Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Chaserr]

NHTSA takes a year or more when the government isn't a quarantine lockdown in effect. Don't expect them to issue involuntary recall notices to Tesla owners until 2021.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

It's been almost a year since Tesla screwed us over. I'm not holding my breath for a satisfying outcome.

 

[FooFenix]

Got my reply from Rotterdam, NL service center today. 2015/12 S85D with 65000 miles currently charging at 55-60 KW max at 15% SOC. As expected, the battery is still within limits, even though the service center representative did acknowledge (over the phone) that it is within limits, but after the BMS settings update to protect the battery's life (whatever that means). Lawsuit it is then, hopefully expanded on EU level and not restricted to the Netherlands. The Covid-19 situation will undoubtedly delay this but it will happen. Hopefully either the US class action lawsuit or the NHTSA investigation will have been completed by the time the lawsuit is filed, so that I can pick it up from there. Any advise to avoid US class action lawsuit mistakes are welcome. Obviously similar (to NHTSA) investigation inquiries will be submitted.

@johnman10 , and other residents in NL (EU more in general I believe), just FYI

[NL] Gezamelijke (juridische) stappen tegen Tesla ivm accu limitaties

 

[AmpedRealtor]

So... any updates on the lawsuit?

 

[MP3Mike]

So... any updates on the lawsuit?

The latest information is here: Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software (Don't expect any additional information until the end of May.)

 

[Chaserr]

So... any updates on the lawsuit?

Docket for Rasmussen v. Tesla, Inc., 5:19-cv-04596 - CourtListener.com

Delayed again and again.

 

[mvotb]

A good outcome won't be quick.

 

[MP3Mike]

A sort of related class action has made some movement forward: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453.21.0.pdf

In essence as I read it:

• The case was stayed and the plaintiffs were order to go through binding arbitration.
• The class claim was dismissed as the order agreement requires arbitration and precludes the ability to participate in a class action.
• Once arbitration is completed the main plaintiff, if arbitration is in their favor, can come back to the court for his nonarbitrable requests. (public injunctive relief)

I'm guessing that if mediation fails in DJRas's case it will end up going down a similar path to force arbitration for any plaintiffs that that would apply to.

 

[cpa]

A sort of related class action has made some movement forward: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453.21.0.pdf

In essence as I read it:

• The case was stayed and the plaintiffs were order to go through binding arbitration.
• The class claim was dismissed as the order agreement requires arbitration and precludes the ability to participate in a class action.
• Once arbitration is completed the main plaintiff, if arbitration is in their favor, can come back to the court for his nonarbitrable requests. (public injunctive relief)

I'm guessing that if mediation fails in DJRas's case it will end up going down a similar path to force arbitration for any plaintiffs that that would apply to.

I think you are generally correct--we'll leave the specifics to those trained in parsing the Court's decisions.

Tesla's used vehicle purchase agreement precluded individuals from filing class action lawsuits to claim damages from Tesla; they must file individual lawsuits and then go through arbitration. Accordingly, the Court dismissed that part of the lawsuit.

However, (and this is where it gets bogged down in legalspeak), certain parts of Tesla's used vehicle sales offerings (like claiming these cars were "certified" and other inducements might be considered contrary to public policy or "unconscionable" or other legal standards under California Law. Case law in California has held that these situations can be severed and permits class action status. So, arbitration for this part of the complaint has been sustained by the Court. And among the remedies is public injunctive relief.

We'll have to read our purchase agreements from six years ago to see what we agreed to; it is likely that the same arbitration clause is in there, since the Court cited a 2015 purchase agreement.

That said, if this lawsuit does go down this particular path, I do not think Tesla wants to defend itself with tens of thousands of individual complaints with these issues. It will wind up a class action regardless, and it may be one of the issues decided in mediation.

 

[Keshk]

A sort of related class action has made some movement forward: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453.21.0.pdf

In essence as I read it:

• The case was stayed and the plaintiffs were order to go through binding arbitration.
• The class claim was dismissed as the order agreement requires arbitration and precludes the ability to participate in a class action.
• Once arbitration is completed the main plaintiff, if arbitration is in their favor, can come back to the court for his nonarbitrable requests. (public injunctive relief)

I'm guessing that if mediation fails in DJRas's case it will end up going down a similar path to force arbitration for any plaintiffs that that would apply to.

Would you rather see the plaintiff prevail in the DJRAS case, or fail. SIMPLE QUESTION

 

[Chaserr]

Tesla's used vehicle purchase agreement precluded individuals from filing class action lawsuits to claim damages from Tesla

They can put anything they want in a contract but that can't make it binding. You can't give up your rights because Tesla put something in a used car contract. More to the point, Class Action covers everyone in the class without exception and this class action names all of us broadly.

I think Tesla will be hit with dozens more class actions from every state, just like Apple was when they were caught guilty of similar post-sale intentional downgrades. Tesla will get it worse than apple however, since Tesla did it while still under warranty and possibly in place of stringently defined legal safety protocols.

I still urge Tesla to wake up and stop letting whoever the psychopath they have calling the shots for this suit right now continue to try and keep them on the path to greatest damages. Just offering the upgrade to that 350v 89kWh battery that we've already seen created to solve this problem would let a lot of us instantly depart the Class and help pay for their inevitable settlement terms that will involve pretty much the same thing (as we saw with Apple for out of warranty but otherwise similar nerfs). An upgrade program would tell us Tesla is a brand that wants to keep customers long term. The current downgrade program tells us Tesla hates long term customers and actively wants to harm us. It's a psychotic path they need to rethink.

 

[MP3Mike]

They can put anything they want in a contract but that can't make it binding. You can't give up your rights because Tesla put something in a used car contract.

Did you read the order from the judge I linked to? The court obviously disagrees with you, as they have ordered each plaintiff to go through individual binding arbitration and dismissed the class claim. (The "Federal Arbitration Act" was specifically made for this purpose.)

More to the point, Class Action covers everyone in the class without exception and this class action names all of us broadly.

You can put anything you want in a suit, but that doesn't make it true or have standing... (Especially when the judge dismisses your class claim wholesale.)

I think Tesla will be hit with dozens more class actions from every state, just like Apple was when they were caught guilty of similar post-sale intentional downgrades. Tesla will get it worse than apple however, since Tesla did it while still under warranty and possibly in place of stringently defined legal safety protocols.

That is the opposite of class action. A class action covers every eligible person in a single class action suit. You can't have more than one suit for the same action. (Well they could be filed but they would just get dismissed or rolled into a single case. That is why class action firms try to be first to file, because they know they will get the bulk of any money in a settlement. Even to the point of soliciting people to be the class plaintiff when they want to sue but have no standing themselves.)

 

[Gixx1300R]

Some of my range has returned. I used to have 60kw of usable full pack. I has been increased to 66.1kw and my 90% charge is now 213 miles. It was 198 miles before.

 

[MP3Mike]

Would you rather see the plaintiff prevail in the DJRAS case, or fail. SIMPLE QUESTION

I don't think the range and charging speed issues are warrantable claims, so I think Tesla should prevail. But I don't like the way Tesla has handled things either.

 

[MP3Mike]

Some of my range has returned. I used to have 60kw of usable full pack. I has been increased to 66.1kw and my 90% charge is now 213 miles. It was 198 miles before.

What firmware is on your car? When did you install it?

 

[lightningltd]

Lucky you. They haven't given me SQUAT back except lies.

 

[Gixx1300R]

Lucky you. They haven't given me SQUAT back except lies.

Yes but they still owe me another 6kwh. I don't know when the range was returned. I am on 2020.12 right now. it was uploaded awhile ago and the range wasn't there after the upload. Supercharging speed isn't as bad as it was also.

 

[SmartElectric]

View attachment 530139 Some of my range has returned. I used to have 60kw of usable full pack. I has been increased to 66.1kw and my 90% charge is now 213 miles. It was 198 miles before.

Interesting.

You've added (charge + regen) 55000 kWh (EDIT mistakenly wrote 80000) to your pack, the equivalent of >700 (EDIT mistakenly wrote 1200) full charges on your pack considering the charging + regen kWh compared to ~70 kWh usable pack (rough guess, could be 70, 80 whatever, it's a number)

Whereas our 2013 S 85 has 30000 kWh of pack "charging". I use an OBDII dongle that has measured all charging and trips for the last 3 years.
What's your odometer?
Our old car has "lost" 3% range, and none since 2015.
I expect you've taxed your pack way more than we have by the numbers you posted.

 

[Gixx1300R]

Interesting.

You've added (charge + regen) 80000 kWh to your pack, the equivalent of >1200 full charges on your pack considering the charging + regen kWh compared to ~70 kWh usable pack (rough guess, could be 70, 80 whatever, it's a number)

Whereas our 2013 S 85 has 30000 kWh of pack "charging". I use an OBDII dongle that has measured all charging and trips for the last 3 years.
What's your odometer?
Our old car has "lost" 3% range, and none since 2015.
I expect you've taxed your pack way more than we have by the numbers you posted.

My mileage is 112,187 Here are screens shots of the BMS

 

[islandbayy]

Interesting.

You've added (charge + regen) 80000 kWh to your pack, the equivalent of >1200 full charges on your pack considering the charging + regen kWh compared to ~70 kWh usable pack (rough guess, could be 70, 80 whatever, it's a number)

Whereas our 2013 S 85 has 30000 kWh of pack "charging". I use an OBDII dongle that has measured all charging and trips for the last 3 years.
What's your odometer?
Our old car has "lost" 3% range, and none since 2015.
I expect you've taxed your pack way more than we have by the numbers you posted.

Regen is added in as Charge total. So it's not Charge Total + Regen.