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.

whitex

Well-Known Member
Sep 30, 2015
6,553
7,879
Seattle area, WA
I've explained my view many times, but in this case it is Chaserr misrepresenting facts, yet again:



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:


With the stated reason for the update being to: "to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity."
Ok, let's take that reason you quoted:
  • "to help further protect the battery" - protect it from what, is this a safety recall? (and if so, why is NHTSA not involved, and the long term fix needs to be to the original specifications). If not safety, why is not not optional?
  • "improve battery longevity." - so avoid warranty costs. If this is about making batteries last after 8 years, this should be an optional feature an owner can choose to use or not (a button for "limit my battery so it lives well past 8 years")
They also forgot to mention that the change to "help the battery" is instead killing the cooling pumps which run around the clock, the 12V battery which needs to power them, the contactors and DC-DC converter which have to engage way more often than in the past in order to keep recharging the 12V battery drained by the cooling pumps. But of course, warranty on those runs out way before the 8 year battery warranty, it doesn't cost Tesla anything if they die after 4 years.
 
Last edited:

Battpower

Supporting Member
Oct 10, 2019
1,992
1,953
Uk
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.

Likely no cases yet regarding 'theft by OTA access' but there are many examples of changes in vehicle systems behaviour that owners feel are to their detriment and over which owners had no control or option over installing the 'update' . Neither am I aware of any disclaimer that states as an owner I agree that OTA 'updates' may 'downgrade' my car.

At the very least, safety related OTA (or in fact any safety update), 'feature updates' and 'bug fixes' should / must be separated and not dependent on each other, at least within a specific model / spec varient. The idea that somehow all Tesla vehicles can run the same software and broadly keep up with the latest features is impossible, so it has to be made possible that while you could be obliged to install a necessary safety or security patch, feature updates and maybe even bug fixes would have their content declared BEFORE you decide if you want to install, and may be even have a roll back option for say a week.
 
Last edited:

whitex

Well-Known Member
Sep 30, 2015
6,553
7,879
Seattle area, WA
Likely no cases yet regarding 'theft by OTA access' but there are many examples of changes in vehicle systems behaviour that owners feel are to their detriment and over which owners had no control or option. Neither am I aware of any disclaimer that states as an owner I agree that OTA 'updates' may 'downgrade' my car.
VW was forced to buy back cars (at very high prices) that would required nerfing to make meet emissions - a firmware update was available to apply to make the car compliant with emissions standards, at a cost of losing performance and fuel efficiency. Lucky for owners, VW did not have OTA, and their cheating pissed of enough governments that they didn't let VW just nerf all cars and call it a day.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Chaserr

Battpower

Supporting Member
Oct 10, 2019
1,992
1,953
Uk
  • "to help further protect the battery" - protect it from what, is this a safety recall? (and if so, why is NHTSA not involved, and the long term fix needs to be to the original specifications). If not safety, why is not not optional?
  • "improve battery longevity." - so avoid warranty costs. If this is about making batteries last after 8 years, this should be an optional feature an owner can choose to use or not (a button for "limit my battery so it lives well past 8 years")

1) re: protecting the battery..... Yes, exactly.

2) re: extending battery life...... Yes, exactly. Especially when we all know that driving a car hard likely brings about earlier failure of something, but that's at the choice of the owner.

Imagine your ICE BMW M1 or whatever coming back from service with a remapped Engine Management Unit that reduced power output 'to protect your transmission and extend tire life'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaserr

Chaserr

Hyperactive Hyperdrive
Sep 5, 2017
2,662
5,589
Logan
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.
IF they "nipped" a safety issue in the bud, they are more guilty than ever. manufacturers aren't allowed to hide safety issues, especially with optional updates that owners can't even check their VIN on the NHTSA website to see if it has been addressed, and safety can never downgrade what was paid for. So many crimes hinge on the safety aspect - if it was just theft for no other reason, it's actually better for Tesla.

Effectively almost no one is aware of this issue so their reputation is still mostly intact. That could change of course.
It will. The NHTSA's will go public with an involuntary recall when they have determined the scope. On that subject, how many other owners have been contacted by the NHTSA investigator yet? If you submitted your contact info, they are looking for any pre and post log info you can provide. If you haven't reported your problems to them yet, do it they are actively investigating this right now.

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.
David, EVs are not exempt from the law. Theft, safety, warranty laws etc apply to Tesla just as much as every other car. Tesla broke a ton of laws, theft is a crime and the fact that it was easy for Tesla to steal en mass doesn't make it legal. Warranty and safety crimes aren't excusable either, they multiply the charges against Tesla. Every manufacturer is bound by the same laws. For example, that press release Tesla put out calls attention to their own internal investigation at the same time they say they are taking action to mitigate fires. That is in itself an admission of crime. Tesla had to report their internal investigation to the NHTSA within 5 days of discovering they might have a fire problem - not taking action but simply hearing about a possible problem. The NHTSA must then be the ones that issue the recall notice for any update that might address the issue. Secrecy and lies about safety problems are not legal, it must be public and tracked so anyone at risk can be contacted and if they sell the car the new buyer is informed. Tesla followed none of these laws and directly lied to us when we confronted them, offering many unrelated excuses for the downgrades they committed - which are in themselves theft, a simple crime on its own.

No one loosely throws these words. Tesla acted criminally and irresponsibly. They are acting as a criminal organization even now, actively covering up last year's crimes. We can only debate how criminal they are, they depth of those crimes is a question because they won't tell us whether they stole fcrom owners to save themselves warranty expenses (Magnusson Moss Warranty Act criminal charges if so), skipping every safety and reporting law the NHTSA has to try and avoid recalls (many federal crimes), or just committed theft for no reason (the best possible outcome for Tesla, because simple theft is the fewest number of crimes.

Since you want a list of all of teh crimes Tesla committed, including those specific to how OTA was criminally used:

VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1 ....................................................................................................................49 VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.)

COUNT 2 ....................................................................................................................54 VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT (“MMWA”) (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.)

COUNT 3 ....................................................................................................................56 Case 5:19-cv-04596 Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 100 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT iii Case No. 5:19-cv-4596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT (“SONG-BEVERLY”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.)

COUNT 4 ....................................................................................................................60 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)

COUNT 5 ....................................................................................................................62 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)

COUNT 6 ....................................................................................................................66 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.)

COUNT 7 ....................................................................................................................70 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.)

COUNT 8 ....................................................................................................................72 TRESPASS TO CHATTELS (California Law)

COUNT 9 ....................................................................................................................73 COMMON LAW FRAUD (California Law)

COUNT 10 ..................................................................................................................76 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (California Law)

COUNT 11 ..................................................................................................................78 FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT (California Law)

COUNT 12 ..................................................................................................................80 BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (California Law)

COUNT 13 ..................................................................................................................82 MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (California Law)

COUNT 14 ..................................................................................................................82 BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Cal. Comm. Code § 2313)

COUNT 15 ..................................................................................................................85 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES (Cal. Comm. Code § 2314)

COUNT 16 ..................................................................................................................87 Case 5:19-cv-04596 Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 100 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT iv Case No. 5:19-cv-4596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710)

COUNT 17 ..................................................................................................................90 NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710)

COUNT 18 ..................................................................................................................91 FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294)

COUNT 19 ..................................................................................................................94 QUASI CONTRACT/RESTITUTION/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (California Law)


This list is only the civil laws broken, but you can easily understand that OTA updates used to commit fraud are in themselves violations of several hacking laws. Manufacturers aren't exempt.

Federal charges from the NHTSA and possibly the EPA as well will be larger in scope.
 
Last edited:

David.85D

Active Member
Oct 29, 2016
1,418
1,162
USA
Not sure about the “zero in the US” claim. The Wikipedia page that summarizes electric vehicle fires lists several that are not accident related (and many that are accident related).

what I find telling is that in different written responses to these fires, Tesla says either its cars are 5 times or 10 times less likely to catch fire than ICE cars. Given the NFPA numbers, which I listed above, that works out to between 80 and 160 Tesla fires per year. Which makes me think that most are not reported in the press and thus unknown to all the armchair quarterbacks here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chaserr

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
15,560
34,117
Oregon
what I find telling is that in different written responses to these fires, Tesla says either its cars are 5 times or 10 times less likely to catch fire than ICE cars. Given the NFPA numbers, which I listed above, that works out to between 80 and 160 Tesla fires per year. Which makes me think that most are not reported in the press and thus unknown to all the armchair quarterbacks here.

The most recent report Tesla provided says ~9.2:

From 2012 – 2019, there has been approximately one Tesla vehicle fire for every 175 million miles traveled. By comparison, data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation shows that in the United States there is a vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled.

In order to provide an apt comparison to NFPA data, Tesla’s data set includes instances of vehicle fires caused by structure fires, arson, and other things unrelated to the vehicle, which account for some of the Tesla vehicle fires over this time period.
 

ucmndd

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2016
6,533
12,243
California
Since you want a list of all of teh crimes Tesla committed, including those specific to how OTA was criminally used:

VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1 ....................................................................................................................49 VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.)

COUNT 2 ....................................................................................................................54 VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT (“MMWA”) (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.)

COUNT 3 ....................................................................................................................56 Case 5:19-cv-04596 Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 100 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT iii Case No. 5:19-cv-4596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT (“SONG-BEVERLY”) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.)

COUNT 4 ....................................................................................................................60 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)

COUNT 5 ....................................................................................................................62 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)

COUNT 6 ....................................................................................................................66 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.)

COUNT 7 ....................................................................................................................70 VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.)

COUNT 8 ....................................................................................................................72 TRESPASS TO CHATTELS (California Law)

COUNT 9 ....................................................................................................................73 COMMON LAW FRAUD (California Law)

COUNT 10 ..................................................................................................................76 CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD (California Law)

COUNT 11 ..................................................................................................................78 FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT (California Law)

COUNT 12 ..................................................................................................................80 BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (California Law)

COUNT 13 ..................................................................................................................82 MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED (California Law)

COUNT 14 ..................................................................................................................82 BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Cal. Comm. Code § 2313)

COUNT 15 ..................................................................................................................85 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES (Cal. Comm. Code § 2314)

COUNT 16 ..................................................................................................................87 Case 5:19-cv-04596 Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 100 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT iv Case No. 5:19-cv-4596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710)

COUNT 17 ..................................................................................................................90 NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710)

COUNT 18 ..................................................................................................................91 FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294)

COUNT 19 ..................................................................................................................94 QUASI CONTRACT/RESTITUTION/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (California Law)

A list of counts brought forth in a civil suit now constitutes a definitive list of "crimes committed"?

That's absurd and speaks to how fanatical and biased you've become on this issue. Your repeated and deliberate conflation of accusations with facts has eroded any credibility you have on this subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MP3Mike

David.85D

Active Member
Oct 29, 2016
1,418
1,162
USA
The most recent report Tesla provided says ~9.2:

Wanted to do the quick conversion between the numbers to see how close they are. Using the 19 Million Miles number, divided by the average mileage of 13,500 miles (according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration), gives one vehicle in 1400 (on average, of course & rounded). Doing the same estimate from Tesla's number, it comes out to one vehicle in 13,000 (on average & rounded) or roughly 77 fires per year based on 1,000,000 total cars. Seems to be in the same ballpark as the estimate based on registered vehicles. Again, since we only know of a dozen or so, clearly there are many more fires happening out there.

I don't have a good way to weight these for the difference in production - ICE numbers are relatively stable, but Tesla's production is ramping up, so there are far more very new cars in their fleet than older cars. Even cutting the number in half again would put it around 40 fires per year - far more than we know about.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
15,560
34,117
Oregon
Even cutting the number in half again would put it around 40 fires per year - far more than we know about.

I suspect that the news of a Tesla catching fire in an accident just doesn't get the clicks that it used to so they aren't bothering to report all of them. (Just like every fire of a BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, etc. aren't publicized.)
 
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