Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[faughtz]

$5000 is half of what Tesla took from us. They reduced capacity to 59kwh but charged $10700 to upgrade from 60 to 85. They didn't lease capacity, if they want to buy it back from me my price is no less than theirs. And I still say no. I want my car, not a down graded car.

$5000 is not half of what tesla took from me. I paid much more than that for a performance car - P85DL. And I have been deprived of that capability for almost 6 months.

 

[Chaserr]

I too lost Performance. Total was over $30000 taken from me. P85DL owners lost over $35000

 

[faughtz]

I too lost Performance. Total was over $30000 taken from me. P85DL owners lost over $35000

And it’s important to remember that tesla never delivered performance to the specs. So this is theft on top of theft.

 

[Chaserr]

That was bait and switch since they never even delivered what they sold. They've escalated to theft taking back what they actually delivered. I wonder if they'll escalate again to stealing the entire car once FSD allows them to do it.

 

[qwk]

Airbags are distinguishable as a manufacturing defect and their warranty doesn't specifically exclude wear so that isn't a condition of the warranty that needs to be satisfied. Condition Z may or may not be a manufacturing defect. Based on current information I would bet that condition Z is due to wear rather than a defect but that remains open to intelligent discussion if such is possible.



It was.

If this was anticipated by engineering, they would have written the software to cap cars right off the bat, little by little from the start. No one would have even noticed, as it would have appeared to be normal degredation.
I’m betting it was a knee jerk to the spontaneous fires, and soon everyone will be affected.

 

[faughtz]

That was bait and switch since they never even delivered what they sold. They've escalated to theft taking back what they actually delivered. I wonder if they'll escalate again to stealing the entire car once FSD allows them to do it.

We’re years from FSD, and given recent examples of incompetence, I doubt the successful execution of those thefts - but the intent probably exists.

 

[Droschke]

helps to solidify our case by being alert and covering any disadvantage we might have.

Indeed.

Don't get confused. And, just to remind you, my comment was not meant to indicate your drivels and insults are part of it.

 

[gmo43]

bhzmark:

So if an ICE owner still under the warranty has an engine malfunction cause from normal wear and tear. With your logic, means they would not get a warranty claim for their engine repair/replacement?

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but trying to understand where you are coming from if that is even possible.

 

[omarsultan]

I am not looking for money from Tesla. I like my '13 P85 and am not looking to buy a new car--I would simply like them to honor their battery warranty and restore the missing 20 miles and reasonable charging speeds--whatever they need to do on the backend to make that happen (repair, replace, etc) in a reasonable timeframe.

 

[mvotb]

Hmmm He responded to, raphy3 4 times, _jal, Droschke, lightningltd 2 times, and Ferrycraigs, but no MVOTB. Seems to be able to answer everything except,

answer the question exactly precisely.

 

[Nixx]

bhzmark:

So if an ICE owner still under the warranty has an engine malfunction cause from normal wear and tear. With your logic, means they would not get a warranty claim for their engine repair/replacement?

Sorry if this doesn't make sense but trying to understand where you are coming from if that is even possible.

If an ice engine’s fuel economy degraded 5% or 10% (assuming some gunk build up or something in the cylinders - ie, nothing snapped and broke) over 5 years, there’s no way a manufacturer would cover that. No way.

You’d be told “the engine is still operating in normal parameters and it’s not unreasonable to expect some degradation of fuel economy”

 

[AmpedRealtor]

After almost 6 months of unexplained reduced battery capacity, for which I paid a premium (reduced and never close to 85kWh) reduced performance for which I paid a premium (reduced and never close to 762 hp), and dramatically slowed supercharging rates, I’m adding compensation for that usage loss to what is required to make me whole.

You are adding compensation to what claim? Are you one of the core members of the class action or are you separately suing Tesla for these items?

And it’s important to remember that tesla never delivered performance to the specs. So this is theft on top of theft.

It seems there was no penalty to Tesla to sell 85 kWh battery packs that never actually contained anywhere close to 85 kWh of energy. Why should there be any penalty now? As owners we forgive one foul move after another, to the point where the company has become emboldened to do bad things right to our faces.

 

[Guy V]

In what world would that be equitable? Do you think these people would have bought a new car with a capped battery with unexplained issues, that takes twice as long to supercharge, for $5,000 off retail?????

Well, too often class action settlements end up being a pile of money for the lawyers and discount coupons on their next purchase for the victims.

EDIT: Come to think of it, $20,000 off of a Cybertruck might just be OK...

 

[Guy V]

You mean the one called "Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty" that has specific conditions and exclusions? Misrepresenting and utterly ignoring the specific black and white terms of the warranty is a common theme in this thread. It will not serve your legal interests.



Reading the articles on lithium plating and other battery effects show that lithium plating is a common and known condition caused by usage of the battery especially under certain environmental conditions which would explain why some batteries have it and some do not. But it is speculation --a theory -- and I never represented that it wasn't. It is also just a placeholder for any other condition caused by wear and detected as condition Z trigger levels.



Airbags are distinguishable as a manufacturing defect and their warranty doesn't specifically exclude wear so that isn't a condition of the warranty that needs to be satisfied. Condition Z may or may not be a manufacturing defect. Based on current information I would bet that condition Z is due to wear rather than a defect but that remains open to intelligent discussion if such is possible.



It was.



No. the argument just points out that if condition Z is caused by wear (any kind of wear, li-plating or otherwise) it isn't covered, but if it is a manufacturing defect it is covered.



I'm just reading and interpreting and applying the terms of the warranty to the facts as they appear, and are likely to be further developed. The benefit of this is explained by @tomas -- but will see the benefit, others will not.



Indeed.



Except the factual scientific answer to the question of what is condition Z directly bears on the legal question of whether the effects of condition Z are due to a defect, or wear, and thus covered, or not.



the supporting authority was directly about the limitations and exclusions in a written express warranty. But interesting point re consumables. Like tires, batteries are known to exhibit wear over their lifetime. In both cases that wear is expressly excluded from the warranty, except the Model 3 batteries have a bottom limit on the level of wear that is not covered. Model S/X batteries do not.

A slick lawyer might get away with arguing some of that stuff to a judge but:

- something that happens to "a small percentage" that is extraordinarily different than the rest with no drastically different pattern of usage will be a very strong argument for some defect existing in the BMS/batteries of those cars.

- Tesla will be forced to disgorge a great deal of data that is highly likely to contain things they don't want seen.

- Elon's public statements, including Tweets will definitely apply.

- if not settled on mutually agreeable terms it will end up as a jury trial, almost certainly with triple damages.

 

[Guy V]

If an ice engine’s fuel economy degraded 5% or 10% (assuming some gunk build up or something in the cylinders - ie, nothing snapped and broke) over 5 years, there’s no way a manufacturer would cover that. No way.

You’d be told “the engine is still operating in normal parameters and it’s not unreasonable to expect some degradation of fuel economy”

LOL, you mean like these cases you think automakers wouldn't settle?

automaker settles engine clogging lawsuit - Google Search

 

[Guy V]

You are adding compensation to what claim? Are you one of the core members of the class action or are you separately suing Tesla for these items?


It seems there was no penalty to Tesla to sell 85 kWh battery packs that never actually contained anywhere close to 85 kWh of energy. Why should there be any penalty now? As owners we forgive one foul move after another, to the point where the company has become emboldened to do bad things right to our faces.

Yes, and I expect those things will be brought up to a jury.

 

[Guy V]

I am not looking for money from Tesla. I like my '13 P85 and am not looking to buy a new car--I would simply like them to honor their battery warranty and restore the missing 20 miles and reasonable charging speeds--whatever they need to do on the backend to make that happen (repair, replace, etc) in a reasonable timeframe.

Me too, precisely!

 

[gmo43]

If an ice engine’s fuel economy degraded 5% or 10% (assuming some gunk build up or something in the cylinders - ie, nothing snapped and broke) over 5 years, there’s no way a manufacturer would cover that. No way.

You’d be told “the engine is still operating in normal parameters and it’s not unreasonable to expect some degradation of fuel economy”

It's not degradation, it manufacturer capping.

 

[faughtz]

You are adding compensation to what claim? Are you one of the core members of the class action or are you separately suing Tesla for these items?

I’m simply saying that in addition to the losses, there is also now the factor of time- specifically it’s approaching six months since I have been able to use my purchased capabilities. And, of course that additional loss has value.

 

[glide]

Is there any solution other than replacing with an unaffected 90/100 pack? Or a buyback?

Because that’s all that would make me happy at this point.