You know so why do you ask?Just what spec has been reduced in regards to Tesla?
Reduced capacity, first by capping then by draining the battery after charging, and reduced charging speed (power).
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know so why do you ask?Just what spec has been reduced in regards to Tesla?
That's a different issue. The charging speed wasn't reduced as a result of 'improving' the entertainment package for instance.They all tend to run more slowly over time after updates though.
Reduced capacity has been restored by my lawsuit.You know so why do you ask?
Reduced capacity, first by capping then by draining the battery after charging, and reduced charging speed (power).
Not everyone's capacity was restored so that makes Tesla in violation of your lawsuit does it not?Reduced capacity has been restored by my lawsuit.
The others are not spec'd anywhere.
Not all were restored and others are being drained to 90% or less. Maybe some in your group also.Reduced capacity has been restored by my lawsuit.
The others are not spec'd anywhere.
Your link is an independent review, not an advertisement. The batteries ARE within all apecs after the restoration of capacity.Not all were restored and others are being drained to 90% or less. Maybe some in your group also.
The charging speed was advertised as half capacity in about half an hour and that's how it used to be. Supercharging Tesla Model S 60 kWh Versus 85 kWh - Video + Graphs
Customers accepted the delivery based on that and Tesla has no right to change it after handover.
The problem is the reduction of capacity and charging are not the real issues. They are just workarounds to manage junk batteries. Restoration is not a fix to the real problem. The affected batteries must be subject to design and/or construction faults, hence the need for workarounds. Calling the software updates improvements is of course nonsense. Yes, they are improving faulty batteries which never should have been on the road.
I have linked to Teslas description of their superchargers earlier. Supercharger | Tesla Motors. This is what they sold.
There is no need for a warranty coverage against active willful degrading/downgrading/damaging of another persons property. It's illegal. This must not be mixed up with normal wear and tear, which is a totally different matter.
I agree 100% with everything that you stated except this. Tesla cannot restore the old speeds or capacity without the risk of fires. The only solution is to replace the old battery packs with new ones that have the new battery chemistry. Some of the replacement packs are now 350v. The old packs were 400v so why did Tesla lower the voltage? I would like for Tesla to explain that under oath.I believe that a restoration of the old speeds plus an extension of X months on the 8-year, unlimited mileage warranty would be easy enough to justify. Damages are not always in dollars and cents.
I agree 100% with everything that you stated except this. Tesla cannot restore the old speeds or capacity without the risk of fires.
Some of the replacement packs are now 350v. The old packs were 400v so why did Tesla lower the voltage? I would like for Tesla to explain that under oath.
Except for those of us NOT restored. I wish the settlement covered those of us NOT restored.Reduced capacity has been restored by my lawsuit.
The others are not spec'd anywhere.
What does this investigation entail? When I brought it up (the lawsuit right after the settlement and supposed fix was announced), that was when Tesla Service suddenly decided it was normal wear and tear due to 'too much DC charging' (and after the warrantee period, of course) and not likely due to the updates.Your link is an independent review, not an advertisement. The batteries ARE within all apecs after the restoration of capacity.
Yes, there are a few (about 20l that have not been restored. They will be investigated as part of this settlement agreement.
There is no warranty coverage for capacity or degradation in the written warranty from 2016 and earlier.
Even the early lawsuits that tried to get damages for 85kWh packs that never had 85kWh of cells went nowhere.
There is no correlation between high supercharging and limited charging now.What does this investigation entail? When I brought it up (the lawsuit right after the settlement and supposed fix was announced), that was when Tesla Service suddenly decided it was normal wear and tear due to 'too much DC charging' (and after the warrantee period, of course) and not likely due to the updates.
Also, although I did NOT have a lot of miles on the car when the update stole the miles, NOW they are saying it is also because I have a lot of miles on the car at this time. They keep coming up with new reasons.
Tesla did not respond to that portion of the lawsuit. That multiplier has not changed since before the lawsuit. So, they have not manipulated iit further.@DJRas- There was a lot of talk about this in the original lawsuit. Did this issue get discussed at all? And what did Tesla say about it?
58. Upon further information and belief, Tesla fraudulently and unlawfully manipulated and pushed out a software update prior to February 2019 (actual update date is unknown at this time), which contained changes to the battery management system software, by replacing the variable previously used for energy consumption, or, 295 Wh/mi. Upon further information and belief, the energy consumption constant was reduced to 276 Wh/mi, for subject vehicles which in effect, would artificially increase the number of rated miles displayed for Plaintiff’s car.23
I don't think they did what is claimed here, but they do something a little shady related to this. So I am wondering if it was explained at all.
You are correct that the 350 volt 85kWh packs are made from 14 modules that are in 100kWh packs. There are many more cells in each of those modules.No, none of the changes have had anything to do with fire risk...
That is easy to explain. They no longer make the modules that made up the 85/90 kWh packs. (They probably don't even have the equipment to make them anymore.) They only made the new modules that packed in more cells for the 100 kWh packs. They just removed two modules from the 100 kWh pack design to to make the replacement 350v packs. (Just like how the 75 kWh pack is a 90 kWh pack with 2 modules removed.) They could even go as far as taking a 100 kWh pack with 2 failed modules and turning it into a refurb 350v 85/90 kWh replacement pack by removing the two failed modules.)
Need to add, that new 350v 85kWh pack, is actually around 87kWh. So actually larger than the original 85 pack. The 350v 85 pack is actually larger than the 90 packs, which were about 85.4-ish kWh. Realistically, the 90kWh pack should have been advertised as a 85, and the original 85 should have been advertised as an 80.You are correct that the 350 volt 85kWh packs are made from 14 modules that are in 100kWh packs. There are many more cells in each of those modules.
A non 100kWh car is not physically capable of accepting a complete 100kWh pack (size and weight constraints).
That is true too.Need to add, that new 350v 85kWh pack, is actually around 87kWh. So actually larger than the original 85 pack. The 350v 85 pack is actually larger than the 90 packs, which were about 85.4-ish kWh. Realistically, the 90kWh pack should have been advertised as a 85, and the original 85 should have been advertised as an 80.
My lawyer say the settlement administrator will address these cars. Contact them directly (contact information above).Except for those of us NOT restored. I wish the settlement covered those of us NOT restored.