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.

David_Cary

Active Member
Dec 17, 2012
1,217
717
Cary, NC
You should really try hard to not supercharge to 100%. I haven't ever gone past 80%.

Murder was hyperbole - fair enough. Manslaughter is really the right term.

Chaserr - I get it - you are worried about fire. Now list all the spontaneous fires using denominators and numerators of the Model S. Now compare that to the average gas car. I admit the data on gas cars would be hard to find. But the fire risk is a non issue IMO. Your risk tolerance may be different.

But I think you are using emotion over reason if you consider the track record of fires on Tesla's.

The majority of parked battery fires is going to be after accidents and delayed fires. I suspect supercharging and a fire during charging would be the 2nd risk. So as long as you don't have an accident or have a supercharger in your garage, you are looking at a tiny risk.

Sometimes I think people need to back up and look at what actually kills people. Of things you can control, getting in the car is the most dangerous thing you can do that might kill you or your family today. Tesla has a better than average track record at protecting you from that. So that has to be weighed against the 1 in a million garage fire risk (and I am being very generous).

And remember, garages required fire rated walls and doors well before Tesla made cars.

(Obviously smoking, not exercising, consuming sugar or alcohol all pose greater risks but not the "today" risk that humans like to focus on).
 
  • Like
  • Funny
Reactions: Chaserr and SO16

tccartier

Supporting Member
Oct 27, 2015
919
956
AZ.
What was the charge rate over the whole charge? Curious if you saw a point of diminishing returns, i.e. the last 10% took as long as the first 30%, it started at 248 mi/hr but that only last 5 min, etc etc.

I didn't do any math on it but generally the sustained charge rate I see is about 50 to 55 kW until about 50% state of charge then it drops to about 45 kW and is down to about 25 kW as the charge approaches 80%. So much at superchargers that now it's almost as fast on an 80 amp wall connector or j-1772 when I can find one in the wild.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnman10

David.85D

Active Member
Oct 29, 2016
1,418
1,162
USA
About the fire risk - It isn't hard to find ICE data since almost all vehicle fires are ICE (since electric cars are a small fraction of all registered vehicles). In the US, The NFPA reports 212,000 vehicle fires annually. This is out of 273,000,000 registered vehicles in the US - roughly one in 1250. If you scaled that to Tesla's (a million total vehicles on the road), a similar fire rate would put it at 800 vehicle fires per year. I don't know of 800 Tesla fires per year, and the average age of vehicles isn't an exact match (average age of all cars is 11 years), but it still seems better than average for ICE.

But, as many people have said, I think this misses the point - we all suspect that Tesla knows what is wrong, but isn't telling, but we know that Tesla took away something of value and hasn't been honest about it, nor compensated the owners for the loss.

Data link- NFPA report - Fire loss in the United States
 
  • Like
Reactions: Droschke

David_Cary

Active Member
Dec 17, 2012
1,217
717
Cary, NC
Right - but spontaneous fires in garage is a lot harder to figure. That is what some posters are so worried about, they don't park their Tesla in the garage.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Tesla is being too secretive. But carrying that to some significant risk of spontaneous consumption is a stretch.

As far as compensation, that is a tough one. A cutting edge product that hasn't performed perfectly over time. Because of degradation, the company had to slow down charging. So we send a check to everyone? How about a $3000 discount on a new Tesla? The discount trick is a common one in other similar situations. And a common remedy for a class action lawsuit - I think the Leaf had this.

What makes sense for Tesla? Short term and long term? I certainly don't know the answer and they don't either - although I am sure they have spent a lot of time thinking about it.....
 

whitex

Well-Known Member
Sep 30, 2015
6,556
7,880
Seattle area, WA
Printer companies did a similar thing when they installed computer communication chips in their cartridges.

They would flash a toner low signal when there was still over 30% left in the cartridge. If end user did not replace the cartrige they would shut the printer down. Even worse, they also installed date sensitive cartridges. At the end of the year or two the cartridge will also shut down. Consumers were not given the opportunity to contunue printing if the quality of prints was still up to their standards.

Remanufacturers were sued for intellectual property infringements when they would install cartridges that worked until they were empty,
So what you're saying is Tesla is like a sleazy printer company screwing its customers whenever they can, or did I miss your point?
 

johnman10

Owner of S??D
Nov 11, 2015
120
465
Netherlands
Right - but spontaneous fires in garage is a lot harder to figure. That is what some posters are so worried about, they don't park their Tesla in the garage.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Tesla is being too secretive. But carrying that to some
So what you're saying is Tesla is like a sleazy printer company screwing its customers whenever they can, or did I miss your point?
Tesla did damage its customers when they decided to downgrade these batteries while they were still in their warranty period, without any permission or notification. That is beyond doubt, they did it. The fact that they updated their warranty terms to be covered against similar cases, only means that they will have no problem doing it again in the future. So yes, I think this statement is perfectly valid
 

ACA Man

Member
Jul 19, 2017
714
489
Rancho Cucamonga
Tesla did damage its customers when they decided to downgrade these batteries while they were still in their warranty period, without any permission or notification. That is beyond doubt, they did it. The fact that they updated their warranty terms to be covered against similar cases, only means that they will have no problem doing it again in the future. So yes, I think this statement is perfectly valid
And thus the lawsuit.
 

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,662
5,589
Logan
You should really try hard to not supercharge to 100%. I haven't ever gone past 80%.

Murder was hyperbole - fair enough. Manslaughter is really the right term.

Chaserr - I get it - you are worried about fire. Now list all the spontaneous fires using denominators and numerators of the Model S. Now compare that to the average gas car. I admit the data on gas cars would be hard to find. But the fire risk is a non issue IMO. Your risk tolerance may be different.

But I think you are using emotion over reason if you consider the track record of fires on Tesla's.

The majority of parked battery fires is going to be after accidents and delayed fires. I suspect supercharging and a fire during charging would be the 2nd risk. So as long as you don't have an accident or have a supercharger in your garage, you are looking at a tiny risk.

Sometimes I think people need to back up and look at what actually kills people. Of things you can control, getting in the car is the most dangerous thing you can do that might kill you or your family today. Tesla has a better than average track record at protecting you from that. So that has to be weighed against the 1 in a million garage fire risk (and I am being very generous).

And remember, garages required fire rated walls and doors well before Tesla made cars.

(Obviously smoking, not exercising, consuming sugar or alcohol all pose greater risks but not the "today" risk that humans like to focus on).

David, you don't get it. Tesla is breaking the law to avoid being a safe car company. It needs to submit the faulty hardware they identified and likely recall the batteries they downgraded illegally. Not following the law when it comes to safety isn't just illegal, it's dangerous. Tesla investigates video of Model S car exploding They responded to that and a series of others like it in the days before and after it with criminal downgrades. They issues a statement acknowledging the downgrades are in response to fire problems. The "Parked car" fires have no known cause, except Tesla's cryptic "single module" flaw that they still haven't issued a recall check for, or a repair to cars that have apparently been flagged as in need of repair by the batterygate and chargegate caps.

No other car, ICE or electric, has manufacturer disclosed fire hazards currently hidden from the NHTSA process of safety mitigatation approval. It's illegal for safety hazards to downgrade cars like this, and the NHTSA has to issue recalls ensuring that safety of every impacted car can be verified on their website, so we know the safety problem Tesla told you about in writing isn't fixed yet.

This has nothing to do with making excuses, Tesla built a reputation on safety and they have shredded that reputation by intentionally breaking safety laws to hide a very dangerous problem. Tesla is the only manufacturer that puts in writing right now that they are unwilling to submit cars that need to be evaluated for safety to the safety evaluation process.
 

Battpower

Supporting Member
Oct 10, 2019
1,992
1,953
Uk
Tesla's cryptic "single module" flaw that they still haven't issued a recall check for,

Was this ever specifically officially linked to the 'diagnostic code' and batteries being flagged for replacement?

the batteries they downgraded

I have seen no non-safety reason for the downgrades. I mean, can you seriously say any owner wants slower charging & / or less range than they would have had if Tesla hadn't made the changes? So if it isn't for enhanced ownership experience, what is it for?

It's illegal for safety hazards to downgrade cars

.... and 'safety' is the only possible reason, isn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaserr

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,662
5,589
Logan
Was this ever specifically officially linked to the 'diagnostic code' and batteries being flagged for replacement?
Tesla's response to the fires was a directly released press statement saying:

"While our investigation with authorities is ongoing, we have found that only a few battery modules were affected and the majority of the battery pack is undamaged.

We are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today"

The "today" they said that was the same day 2019.16 was released, which is the one that started batterygate.

It's illegal for them to downgrade us for ANY reason without our explicit permission and informed consent, but safety is the probable reason considering that's what they said themselves. It was probably also illegally done to save themselves money on warranty and recalls, the important thing is it was done, and they admit it. The crimes have already been owned by Tesla, the rest is all just them trying to back away from those admissions - I think that speaks to the large scope of the problem. it was far larger than the "small number" they initially claimed.

When it comes to safety, the NHTSA never allows downgrades unless it's temporary while a permanent safety measure is being readied (like Takata airbags being replaced with known faulty but younger airbags, to reduce the chances of death when new airbags are in short supply). The end fix must be at least as good as the original, if not better, and never a downgrade. This is probably why Tesla didn't report the problem in the first place, they didn't realize how noticeable or widespread their band aid to the fire problems was going to become.

If they did it to avoid paying warranty costs, it's still illegal but in that case they didn't need to admit to breaking any NHTSA safety laws.
 

AMPd

Active Member
Nov 27, 2012
4,445
3,684
Northern California
Tesla's response to the fires was a directly released press statement saying:



The "today" they said that was the same day 2019.16 was released, which is the one that started batterygate.

It's illegal for them to downgrade us for ANY reason without our explicit permission and informed consent, but safety is the probable reason considering that's what they said themselves. It was probably also illegally done to save themselves money on warranty and recalls, the important thing is it was done, and they admit it. The crimes have already been owned by Tesla, the rest is all just them trying to back away from those admissions - I think that speaks to the large scope of the problem. it was far larger than the "small number" they initially claimed.

When it comes to safety, the NHTSA never allows downgrades unless it's temporary while a permanent safety measure is being readied (like Takata airbags being replaced with known faulty but younger airbags, to reduce the chances of death when new airbags are in short supply). The end fix must be at least as good as the original, if not better, and never a downgrade. This is probably why Tesla didn't report the problem in the first place, they didn't realize how noticeable or widespread their band aid to the fire problems was going to become.

If they did it to avoid paying warranty costs, it's still illegal but in that case they didn't need to admit to breaking any NHTSA safety laws.
Not sure why someone keeps disagreeing with you. You’re telling it exactly how it is
 

Battpower

Supporting Member
Oct 10, 2019
1,992
1,953
Uk
Not sure why someone keeps disagreeing with you. You’re telling it exactly how it is

My personal view is that even though there is a smoking gun, and Tesla is holding it, they MAY have managed to just nip the safety / fire bud quick enough (by knobling charging etc) that there is not sufficient evidence to support the fire risk angle. If that is the case, then the absolutely unavoidable and glaringly obvious issue is the illegality of downgrading the spec of these cars without consent from owners or indeed any official justification. The rest is just shambolic and a shameful disregard for personal property as well as a perfect way to show how much you (don't) respect your clients.

The notion that the downgrades are in anyway in the best interest of owners is laughable.

I don't see any reason to disagree with the illegality of the downgrade, unless you see it as a very short term measure while a solution is found. I don't buy that based on a) the time passed with no official explanation b) the highly suspicious timing of information release relating to the fires and the software release that downgraded the cars.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Chaserr

ArizonaP85

Member
Apr 6, 2017
265
430
Phoenix
Not sure why someone keeps disagreeing with you. You’re telling it exactly how it is
MP3Mike disagrees with any post which calls out Tesla for illegally hacking into others’ cars and removing functionality without permission — yet he never seems to explain why Tesla should be allowed to treat our cars as its property years after it sold them.

MP3Mike please enlighten us: is Tesla exempt from all contract and criminal laws or just certain ones? If just certain laws, which ones?
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
15,566
34,151
Oregon
MP3Mike disagrees with any post which calls out Tesla for illegally hacking into others’ cars and removing functionality without permission — yet he never seems to explain why Tesla should be allowed to treat our cars as its property years after it sold them.

MP3Mike please enlighten us: is Tesla exempt from all contract and criminal laws or just certain ones? If just certain laws, which ones?

I've explained my view many times, but in this case it is Chaserr misrepresenting facts, yet again:

Tesla's response to the fires was a directly released press statement saying:

Tesla said:
"While our investigation with authorities is ongoing, we have found that only a few battery modules were affected and the majority of the battery pack is undamaged.

We are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today"

The "today" they said that was the same day 2019.16 was released, which is the one that started batterygate.

But:
  1. There was never a press release. (At least that I have seen.)
  2. He never provides a link so someone can verify his claim.
  3. That quote is incomplete and misleading, it actually said:
Tesla really said:
"As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and Model X vehicles via an over-the-air software update that will begin rolling out today, to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity."

With the stated reason for the update being to: "to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity."
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SmartElectric

Battpower

Supporting Member
Oct 10, 2019
1,992
1,953
Uk
While I don't think there is anything wrong with what @MP3Mike says in his post above, neither do I think it changes anything with regards to vehicles having been downgraded.

Tesla said : As we continue our investigation of the root cause, out of an abundance of caution, we are revising charge and thermal management settings.....

which I remember because of the phrase 'out of an abundance of caution' that IMO is clearly an attempt to explain why they are doing something when there is no reason to do it. (.... nothing to see here, move right along....)

As we continue our investigation of the root cause, [So they clearly acknowledge there is a problem because they are looking for its root cause]

out of an abundance of caution, [? either 'despite the fact that there isn't anything to investigate' (which makes no sense) or 'since there is potentially a serious issue that needs a lot of careful attention']

we are revising charge and thermal management settings [we are making unsolicited changes to unspecified vehicles that could effect battery charging, stored charge / range and keep cooling fans running far longer].

Since there is no evidence or sensible reason that Tesla's 'abundance of caution' required charge speed, charge amount / range and temperatures to be increased, the facts demonstrate they were reduced, all to the loss of owners. Wouldn't the same 'abundance of caution' not absolutely require Tesla to communicate what the underlying issue(s) is / are to both safety regulators and owners and put in place a remedy so that owners can at least see when and how they will get back what was taken from them?
 
Last edited:
  • Helpful
Reactions: Chaserr

David_Cary

Active Member
Dec 17, 2012
1,217
717
Cary, NC
Words like "criminally" and "illegal" are thrown around rather loosely and excessively. Please provide a link to the laws and also the lawyer and court that has interpreted the law. Because I am pretty sure there is no law that speaks specifically to OTA safety updates on an EV. And whatever specific law you are referring to will require some interpretation. We should also find out what law school Tesla's lawyers must have gone to that didn't think of these laws.

There is one link that shows that Tesla is investigating a fire. From over a year ago. The article says essentially nothing except that Tesla investigated a fire - and of course they would. The footage is a little strange don't you think? It seems like a cell phone and cell phones don't go around randomly recording parked cars, do they? So maybe someone was walking by and saw smoke - I think that makes sense. There is very little smoke initially but I could accept that. But then it is the most stable cell phone video I have ever seen. Again for a random person pulling it out of their pocket. I certainly can't shoot that good.

The articles states that there have been 12 fires - majority after accident.

Interesting that there have been zero of these fires in the US. Just interesting. Is China a harsher environment? Perhaps the electricity grid is not as stable? What were the comparable total sales in the US vs China as of 4/2019? Was it 10:1? Certainly when it comes to old Model S's - so you would think we would have fires all over the place.

But either way, Tesla was concerned enough to do something. But it is all a little strange.

I do subscribe to the belief that there is so much money riding on things that I don't believe a thing I see. I could probably get my Tesla to explode in my garage and retire on the short profit. Not to mention the oil interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike
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