The trio claims their cars fell well short of their estimated ranges
Teslas are tested to the EPA test cycles, same as every other car in the US. They’ve been audited multiple times, and always passed.
The lawsuit follows a Reuters report that Tesla began modifying EV ranges about a decade ago.
Ah yes, an unverified report from a single unnamed source with 10-year-old knowledge.
Its cars would supposedly show inflated figures when fully charged, and would only start showing accurate numbers under a 50 percent charge. … It’s not certain that Tesla still uses these purported exaggerations.
If the “investigative” reporter wanted to test this, they could literally just go and find a new Tesla and see what its fully-charged range says. Trivially simple. But it would show the EPA range which goes against their story, so they don’t mention it.
To head off complaints, the automaker is said to have created a “Diversion Team” that would persuade users to drop range-related support calls.
In tech (and Tesla is a tech company) it’s called L1 support. Try calling your ISP and getting them to send out a technician, and they’re going to make you do a bunch of other tests on your end first. It’s annoying, but it turns out most complaints can be solved over the phone (because most complaints come from people who are terrible with technology).
Tesla is the only company with such incorrect range estimates. There is now tons of evidence, such as internal communication, indicating that this was intentional lying. If they win, the payout will be to all affected, not just to those filing suit.
He’s right about the range calculation on the sticker though. It’s governed through SAE J1634, IIRC. The difference between EU and US is which test cycle they use, IIRC.
I’m not familiar with older J1634 so I’m not sure if it’s significantly different or not.
The other thing is, how is the end of test criterion determined for Tesla? The way the document is written leaves manufacturers with some wiggle room (IIRC). It could really be that the SAE paper should be revised to run with everything on.
The real time driving range is pretty damning though. I’m not sure if there’s any RDE testing required for BEV in the states. It would be really interesting to see if this sparks that.
It’s not right though. Tesla was uniquely inaccurate. This Ars Technica article I read a few days ago goes into more detail. No other manufacturer has such inaccurate range estimates. In fact, most exceed their estimates.
Certain manufacturers may have standard operating practices of keeping the AC running, or how close to the trace line they drive — there is a tolerance for some error.
If Tesla STICKER ranges are unrealistic, they are likely abusing the general EPA phrasing of “using good engineering judgment” that usually accompanies emissions legislation to push their ranges higher.
The other part of the ars technica concerns the actual estimates when driving the car. Above 50%, they are not providing accurate estimates.
Given recent events at the company formerly known as Twitter, though, do you really expect different from Musk?
Yes exactly. One could do mental gymnastics to try to defend this, but the balance of evidence and past decisions by Musk makes it obvious that this is far from innocent. This is theft by misrepresentation.
All I’m saying is that unless Tesla is advised by a certification witness to change their test method, they are unlikely to do so and it will be hard to argue that their sticker ranges aren’t lawful.
The software case on the other hand is misleading at best. I would characterize that as fraud, but I’m not a lawyer
I’m not a lawyer either, so your guess is as good as mine. From where I’m sitting, it seems to me that there is ample evidence, including internal communication and the activities of the “diversion” team, that this was NOT an engineering decision. When the problem was revealed, there was no attempt to correct it. I personally don’t see how this is so hard to argue when it is so blatant.
Pretty sure we were having a discussion about technology here in the /c/technology community. If you’d rather obsess over the CEO of the company, I’m sure there are plenty of other communities for dedicated fans such as yourself.
Let’s also not forget that this issue applied to ICE vehicles as well for decades. The EPA city/highway MPG ratings were always way higher on paper than in practice until they reformulated their testing several years back to give more accurate numbers.
EPA periodically updates its methodology to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving conditions. The 2008 changes were broad revisions to the entire methodology that lowered the fuel economy estimates for all vehicles. The updates for 2017 will reduce some fuel economy estimates by 1 mile per gallon (MPG) and a small number by 2 MPG.
A class action always starts with a handful of plaintiffs. It must be established first that there is grounds for a class action. In other words, you have to demonstrate that this is part of a larger problem. The first step is that small group of people. They file suit, and then it’s decided if the case should have class action status. Once the case is given class action status, all people that may have been effected are notified that they may qualify for the class action. In other words, literally 3 people in California are how a class action lawsuit gets started. If you knew anything about the legal process, you would know this.
Teslas are tested to the EPA test cycles, same as every other car in the US. They’ve been audited multiple times, and always passed.
Volkswagen vehicles were tested too. Turns out they had special programming to determine when they were being tested rather than normally driven.
Ah yes, an unverified report from a single unnamed source with 10-year-old knowledge.
All “sources” are unnamed. Welcome to journalism 101. If they’re named, they’re not “a source.” You just credit them. www.reuters.com/…/tesla-batteries-range/ Fucking Deepthroat was a “source” and he took down Nixon. It wasn’t until decades later that his actual identity was revealed. When a “source” is coming from someplace like Reuters you assume they’re legit until shown otherwise.
Also, learn to read. The actual statement is that Tesla STARTED modifying these numbers about ten years ago, not that their information is ten years old.
If the “investigative” reporter wanted to test this, they could literally just go and find a new Tesla and see what its fully-charged range says. Trivially simple. But it would show the EPA range which goes against their story, so they don’t mention it.
What part of “still uses” do you not understand? Tesla can modify the software of the car on the fly. Were you not aware of that? All they have to do is send an update to change these things. Can’t prove it? Well buddy, that’s what a lawsuit is for. Now the onus is on Tesla to prove that they aren’t doing illegal shit.
I don’t know why you have “investigative” in scare quotes other than to show how ignorant you are.
In tech (and Tesla is a tech company) it’s called L1 support.
You have clearly not read anything about this team. It’s not there to be first line support. It’s there to convince people there aren’t any issues with their cars, regardless of whether or not there is something wrong. I suggest you hang around some Tesla forums where people that have actually encountered this Diversion Team post.
They’re there solely to keep Muskypants from feeling bad about himself and his shitty product.
But sure, go on blaming people buying Teslas for being “bad with technology” when the average Tesla owner is LITERALLY A FUCKING TECHBRO.
Bootlicking is a bad habit. Drop it like I dropped your mom last Saturday.
A recall is a tacit admission that there is a problem, there is a fix, and it will be fixed at the manufacturer’s expense.
Tesla has claimed there is no issue, instituted teams designed solely to minimize the number of complaints about this issue, done all they can to deny that there is a problem, and ultimately is being sued for failing to actually do their damn jobs.
If you don’t understand the difference maybe you need to grow up a bit more before having an opinion.
I hate musicals mostly. I think the original Annie was the only one I liked (because I was a kid and didn’t know better :P). I find musicals are a sign that the writers are running out of ideas and it’s the last season but this episode blew my expectations all away. It felt like an episode with singing, and not singing to skate by for an episode.
Can anyone speak on the state of this game? I’ve never been that curious about it but with all the additions of cult classic characters, I’m starting to get intrigued
Operating nodes is expensive, offers no reward, and comes with a serious legal risk.
This won’t stop the NSA from operating a few. I assume that a significant portion of Tor nodes is run by intelligence agencies. If they control all nodes used for a connection(i believe three are used), they can probably piece together what connections a user is having.
engadget.com
Hot