Even if you can give him a pass and say a bunch of stuff is speculation (I don't, since if you're speculating you need to qualify that with something to note this, since not everyone reads every post), how do you defend all of the actual misinformation? As in, things that are known and don't require speculation, yet written in false statements?
You and others keep defending his posts as if they were posted as speculation... but perhaps you don't actually read them? Here are some examples I pulled, with explanations on why they're outright misinformation. Many provably false statements that contradict reality... and this is just me going back a few pages. (
@Chaserr hides his profile, so can't easily find all of his posts).
---
This appears to be false, as I could not locate any Federal laws specifying anything about the EPA and electric vehicle battery voltages. Still waiting on a citation for this and will happily note if proven wrong.
This is false. Batteries don't "measure" or "read" anything. This is a misrepresentation, likely stemming from a lack of correct knowledge.
This is false. Percentage capacity is not determined by the charge cut voltage. This is a misrepresentation, likely stemming from a lack of knowledge.
This... is just outrageous and amusing. There is no law that labels "Falsifying EPA tests" as "Dieselgate". There were violations by VW of EPA regulations that was dubbed Dieselgate, but this has nothing to do with Tesla or how any laws are applied.
This is false. This is not at all how software locked packs performed capacity capping. This is misinformation represented as fact. (More detail: The BMS capped
capacity, not voltage, and scaled that locked cap with measured degradation. Charge end voltage was not capped in any way, and in fact would usually change from charge to charge.)
This is false. The warranty says nothing about battery voltage.
This is speculation stated as if it were fact... and provably incorrect. (More detail: Battery thermal targets have always been dynamic and based on SoC, current flow, etc. There were certainly changes to these parameters over the years, but to say that "Everything they did after 2019.16 is aimed at lowering battery temperatures" is misguided at best, and general misinformation.)
This is false. The cell level fuses have a rating of just under 25A, which isn't anywhere close during supercharging even at 250kW. This is a misrepresentation, likely stemming from a lack of correct knowledge.
(More detail: This fuse rating gives a range of ~420kW to ~600kW, factoring in an 80% NEC-style fuse buffer, across the whole voltage range of an 85 pack. That comes out to ~1800A pack/module draw to pop a fuse, or about an 8C discharge from any cell. 140kW, even on a pack at 0% is going to be under 500A, or under 7A per cell... no where near the fuse rating. If 140kW were an issue for cell fuses, then you'd also have problems any time you used more than 140kW while driving, or over about 190HP... which obviously does not happen.)
Citation needed. This appears to be more speculation written as fact without any qualifiers. While we have insufficient data to prove/disprove this, the limited data we have suggests this is false. Citation needed.
Citation needed. If Tesla admitted guilt on this issue, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
Last one for now... Speculation stated as fact (and
@Chaserr even finally admitted this some 10 pages later after continuous requests for a citation).
Oh, and the mods actually added a note to that particular post due to this.
---
This is a problem all around with this person. There's no way to defend this as anything except intentionally spreading misinformation. And I only went back through a minuscule percentage of posts.
