Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

No, I would think it is the opposite of that. To me it signals that mediation is failing and that they are preparing to go on to the next phase which would be discovery before the trial. And they don't want the information shared in discovery to be made public.

I agree with this. They already have non disclosure on the meidiation. They are now hoping they don't have to publicly disclose their guilt to the world.

This bad because it says they can't and won't have a Tesla warranty worth the electrons they're printed on.

This is why the lawyers tesla had file the motion are a famous corporate bankruptcy firm. I think they're scared and fight or flight reactions are both kicking in. They fight us and try to hide from us.

 

[DILIE]

This is why the lawyers tesla had file the motion are a famous corporate bankruptcy firm. I think they're scared and fight or flight reactions are both kicking in. They fight us and try to hide from us.

I don't place much on such a motion. It's a fundamental move. Every lawyer is going to work hard to start as far from the middle as possible, so they can give concessions without giving away the things they don't want to.

 

[cpa]

It's good that you have no problem with the changes, since you have no choice.

It's also charitable that you take their word for how it improves battery life, despite their refusal to provide any information showing how and why battery life is now so much shorter than originally planned that it requires reducing range by 15+% and performance by 17% with no compensation, apology, or explanation to the owner, other than "it will last longer." <I lamely attempted to address that run-on sentence several times, but gave up. Long week.>

Note that I don't fault your position, you have every right to establish your own priorities on performance and charging rate (and likely range, have you noticed any change?) It's just surprising. There haven't been many owners here who took this change well.

And it really is "choice" that is the key. If Tesla had put a switch in the software for "Battery Management" with options "Extended Life" and "Original Performance, Range, and Charging" at least we would all be able to set our own priorities.

Maybe a set of checkboxes would be even better. "I'll have Range and Charging please, let the Porches lead the way!"
Just an example though, I'd check all three.

WHY I BOUGHT MY TESLA IN 2014
by CPA
​

1. Roughly 240-255 real world miles (the way I drive).
2. Supercharger speeds to "fill your battery 50% in as little as 30 minutes."
3. Eight-year, unlimited mileage warranty on the battery and drive motor.
4. It was just a real fun car to drive.

Instead, had Tesla advertised. . .

1. Roughly 210-220 real world miles after five years (the way I drive.)
2. Supercharger speeds to "fill your battery 50% in as little as 45 minutes."
3. Four year- 50,000 mile warranty on the battery and drive motor.

I would not have plunked down 100K on this car, regardless of how fun it was to drive. Our 1995 Mustang convertible with 5-speed transmission was fun to drive too, and we would have kept it a few more years.

If these software updates were really and truly safety-related, Tesla has a problem. They are playing with our personal well-being by ignoring the root causes of the safety issues with their batteries.

If these software updates were really to avoid too many warranty claims, Tesla has a problem. They are indemnifying themselves against their own actions at their customers' inconvenience and expense.

Tesla painted themselves into a corner with their bold warranty and Supercharging speeds. As I stated much earlier in this topic, the warranty and Supercharging speeds were marketing ploys to sell cars and start Tesla on its mission. To the extent that Tesla has developed the X, 3, and now Y, and sales (until the COVID-19 pandemic) have been growing and quite robust, this marketing tactic was a success.

I think that the negative public relations with this issue if and when any discovery is made public at trial (does Tesla really want to open up that can of worms) will be more costly than any financial consideration given to us owners to make us whole again.

​

 

[cpa]

I agree with this. They already have non disclosure on the meidiation. They are now hoping they don't have to publicly disclose their guilt to the world.

This bad because it says they can't and won't have a Tesla warranty worth the electrons they're printed on.

This is why the lawyers tesla had file the motion are a famous corporate bankruptcy firm. I think they're scared and fight or flight reactions are both kicking in. They fight us and try to hide from us.

I have a mixed reaction about this non-disclosure.

It could be that the lawyers are getting to the heart of the issue. I would think that in order to reach a settlement, plaintiff's counsel would need to know facts about the batteries and Tesla's research and testing and subsequent changes to our vehicles. Presumably this information would not be supported with discoverable evidence, but would be oral representations from Tesla's counsel and one or two key employees.

For example, counsel for Tesla might say that about 15% of all batteries manufactured from Day X to Day Y have exhibited intermittent failures with a particular part. They have no way of knowing which of these cars have the potential to express this failure without tearing the pack apart. They realized that by slowing Supercharging speeds and capping the cell voltage at ~4.1, that the chances of this failure drops to under 1%. Therefore, Tesla decided to force these changes upon us. This sort of information has to be kept secret by all those privy to the mediation.

Then it is up to the lawyers and mediator to see if a reasonable settlement can be proffered and accepted.

 

[Chaserr]

For example, counsel for Tesla might say that about 15% of all batteries manufactured from Day X to Day Y have exhibited intermittent failures with a particular part. They have no way of knowing which of these cars have the potential to express this failure without tearing the pack apart. They realized that by slowing Supercharging speeds and capping the cell voltage at ~4.1, that the chances of this failure drops to under 1%. Therefore, Tesla decided to force these changes upon us. This sort of information has to be kept secret by all those privy to the mediation.

I agree with you on all of this, but if true Tesla's motivation for keeping it all secret is because their response is illegal and they are trying to take the 5th. No judge could allow them to continue. Secrecy does make it easier to fool ONE judge though, so maybe the secrets are to limit the lies to people least able to spot them. Public evidence would lose the case instantly but a dumb and easily fooled judge is their chance at getting away with the crimes.


We should befiling class actions in every other state too, so they have to hope for dumb courts everywhere else.

 

[First EV]

Just do a lease instead of buying, or if you buy just trade it back in after a few years. Battery tech will only get better.

I don't understand why someone would give a company that they feel cheated them any more money. I understand that a lease means you aren't stuck with the battery/charge gated car. If you feel they cheated you buy from someone else. I know a lot of people say they will only buy electric, I use to say that too until this happened.

 

[kavyboy]

I don't understand why someone would give a company that they feel cheated them any more money. I understand that a lease means you aren't stuck with the battery/charge gated car. If you feel they cheated you buy from someone else. I know a lot of people say they will only buy electric, I use to say that too until this happened.

I think it's maybe viewing Tesla as the Prodigal Son, but we're still in the prodigal stage of the story. Let's hope the come back.

 

[johnman10]

I think it's maybe viewing Tesla as the Prodigal Son, but we're still in the prodigal stage of the story. Let's hope the come back.

No second chance for a company that has treated its customers like this. Never.

 

[cpa]

I agree with you on all of this, but if true Tesla's motivation for keeping it all secret is because their response is illegal and they are trying to take the 5th. No judge could allow them to continue. Secrecy does make it easier to fool ONE judge though, so maybe the secrets are to limit the lies to people least able to spot them. Public evidence would lose the case instantly but a dumb and easily fooled judge is their chance at getting away with the crimes.

This is incentive enough for Tesla to settle through mediation. Whatever Achilles' Heels are in our battery packs will remain secret. A staggered replacement battery program to restore most of the range and faster Supercharging speeds will make us members of the class more whole, maybe not brand-new, but perhaps pretty gosh darn close. Or maybe Tesla will develop a more thorough diagnostic test for these batteries. Maybe these putative tests will reveal more accurately the flawed batteries. Those with flaws get new ones. Those of use without flaws get a software update that restores what was taken. People who are ignorant of the issue will be overwhelmed at Tesla's generosity in replacing their batteries or restoring lost range and SC speeds. Those of us on this and other sites will be relieved, but will still question Tesla's motives.

Of course Tesla's public relations department will put positive spin on the announcement: "Thanks to state-of-the-art diagnostic testing, we have determined that a small number of cars manufactured from 201X to 201Y experienced a slight decline in the rated miles and Supercharging speeds of their batteries that was greater than our extensive testing programs when originally placed in service. Even though there was nothing wrong with those batteries, and those batteries were safe and had years of service remaining, Tesla has decided to thank these early adopters who believed in our mission by replacing those batteries free of charge."

 

[AmpedRealtor]

... my car is no longer capable of 0-60 MOH in 4.2 seconds. I know get more like 4.9 to 5.1 seconds... Since I intend to keep my S85D for a long time, I have no problem with these changes...

It's people like you who make Tesla what it is today, allowing them to steal from you and violate representations made at the time of sale. Are you always like this with your money, letting manufacturers take it out of your pocket after purchase? What do you think your car is worth now, a "performance" car that doesn't perform? I guess you're okay with opening your wallet and bending over.

An ICE vehicle is sold with a range of mileage — no guarantee of the high being consistent, or the low for that matter. granted there were folks who found issues with the high values that were never seen, and that got settled in court. but in this case, I am not hearing why this should be treated any differently.

Does BMW silently access your car remotely to reduce the mileage or amount of fuel your vehicle can hold? That's what Tesla did. Your example is completely off-base. Of course components degrade and performance changes over time. That's not what is being discussed. Tesla is the one who degraded capacity and performance, it wasn't the parts degrading on their own.

I suppose you would also be fine with Tesla limiting the turning radius of the car if it discovers some latent defect with the steering? Maybe they should remove streaming audio if they find a latent defect with the antenna? You seem to forget, if something is defective it needs to be fixed under warranty.

 

[kavyboy]

You seem to forget, if something is defective it needs to be fixed under warranty.

Instead of recalling/replacing the Takata air bags, they should have just limited the top speed to 35 MPH, out of "an abundance of caution" and to "improve body work costs". I'm full of good ideas like that.

 

[johnman10]

Instead of recalling/replacing the Takata air bags, they should have just limited the top speed to 35 MPH, out of "an abundance of caution" and to "improve body work costs". I'm full of good ideas like that.

Supercharging going down to 30KW. Tesla service centers: Supercharging speed is not covered by warranty

 

[mymagiccarpet]

An ICE vehicle is sold with a range of mileage — no guarantee of the high being consistent, or the low for that matter. granted there were folks who found issues with the high values that were never seen, and that got settled in court. but in this case, I am not hearing why this should be treated any differently. Last I checked, there are minimal guarantees on batteries, beyond the claims of 10 year batteries for smoke detectors, and will someone trigger a court case when it dies at 9 years and 360 days?

lastly, when you buy the car, you do so knowing that they can change how it works with a software upgrade. same as understanding your car is not full self-driving and won’t be.

I don’t disagree that you spent good money and expect a quality result, but get a grip on it. There will continue to be unexpected, unwanted surprises as well as pleasant ones. you just have to hope that the plus outweighs the minus.

I'm not sure i can agree with you. I consider this for a business transaction. They give something, we give something, and transaction is completed - part of this transaction are claims, promises and warranties, namely in this case specifications, vehicle warranty and a promise to continue to provide SW update which will enhance the vehicle. So if they take something after giving it in writing, I think it's fair we expect something in return. Nothing complicated about this. They took advertised battery capacity - battery capacity is part of specification, and range is not. However, they didn't take range, they took battery capacity. And no, physics didn't take it, Tesla took it.

Similarly, to parallel with ICE, gas tank size is part of vehicles specification, and if you take your car in to fix an unrelated component, and they end up reducing gas tank size by, lets say, 20% without telling the you - that would be ok?

 

[Chaserr]

There will continue to be unexpected, unwanted surprises as well as pleasant ones. you just have to hope that the plus outweighs the minus.

You're advocating for crime here, but we don't need to bend over and hope we can actively stop more crimes before they happen and force them to return things they've already stolen to the rightful owners. Taking action shifts the hope from your "maybe good will come from the bad" to no more thefts at all, and then you can thank people like us protecting you by stopping the thieves. In the long term, a successful intervention is better for both the victim and the perpetrator.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

This is incentive enough for Tesla to settle through mediation. Whatever Achilles' Heels are in our battery packs will remain secret. A staggered replacement battery program to restore most of the range and faster Supercharging speeds will make us members of the class more whole, maybe not brand-new, but perhaps pretty gosh darn close. Or maybe Tesla will develop a more thorough diagnostic test for these batteries. Maybe these putative tests will reveal more accurately the flawed batteries. Those with flaws get new ones. Those of use without flaws get a software update that restores what was taken. People who are ignorant of the issue will be overwhelmed at Tesla's generosity in replacing their batteries or restoring lost range and SC speeds. Those of us on this and other sites will be relieved, but will still question Tesla's motives.

Of course Tesla's public relations department will put positive spin on the announcement: "Thanks to state-of-the-art diagnostic testing, we have determined that a small number of cars manufactured from 201X to 201Y experienced a slight decline in the rated miles and Supercharging speeds of their batteries that was greater than our extensive testing programs when originally placed in service. Even though there was nothing wrong with those batteries, and those batteries were safe and had years of service remaining, Tesla has decided to thank these early adopters who believed in our mission by replacing those batteries free of charge."

I really wish your post becomes reality. This needs to be somehow brought to customer-centered resolution soon, and I believe Tesla would be better of for it too. We would all like to enjoy the cars we bought, and move on with our life. This issue is coming up on a year soon. Here is to hoping for satisfactory solution

 

[MP3Mike]

Similarly, to parallel with ICE, gas tank size is part of vehicles specification, and if you take your car in to fix an unrelated component, and they end up reducing gas tank size by, lets say, 20% without telling the you - that would be ok?

What about a gas tank that shrinks by almost 50% when it is cold? Is that a recall worth defect? According to the courts it is not.

Plaintiffs Henry and Veronica Troup alleged in the class action lawsuit that the Prius models were manufactured with a flexible fuel bladder rather than the standard steel or plastic gas tank, which causes the bladder to shrink in cold weather and reduce the amount of gas the tank can hold by nearly half the advertised capacity. The plaintiffs alleged Toyota had failed to meet standards for express warranty, but the 9th Circuit ruled that the basic warranty protected buyers from “defects in materials or workmanship” and not design choices.

So the question comes down to is the issue with the older Tesla batteries an actual defect or is it the result of a design decision. People have claimed that t he issue has/will happen to every one of the older battery packs which makes it look like a design decision vs. a defect.

Recent California decisions regarding breach of implied warranties regarding automobiles focus chiefly on safety and whether or not the vehicle can be driven at all. The 9th Circuit noted in its Nov. 20 decision that the plaintiffs “failed to alleged that their Prius was unfit for its intended purpose, [as it did not] drastically reduce its mileage range,” adding that the alleged defect “merely required the Troups to refuel more often.”

The court didn't think that having to refuel more often, even twice as often, made the Prius "unfit for its intended purpose." Following that would the range in a Tesla being reduced by 10-20% make the vehicle "unfit for its intended purpose?"

This is probably a good example of relevant case law.

 

[cpa]

What about a gas tank that shrinks by almost 50% when it is cold? Is that a recall worth defect? According to the courts it is not.



So the question comes down to is the issue with the older Tesla batteries an actual defect or is it the result of a design decision. People have claimed that t he issue has/will happen to every one of the older battery packs which makes it look like a design decision vs. a defect.



The court didn't think that having to refuel more often, even twice as often, made the Prius "unfit for its intended purpose." Following that would the range in a Tesla being reduced by 10-20% make the vehicle "unfit for its intended purpose?"

This is probably a good example of relevant case law.

You raise a good point. I would merely counter that the courts only address what is written in the complaint and the relevant tort or statutory laws that are cited in the complaint.

I have not read the decision; I'll do this at a later date, so I reserve the right to change my view. I believe that the Tesla complaint is more complex and it raises issues not considered in the Ninth Circuit's decision. Toyota's design was this way from day 1. Would the courts have reached the same decision had the Prius gas bladder functioned at 100% for four years before the manufacturer installed temperature-related size adjustments for unknown reasons?

I might be willing to agree if the design decision to reduce our charging capacities was steady, regular, and continuous. It strains credulity to believe that the SUDDEN reduction in range was a design decision. It was likely something else that MAY have been influenced by a design decision six years ago. In other words, this is a post hoc design decision, and I am not certain that this case law will be on point for post hoc design decisions.

 

[mymagiccarpet]

What about a gas tank that shrinks by almost 50% when it is cold? Is that a recall worth defect? According to the courts it is not.
.

it depends, does it go back to original size when it gets hot

 

[mymagiccarpet]

The court didn't think that having to refuel more often, even twice as often, made the Prius "unfit for its intended purpose." Following that would the range in a Tesla being reduced by 10-20% make the vehicle "unfit for its intended purpose?"

This is probably a good example of relevant case law.

Not really. The question here is not whether the car is fit for its purpose. Million buyers, million purposes. Sure, that can be claimed, but as you pointed, it may not go great in court.
The question is of changing car's specs without knowledge and approval of the owner and significantly and negatively impacting car's value, eg. 85 became 75, 70 became 60, etc. This is easily quantifiable impact to car's value, value that each owner handed compensation to Tesla for, and Tesla has kept it even after removing what they were paid for. Very simple. No need to make it more convoluted - that would be doing Tesla's work.
And as such, we should have a choice of whether we want the car restored to its original state, or compensated for it (original state being what it was before the downgrade)

 

[Chaserr]

What about a gas tank that shrinks by almost 50% when it is cold? Is that a recall worth defect? According to the courts it is not.



So the question comes down to is the issue with the older Tesla batteries an actual defect or is it the result of a design decision. People have claimed that t he issue has/will happen to every one of the older battery packs which makes it look like a design decision vs. a defect.



The court didn't think that having to refuel more often, even twice as often, made the Prius "unfit for its intended purpose." Following that would the range in a Tesla being reduced by 10-20% make the vehicle "unfit for its intended purpose?"

This is probably a good example of relevant case law.

I really hope Tesla tries to use that because it will sink them. It's going to be impossible for them to claim stolen Horsepower is unintended for the purpose of Performance, or than kWh are unintended for the purpose of range. Perhaps if Toyota had explicitly placed 5-figure price tags on the missing capacity your lawsuit covers, it would have gone differently, but in our cases Tesla has a well established agreed on value for what they stole, and we have proof they stole it intentionally - not be design but by retroactive post-sale modification. In order for them to claim design, they have to testify under oath that the design as tested by the EPA was falsified and used a "cheat device" type software tweak to deliver more volts than consumers are allowed to access. This would be a confession of Dieselgate guilt.

If Tesla tries that argument, we win. And once we win, Tesla wins - they will finally begin to mend the chasm their anti-consumer policies are creating which is necessary for the company to have a future.