to sell. I bet that 350v new 85 is safe.
 

SO16

Active Member
Feb 25, 2016
3,068
9,596
MI
I haven't been able to park in my own garage for almost a year for fear my family can be killed at any moment.

That seems excessive to me. Has there been a rash of Tesla fires burning considering there are about a million on the road?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,664
5,591
Logan
Tesla car explodes in Shanghai parking lot

Yes, Tesla admitted batterygate is caused by a battery problem they still haven't repaired, one that caused that rapid thermal event in parked cars hours or even days after you park it. Parking away from people is the only prudent response to Tesla telling me my battery has that problem and they won't repair it or submit the problem to the NHTSA for independent review.

I value the lives of my loved ones more than I trust a proven liar.

You're free to make your own choices, I will wait for someone more trustworthy to review my battery's safety. Tesla was already caught lying about this. One of the other fires from that time avoided fatalities because the sleeping couple heart the boom. My garage is too well insulated, I would only find out about the fire when it had already penetrated into the house. Parking outside protects my family and everyone else, and I can call the FD sooner because I would probably hear the conflagration better through windows than concrete.
 
Last edited:

SO16

Active Member
Feb 25, 2016
3,068
9,596
MI
Tesla car explodes in Shanghai parking lot

It is the only prudent response to Tesla telling me my battery has that problem and they won't repair it or submit the problem to the NHTSA for independent review.

I value the lives of my loved ones more than I trust a proven liar.

You're free to make your own choices, I will wait for someone more trustworthy to review my battery's safety. Tesla was already caught lying about this.

Fair enough.

When you do buy something else, you may want to be careful not to buy a BMW, Lexus, Ford, Mercedes and practically all others. Sure, many were recalled...but not until after many experienced the fire first hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,664
5,591
Logan
I think Tesla is the only manufacturer that has admitted to a fire hazard before they tried covering it up, but I'm still willing to stay with them until someone else can make a comparable car - assuming whatever psychopath they have making these decisions is properly punished and Tesla resumes being the company it once was, one that established itself on a reputation of incredible safety. I just want my car repaired. Everybody knows it needs repair, it's not a mystery - they just don't want to follow legal safety procedures for some reason. And even if they don't ever, I'll replace my battery with a safe one once we know there is one, and they make it available to buy. I'm not asking for anything unreasonable, just warranty repair and/or legal compliance. Maybe the option to buy a battery like all those other companies.
 

johnman10

Owner of S??D
Nov 11, 2015
120
465
Netherlands
Let’s be honest.... The only ones who will actually benefit from this are the lawyers.
That's perfectly fine. Whatever it takes. I prefer paying another model S to them, than let Tesla steal from me in front of my face. It's not ok to steal stuff from people. It just ain't. I did not pay for the car I am driving, nor is my property some rollercoaster that Tesla has any right downgrading at will. If they can't keep up with what they sold us and they overestimated their state of the art technology, that is their problem, not mine. You need to understand: My car charges at max 60Kw from max 116kw. It is not some minor decrease in range, performance and charging speed. If the drop was minor, I really wouldn't mind. But when I can only supercharge at 60kw, it is not a car I can decently use for long trips anymore. This didn't happen at the end of the warranty period or something, it happened 3.5 years after it was brand new.
False advertising right there:
(Translated)
Does Supercharging affect my battery?
The highest battery charging speed may decrease slightly after many fast charging sessions, such as with Superchargers. To ensure maximum range and battery safety, the battery charging speed is reduced when it is too cold, almost full, or if its condition changes with use and with age. Due to these changes in battery condition, the total Supercharger time may increase by a few minutes over time.
 

Battpower

Supporting Member
Oct 10, 2019
2,027
1,984
Uk
These agencies care about safety. The fact that whatever Tesla did seems to have stopped the fires means they won't be opening investigations. They have limited time for investigations so they certainly won't be spending it on something that doesn't even seem to be a current problem. And they certainly won't be spending time investigating a few cars experiencing some advanced battery degradation.

Edit: and no, NHTSA isn't 'due' to investigate the issue. If they were going to they probably would have started a long time ago. The evaluation of the default petition sent by the plaintiff's lawyer was done because it's required by law.

What worries me (from the point of view that Tesla cars are alleged to have significant fire related safety risk) is that for a while (and may be at any time time ) has there been evidence that Teslas have more fires than other cars? If I'm wrong on this, I would appreciate evidence to correct my understanding. Not links to a bunch of media stories about Tesla fires. I've followed those. Out of a population of n cars suspected to be effected (capped / restricted) how many fires, when and evidence supporting exact cause. How many total fires have there been in the same population of the type that have since been capped?

A safety investigation will focus on data relating to..... safety, not consumer law or legal breach.

Ever since lithium and newer lithium based batteries have found there way into mainstream consumer products, they have been recognised as posing a risk of fire if damaged or abused. Same could be said for gasoline, aerosols, propane, hydrogen.... The high energy density that is so desirable, comes at a cost and an obligation on designers as well as users. If the established and accepted norms for cars are based primarily on gasoline fuel, then what's currently regarded as safe will unavoidably be based on those norms.

My first battery bank for my PV home storage uses 8 huge, heavy lead acid batteries that are only discharged to 50% for longevity - just to avoid using lithium in my house. Three years later, I added the same useable capacity with LG Chem lithium (manganese I think) in far smaller volume. 4 years later, still no fires, but if space wasn't an issue, I would prefer to be all lead acid. High energy density has its price.

So, if by tweaking the charging specs Tesla can get away with the argument that there isn't and wasn't ever a safety issue, then the discussion ceases to be about safety.

For me, unregulated OTA updates is the big issue. Coincidentally, capping etc would not have been forced on owners had there been a reasonable procedure controlling OTA. And yes, this may have revealed an underlying safety issue that Tesla may have used OTA updates to mask). Every change made to cars by Tesla by whatever means must be of clear purpose, fully documented as to what will change, and allow benefits to be had without forcing downgrades.

I don't want farts in exchange for a broken USB media player. I should not be forced into a range downgrade in order to have other features like camera viewer. If you sell me a feature (like FSD) sell me what I will actually get today, not a promise of what I might get tomorrow along with whatever unsolicited downgrades and bugs Tesla decide to send my way. Every interaction Tesla has with my car must be open and clear of purpose as well as of reasonable quality and no enforced detriment. In some ways the very existence of the OTA update facility to 'fix bugs' (as well as adding features and new bugs) does also acknowledge the existence of bugs that need fixing.

There might yet be a proved safety issue (I'm not sure if what Tesla have said in the past fully accepts 'we have a design flaw that means our cars represent an unacceptable fire hazard' ) , but Tesla MAY have dodged fire safety concerns by avoiding further fires. The other angles focused on OTA access to cars seem just as important and cover a broader range of concerns including knobbled performance.
 
Last edited:

johnman10

Owner of S??D
Nov 11, 2015
120
465
Netherlands
What worries me (from the point of view that Tesla cars are alleged to have significant fire related safety risk) is that for a while (and may be at any time time ) has there been evidence that Teslas have more fires than other cars? If I'm wrong on this, I would appreciate evidence to correct my understanding. Not links to a bunch of media stories about Tesla fires. I've followed those. Out of a population of n cars suspected to be effected (capped / restricted) how many fires, when and evidence supporting exact cause. How many total fires have there been in the same population of the type that have since been capped?

A safety investigation will focus on data relating to..... safety, not consumer law or legal breach.

Ever since lithium and newer lithium based batteries have found there way into mainstream consumer products, they have been recognised as posing a risk of fire if damaged or abused. Same could be said for gasoline, aerosols, propane, hydrogen.... The high energy density that is so desirable, comes at a cost and an obligation on designers as well as users. If the established and accepted norms for cars are based primarily on gasoline fuel, then what's currently regarded as safe will unavoidably be based on those norms.

My first battery bank for my PV home storage uses 8 huge, heavy lead acid batteries that are only discharged to 50% for longevity - just to avoid using lithium in my house. Three years later, I added the same useable capacity with LG Chem lithium (manganese I think) in far smaller volume. 4 years later, still no fires, but if space wasn't an issue, I would prefer to be all lead acid. High energy density has its price.

So, if by tweaking the charging specs Tesla can get away with the argument that there isn't and wasn't ever a safety issue, then the discussion ceases to be about safety.

For me, unregulated OTA updates is the big issue. Coincidentally, capping etc would not have been forced on owners had there been a reasonable procedure controlling OTA. Every change made to cars by Tesla by whatever means must be of clear purpose, fully documented as to what will change, and allow benefits to be had without forcing downgrades.

I don't want farts in exchange for a broken USB media player. I should not be forced into a range downgrade in order to have other features like camera viewer. If you sell me a feature (like FSD) sell me what I will actually get today, not a promise of what I might get tomorrow as long as I accept whatever other downgrades and bugs Tesla send my way. Every interaction Tesla has with my car must be open and clear of purpose as well as of reasonable quality and no enforced detriment.

There might yet be a proved safety issue (I'm not sure if what Tesla have said in the past fully accepts 'we have a design flaw that means our cars represent an unacceptable fire hazard' ) , but Tesla MAY have dodged fire safety concerns by avoiding further fires. The other angles focused on OTA access to cars seem just as important and cover a broader range of concerns including knobbled performance.

Yes, exactly. And that is why I believe Tesla actually does have a chance getting away with this in the US. NHTSA is asking for a lot of things from Tesla and seems to be serious about it, but it is essentially looking for battery defects. If they can prove dendrites or lithium plating or something like that, then a safety recall will indeed be performed.

But the violations of Tesla are reaching far beyond what could end up being ghost chasing. The violations are primarily around consumer protection laws, where Tesla simply cannot defend itself. A decent investigation will immediately prove that Tesla has downgraded performance characteristics for which customers paid money. At the same time, official Tesla disclaimers related to Supercharging speed (a critical aspect of the usability of an EV) are collapsing on their own, without even the need to really investigate anything.

Tesla has also not communicated absolutely anything to its customers, even though they were dumb enough to admit that 'some' customers may have experienced a 'small decrease' in range. The fact that Tesla has not done anything to address this, is a case that even a junior lawyer cannot lose.

And the list goes on. As Chaserr is saying, I really hope Tesla comes to its senses immediately, because the shitstorm they are about to get in Europe is enormous. The European union does not fool around with violations like these. They will soon become what VW became in the US.
 

David_Cary

Active Member
Dec 17, 2012
1,231
760
Cary, NC
Lots of inflammatory and rather over the top postings here lately.

But I have to call out the comparison to Dieselgate. Most would consider Dieselgate the largest murder by a corporation in modern history. And somehow waiting a bit longer to supercharge is comparable to killing people? And estimated 5,000 a year in Europe alone.

If you don't think air pollution kills people - maybe you shouldn't drive an EV.

I have a 2015 and I would buy another in a second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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