Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I wouldn't bother with Tesla service if you need a replacement part, it's smarter to get a hacker to fix you properly keeping 8.1. Unless they publish a recall, everything newer is just going to be a downgrade you don't want.

I admit it didn't occur to me that you'd be willing to purposely get the car to self destruct. Might be a good plan, but on the other hand Tesla would just claim you tampered with the software so it might not help the case.
The worst thing Tesla can say is that 8.1 causes Teslas to self destruct. I won't downgrade to anything custom, I want official 8.1 and if they claim older official Tesla software is dangerous we finally have the truth.

It is illegal for them to require only Tesla to provide repair service, and my car requires service to resume normal operation within factory certified specifications - this is actually warranty covered damages Tesla freely admits it is unable to repair itself, opening the door to third party repairs in the same way EMMC repairs have started to force Tesla to make changes to make EMMC repairs rather than MCU replacement possible. I'd love it if a third party mechanic can restore Tesla's factory-specified functionality to my car, and if they claim third party mechanics repairing to factory approved functionality are "tampering" Tesla is breaking more laws than just the safety laws we both already agree they've broken.

We still win if they try those shenanigans.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that you are taking an awful lot of effort to defend Tesla which gives the impression that you approve of their handling of the situation. Playing devil's advocate is usually not a worthwhile hill upon which to die.
I guess some of you interpret my attempt at staying neutral and trying understand what is happening and why Tesla is responding as they are is defending Tesla. Owners are not being treated well and should get replacement packs. I think Tesla is failing to take care of this in a timely manner and is engaged in a delaying tactic. I don't think I've ever stated anything different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightningltd
The person you're asking doesn't have any Tesla, and has clearly articulated they do not care for the lives and safety of Tesla owners.

When asked about your safety, that person stated honestly "I don't care about you in the least."

This is a blatant lie and clearly an attempt at manipulation. Clearly, when seen in context, I was specifically referring to one individual's claim that I was making this personal because of my dislike of him. Chaserr continues to play word games and tries to distract and mislead. Don't fall for it.

You've created an entire narrative in your own mind. It's not personal, I don't care about you in the least, I'm only looking for the truth. You seem intent on stirring the pot to create some drama that I have no interest in.
 
It's down to 70% but some see it higher and others lower. For all we know it can happen down to 0% if the trigger isn't a set % number and they are looking at something more dangerous like runaway thermal buildup in one of the cells. We are just guessing at their motivations and describing what they are doing while we wait for the clues to come together more clearly.
 
The mediation is supposed to be concluded by Monday with reporting to the court by late July. It has been delayed three or four times, citing COVID-19 difficulties.

I offer 2-5 odds that the mediation will yet again be postponed another thirty days because of the scourge. This reason is becoming trite; it is merely a ploy by defense counsel to wear us down and to let Tesla gin up spurious defenses.
 
If you're the sort of person that holds out for hope, November is battery day and I would expect any recall replacements would need a new technology so they don't need to do it all over again. November seems like a good interval to delay one more time. If Tesla does plan to address Batterygate hardware problems, I hope that is why they have been delaying.
 
https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf

Asks are down under "REQUEST FOR RELIEF" - for context see VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION for a long list of wrongs committed by Tesla, mostly variations of hacking theft and fraud.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF
A. Certification of the proposed classes, including appointment of Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel;
B. An order temporarily and permanently enjoining Tesla from continuing the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices alleged in this complaint;
C. Injunctive relief in the form of a recall, as applicable to the CLRA cause of action only;
D. Equitable relief in the form of buyback of a buyback of the Class Vehicles; or an order requiring Tesla to offer battery replacements as warranted by Tesla at no cost to Plaintiff and the putative class members;
E. Costs, restitution, damages, including punitive and exemplary damages, penalties, and disgorgement in an amount to be determined at trial; Case 5:19-cv-04596 Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 99 of 100 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 96 Case No. 5:19-cv-4596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
F. An order requiring Tesla to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded;
G. An award of costs and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff’s counsel; and H. Such other or further relief as may be appropriate. X.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all claims so triable.

__________________


When VW was charged over dieselgate with similar grievances (dieselgate software "fixes" reduced range) they were required to buy back downgraded cars that couldn't have their engines replaced, if owners were unwilling to accept the software imposed downgrades.

The list of asks includes recall requests that cite either hardware repair, replacement, or buyback depending on how dangerous Tesla is willing to testify uncapping the original battery is in court. If it isn't dangerous, uncapping is the cheapest fastest and easist solution for everyone. If it is dangerous, they will be found guilty and the suit's asks are there to suggest the recall process' next steps after establishing a recall is necessary. The suit itself can't force a recall but Tesla's testimony will either force them to uncap us or it will damn them when the testimony of dangerous batteries are picked up by the NHTSA's investigators. Likewise, dieselgate charges aren't possible in the class action suit but the EPA can use that testimony to open its own investigation, as they did with VW.
 
Last edited:
The plaintiff had to agree to each of the delays. ABD could cancel them at any time. It could be that the meditator doesn't want to meet yet.

The causes for postponements are never mentioned. It was just mutually agreed by Tesla and the plaintiff. One would assume that in dealing with the court, that the litigants would be forthright in their reasons for delay, and certainly an absent mediator would be substantive cause for delay.

Yes, the plaintiffs could reject the delay without cause. But then they proceed directly to trial. Discovery and pretrial litigation could take up to three years before a trial date is set. I believe that most civil cases must be tried within five years of filing. Likely with the closure of federal courthouses around California that five-year rule will be tolled. Meanwhile all cars affected will be out of warranty, and the plaintiff will have to amend the complaint to cover out-of-warranty vehicles, leading to more pretrial litigation over the amendment or else outright dismissal of most of the claims (perhaps with prejudice) because the complaint is now moot.

Tesla sort of has the plaintiffs over a barrel. Go along with our excuses and eventually we will sit down at the table with the mediator when we are ready. Otherwise, see you in court periodically over the next few years.
 
The causes for postponements are never mentioned. It was just mutually agreed by Tesla and the plaintiff. One would assume that in dealing with the court, that the litigants would be forthright in their reasons for delay, and certainly an absent mediator would be substantive cause for delay.

Actually they did state the cause each time. The most recent time they said: "WHEREAS, the parties previously scheduled a mediation for May 27, 2020, but given the current COVID-19 pandemic, they have instead agreed to a mediation on June 25, 2020 with the Hon. Daniel Weinstein and Cathy Yanni of JAMS, Inc."

So they are blaming COVID-19, which makes me think they are trying to do this as an in-person session.