Well, OK...Yes. Your original post said this:
I showed you what the EPA rated consumption was (380 wh/mi) and that is NOT the same as "When projected range = rated range"
Unless it's intentional (and he wouldn't do that, would he?) I believe the underlying behavior comes from being often confused. Evidence to that is much earlier in this thread when he was asking what the word degradation even means, and needed someone to define it for him so he wouldn't be confused. I think even after being educated on what the word means he periodically forgets again. That's how this repeating behavior wouldn't be intentional.
Actually, I wouldn't want any compensation. The modified phone does not do what I wanted it for. My only remedy is to take it back and find / buy something that does meet my needs.
yea if my phone cost me 70-100k you bet i would be pissed.
They only charge to 4.09v!!!!I wonder what's wrong with the NCA batteries
Tesla is switching to NCM battery cells for Chinese Model 3, LG starts mass production, report says - Electrek
On Edit: The difference between the two has been discussed in this thread extensively, FYI.
That doesn't do anything positive for us and I seriously doubt Tesla wants to be seen doing that. They aren't going to be able to dodge responsibility anyway if they start catching fire/blowing up.
"something to the effect" is NOT what he said. If you want to tell us what he said, then quote him, accurately.
I would buy another car from Tesla but if it becomes affected like this one I expect to be made whole with it. This pending lawsuit, I believe, will force Tesla to make us whole. Sadly, so far, they have not cooperated in helping their customers with this issue or even communicated by directly informing affected customers of the details.
Their latest direct communications are worse than not communicating - now we're being told we are test subjects in an unethically administered test none of us agreed to participate in.
At this point you've been refuted enough, so this is just piling on, but, no, your post about your model 3 range was not relevant or helpful, and combined with your other posts throughout this thread that either feign confusion or redirect issues into unrelated points (like the model 3 range) I derive, if you're intelligent, that you desire to sow confusion and uncertainty into this thread. Your actual goal seems to be to limit the propagation of damaging information that you hope isn't true, but you end up simply coming off as a defender of the faith. If you actually want to help in some way as you claim, then stop trying to change the subject, redirect points onto unrelated tracks, and stop making naive statements about degredation, etc. Here's an example. You claimed that there was a debate as to whether this was actually degredation or not, since maybe the bms missed it and has just now been corrected. This argument misses the forest for the trees. You somehow present it as a way to make the conversation about degredation and not capping, and thereby move the discussion into a category that you can now use to excuse Tesla with, since someone might say "and degredation isn't covered so case closed". The point people were making during that discussion was not to bicker about degredation vs capping. The point people were making was that even if a faulty bms hid degredation, it's is as bad as capping anyway. So, if you stop raising red herrings and leading the discussion down irrelevant avenues, that would be helpful.
Ok, so, you're pretty laser focsed on me for a few posts now. Gosh, I appreciate it. Anyway wk said it would be hard to replace modules to keep the battery at the same badge, he didn't say downgrading is not possible or even comment much about it. So you're mixing apples and oranges there a bit. Also, someone else pointed out to you that you missed that an 85 could be downgraded to a 70. Anyway, it doesn't matter, we get your point. It isn't easy. Good to know.
Taking it back simply means make you WHOLESOME. Full restitution.
