In reading about why JonMc started this thread, Electrek seems to suggest that it as a result of Alain Cohen suing Tesla. That article and his lawsuit are here:
Tesla now lets owners escalate issues directly to executives in order to improve communications
http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA111537815.PDF
I found it an interesting read including the emails to and from Tesla which are exhibits to the pleadings. Up here, we only plead facts, not evidence in support of facts, which are left for trial, so it was interesting to actually read the emails referenced in the pleadings.
In his blog post, Mr. Cohen says this:
Call me an early adopter. I bought the 892nd Tesla roadster to come off the assembly line in 2010. There were problems. The motor had to be replaced three times.
So, what did I do? I bought a second Tesla, and then a third, both top-of-the-line Model S sedans.
We’re talking almost $400,000 worth of the sleek, futuristic automobiles.
He also attaches pictures of himself in his blog post, two of them in fact, one with his Roadster, and one with the Model S that I assume is the subject of the lawsuit.
I think most people reading his blog would assume he owns 3 Teslas, worth "almost $400,000". After all, he makes a point in telling us in his blog about his success and patents, and his bio at the end says he sold his company for $1B. He even tells us:
In fact, my lawsuit will likely cost me much more than I stand to gain, but it’s not about the money.
He also appears to even somewhat equate himself to Elon Musk:
Let’s get one thing straight: I believe in Tesla’s clean energy mission, and the vision of its head, Elon Musk, to combat global warming. As a tech entrepreneur and engineer myself with several dozen patents, I understand and admire his passion. Musk deserves the accolades he receives for successes after failures and for that indomitable spirit of try and try again. I have always aspired to have that same verve and vision with the technology companies I have launched.
So after reading his blog I read his lawsuit and the first thing that struck me was the very first "Factual Background" paragraph, paragraph 5 on page 2, that says he traded in his previous Tesla for the one involved in the lawsuit. Paragraph 6 says he paid "over $125,000" for it. That made me wonder how he could have paid nearly $400k for his Roadster and two Model S's when his lawsuit says he traded in a Model S and thus must have received trade-in value. So I went back to his blog and noticed that he actually doesn't say he spent almost $400k but rather this is what they are all "worth" when you add their values together.
One of his complaints is that people can hear his phone calls outside of the vehicle. In one of the emails he uses the word "ludicrous" (as a play on ludicrous mode) "because that's the word that comes to mind when I think about my phone calls being audible to the whole parking lot". When Tesla showed his brother that this occurs with all vehicles, he says in his email that his brother told him:
He said that you were able to reproduce it on all the shop cars. Clearly, if you had to reproduce it, then it's not expected behavior.
I couldn't make sense of his argument until I realized he is probably saying that there was no need to go to other cars to reproduce it since they should have just told him it was normal, but instead he seems to suggest that they just discovered the problem on all cars when he told them about it. Certainly, the vehicle he traded in must have been the same? It also seems so obvious to me they were trying to show his brother it is normal and not a problem. He makes a point of telling us:
I even encouraged my brother to buy two Tesla sedans.
I wonder if his brother now owns 2 or if he traded his first one in?
With regard to the sound issue, I talk on my phone, and also listen to Howard Stern, and I know to tone it down when I'm stopped because it isn't all that sound proof -- but it would have to be a rather small parking lot for everyone to hear me, even at normal volume, and I do agree that they need to make the vehicle more sound proof. But I can't imagine suing Tesla over that, and the fact that you can't drive the car when it updates, a squeaky seat that Tesla has said they will replace, and some other issues that all seem pretty minor to me. It does seem Tesla took too long to respond to him but they were responding and there are two sides to every story.
My view is that it appears to me he likes attention, and the spotlight, and telling us "We’re talking almost $400,000 worth of the sleek, futuristic automobiles." I paid $115k for my vehicle. I got a trade in quote from Tesla when I was thinking of upgrading. I think they quoted me around $75k at that time. If I traded it in on another vehicle for $115k, I would never say to someone "we're talking almost $230k worth of the sleek, futurist automobiles" since I would have only paid $160. People who use that reasoning, for whatever the reason, make me uncomfortable. It doesn't surprise me that Tesla was late in getting back to him, but that's no excuse for Tesla.
This part also raised my eyebrows:
-- this does not bode well for future purchasers, including those who order the lower-priced Model 3 sedans.
That's nice of him to say that even lowly Model 3 purchasers deserve to be included in the group and be treated better. Perhaps he didn't mean it that way but that's how I read it.
It will be interesting to hear how it plays out in Court but that seems unlikely since most of these types of cases settle with NDA clauses.
