How about you stop it? There are no dedicated echo chamber threads on TMC. It is clear that is what you really want here given your incessant bullying of anybody that doesn’t agree with your point of view. MP3Mike has as much right to provide information here as you do. He is not providing “propaganda”.
-
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
I found a lot of CAN bus logs from 2017 and compared consumption numbers from back then to now. It doesn't look like Tesla has been changing the rated range consumption number since then to mask range loss. I remember Bjorn mentioned that in his video about the software update that took away some range on his Model 3. That got me to look into the data on my car, but the numbers have not changed. Just thought I share this (not too exciting) info 
Ferrycraigs
Member
But what if left unfettered the battery fails WITHIN the Warranty period, so Tesla is liable, but if fettered it will fail outside the Warranty period, so the owner is liable. It is a reasonable point to make that we want Tesla to look after our batteries, and you could certainly argue this is what they are doing. But, for me at least, it smells like they are looking after themselves rather than the battery. I keep coming back to them saying you can supercharge your batteries, and it won’t take long. I do believe they genuinely believed that to be true. But I now also believe they have now realised, with the benefit of hindsight and experience, their calculations were wrong, and that supercharging, whilst quick, also comes with a negative effect. If they got the BMS calculations wrong, or the battery design wrong or the charging tapering wrong or the build materials wrong, then I believe they have an obligation to rectify those. Tweaking or strangling the batteries in order to get round those problems is not rectifying the problem, at least in my book it’s not. Others may disagree.
BigNick
Infamous Fat Sweaty Guy
Even if this is true, there is still the spectre of Tesla’s forced stealth manipulation of the affected cars.
If Tesla had communicated that a 15% reduction NOW would add three years to the serviceable life of an owner’s pack beyond the end of the warranty period, and possibly even given the affected owners the option to accept or refuse the reduction (as all owners can have different use cases and/or financial abilities to absorb a $20K pack replacement cost), maybe this whole fiasco would have been more acceptable to those owners.
The echo chamber the other poster (#8324) is referring to in here is the large number of "dedicated" owners impacted by the batterygate fiasco who have a common cause. And then, there is a handful of Tesla apologists who from very early on refuse to stop spreading the falsehood and continue to distract from the real issue, i.e., the serious problem with these batteries, and continue to put the blame on the owners in order to invalidate our complaints.
The same Tesla apologists have stated their "opinions" many times over already. All have been debunked repeatedly. Yet they continue with the distraction and misinformation. No one is bullied here, only the never ending attempts to spread falsehood is called out. There are many new impacted owners who come to this thread for information, not having read the thousands of posts. They need facts as we know them but not the same continuous falsehood being spread. When attempts to misinform (again and again from the same posters) happen, they are called out for what they are.
The same Tesla apologists have stated their "opinions" many times over already. All have been debunked repeatedly. Yet they continue with the distraction and misinformation. No one is bullied here, only the never ending attempts to spread falsehood is called out. There are many new impacted owners who come to this thread for information, not having read the thousands of posts. They need facts as we know them but not the same continuous falsehood being spread. When attempts to misinform (again and again from the same posters) happen, they are called out for what they are.
Last edited:
Plus their continued stated obsession with down voting people because they don't inherently know to read the first post. They act like this is a high school popularity contest. This forum should be about helping Tesla car owners with information and support. Not about snippiness insulting people who paid good money for features that were taken away to protect Teslas bottom line. That doesn't seem like a very smart electric thing to do. If owners allow Tesla to get away with this then they are doing other current and future EV car owners a disservice. Many people affected by this will replace their EV with a non-EV due to this experience when the time comes.
It’s a “disagree” button, not a downvote (aka dislike). Those two terms do not mean the same thing. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a statement, and people shouldn’t take offense to it. As far as people on this thread who seem to take pleasure with insulting people, there is really only one person who habitually gravitates to name-calling and insults. Anybody with half a brain can figure out who it is, and it’s not anybody you are talking about. There’s a politician in our country that seems to have the same MO, and it’s disturbing to me that so many people seem to think this behavior is acceptable. I am not talking about one-off comments due to frustration, which everybody falls victim to occasionally. Ferrycraigs and DJRas are examples of posters who effectively get their point across in a respectful manner, which helps move people (including me) to their line of thinking. Those that go down the insult route, have the opposite effect.
Thank you for your support.
The plus is the Tesla apologists are handful. The minus is they keep polluting this thread and hope people forget who they are. A simple search of this thread per their screen names brings up their recorded hostility toward the impacted owners and anything from victim blaming to name calling, they are all out there. There are tremendous amount of information and known facts in this thread in addition to lots of work put in by the impacted owners (the post#1 wiki, for example). The Tesla apologists deliberately ignore all that and keep spreading their propaganda. That misinformation and distraction from the presented facts confuse the new comers to this thread who seek facts and we need to call the apologists out.
At this stage of this thread, it's not anymore the different "opinions" of the apologists we should appreciate being offered, rather it's the need to firmly dismiss the stubborn and antagonistic attitude of the apologists toward the impacted owners. One of the apologists apparently does not even own a Tesla, but acts as a resident apologist. The other one, for example, is a non-impacted Model 3 owner who after his initial hostilities and being proven wrong repeatedly in this thread has taken the background role of a apologists cheerleader. One advises the owners to screw their drivetrain to "warm up" the battery (there is no chargegate in his opinion). Another one claims the BMS is her loving child who do no wrong, etc. etc.
Yes, the misinformation and deliberate distraction from the real issues ailing these batteries will continue to be called out. After all this work, it's a disservice to this thread if not to.
KArnold
Active Member
In my yellow screen case I discovered that anecdotal evidence was allowed. The Tesla lawyer quoted a post by Bonnie from this forum. So I submitted quotes from those here better qualified to articulate the situation. I also had evidence of my Tesla interactions and pictures.
Everyone is busy. I had maybe 30 pages of dates/quotes. In the yellow screen thing it was complicated by Tesla replacing entire MCU's under warranty early on (and I had all of those posts). Honestly I don't think the arbitrator read or understood those papers on their own. Once I verbally explained I think he understood. You can do "documents only" or "face to face" - I strongly recommend the latter.
Tesla's defense was as posted - affecting safety, functionality, or value. Value is the key.
In retrospect I over prepared. If doing it again my paperwork would be a good narrative, pictures or other hard evidence, where the owners manual says this should be covered, and a practiced diatribe of my position making my points.
It comes down to convincing the arbitrator that you have a valid point over that of a win-at-any-cost lawyer. Read the above thread for many examples of Tesla's legal tactics.
SmartElectric
Active Member
You won’t find a single snipe or insult from me anywhere on this thread.
I disagree with posters who come into this thread with no knowledge and spread misinformation stating their slow charging times in cold conditions either cold battery. Such a post is ignorant and unnecessary. The first wiki post is thorough and should be required reading when you walk into a 400 page thread.
Note that the word ignorant is exactly that, the person posted with a lack of knowledge or care to gain that knowledge. It does not describe them as a person.
For those that are unsure about their cars/batteries being affected or not, I have the tools and adapters for all Model S/X to check and I'm happy to do that for you. Please feel free to PM me. My work brings me to different states as well.
DJRas
Member
There was one NCDS case result that I read and was astounded by the negative result.
The arbiter agreed that:
1) Tesla had noncongormities (reduced the battery capacity) with the software update.
2) The noncongormities should be covered by the manufacturer's warranty
3) The noncongormities adversely affected the value and usefulness of the car
4) The customer ONLY allowed Tesla to repair the issue 2 times. The reasonable allowed attempts is 4.
Therefore claim denied because he didn't take it in 4 times. Even though Tesla told him to not come back after the 2nd attempt.
Arbitration is binding and final.
No appeal.
Unless you opted out of the arbitration requirement in the first 30 days of ownership you can't sue or participate in a class action.
We will get a test of this real soon, as Tesla has recently filed to compel binding individual arbitration for plaintiffs in another class action because they are bound by mandatory arbitration. (They were used Tesla purchases, I don't know if that makes a difference.)
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453/gov.uscourts.cacd.753453.15.0_1.pdf
I'm not sure when Tesla added the mandatory arbitration clause to their contracts, or if it was always there, but I see it is in the current ones, and the ones they are trying to get compelled date back to at least October, 2017.
The whole down voting thing is pretty silly really. If you disagree with something, discuss it. That's the point of a discussion forum. Discussion!
Got back from Cancun and plugged my 12 volt back in. Left the battery at 31% (indicated which is 40% actual) and had the same 8 days later.
Since the car has normal power, range, and charging speed, I'm contemplating just driving it like that and seeing how long it goes before something functional happens. Tech support over the phone(recorded conversation) said the error is not critical.
On the other hand, if I keep my rescheduled Tuesday appointment, I'm going to show them via CANBUS that the battery reports 74.3 kWh and that I expect to get the car back with that level of capacity regardless of what they do to it.
So, nearly a 800 some odd posts since I last visited. Any news in the last two weeks?
Since the car has normal power, range, and charging speed, I'm contemplating just driving it like that and seeing how long it goes before something functional happens. Tech support over the phone(recorded conversation) said the error is not critical.
On the other hand, if I keep my rescheduled Tuesday appointment, I'm going to show them via CANBUS that the battery reports 74.3 kWh and that I expect to get the car back with that level of capacity regardless of what they do to it.
So, nearly a 800 some odd posts since I last visited. Any news in the last two weeks?
I wonder if the arbitration clause only exists in the CPO or "used cars from Tesla" purchases. I imagine that from Tesla's perspective, arbitration takes less time and incurs less financial cost than dealing with the courts which is why they may prefer this option for dispute resolution.
Reading the above document, it looks like the complaint is over range reduction... Am I right in assuming that this is not the same class action instigated by DJRas ?
Similar threads
