-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software
- Thread starter Dutchmeeuw
- Start date
Ok ok! We're getting somewhere! We're half way there! Now let's keep going!
The link above has someone saying Tesla asked them if it was parked on an incline. Got that. (I wasn't even disputing that the question was asked.)
Now, finish it up. Link to the part where Tesla said they asked this because they thought there might be a coolant leak.
We're 0% you still haven't posted a thing. Please start.
If you can provide an article discussing how that question could be absolutely anything else, I'd love to see it posted next. The NHTSA is talking about coolant leaks and Tesla was talking about what can only be logically assumed to be coolant in the battery. Offer your conflicting sources if you have any.
Since you've never cited a source here before (I may be wrong, bt people keep asking and you don't), the way it's done is either by copying the web URL and pasting it in text here, or highlighting some words and then clicking the chain link above your reply.
I hope this helps, and look forward to your citations.
If you can provide an article discussing how that question could be absolutely anything else, I'd love to see it posted next. The NHTSA is talking about coolant leaks and Tesla was talking about what can only be logically assumed to be coolant in the battery. Offer your conflicting sources if you have any.
Since you've never cited a source here before (I may be wrong, bt people keep asking and you don't), the way it's done is either by copying the web URL and pasting it in text here, or highlighting some words and then clicking the chain link above your reply.
I hope this helps, and look forward to your citations.
You can change that by posting a few citations. I tried to help by explaining how I've posted so many, but if you run into trouble let me know where and I'll keep trying.
Your citations are desperately needed. We could use your help.
Your citations are desperately needed. We could use your help.
I'm genuinely confused here. Like, no joke, I'm actually scratching my head wondering what the heck is going on right now in this conversation.
At this point the lack of an intelligible response to a simple question can only be one of a few things:
- You can not read and comprehend English correctly (possible, and if so, my apologies. Not intended as an insult if so, just an observation if a straight simple question can't be answered with a straight and simple answer).
- You have the source and are wasting my time and everyone else's by not posting (seems very unlikely at this point).
- You don't have a source to link to (seems most likely) and are continuously deflecting.
Like seriously, this isn't rocket science. This is one simple thing. I'm only picking out one thing (out of many) that you've posted and have been politely asking you to simply link to where Tesla stated something you said they stated.
If they stated it, this should be simple. If they didn't, you need to note that and qualify it as such. You can speculate about what Tesla thought all you want, but you can't state that as fact.
This is not asking for a lot here. I'm literally asking for one of two things. A link to a source, or a statement noting that this is not fact and instead speculation (ie: an apology for stating speculation as fact).
So seriously, I won't waste any more time on this. Last time. You stated:
You're stating this as fact. Please link a source.
The actual problem he has with you is that you came in here months ago and hinted that you know what the problem is as informed by Tesla contacts, but said you weren't going to tell us what it is. Remember coming back again and reiterating that you can't say anything? You told us to read between the lines in your posts, which, well, just confused me more thoroughly. That line of discourse was unhelpful and has frankly helped lead to the wild conspiracy theories you don't like. I'm not part of the in-group that has deciphered your coded message between the lines, and I guess neither is Chasserr. Maybe someone can PM me and help.
Also don't bother asking me to go back and find the post where you said this and link it here. Just pre-empting mp3mike's request.
Ok, how about this. I'll make it interesting.
Link the legit source for Tesla stating that they asked about the burned car being parked on an incline because they thought it may be a coolant leak issue, and I'll DM 100% of the data I have on the actual issues with the battery packs. Everything I have on the issues, what Tesla has done to mitigate them, firmware with full annotations across multiple versions, photos, screenshots of confidential convos with insiders. Everything. 100%. And you can do what you want with it.
Everyone wins. (Edit: Well, except me. I'll probably get sued. But still, since the source in question about the incline question doesn't exist and everyone knows it at this point, this is a non-issue.)
If this doesn't get the source link, it doesn't exist, period. It's put up or shut up time.
Link the legit source for Tesla stating that they asked about the burned car being parked on an incline because they thought it may be a coolant leak issue, and I'll DM 100% of the data I have on the actual issues with the battery packs. Everything I have on the issues, what Tesla has done to mitigate them, firmware with full annotations across multiple versions, photos, screenshots of confidential convos with insiders. Everything. 100%. And you can do what you want with it.
Everyone wins. (Edit: Well, except me. I'll probably get sued. But still, since the source in question about the incline question doesn't exist and everyone knows it at this point, this is a non-issue.)
If this doesn't get the source link, it doesn't exist, period. It's put up or shut up time.
Not trying to shut you up, unless you're spreading misinformation.
Which you obviously are at this point. There's no way you'd withhold a link to a quote from Tesla in exchange for everything you claim to be seeking.
islandbayy
Active Member
Just thought I would chime in on my 2016 MX 75D.
Currently, Had MCU2 & FSD computer installed 2 weeks ago.
As of this upgrade and it's associated firmwares, I can no longer charge at a rate higher than 94kW. The 75kWh battery reports a full capacity of 66 kWh at 79,900 Miles.
Currently, Had MCU2 & FSD computer installed 2 weeks ago.
As of this upgrade and it's associated firmwares, I can no longer charge at a rate higher than 94kW. The 75kWh battery reports a full capacity of 66 kWh at 79,900 Miles.
You're withholding all of it, or spreading misinformation, and I quite frankly don't know if it's sensible to believe anything you say. I've provided more sources than you, and if this is a back and forth it's your turn.
I'm spreading information. You don't like the information. That's OK, but don't try to suppress information - counter it with evidence. I will continue to follow the scientific method of reason - I will entertain all available evidence and attempt to form a hypothesis based on the data. The hypothesis must change to suit the data - if we start with a conclusion and reject information we don't like, we aren't reasoning any more. That becomes "justifying" and isn't science.
Guide us to the evidence you want us all to see - if you want us to see it.
I will continue to give you all of the information I have at my disposal. You've given some hints but call what you did not backing your claims "spreading misinformation." Your focus seems to be on substantiating claims while simultaneously dodging requests for you do do exactly that. And now you've admitted you're ready, willing, and immediately able to disclose everything you know right now all I see double messages: "I can't release anything / I will right now!"
" I'll DM 100% of the data I have on the actual issues with the battery packs. Everything I have on the issues, what Tesla has done to mitigate them, firmware with full annotations across multiple versions, photos, screenshots of confidential convos with insiders. Everything. 100%. And you can do what you want with it."
This is what everyone has asked for. You are fine with doing it on a whim. You call doing that an "Everybody wins" so that makes me wonder why you want everyone here to lose?
You won't change a thing rejecting and hiding evidence like this. You will change everything by introducing more evidence. If you don't like the hypothesis, change it. Hypothesis changes to suit evidence. If you don't want to follow through on your words, the evidence points to an NHTSA investigation into coolant, and a fire hazard unrelated to coolant that I personally hope they can wrap into the coolant topic. I want Tesla to succeed, and I want electric cars to succeed.
I'm spreading information. You don't like the information. That's OK, but don't try to suppress information - counter it with evidence. I will continue to follow the scientific method of reason - I will entertain all available evidence and attempt to form a hypothesis based on the data. The hypothesis must change to suit the data - if we start with a conclusion and reject information we don't like, we aren't reasoning any more. That becomes "justifying" and isn't science.
Guide us to the evidence you want us all to see - if you want us to see it.
I will continue to give you all of the information I have at my disposal. You've given some hints but call what you did not backing your claims "spreading misinformation." Your focus seems to be on substantiating claims while simultaneously dodging requests for you do do exactly that. And now you've admitted you're ready, willing, and immediately able to disclose everything you know right now all I see double messages: "I can't release anything / I will right now!"
" I'll DM 100% of the data I have on the actual issues with the battery packs. Everything I have on the issues, what Tesla has done to mitigate them, firmware with full annotations across multiple versions, photos, screenshots of confidential convos with insiders. Everything. 100%. And you can do what you want with it."
This is what everyone has asked for. You are fine with doing it on a whim. You call doing that an "Everybody wins" so that makes me wonder why you want everyone here to lose?
You won't change a thing rejecting and hiding evidence like this. You will change everything by introducing more evidence. If you don't like the hypothesis, change it. Hypothesis changes to suit evidence. If you don't want to follow through on your words, the evidence points to an NHTSA investigation into coolant, and a fire hazard unrelated to coolant that I personally hope they can wrap into the coolant topic. I want Tesla to succeed, and I want electric cars to succeed.
Just to be clear, the voltage-capped owners, who are the vast majority of the posters in this thread, are not some "conspiracy theorist" or "FUDesters". I'm sure you have no evidence of any "overlapped" malicious intent ongoing in this thread. In fact, the impacted owners have numerously stated their desire for Tesla to do well by being a responsible vendor. After all, they have spent a big chunk of their hard earned money to buy Tesla cars. Tesla's failure is the failure of their investments. No "overlapping" generalization/accusation, please!
Seriously? You really need to clarify this.
And, lastly:
Consider this analogy - A patient has a very troubling medical issue. The patient is told by a reputable doctor the recommendation is to take medication and, while the doctor knows what the problem is, the doctor can not tell the patient what that is! [end_of_analogy] ... With your good reputation here at TMC, you have been that doctor in this thread. You have told us to OTA update (the medication) but can not tell us what our problems with our batteries are (the nature of the illness), not because you do not know but because you have chosen not to share it with us. That is a very bad position for any doctor to be in, let alone the negative impression felt by his/her patients.
Last edited:
This still is not a link. lol. You'd rather write a meaningless wall of text that gets us no where than either share a link, or admit that you were spreading misinformation. *sigh*
I put the biggest carrot I could think of out there as a last attempt to get you to do one of two things: Share a link to the source for the incline+coolant statement from Tesla, or admit that you're lying. You did neither.
I can't be the only one that finds this absurd? lol
-------
-------
For those of you playing along at home, let me summarize what just happened here:
@Chaserr posted several times that "Tesla thought" that a coolant leak was an issue related to a car fire in San Francisco when asking if the car was parked on an incline. This was stated without any qualifiers whatsoever, multiple times, as if this were something Tesla stated.
Here is an example:
(Note: I corrected typo of 'teh' to 'the' in the quote, in case you're verifying.)
@Chaserr was asked multiple times for a link to the source for this statement. A legit news article, investor call, whatever. Somewhere where someone has legitimated quoted Tesla saying something to this effect.
After dozens of posts deflecting, we finally got a link to something:
Now, if you go to this link, there's a reddit poster stating the following:
Now, this is just a random post on Reddit, can't really be verified. But, OK, supposedly Tesla asked if the car was parked on an incline. We'll just accept that for the time being. In fact, if that was asked wasn't even in question. But the poster specifically notes "I don't even know what to make of that," meaning Tesla clearly did not explain why they wanted to know. So where is the quote from Tesla along the lines of "we thought coolant might have leaked, so we wanted to know if it was parked on an incline." ? Oh, right. That doesn't seem to have actually been stated.
Since this is the only instance I can find at all about Tesla inquiring about a car being parked on a hill/incline related to a fire, and there is no additional information from Tesla on this anywhere... pretty safe to say that @Chaserr 's statements are speculation, and not fact as they've continually purported them to be.
I made several last-ditch attempts to get a citation for this from @Chaserr , but nothing. Just waste of time deflection.
TL;DR - There is no source for the statements made about what Tesla thought about the car being parked on an incline, and @Chaserr keeps spreading this misinformation as if it were fact and posting useless walls of text as deflection from the fact that they're spreading misinformation instead of linking to a source. I'd highly suggest ignoring their posts at this point.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You aren't. Word games and attempts at misdirection seem to be his forte.
This still is not a link. lol. You'd rather write a meaningless wall of text that gets us no where than either share a link, or admit that you were spreading misinformation. *sigh* Just waste of time deflection.
Is the issue that consumers do not have Whistleblower protection? I'm trying to understand how lawsuit threats to keep @wk057 quiet on a safety issue are legal.
Last edited:
Similar threads
