Just curious, what exactly are you thinking your claim would be, what is the harm you think Tesla did to you, and what is the remedy you would like to pursue?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[updated with *] P85D 691HP should have an asterisk * next to it.. "Up to 691HP"
- Thread starter krisg81
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Just curious, what exactly are you thinking your claim would be, what is the harm you think Tesla did to you, and what is the remedy you would like to pursue?
JER
Member
That's influenced by factors across the whole performance envelope, including power fade approaching top speed; this is not relevant to the two disputed metrics of 0-60 and power. I cautioned against precisely this confusion above.
Quarter mile not disputed. Also, irrelevant.
Nor would I expect it to be. The footnote was there for the period between first deliveries - which were not meeting initial claims - and the realisation they couldn't meet initial claims with an OTA update as planned.
Relaxation of the speed limiter was delivered. The "high speed" update mentioned in the same footnote - which we can infer would've met initial claims - was not delivered. An incremental "high speed" upgrade that still did not deliver the original specification was delivered instead.
This was a bait and switch, plus some obfuscation.
Regrettably, no. :smile:
I'd be in the "give them a free pass" camp if I had. Their mission is too important to let it be jeopardised by a quibble over claims made in good faith. However, they damn well need to acknowledge the mistakes and stop the sleaze. Integrity is important.
Last edited:
Very simple. I bought a car that I was told would do 0-100 km/h in 3.4s later revised to 3.3s. I have never been able to do 0-100 km/h in 3.4s or 3.3s and now Tesla has put up the disclaimer saying that the performance numbers are with rollout, which is not 0-100 km/h.
My claim would be to either fix the car so that it is able to do the 0-100 km/h in 3.4s or to reimburse me a percentage of the purchasing price, as I have not gotten what I paid for and Tesla has now officially stated that I have not gotten what I paid for. That would be the standard claim under Danish law when a supplier is not able to deliver the agreed upon product.
In my head it is pretty straight forward. It is no longer a matter of testing conditions such as temperature, road condition etc. Tesla is now saying it will not do the claimed 0-100 km/h under any condition unless you cheat the clock by applying the rollout trick used on a dragstrip - which is completely BS, since I did not buy a dragracer, but a family saloon for road use. We don't even have dragstrips in Denmark.
On monday I will contact the Danish car owners association and the Danish Consumer Ombudsman and get their advice. They may agree that I have a case according to the Danish laws or they may tell me I do not have a case. In any case I think their advice will be able to settle the matter for me personally.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
Why would you want to keep the car, if you are so unhappy with it and the company?
What if Tesla says that you are welcome to return the car, minus appropriate charge for the use of it, and will decide not to sell you their cars because your claim is not "in good faith"? Would such outcome be desirable/acceptable to you?
And it makes perfect since why you require 3.4 seconds precisely.
well, same reason for buying a RS7 or E63 AMG S. Not for driving on dragstrips, but have the power to go quickAnd to the precise thing, Tesla was pretty precise about how much money they wanted from me, then I think it is ok to be precise about what I get in return for that money - or is it only Tesla who is entitled to be precise about what they get?
- - - Updated - - -
I love the car, but I just want what I paid for. I think it would be a weird way of doing business if you tell your customers that you will ban them if they are not willing to accept what ever you deliver to them regardless of what was sold.
If Tesla does not care about being precise about delivering the two things that differentiate the P85D from the 85D, then they not should care about being precise about the premium price they charge for those two features - it is as simple as that.
Remember, Tesla charged me a pretty substantial premium of more than 160,000 DKK compared to the 85D and the only difference for that premium was 700hp and 3.4s vs. 4.4s and now they are telling me that they were not truthful about the numbers and it is actually 3.7s vs. 4.4s and they still have not said anything about hp.
So, why is so hard for people to understand that after paying a serious premium to get something and then not get it, that you would like it to put right?
160,000 DKK is approx $24k - Tesla is not running a charity and neither am I
But I will now get the advice and then we will see if I'm totally in the wrong and should just be happy because I was allowed to paid extra to Tesla or if Tesla was misleading and need to fix it.
Last edited:
JER
Member
There you go, making sense again!:wink:
I can't deny all indications are that you're entitled to restitution of some kind.
I feel bad about this whole thing though. Tesla's strategic objectives are far more important than this, and Elon has far bigger and broader issues eating at him. When I hear about what his work week is like, I worry he's going to drop dead or lose his mind. This was a burden neither he nor Tesla needed.
On the other hand, it's important for our future trust that Tesla maintains its integrity. In the past, it's gone above and beyond - like the battery shield, deployed free for something that wasn't even a real issue. I've always had the impression that Tesla will strive to do right by its customers.
This year, Tesla seem to be taking a different path - the path of sleaze. I really hope they turn back.
Exactly, all those things done in the past has been done to build trust in the Tesla brand and in the EV car vision. This specific issue seams to be Tesla 'pumping the meat full of water' in order to make more money, which may not corrode the EV vision, but will hurt the perfomance part of the Tesla brand.
The best thing for them would be to offer to fix it and apologise and no harm would have been done, but when customers have to fight to get what they paid for, there is a chance of relations being hurt. It would be the most cheap fix in auto history especially compared to the amount of free publicity Tesla have gotten based on these false claims ...
And to the precise thing, Tesla was pretty precise about how much money they wanted from me, then I think it is ok to be precise about what I get in return for that money - or is it only Tesla who is entitled to be precise about what they get?
- - - Updated - - -
I love the car, but I just want what I paid for. I think it would be a weird way of doing business if you tell your customers that you will ban them if they are not willing to accept what ever you deliver to them regardless of what was sold.
If Tesla does not care about being precise about delivering the two things that differentiate the P85D from the 85D, then they not should care about being precise about the premium price they charge for those two features - it is as simple as that.
Remember, Tesla charged me a pretty substantial premium of more than 160,000 DKK compared to the 85D and the only difference for that premium was 700hp and 3.4s vs. 4.4s and now they are telling me that they were not truthful about the numbers and it is actually 3.7s vs. 4.4s and they still have not said anything about hp.
So, why is so hard for people to understand that after paying a serious premium to get something and then not get it, that you would like it to put right?
160,000 DKK is approx $24k - Tesla is not running a charity and neither am I
But I will now get the advice and then we will see if I'm totally in the wrong and should just be happy because I was allowed to paid extra to Tesla or if Tesla was misleading and need to fix it.
First, try not to get angry at my questioning, as I am simply trying to understand your rationale for suing the company that took a huge risk of designing electric car from the ground up, the thing that other companies, including the ones producing Audi's and MBs did not do, to deliver a car that you, apparently, delighted to own, just think that you should have it for less money that you paid for.
As for the money Tesla charged you, it is not based on whether car can reach 100km/h in 3.4 or 3.7s, it is based on materials and labor that went into the car plus margin to pay for R&D and general/administrative expenses. There is no magic formula that says that car doing 0 to 100km/h in 3.4s should cost X, while the one doing the same deed in 3.7s should cost Y.
I obviously see situation differently than you, and think that your description of why you want to sue Tesla is indeed is indicative that this lawsuit would not be in "good faith", as you are trying to get the car that you are happy to own and not willing to give up, for less money because you arbitrarily decided that it should cost less.
As for the hp claim, when Audi, for example, claims the hp for RS7, it is for the V8 engine, so Tesla claim for motor hp is similar.
Do not get me wrong, I do think that Tesla made mistakes in marketing P85D. However, the talk about suing them, in my opinion, is not justified.
I think that you are going to be much better off to work with Tesla to understand what their position is and try to resolve situation, raising it up the chain, if need be. The talk about suing is just going to cultivate your anger, and will not lead to anything you'll be satisfied with, IMO.
Last edited:
No mad at you question, sorry if you got that impression.
If it comes to a lawsuit I can tell you it is 100% in good faith. As you know and I said before, the HP and acceleration time is the only differentiators between the 85D and P85D, which as a consquence is the only comparable information I have to decide if I as a customer would like to pony out an extra $24k to get that. I decided that I would actually paid that extra $24k to get those two thing. What I found when I got the car, was that I did not get what I paid for and I contacted Tesla early april and asked them to fix it. They told that there was nothing wrong with the car although they were not able to achieve the specific two numbers that they charged me extra for. Now with the new disclaimer Tesla is telling me that the value proportion that they presented me with was actually not truthful. Any normal business owner would man up and fix it or provide a discount, since the customer was obviously mislead, intentionally or non-intentionally really does not matter - what matters is weather you correct your mistake or not.
I don't see how I can be at fault or blame in any of this. I just bought a car with clear specifications and Tesla did not deliver. Simple. What makes it complicated is that a lot of people have a lot of feelings associated with Tesla and Elon Musk.
The next argument would be that I put my self at risk by buying a car and as such I only have my self to blame? This is way we have pretty clear laws protecting buyers, rules that all have to follow.
So as I said before, I might get told that I do not have a case and then that is fine. But as it stands right now I think there is a strong case, both legally and morally.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
It seems the thoughts and comparison on this are fairly irrational. You are going to compare a HUGE *positive* PR (and human) save of the battery shield changes to a HUGE *negative* PR (spec/stopwatch) trivial minor performance and bragging rights "problem". The later would really hurt Tesla but the former does nothing but help Tesla.
Sure let's bring very negative press so people can get their fractional seconds and bragging HP spec numbers. That is about ME and not about Tesla EV advancement.
But if you got the 85D are the numbers relatively ("rollout") slower as well? So if you got the 85D and it didn't meet your expectation for the numbers in your country/measurements then would you sue Tesla for that?!?
The thing is that Tesla only uses rollout for the P85D and the P90D. So no, the numbers for the 85D would not get worse as they are without the 0.3 cheat rollout. That is the whole point, Tesla mislead me by have me decide to pay an extra $24k for a 1s faster acceleration instead of the truthful 0.7s faster acceleration. Yes, 0.3s does not seam much, but I paid a lot for it and it is 30% less than I paid for.
I get that you feel it is trivial and all me me me, but I guess that you did not pay the extra $24k, and I guess that you would no do it under any circumstance. So we have different priorities, that is what makes the world go round, so I'm cool about that.
Now, think about the people who traded in their relatively new P85 to get the P85D based solely on those misleading performance numbers. The bottom-line is that Tesla was happy to take the money, so no reason for them to complain or hide when people want what they paid for, no matter how trivial you may think it is. If that is the Tesla you want, it is only going to get worse from here on
The acceleration and hp numbers are still better than 85D, and they are not the only factors that differentiate two cars - the suspension in P85D is tuned better to handle the extra power.
So the differentiator is still there, and once it is acknowledged, the dispute is reduced to the arguing that this differentiation should cost X or Y, along to what was included in my previous post.
I do understand your frustration, but think that you will be much better off trying to elevate your case up the chain of command.
JER
Member
I'm not claiming equivalency. I'm noting a change in attitude.
Rolling projected fuel savings into the headline price is another example. It's sleaze.
I have already specifically acknowledged and agree with this point about perspective with Tesla's strategic goals. That doesn't alter the issue itself.
rns-e might, but I already said I wouldn't. This isn't about what I want. I don't even have a P85D.
This is about integrity.
In my opinion, Tesla should do four things:
- Acknowledge the situation
- Offer a choice of restitution packages
- Stop quoting misleading data
- Fix the market segmentation
Restitution could be anything from store credits (which you could use for the upgrade, a trade-in or whatever else you wanted) to use-adjusted buybacks. Nobody's forcing you to take it if you don't want it.
0-60 times with rollout should not be anywhere other than the US site, maybe not even there. All models must be shown with the same measuring conventions. This is a basic requirement for transparency.
The 85D/90D, PxxD and P90D (with Ludicrous) are too closely separated in performance. The one in the middle should go.
Last edited:
Early April 2015 - contact to local Tesla Copenhagen.
End May - Tesla tests my car and says it reports no faults
Between April and July a lot of e-mails and phone calls
End July - 15 P85D owners co signs a formal letter to Tesla about the missing performance
Early August - 2nd letter to Tesla, since there is no answer from Tesla
Late August - 3rd letter to Tesla, now more than 45 co signers.
Early September - we know for a fact that Tesla use rollout and that the car never was intended to do the claimed figures.
Still no reply from Tesla, but confirmation that the letters have been read by top management in Fremont
- so don't know how much more up the command chain I need to go as a customer?
I'm not saying that I will sue them, what I'm saying is that I will test the strength of my case and then if it is as strong as I believe, then have those advisors initiate a dialog with Tesla in the hope that Tesla will have more respect for them than they have for me and the other P85D owners trying to open a dialog.
If Tesla still stonewalls any approach and we believe we have a strong case, then I think Tesla actually want us to file a suit against them. If they don't I do not understand their way of stonewalling us
- - - Updated - - -
I know you doLet's take Tesla and cars out of the equation and look at it in a different light:
I went to the bakers yesterday and bought 12 cakes for $100. They also had on offer 10 cakes for $80. Now I didn't really need 12, but they had some extra red sprinkles, so I thought what the heck. The baker seemed a nice man, and he told me his bakery was inventing some new cake formula that was so much cheaper in the future children in the orphanage would be able to buy cakes that tasted just as good as mine for $0.50 a go.
I got home and ate some of the cakes and they were might delicious. In fact they were the best cakes I'd ever tasted.
The next day having eaten far too many cakes, and feeling a bit sick if I'm honest, I noticed there was only 11 cakes in the box not 12
So I phoned the baker to ask if I could have another cake.
The nice baker then explained to me that: "The '12 cake' offer referred to the number of cakes that could possibly fit in the packaging and not actually the number of cakes."
I wasn't happy about this at all. I said "But I thought I bought 12 cakes and only received 11. If I knew this I might have bought the package with 10 cakes which clearly had 10 actual cakes in them. How can this be?"
The baker quickly replies "Well for any cakes sales over 10, Baking Trend Magazine considers this to be 'Extreme Confectionery' and we use their standard of measurement which is not based on true counting, rather how people in eating competitions are given a head start"
Still confused I asked "What about the 11 cake offer you did last year? I bought that and received 11 actual cakes?"
"Well," says the baker, "I have a new offer coming. It is my special "Baker's Dozen" deal. Here I sell you 13* cakes, but you receive 12 actual cakes in a package that could fit 13. What I can do is take one of the cakes from that and give it to you for a special price. But it will cost you $5"
I still think the cakes are tasty. However now they have a bitter after taste.
Personally I think the owners deserve their extra cake!!
scottf200
Well-Known Member
JER and rns-e, I appreciated your calm and explanatory responses. I understand your points from your perspective. It is fair for you to feel the way you based on your personal expectations. I'm considering the Ludicrous option ($10K!) on a Model X related to 30-60 performance so I can appreciate your performance concerns although the precise measuring verse knowing/feeling the difference is probably where I question some of this. Thanks again for the calm conversation. Peace out.
Not true anymore. Suspension is identical in PD as 85D and 70D. Did you miss the Pre-april thread?
JER
Member
Again, perspective: I’m still far more comfortable with the idea of ordering a Model 3 when the time comes than I’ve ever been about descending into one of the local snake pits and buying a conventional car.
However, this issue has changed my ideas about the company I’ll be dealing with – and not in a good way.
However, this issue has changed my ideas about the company I’ll be dealing with – and not in a good way.
Similar threads
