they f**ked up Tesla locked a customer's car out of 1/3 of its battery capacity for a $4.5k ransom

[Sauron]

22 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It was brought up as a double dipping when I am saying that there are actual tangible benefits of having a 90 kWh even if it's softlocked.  Would you rather a fresh 90kWh batter or a fresh 60 kWh battery [given the cell change, it might be roughly the same weight].  Even if it's softlocked the better option is the 90 kWh, as it will last longer.

I would rather not have hardware functionality locked behind arbitrary software restrictions.

23 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Similar to how PS3's were sold at a loss, with the expectation that the games would make up for it.

PS3 hardware was not limited by a software lock that could be removed by paying money. Regardless, this isn't even about out of the box software locks but rather about locking a feature that a customer previously had access to in order to extort money from them.

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If people did that, the base price of vehicles would have to be increased to compensate.

Either the cars are viable and competitive at 60KWh, meaning a good portion of customers are never going to upgrade and your argument isn't valid, or Tesla intentionally baits you in with a lower price knowing that the car sucks with that limit and that you'll be easily upsold, which I consider unethical. Therefore I simply do not care; even if Tesla decided to raise the price a bit to give everyone a fully capable car that would be preferable to luring customers in and then having them pay more anyway down the line.

31 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Just like how Tesla batteries use to have unlimited miles/8 year warranties...but there were already people who abused the system so much that they had to eventually put a cap on miles driven.

I see that as a lie about the limits of support. Don't call it unlimited if it's not unlimited; there's no such thing as abuse of an unlimited system. Next time don't lie in your marketing material.

33 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You are paying for the added range in the upgrade, you can't blindly ignore all that it does have a benefit having a larger battery pack within a vehicle has.

The only cost to Tesla is the price of the physical battery and installation. If that's what's costing them then they should have customers pay for that upon installation. If it's not costing them, or the cost is covered by their warranty terms (meaning it was already paid for when originally purchasing the car), then any demanded price afterwards in exchange for the ability to use hardware you already have is double dipping. But I don't really care if you call it that or something else, it's equally unethical.

35 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Ford/GM required multiple loans throughout the years to maintain survive.

That's literally how being a corporation works. At least if you get a loan from a bank you're expected to pay it back.

 

Meanwhile Tesla has been propped up for years by government incentives taken directly from people's taxes which it now has no obligation to repay.

37 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yes, Tesla's business model so so bad, being one of the only companies that is actually managing to make a vehicle that makes money.

And they do so unethically. That to me makes it bad, even if it is profitable. Not that other car companies are great in this sense; VW for instance was quite profitable for a while while lying about their cars' emissions. I am simultaneously capable of criticizing Tesla and other car companies, go figure. I don't feel the need to grasp at straws and lash out at other companies that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand to defend my parasocial daddy's companies, unlike... others.

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

People already complain about the price of EV's, so your solution is essentially jack up the prices by $8.5k

As though there weren't cheaper EVs on the market than what Tesla makes. It's Tesla that decided to exclusively make luxury vehicles the average person can't afford, not me. Don't try and pretend making a car 66k instead of 74k suddenly makes it affordable to the general public, even assuming your reasoning about the potential price increase is correct, which I don't believe.

[mr moose]

@wanderingfool2 Federal ad state laws trump civil contracts.  If the law says a car maker cannot make changes that adversely effect the car then it doesn't matter what contract tesla makes their customers sign.  Also your whole opinion rests solely on there even being a contract that covers that between the two parties.

[LAwLz]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

@wanderingfool2 Federal ad state laws trump civil contracts.  If the law says a car maker cannot make changes that adversely effect the car then it doesn't matter what contract tesla makes their customers sign.  Also your whole opinion rests solely on there even being a contract that covers that between the two parties.

Does such a law exist in the US?

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Does such a law exist in the US?

Unless I'm mistaken US law has the adhesion contracts law,  doctrine of unconscionability and the doctrine of reasonable expectation.  These alongside substantive unconscionability make it illegal for companies to create a "take it or leave it" sales contract like what is being used to defend their practices in this particular issue.   The laws were primarily driven by financial sector behavior, however they do apply to all forms of consumer services and products.   Things that can be found to fall foul of these doctrines and laws are things like fine print that takes integral control away from the consumer, contracts that leverage unfair financial gains for the corporation making the contracts and so on.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion)

 

 

I strongly believe this one falls fairly under the reasonable expectation doctrine where any reasonable person would expect that their car would not be adversely effected in this way for no good reason.

 

Quote

The doctrine of reasonable expectations states that a party who adheres to the other party’s standard terms does not assent to the terms if the other party has reason to believe that the adhering party would not have accepted the agreement if he had known that the agreement contained the particular term. In other words, people are bound by terms a reasonable person would expect to be in the contract. 

 

Given the man clearly complained and asked for the "fix" to be reverted as soon as he found out on top of the fact tesla did not tell him what the fix was for, it almost absolutely proves that tesla knew that if the customer understood the terms of their service and what they were doing he would have refused it.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Unless I'm mistaken US law has the adhesion contracts law,  doctrine of unconscionability and the doctrine of reasonable expectation.  These alongside substantive unconscionability make it illegal for companies to create a "take it or leave it" sales contract like what is being used to defend their practices in this particular issue.   The laws were primarily driven by financial sector behavior, however they do apply to all forms of consumer services and products.   Things that can be found to fall foul of these doctrines and laws are things like fine print that takes integral control away from the consumer, contracts that leverage unfair financial gains for the corporation making the contracts and so on.

So to start out, the contract itself doesn't mix words about their rights (like it's not hidden in fine print or obscured in sections).  The other thing is the vehicle was SOLD as having access to 60kWh of battery.

 

The range extension is literally part of the Tesla Service (you purchase it from Tesla Service), so it's not unreasonable to expect that if you connect your Tesla to Tesla Services they might remove the features that do not belong to the vehicle.  Tesla can easily also argue in court that the provision allows them to prevent people from buying a S60, modding it to allow lets say 90 kWh [or intentionally forcing a battery warranty at the end of the life to get the larger range].  Again, that clause allows them to have actual functionality to prevent cases such as modding to unlock features while also using Tesla services.  They sell their S60 vehicles at a lower cost, without that provision they could argue that nothing stops people from buying a S60 and unlocking and still use the Tesla services.

 

As for the provision in the contract, it is clearly stated and you can't argue ignorance for entering the contract.  Again, the guy could have easily had the car inspected prior to purchasing and detected the problem as well.  It's buy beware.

 

 

For those arguing that soft-caps should not be allowed; lets compare scenarios and see which you think is better for the consumer:

Purchase a Mach-e standard range, dropping like $49k on it [The extended range costs $6k more at $55k]

A few months after purchase (or a year or two when you have extra funds) you realize you want that extra 20% extended range.

You now realize that the option will cost over $25k

 

Had the Mach-e SR had the extended range battery installed, and they decided to charge people $6.5k for the upgrade, or only $6k if you did it at the time of purchase. [The delta cost of the battery manufacturing is apparently sitting at under $3k].  That means they only have to sell an upgrade to 50% of the people to make back the cost of adding in those batteries.  Anything more and it would be additional profit; so they wouldn't need to charge more for the base vehicle (as they would make it up later on)

 

So for those saying that if they install a battery the person should be entitled to use the entire battery (in the sense of range during a charge); then consider the above and think to yourself what you would rather have.  A battery that is the exact size, or a battery that is bigger but softlocked (without paying additional amounts).  Also for anyone saying additional weight, regen braking actually can help out quite a lot (some of the vehicle have a 90% efficiency in recovery of energy)

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So to start out, the contract itself doesn't mix words about their rights (like it's not hidden in fine print or obscured in sections).  The other thing is the vehicle was SOLD as having access to 60kWh of battery.

 

The range extension is literally part of the Tesla Service (you purchase it from Tesla Service), so it's not unreasonable to expect that if you connect your Tesla to Tesla Services they might remove the features that do not belong to the vehicle.  Tesla can easily also argue in court that the provision allows them to prevent people from buying a S60, modding it to allow lets say 90 kWh [or intentionally forcing a battery warranty at the end of the life to get the larger range].  Again, that clause allows them to have actual functionality to prevent cases such as modding to unlock features while also using Tesla services.  They sell their S60 vehicles at a lower cost, without that provision they could argue that nothing stops people from buying a S60 and unlocking and still use the Tesla services.

 

As for the provision in the contract, it is clearly stated and you can't argue ignorance for entering the contract.  Again, the guy could have easily had the car inspected prior to purchasing and detected the problem as well.  It's buy beware.

 

 

For those arguing that soft-caps should not be allowed; lets compare scenarios and see which you think is better for the consumer:

Purchase a Mach-e standard range, dropping like $49k on it [The extended range costs $6k more at $55k]

A few months after purchase (or a year or two when you have extra funds) you realize you want that extra 20% extended range.

You now realize that the option will cost over $25k

 

Had the Mach-e SR had the extended range battery installed, and they decided to charge people $6.5k for the upgrade, or only $6k if you did it at the time of purchase. [The delta cost of the battery manufacturing is apparently sitting at under $3k].  That means they only have to sell an upgrade to 50% of the people to make back the cost of adding in those batteries.  Anything more and it would be additional profit; so they wouldn't need to charge more for the base vehicle (as they would make it up later on)

 

So for those saying that if they install a battery the person should be entitled to use the entire battery (in the sense of range during a charge); then consider the above and think to yourself what you would rather have.  A battery that is the exact size, or a battery that is bigger but softlocked (without paying additional amounts).  Also for anyone saying additional weight, regen braking actually can help out quite a lot (some of the vehicle have a 90% efficiency in recovery of energy)

 

In your opinion.  It seems that not only do majority of people here think it is a shit move but that the owner of the car clearly didn't know it was in the fine print or that they would do it without his permission,  which fails the very test of reasonable expectation right out of the gate.    You could argue the contracts are clearly written if you want, but it still doesn't mean they are legal or pass muster.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

In your opinion.  It seems that not only do majority of people here think it is a shit move but that the owner of the car clearly didn't know it was in the fine print or that they would do it without his permission,  which fails the very test of reasonable expectation right out of the gate.    You could argue the contracts are clearly written if you want, but it still doesn't mean they are legal or pass muster.

A trillion dollar market cap company, that heavily utilizes that clause in the contract that has sold over 3 million products with that clause.  Yes, it so isn't going to hold up in courts, you must be write.  Their lawyers will not have given advice on it.  The fact is, if you say that that clause is void, then that means they have 3 million people who can effectively sue them.

 

And for the bolded bit, look at how many people here claim there wasn't a contract, including yourself.  Once I point out the clause you start saying it's an invalid clause.  Being stupid in not even reading over a contract doesn't mean it fails the test of reasonable expectations.  You want to know reasonable expectations.  Knowing a company that sells vehicle that is soft capping capacity and having it being able to be extended through purchase of Tesla services might revoke your cares extended range...because you guess it, you didn't purchase the extended range option.  You can argue whether or not you think it's a reasonable thing, but stop with this whole "Tesla has no right" "Tesla has no contract".  The fact you even said "didn't know it was in the fine print" is just stupid; it literally said it plain as day in the service agreement.  But I guess any form of text to you must be concluded as fine print then.

 

The fact is, you claimed there wasn't a contract.  There clearly was.  You claim the contract is illegal, pointing to laws that clearly apply to a seller not the 3rd party (which in the undisturbed possession it clearly doesn't apply to Tesla) but hey who needs to try understanding the law before quoting it, and even now you are pointing to laws that you are claiming it's my opinion when I clearly said why it won't apply.

 

It comes down to a simple fact.  The guy bought a S60 without doing a proper inspection.  He is entitled to a S60, he isn't entitled to a S90.  He brought it to Tesla with the intent of benefiting from Tesla Services by installing that capability.  It is clear as day to anyone who is a potential Tesla owner that extended range is locked behind Tesla Services (because it's an item you can purchase from there).  He could get it restored to 90 kWh range, but he has to sacrifice his Tesla services.

[IkeaGnome]

I'm still confused as to why Tesla is getting shit for the original owner selling the car as something it wasn't. Tesla might have been a bit heavy handed, but the original owner knew full well that the upgrade wasn't paid for. Second owner never connected the car to Tesla's network and had no reason to think anything was off about the car. Seems like something that should have been dealt with between original owner and current owner. 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

He could get it restored to 90 kWh range, but he has to sacrifice his Tesla services.

Problem there is while they could they still have to pay, not Tesla but somebody else. And that there is a key problem, modification without consent over an issue Tesla themselves likely didn't have the full picture of but took it upon themselves to "correct" the issue.

 

And that's why knowing the batteries are soft locked does not matter, that's why knowing paid upgrade options exist does not matter, neither actually apply to this situation because that's simply not the given chain of events nor the issue.

 

The current owner should never have been put in to this situation in the first place, no matter, no how. It does not matter the vehicle was in for an MCU2 upgrade to restore connectivity, it does not matter that connectivity was restored. Without further information about this story then the situation is that neither Tesla nor the current owner fully knew the situation of the battery capacity other than Tesla detecting it does not match their records but not actually really knowing why.

 

To then turn around and make the change knowing what it will do, knowing the owner is likely to complain, knowing that they are going to offer the paid upgrade as a response to the complaint is not that hard of an argument for an illegal high pressure sales tactic.

 

You keep making a big deal over entitlement, I don't think I have said the current owner is entitled to the 90kwh (especially not with Tesla connectivity) but that still doesn't mean I do or ever will agree in this situation Tesla was allowed nor should have done what they did without explaining the situation and seeking consent.

[leadeater]

On 8/4/2022 at 6:55 PM, LAwLz said:

Of course. If the contract allows for software changes, and this was a software change, then why wouldn't it be allowed?

Well it wouldn't be allowed. And there in lies a key problem with the "it's in the contract" defenders. If there is one situation where that clause would not allow it then there is more than one. So maybe don't pretend that it's actually as air tight as it is when it's quite simple to demonstrate that it's not.

 

Now like I have already said situations can get real complicated real fast, like this one, so who really knows how it would actually play out in court. I know my opinion on it, I think I know what sort of track/tactic I would go down to argue what Tesla did wasn't really allowed despite that contract clause.

 

On 8/4/2022 at 6:55 PM, LAwLz said:

If a software change isn't allowed to make any alterations to a "product" (defines as a package of software and hardware) then we might as well say no company is ever allowed to make any software change since all software changes always affect a "product" (define as a package of software and hardware).

Now that's not actually what I said was it. Tesla and any other company and other type of software update can be and do many different things and have many different affects. A software update could be a simple as pushing out a new company logo to the Tesla Media Console, if they ever change it. Because there are so many possibilities what is and is not allowed, when, where, why and how is not universal which is why I'm arguing this situation and not this idea that the software update contract clause isn't applicable ever, or in your case always.

 

It can depend, my opinion in this "it depends situation" is no.

[leadeater]

On 8/4/2022 at 5:52 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

It was sold as an S90, not a S60 with a 90kWh battery; big difference.  He still is entitled to rip out the battery and utilize all 90kWh if he chooses to.  He can modify to to have the full 90 kWh range.

 

On 8/4/2022 at 5:52 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

Literally it's mentioned in the tweet it was badged a S 90 " It says 90, badged 90, has 90-type range.".  The model badge is on the trunk.  Tesla doesn't swap out the badges on a warranty repair.  So yea, again the obvious issue is that he was sold a fake S90, which could easily have been prevented if he did what every single "what do to when buying an used car" guide says.  [There are also cases of people swapping badges and selling it fake online]

 

Do we really know this was actually the situation? The model number displayed within the vehicle changes based on available battery capacity so it would have said Model S 90. Maybe the physical exterior badge was changed, maybe not?

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A trillion dollar market cap company, that heavily utilizes that clause in the contract that has sold over 3 million products with that clause.  Yes, it so isn't going to hold up in courts, you must be write.  Their lawyers will not have given advice on it.  The fact is, if you say that that clause is void, then that means they have 3 million people who can effectively sue them.

 

And for the bolded bit, look at how many people here claim there wasn't a contract, including yourself.  Once I point out the clause you start saying it's an invalid clause.  Being stupid in not even reading over a contract doesn't mean it fails the test of reasonable expectations.  You want to know reasonable expectations.  Knowing a company that sells vehicle that is soft capping capacity and having it being able to be extended through purchase of Tesla services might revoke your cares extended range...because you guess it, you didn't purchase the extended range option.  You can argue whether or not you think it's a reasonable thing, but stop with this whole "Tesla has no right" "Tesla has no contract".  The fact you even said "didn't know it was in the fine print" is just stupid; it literally said it plain as day in the service agreement.  But I guess any form of text to you must be concluded as fine print then.

 

The fact is, you claimed there wasn't a contract.  There clearly was.  You claim the contract is illegal, pointing to laws that clearly apply to a seller not the 3rd party (which in the undisturbed possession it clearly doesn't apply to Tesla) but hey who needs to try understanding the law before quoting it, and even now you are pointing to laws that you are claiming it's my opinion when I clearly said why it won't apply.

 

It comes down to a simple fact.  The guy bought a S60 without doing a proper inspection.  He is entitled to a S60, he isn't entitled to a S90.  He brought it to Tesla with the intent of benefiting from Tesla Services by installing that capability.  It is clear as day to anyone who is a potential Tesla owner that extended range is locked behind Tesla Services (because it's an item you can purchase from there).  He could get it restored to 90 kWh range, but he has to sacrifice his Tesla services.

There are plenty of times trillion dollar companies with good lawyers have fallen foul of the law.  It happens all the time.  Just because this specific case hasn't made it to a court yet doesn't mean it isn't illegal. 

 

Also I didn't claim there was "no contract" I merely pointed out that you don't know if there was a specific contract the buyer had signed.

 

And lastly, anyone who thinks it is reasonably expected that tesla would lock you out of 30Kw of battery on a car you bought second hand and without telling you then their idea of reasonable is whack.  That is the whole and sole reason that law and it's counterparts exist. 

 

 

[OrdinaryPhil]

Play stupid games.
Win stupid prizes.

When you give a dog a treat to make get it to stop barking, what you are essentially doing is teaching the dog that barking earns him treats.

When companies make a bad product and you give that company oodles and oodles of your hard-earned money for , you teach that company that you WANT bad products and will pay top dollar for them.

It always confounds me when consumers create a monster and then scream about how bad it is. EVs are a bad joke played on low-information buyers who are willing to pay premium prices for inferior products because the sun monster is going to destroy planet earth unless you buy an EV right now! This kind of hysteria makes everything more and more radical. Because low-information consumers are being herded toward an EV, the EV manufacturers - who already have tons of money from government subsidies, grants, and energy programs, don't even have to concern themselves with making a product you want (or that fills an actual need in the market), instead, they can make products that tie you into an increasingly hostile ecosystem, and wait for your alternatives to disappear.

As more and more car makers stop making traditional vehicles, you as a consumer have fewer and fewer alternatives. Once the governments regulate non-EVs out of the marketplace, you'll quite literally be a hostage to the EV makers. You can buy their cars - software lockouts, subscription fees, spyware and all... or you can walk.

EVs are worse for consumers, worse for the planet, and worse for privacy, ownership, and safety - and yet people are buying them up. What do you expect to happen? You're training companies to take advantage by buying products that intentionally take advantage of you.

Is what Tesla is doing morally wrong? Yes. Did you really expect anything else?


 

[WhitetailAni]

25 minutes ago, OrdinaryPhil said:

EVs are worse for consumers, worse for the planet, and worse for privacy, ownership, and safety - and yet people are buying them up. What do you expect to happen? You're training companies to take advantage by buying products that intentionally take advantage of you.

Is what Tesla is doing morally wrong? Yes. Did you really expect anything else?

Daily reminder that Tesla is not all EVs. My dad owns a Nissan Leaf 2017, it's an EV. No software locks.

[OrdinaryPhil]

I don't recall explicitly stating that Tesla = all EVs.

Nor am I 100% against EVs. I just think that they idea of them ever replacing traditional petroleum powered vehicles is silly.

At the absolute top end of engineering, efficiency always takes a back seat to performance. We didn't care that the space shuttle conumed 500,000 kg (1.1 Mlb) of a 11-star perforated solid propellant cake of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant to exit the atmosphere. We don't care that the M1 Abrams tank consumes 1.6 gallons of fuel per mile. When we engineer something to perform a task, we get that task done, regardless of the cost. The McLaren F1 didn't break the land speed record by being economic with its fuel.

In that same vein I think it makes perfect sense for the top performing super cars to be slowing moving towards electric engines - the gains in power and performance outweigh the many costs of going electric. Who cares if you strip mine the earth of its non-renewable lithium supply and make dangerous e-waste with battery components that can't be re-used... you'll win races amiright?

But at the consumer level, electric vehicles make absolutely no sense. Electricity isn't free. To produce it we burn coal, damn rivers, and build millions of tons of plastic worth of turbines and solar cells (plastic is made from oils BTW). There is no practical reason to shift that market in that direction. its more damaging to the planet, it's more expensive, and the highly political use of government to force the market transition is resulting in the kind of bad behavior we're seeing from auto makers. If they can get away with - they will.

 

I don't like picking on Tesla because I honestly don't blame them for doing what makes them money... but it's not a coincidence that when they start trends other companies follow.

I would expect that this sort of thing is going to become more and more common in the years to come. BMW, Audi, Mercedes and many other auto makers are all jumping on the bandwagon. They're making more EVs, and using them as the launchpad for subscription services. Even more budget-friendly brands like Toyota already announced that they plan to stop producing non-hybrids EVs shortly, and you can bet that once buyers don't have choice anymore, they'll start charging subscriptions to.

It will also escalate beyond charging for features like heated steering wheels and power seats... eventually they'll charge subscriptions for remote starts, and safety features like ABS and Stability control. And if it can be locked out remotely when your subscription lapses, it can be locked out for other reasons. Maybe you'll post something on social media that your corporate betters dislike... there goes your airbags and lane departure detection.

[tikker]

On 8/2/2022 at 9:11 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

When doing a vehicle history you can check what model of a Tesla it is.  You can also bring it into a Tesla shop to have it inspected; the cost of a few hundred prior to purchasing a $50k vehicle is always wise.  Depending as well, he may also have been able to get that information from their service line as well, providing the pin.

 

This goes for any used vehicle (that isn't a junker), it always pays to have an once over by a certified mechanic.  I mean this would be different though if the guy purchased the used vehicle directly from Tesla, at which point we get into the issue that it becomes Tesla's responsibility again; but I don't think this is the case.

Doing the above would have caught the issue prior to purchase, and if not then the inspection by Tesla would bring the liability back onto Tesla.  Even checking the prior history of the vehicle should have alerted that it was a S60 instead of an S90; at which point you should do due-diligence and have it looked over.

 

There are even reports of people doing things like swapping out the badges and trying to make a vehicle appear as though it's a different version of a Tesla (because they can sell it for more).  While the buyer might not realize it's a fraudulent S90, that doesn't make it Tesla's fault...it makes it the sellers fault. 

Can agree that it's smart to do a history check on used things. It's not Tesla's fault that someone tries to sell an S60 as an S90. What is Tesla's fault is not doing the replacement correctly and not locking it back to 60.

On 8/2/2022 at 9:11 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

The "best we can assume" is based on a 3rd party source (not the owner), who would also have to assume when the mistake occurred and who also benefits from stirring up controversy by assuming the worst (business exposure)

There isn't much you can go on, just what was claimed (but likely assumed). 

You say we don't have much to go no this is legit, while presenting all the foul play scenarios as pretty much absolute fact while they are based on equally little information. You assume the 3rd party is unreliable doing  this purely for exposure. The fact that they offer (unofficial) Tesla repairs/replacements can give basis for such an assumption as it does raise conflict of interest, but it remains a mostly unfounded assumption unless they are known for having done this more often.

On 8/2/2022 at 9:11 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

The battery warranty could have easily been from 2013 - 2022 (early). Based on when the 75kWh was sunsetted, in 2019, that actually puts the warranty period likely between mid 2019 - (early) 2022. (90kWh requires more time/labor/modifications to install apparently in the older models, so the very likelyhood is they would use a 75kWh if it was still in production)

I'm trusting Wikipedia's sources on this, but the 90 kWh battery seems to have been an option since 2015 at least:

Quote

Throughout 2015, Tesla would make various changes to the Model S, including an enhanced powertrain that would last for one million miles.^[51] An update that year introduced electromechanical brakes.^[52] That same year, Tesla introduced a 70 kWh battery to replace the existing 60 kWh batteries and base 60 kWh Model S vehicles.^[53][54] Tesla also introduced a 90 kWh battery as a "range upgrade" and explained that the 6% energy increase was due to "improved cell chemistry"^[51] and the introduction of silicon into the cell's graphite anode.^[55] After being discontinued the year prior, the 60 and 60D returned in 2016 with a software-limited, upgradeable 75 kWH battery and a new air filter, dubbed "Bioweapon Defense Mode".^[56]

So while one can assume that they would have used a 75 kWh battery, for whatever reason they could also have legitimately serviced it with a 90 kWh battery. Which only a look into Tesla's bookkeeping can tell us.

On 8/2/2022 at 9:11 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

There is also the logic that they only noticed it when the vehicle was made to call back home.  So that in itself throws red-flags to there being more to the story than was what is given.  So I would say no, the best we can assume isn't that it's factual...the best we can assume is that we don't know the scenario.

I'm with you on the last sentence there, which is why I don't really buy all the potential foul play scenarios that have been laid out across this thread. There are simply too many assumptions being made. I think the only thing I've claimed as factual, or should have, is that Tesla made an unauthorised change, for the rest assuming, for the lack of strong convincing evidence, that the story is true. I still think that regardless who is telling the truth they should not have the right to revert this back without informing the owner, which is not clearcut regardless what the contract says as the other lawsuits demonstrate.

On 8/2/2022 at 9:11 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Do people think that it's more plausible that years went by (according to the tweet), multiple owners and miraculously when it's serviced to restore connectivity to Tesla services they noticed the error.  Why would it be that it was only noticed years after the fact when the guy was restoring Tesla services.  At that stage, it's more likely that the previous owner didn't connect it to Tesla services and used a hacker to extend the range.  I mean honestly, if I owned a Tesla and didn't use their services it's something that I'd be tempted to do.  [And it's something that this current owner essentially sought out to do, except that he wanted the Tesla services also enabled]

Didn't you mention on an earlier page how the hurricane and/or after 3G dropping could have caused this, so yes, certainly plausible? Straight up accusing the buyer from seeking to do an illegal thing is a bit of a stretch I think. We know they wanted the 90 kWh that they bought and the Tesla services. We don't know if they came in "can this be fixed?" or "hey hack my 90 kWh back". What the tweets told us is 1) buyer buys 90 kWh car 2) car gets reset to 60 after MCU2 update and getting network access 3) attempts to set it back to 90 are reset automatically while connected to the Tesla network. That you may consider committing this foul if given the chance, fine, but I wouldn't generalise that to this situation since that is one more assumption, which neither of us seem to be big on. What was said in the tweet was that the only possibility of keeping it a 90 was through hacky means and to then disconnect from Tesla services.

 

Tesla should have noticed the model hadn't phoned home in years or for whatever prolonged amount of time and in response to that sent a notice about what was off and to provide proof of purchase or something or otherwise the car would be reset to factory capacity. The rats nest what follows would be between buyers and sellers, but Tesla is also not in the right here in my book. If it was a brand new factory fresh baby car then it would have been a different story, but it's not from what we can tell.

On 8/2/2022 at 9:11 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Also, statute of limitations on contracts would be 4 years (in the US I believe).  While it likely wouldn't directly fall under this, one could likely argue it in court.

Good to know. So if this happened 2017/8 or earlier then Tesla would have little grounds to win in case of a faulty warranty replacement if I interpret that correctly, which one might assume could be why they just settled instead of letting it go to court.

 

I don't think we'll figure this particular situation out unless relelvant documents get revealed or if it does end up going to court. We have seen enough of how easily the story can be flipped one way or another, so I'll leave that aspect here. My main gripe was that this should have been approached differently, foul play or not, and that due to the unknown nature of the situation it should not have been a "shoot first ask later" approach.