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

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Just as stupid as it would be to assume that a warranty process they modified the vehicle [Since it should be a pretty automated process as well].

So should making the car originally yet Tesla keep having problems so this is not much of an assumption. Also warranty replacements do not happen in the large automated factories so no you are wrong on this point.

 

And if you want a tale of persistent errors and mistakes at an official manufacturer service center then look no further than my parents Ford. Ford service center is the most useless place around that has multiple times caused actual damage to their vehicle, sometimes of parts and fitting that had nothing to do with the service or repair.

 

Original manufacturing of the vehicle may be wonderfully automated, still with problems, but that has absolutely nothing to do with servicing.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It wouldn't be affecting all users at a mass scale, especially if lets say the query involves those that don't have the subscription...

Yes anyone that just happens to be in the area, driving through, or otherwise would get improperly affected. I can assure you if they did it the way you said 100% guaranteed people would have been improperly affected and we'd know.

 

If you send a configuration change to a vehicle then it'll be recorded and assigned to that vehicle, I'd likely bet Tesla would be legally required to have that sort of information anyway.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Have you seriously not seen a query go wrong like that before, where one small use case was overlooked?

It's not about that, it about how this would never ben done this way, it just would not be happening this way. Being able to audit what happens to each vehicle would be a key requirement and not just for this singular event. So every vehicle that received the range extension would be known along with every vehicle that did not receive the change to put it back.

 

Had the battery not been replaced Tesla would have said so. Had this vehicle been given a temporary range extension Tesla would have said so. Ergo since neither of these happened these did not happen. The fastest and most effective way to protect your company reputation is to prove a complaint is false/fraudulent, which again was not done. So that leads to details given in the story, the battery was replaced, was not correctly restricted to 60kwh and then was never detect or fixed until it went in for more than a basic warrant of fitness check. Because even if it went in to a Tesla service center I doubt this would have been detected because you don't do a deeper vehicle diagnostics check that would have happened during the MCU2 upgrade, hence why the issue would have been found because of that.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And yet you seem to have ignored the fatal problem yourself.  You are choosing to believe a twitter post, you are assuming the information being given is correct (and not an assumption base).

I'm choosing to use logic and also not discount what people say without justification. If the owners says this is what happened then that is what happened unless there is justification to believe otherwise. If you are going to go around believing everyone is a liar then that's on you.

 

Until new information has been outlaid in the story it is the facts of the situation which Tesla has not refuted. So these stand.

 

It is exceedingly unlikely due to the number of owners that the battery was replaced in 2022 and not even that likely end of 2021, which wouldn't even matter since 3G service connectivity still functions until 3G itself which is not under Tesla control is turned off in the area where the vehicle is operated. So I have zero doubt this vehicle with it's replaced battery had Tesla service connectivity and if a mere check-in with Tesla service would have detected and modified it then that would have already happened. Since there was no record of an unlock of range nor a lock it is more likely the battery configuration would simply be left alone since there is nothing in the system that would prompt it to do anything.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's clear from the twitter post that the guy doesn't know the original date of the battery swap, but is maybe going on what is being told...or worse just assuming if the customer is telling him it's already been switched hands twice.  So yea, in the worst case scenario it could have been as late as April 2022.  Just because the tweet mentions he's the 3rd owner, doesn't mean that the warranty happened under the first owner.  He could just be assuming the date of warranty.

Not knowing when it happened doesn't mean it didn't happen, since the vehicle more than likely says the battery has been replaced, or hasn't if it's not the case. The date only matters if you want to argue that the battery was replaced after the vehicle did not have connectivity to Tesla, which doesn't require a subscription and is maintained after warranty expiry, so I am writing this off as not the situation. The replaced battery simply must have been in the vehicle with functioning connectivity to Tesla at one or multiple points of time.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So yea, Tesla was in their right to do it.

Nope, only within the right to notify of the issue and require consent to have it changed before any other work will be carried out on the vehicle. It does not give them the right to just change it. How Tesla conducted the change I will never agree they had the right. You for whatever reason support how they did it but I highly doubt that is anything more than your opinion and not based on any actual law. Tesla has zero right to remove your spare wheel because they no longer offer spare wheels, if it was sold with a spare wheel then you own the wheel. If the vehicle was sold with a battery then you own the battery. If the battery is warranty replaced then you still own that battery. At every point Tesla never owns any physical part of the vehicle so any changes to these require consent from the owner. Changes to the actual software of the vehicle is however Tesla IP and is in the sale agreement and allowance for new software updates and software functions to be changed or even removed is allowed and covered, this (in my opinion) does not cover the battery.

 

Tesla being able to change the battery range after sale for a fee is itself another sales agreement. Tesla being able to change it during an emergency also came with a user acceptance prompt which disclosed the conditions of the range extension.

 

i.e.

 

And further evidence Tesla knows exactly which vehicles get this:

They emailed the owners. So unless they completely changed how it's handled between these two hurricanes I'm going to side with my assessment of how Tesla would know which vehicles get the extension and target only these specifically, and would know if not reverted.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

snip

  Whilst I agree, I still find most of the discussion moot,  telsa installed a 90Kw battery.  What the owner does with it is not for tesla to control beyond denying a warranty claim for the warranty period. 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

  Whilst I agree, I still find most of the discussion moot,  telsa installed a 90Kw battery.  What the owner does with it is not for tesla to control beyond denying a warranty claim for the warranty period. 

 

 

They connect to the service, Tesla is entitled to.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm choosing to use logic and also not discount what people say without justification

But you are choosing to discount that Tesla doesn't have the right to do it.  There is a clear justification to not believe it...it's a story of a story.  The guy is already one person removed.  If you are believing that what he says is true, then you also must agree that he has seen the vehicle itself...at which point it brings me back to the fact that it's more likely part of the hurricane issue than the warranty issue.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

So should making the car originally yet Tesla keep having problems so this is not much of an assumption. Also warranty replacements do not happen in the large automated factories so no you are wrong on this point.

 

And if you want a tale of persistent errors and mistakes at an official manufacturer service center then look no further than my parents Ford. Ford service center is the most useless place around that has multiple times caused actual damage to their vehicle, sometimes of parts and fitting that had nothing to do with the service or repair.

If you claim that they make persistent errors then you can't also claim they wouldn't make an error during a hurricane event.  It's not like the person installing the battery would be the one typing in information such as battery size, it would be more of an automated process on the software diagnostic software (like hitting calibrate).

 

You keep acting as if Tesla doesn't have any right to it, but clearly the guy is accessing Tesla services and it's a software configuration.  Yet you choose to assume that they don't have provision that doesn't allow them to change the software side of things.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Whilst I agree, I still find most of the discussion moot,  telsa installed a 90Kw battery.  What the owner does with it is not for tesla to control beyond denying a warranty claim for the warranty period. 

Tell me (and I know this isn't quite how digital boxes work, but to an extent they could work like this), if your neighbour sold you a digital box which internally contained the ID/decryption keys.  You are using the cable providers server.  Do you really think the cable provider has zero right to send a signal to the digital box to re-write the ID/decryption keys?

 

Also the literal other owner made an effort to get the vehicle connected back into the Tesla network.  Tesla you bet has full rights to adjust a configuration.

[leadeater]

26 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They connect to the service, Tesla is entitled to.

Nope.

 

26 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

But you are choosing to discount that Tesla doesn't have the right to do it.

Because they do not. Not how they did it

 

Please actually take note of the bold, because that can easily be discussed and actually matter and you will find I have middle ground here. I have absolutely zero movement on unilateral uncommunicated and unauthorized changes to someone's legally owned property that Tesla does not own.

 

26 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's not like the person installing the battery would be the one typing in information such as battery size

Yes they would actually, that is very likely how it would be getting done. That's why errors like this can happen, because battery swaps do not follow the same process as a new vehicle on the factory line.

 

When you swap a battery, you actually have to configure it's usable capacity. Since this itself is configurable and can be different per vehicle. This is exactly where human error can come in.

 

26 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You keep acting as if Tesla doesn't have any right to it, but clearly the guy is accessing Tesla services and it's a software configuration.

And yet you persistently do not understand the issue. The point does matter, get it? Lets back right back up to the core issue, is Tesla allowed to make this change? No, likely not.

 

Tesla can require that the battery is reverted but they cannot just go ahead and do it. Tesla can refuse to work on the vehicle, Tesla can refuse to do the MCU2 upgrade, Tesla can revoke Super Charger access. Tesla can do all manor of things they have legal grounds to do to their property, what they cannot do is make changes to someone else's property without permission.

 

I act like they do not because common law and common sense is they do not. I have even checked the sales agreement, that doesn't allow this in my opinion. I'd be willing to bet a court would agree as well. And that is case precedent Tesla would be totally unwilling to be set, even if they think they would win such a case the risk and impact if they did not is too great so just cave and give the guy back 90kwh.

 

26 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Yet you choose to assume that they don't have provision that doesn't allow them to change the software side of things.

The battery is not software. They have provision in the sales agreement for the life of the vehicle to update and change software functions, nowhere in there does it say they are allowed to change hardware function and capabilities. Of course this is complicated by the fact that hardware feeds in to software like the self driving software but such software changes do not alter how the sensors work. That is also why different generations of Tesla's support different levels of self driving.

 

Changing the battery capacity is no different to doing a firmware update on your SSD, BIOS/UEFI on your motherboard, NIC card firmware etc. These are all hardware components and the firmware itself is of course software but how these are sold and represented are as hardware, as is an EV battery. Being able to change the configuration parameters of hardware does not make the hardware itself software and the capacity of an SSD and a battery is a hardware trait not software.

 

When Tesla push out battery capacity changes it's either from another purchase agreement for buying the extra capacity, or in these weather events temporary emergency goodwill measure. When these happen proper notification and tracking is carried out, consent is given by the vehicle owner, it may be automatic but it was communicated and displayed to the driver and if also possible emailed to the owner of the vehicle.

 

Now the key problem here, Tesla taking upon themselves without communication to change the battery capacity. And this is where I do have wiggle room, maybe the owner did agree and regretted it, but like I mention Tesla would simply say so which would invalidate their complaint entirely. Tesla screwed up by not asking for permission.

[wanderingfool2]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And yet you persistently do not understand the issue. The point does matter, get it? Lets back right back up to the core issue, is Tesla allowed to make this change? No, likely not.

And you are calling my ideas illogical and stupid.  Do you seriously think that Tesla doesn't have a provision in their contracts and service agreement that allows them to change vehicle configurations.  The guy literally would have to sign up for a Tesla account.

 

Also how things arose matters greatly, do you not understand that.  The perverse case, if the previous owner had it taken offline and changed the configuration (I know this hasn't happened), and sold the vehicle with the new altered configuration as a S90.  Do you seriously think that Tesla doesn't have the authorization to remove the configuration.

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Do you seriously think that Tesla doesn't have a provision in their contracts and service agreement that allows them to change vehicle configurations.

For this type yes.

 

27 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you are calling my ideas illogical and stupid

Because you won't even at any point acknowledge that they have the right to demand it be changed but not actually be allowed to change it without consent. Edit: Not asking you to agree with this but at least cover it.

 

27 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The guy literally would have to sign up for a Tesla account.

Edit: Sorry only included for free until end of warranty. Thought this was lifetime for standard connectivity.

 

27 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also how things arose matters greatly

No they don't not at all. None of it matters because first you'd have to establish that Tesla is legally allowed to make the change without consent. Consent that would have been automatically given if it were a temporary weather event, which yet again Tesla knows every vehicle that received it so the fact they didn't refute the complaint with this specific information means it's not the situation.

 

27 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Do you seriously think that Tesla doesn't have the authorization to remove the configuration.

Correct!! They do not.

 

Address the bold in my last post.

[wanderingfool2]

22 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because you won't even at any point acknowledge that they have the right to demand it be changed but not actually be allowed to change it without consent. Edit: Not asking you to agree with this but at least cover it.

And you won't acknowledge that perhaps it's in the contract.  I take issue that people keep saying that Tesla has no right to, while not even bothering to think that there is multiple contracts at play and the fact that it's connecting to a Tesla service where guess what they can modify configurations.

 

Extended range is literally part of the purchase option on the Tesla account, and you think that they don't have the right to modify the configuration of your vehicle if somehow lets say it thinks you purchased an option when you haven't?

 

25 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Correct!! They do not.

You are basing that on what?  Your assumption?  Where are all the class action lawsuits

 

But since you and Moose seem to think otherwise, here is an interesting provision in at least part of the service agreement

Quote

We use software in connection with the Service. We own or have rights to all such software and you do not acquire any rights in such software other than the right to use such software as reasonably necessary for you to use the Service as permitted in your Terms & Conditions. We may update or modify the software contained in your Vehicle from time to time, and we may do this remotely without notifying you or seeking your consent. These software updates and modifications may affect or erase data that you have previously stored on the equipment in your Vehicle (such as specific route or destination information). We are not responsible for any lost or erased (or otherwise affected) data and you are solely responsible for the data that you may have downloaded, uploaded, transmitted or otherwise stored from, to, on or through the equipment or Service.

You understand that software available is dependent on vehicle configuration and geographical region, which may affect your access to the Service and/or any of its features.

Tesla owns the software, and thus can change the software configuration how they wish (there are provisions earlier like purchasing the extended package means you have the right to access those features).  The vehicle is a S60, so they were merely restoring the software to the S60 state.

 

So can we get over this whole, Tesla isn't allowed to thing.  The seller would be the one who is responsible for scamming the guy.

[leadeater]

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you won't acknowledge that perhaps it's in the contract

I have, I have quoted the contract, down to the relevant section. I do not agree it allows them to change the capacity of a hardware component without consent of the owner.

 

Agree or not that is my stance.

 

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Extended range is literally part of the purchase option on the Tesla account

By purchasing as part of the vehicle or after at a later date this is part of a sales agreement which the owner is giving consent for the change. Your assessment is flawed because this change was not part of a sales agreement that covered the battery.

 

The  sales agreement was to change the MCU to MCU2, not change anything else. so if any other work is required they must ask. Tesla is well within their rights to refuse work due to this, this is not the same as having the right to change it without consent.

 

41 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Tesla owns the software, and thus can change the software configuration how they wish

Battery and battery capacity is not software. They are entitled only to change software. A change in battery capacity is a change to hardware. Hence why money is exchanged and a sale agreement is signed if you buy extended range. This means you own that capacity and Tesla cannot take it away, the contract you quote, which I had already before, does not allow this. Under your interpretation you are saying they could, which just isn't the case, since the battery is not software. Edit: You are literally saying Tesla could change any Model S 90 to 60 at any time on a whim whenever and however they please with zero recourse from the owner, Do you seriously think the contract allows this?

[wanderingfool2]

23 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Battery and battery capacity is not software. They are entitled only to change software. A change in battery capacity is a change to hardware. Hence why money is exchanged and a sale agreement is signed if you buy extended range. This means you own that capacity and Tesla cannot take it away, the contract you quote, which I had already before, does not allow this. Under your interpretation you are saying they could, which just isn't the case, since the battery is not software.

I'm sorry but that's a completely illogical argument.  You can't argue that there isn't a software level thing, and claiming that it's a hardware change if it was done remotely by a software configuration change.  You own the battery, so he's more than welcome to yank it out and use all 90kWh.  They haven't nerfed the phsyical battery, if he wants to use all 90 kWh worth of cells he but don't expect to use it in a Tesla and get the full 90 kWh.

 

There is lots of examples of batteries being overspeced for multitudes of reasons and being software limited.  iirc Samsung did that on some of the early S series phones to maintain a buffer.

 

Even when the S60 was sold, it literally had a 75 kWh battery in it software limited to 60; with the upgrade option to get the additional 15 kWh.  Then there is the claim that you keep saying where it was when they warrantied it that the mistake occurred...but guess what, that mistake would be a, you guess it, a software mistake.

 

29 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I have, I have quoted the contract, down to the relevant section. I do not agree it allows them to change the capacity of a hardware component without consent of the owner.

And I clearly quoted the bit that says they can change software, and guess what...it was done remotely and didn't change anything physically.  So yea, software not hardware.  They didn't physically remove the battery, they restored the software cap that was set higher than the S60.  They are quite clearly within their rights to change any software configurations they want to.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You can't argue that there isn't a software level thing

I'm not claiming software is not involved, I'm claiming a change to hardware is being made.

 

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And I clearly quoted the bit that says they can change software, and guess what

A battery is not software.

 

You are literally saying that Tesla as per this contract can change any vehicle to any range they so please at any point with zero recourse of the owner. That means Tesla could change every Model S 90 to 60 in the entire world, or maybe the contract does not allow this. This seems like a more logical interpretation doesn't it?

[wanderingfool2]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

A battery is not software.

 

You are literally saying that Tesla as per this contract can change any vehicle to any range they so please at any point with zero recourse of the owner. That means Tesla could change every Model S 90 to 60 in the entire world, or maybe the contract does not allow this. This seems like a more logical interpretation doesn't it?

Can he remove the battery, and utilize all 90kWh for lets say a solar wall?  Yes.  So they haven't made a hardware change to the battery.  It's a software cap that is handled in the vehicle.  Even the most modern Tesla's from Texas have a software cap on them (to match the advertised kWh).  Some estimates are that new 4680 batteries have 10% more capacity than the Fremont (but they are worried about the Osborne effect).

 

The contract prevents them from changing a S 90 to S 60.  They are allowed changing the configuration as they see fit, but they can only realistically change it to the extend that other contracts allow.  e.g. They could change a S90 to a S60, but then they would be in violation of the bill of sales stating a 90kWh Tesla.  It effectively allows them to rectify any software mistakes, which that is what this is, to bring it to what should be correct.

 

Also in extreme cases they actually can make changes, I think there was a time where they temporarily reduced Supercharging speeds or something similar to that to prevent damage on certain types of vehicle models.  There was some who made the argument that it was a material change of what the vehicle was purchased for, and for that I sort of agree.

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The contract prevents them from changing a S 90 to S 60.

Point to exactly where, it's just software right? You are claiming this yet you want to selectively apply it. Either it allows this always for all cases as per your quote and you tried to argue or it's not.

 

You can't have it both ways. Choose one.

 

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

So they haven't made a hardware change to the battery

They have materially changed the capacity and capability of the battery operation. Look this is really simple, using software to change the function of hardware I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, agree is "a software change".

[Needfuldoer]

11 hours ago, Senzelian said:

This really doesn't help to sell me on an electric car.

This is specifically a Tesla problem, not an EVs-in-general problem.

 

I don't know of any other car companies that exercise as much "we'll do whatever we want to it after purchase" power as Tesla does.

 

That's one reason I bought a Chevy instead of a used Model S.

[wanderingfool2]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Point to exactly where, it's just software right? You are claiming this yet you want to selectively apply it. Either it allows this always for all cases as per your quote and you tried to argue or it's not.

 

You can't have it both ways. Choose one.

I'm claiming it can be selectively applied.  You are the one who keeps saying Tesla can't do it, yet I clearly have shown the argument where they can.

 

I clearly stated why they can't just go in and change a S90 to S60.  They are contractual obligated to keep it due to the bill of sale.  The bill of sale will have clearly stated that it was lets say a S90, or S75.

 

So I'm not having it both ways.  You are just grasping at straws.  They are legally allowed to change the software without notice, and unless they are contractually bound to provide something they could change whatever they want.

 

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They have materially changed the capacity and capability of the battery operation. Look this is really simple, using software to change the function of hardware I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, agree is "a software change".

The battery isn't changed, and the hardware is as advertised.  It doesn't matter what you think, they are legally allowed to change the configuration to what it is suppose to be.  Unless bound by some other contracts, they can and apparently have done so.

 

So then under your concept, if you purchase a literal S60, and purchase the upgraded range package you consider that to be a hardware change...despite that they only change the software?  Good luck with that.

 

The hardware is not affected, it's a literal software lock; which any Tesla owner should know full well that battery capacity is often walled off to the allotted amount...and it doesn't matter if you disagree that a software configuration doesn't count...the fact is it is quite clearly legally part of it.

 

 

  

Just now, Needfuldoer said:

This is specifically a Tesla problem, not an EVs-in-general problem.

Ford Mach-e/GM Bolt aren't doing any favors (Bolt, you need this update to prevent battery fires...btw you range is going to drop 25%...oh the fix doesn't work, don't park in underground or near other vehicles).  Ford, here's an update that will limit acceleration and a patch that will let your vehicle drive because we skimped out on the high voltage connector...spec'ing it to a level that apparently wasn't enough.

 

Aside from the Ioniq there aren't many other real competitors without skeletons in their closets already.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

yet I clearly have shown the argument where they can.

One I do not agree with.

 

The contract states they can do whatever they want for whatever reason whenever they want ergo if changing battery capacity is a software change as you say then you have signed a contract that includes this condition and thus they can do it.

 

Agree to disagree, this is going nowhere. I do not agree.

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The contract states they can do whatever they want for whatever reason whenever they want ergo if changing battery capacity is a software change as you say then you have signed a contract that includes this condition and thus they can do it.

That is not how contracts work.  It permits to make changes, it doesn't permit them to make changes that violate other portions of the contract.  It's like ISP's who have the clause to monitor traffic, but that doesn't override the privacy portion of the contract.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That is not how contracts work.  It permits to make changes, it doesn't permit them to make changes that violate other portions of the contract.  It's like ISP's who have the clause to monitor traffic, but that doesn't override the privacy portion of the contract.

Yes but I fundamentally disagree with your assessment that this comes under the software clause. this is my opinion and you haven't given an sufficient argument to change my mind on it.

[Senzelian]

5 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

This is specifically a Tesla problem, not an EVs-in-general problem.

 

I don't know of any other car companies that exercise as much "we'll do whatever we want to it after purchase" power as Tesla does.

That's true, but the fact that it is possible at all is just another reason for me to not buy one.

[tikker]

It looks like this isn't the first time they landed in hot water for this:

 

https://electrek.co/2019/06/20/tesla-battery-range-drop-software-update-longevity/

Quote

Many owners of older Tesla Model S and Model X vehicles are reporting their max range dropping significantly after a recent software update.

Tesla says that they released the update to “protect the battery and improve longevity.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-battery-idUSKCN1UY2TW

Quote

A Tesla Inc owner has filed a lawsuit against the electric vehicle maker, claiming the company limited the battery range of older vehicles via a software update to avoid a costly recall to fix what plaintiffs allege are defective batteries.

which they in the end settled with:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-agrees-pay-15-mln-settle-claims-over-temporary-battery-voltage-reduction-2021-07-29/
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/tesla-owners-could-get-625-each-in-settlement-over-battery-throttling.html

Quote

Some Tesla owners could get $625 each to settle claims that an over-the-air update, pushed to their Model S electric sedans in May 2019, reduced their battery’s charging speed, maximum capacity and range temporarily.

As part of the proposed settlement, Tesla would also have to “maintain diagnostic software for in-warranty vehicles to notify owners and lessees of vehicles that Tesla determines may need battery service or repair for certain battery issues.”

 

The same update concerning this court case cost them money elsewhere as well earlier that year:

https://electrek.co/2021/05/24/tesla-found-guilty-throttling-charging-speed-asked-pay-16000-thousands-owners/

Quote

In court in Norway, Tesla was found guilty of throttling charging speed and battery capacity through a software update.

Unless it appeals, Tesla is going to have to pay $16,000 to each of the thousands of owners affected in the country. The fine could be even more significant as other similar legal efforts are on the way in other countries.

According to Norway’s Nettavisen, Tesla didn’t respond to the lawsuit and the 30 owners behind the case were automatically awarded 136,000 kroner (~$16,000 USD) each in compensation unless Tesla appeals to the case, which it has a few weeks to do.

 

 

So no, I don't agree that they should be allowed to change your battery capacity whenever they feel like it with a software update and at least one court ruling seems to more or less agree with that. At the very least they should've notified the user about the battery "issue". That might also (partially) explain why they reverted it instead of letting it go to court.

[wanderingfool2]

9 minutes ago, tikker said:

The same update concerning this court case cost them money elsewhere as well earlier that year:

https://electrek.co/2021/05/24/tesla-found-guilty-throttling-charging-speed-asked-pay-16000-thousands-owners/

In this case though, I am imaging that Tesla will appeal.  I mean I wouldn't go as far as to say they were found guilty...they in the literal sense didn't submit documents to the courts, so it was a default judgement. (So it's not a precedent setting case).  Much like how I can sue you for stealing my house (even though you didn't), and if you don't defend yourself you would be "found guilty".

 

16 minutes ago, tikker said:

It looks like this isn't the first time they landed in hot water for this:

 

https://electrek.co/2019/06/20/tesla-battery-range-drop-software-update-longevity/

Ah yes, this is the one that I was talking about.  In this case I sort of agree though, but I would hardly relate what happened there with what happened here.  That case affected about 2k vehicles, and owners could argue that they have a material change (from what they purchased and were essentially guaranteed from Tesla).  In this case though they were simply restoring it to what it should be.  The guy lost access to the 30 kWh, but the vehicle itself was only suppose to have access to 60 kWh in the first place (and was initially sold as such)

[An0maly_76]

On 7/27/2022 at 9:48 PM, Spotty said:

Customer buys V6 Mustang from Ford

5 years later the engine blows up

Customer swaps engine for a V8

Few years later customer sells the car

New owner does their grocery shopping one day and comes out to the parking lot to find their car has been towed away

Few days later it's delivered back to their driveway with a note from Ford saying they "fixed" the engine by replacing it with a V6

 

Yeah, I'd say this is Tesla's fault. Tesla has no right to modify somebody else's car without their consent, regardless of if it is in the original condition when it was sold or not. 

 

Edit: middcores scenario below is better, but you get the idea

Except Ford cannot legally charge you a premium because you bought a V6 later swapped to V8. The only thing anyone can do is the EPA / federal government could seize the car if it does not conform to emissions standards with all factory emissions equipment for the year of the car, or the year of the installed engine, whichever applies. Nor can they legally deactivate the two extra cylinders because they weren't paid for it in the car's original configuration. So where the hell does Tesla get off thinking they can get away with this?

 

That said, This is a bullshit move on Tesla's part. No offense, but I would say as much negative press as Tesla has gotten over this and the "right-to-repair" violations in not selling consumers so much as a lug nut cover so that owners can maintain / repair their own vehicle, only an idiot would buy a Tesla at this point. Anyone who does deserves whatever they get.

2 hours ago, Senzelian said:

That's true, but the fact that it is possible at all is just another reason for me to not buy one.

Hear, hear!

[LAwLz]

21 hours ago, leadeater said:

So, that doesn't make it software lol

 

Come on you know this, quit the silly "devils advocate" a battery is a physical thing you can touch and own.

 

Software is software

Hardware is hardware

 

This is hardware, literally zero argument here.

No, this was a software change.

There is literally zero augmenting that this was not a software change. Did Tesla remotely, over the Internet, change the hardware in his car? No, they didn't. They changed the software that controls the battery. That code that was changed, is software.

This was a software change. It is software that was changed. You can not claim that they did a hardware change over the Internet.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, this was a software change.

There is literally zero augmenting that this was not a software change

Yes, yes there is. Using software to change a piece of hardware and what that hardware can do is a hardware change, end of. This is my un-changeable stance on this.

 

You'll need one hell of a argument to change my mind on this one.

 

Was the affected entity hardware? If yes then hardware change. Very simple. Just like my SSD example I gave many posts back.

 

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You can not claim that they did a hardware change over the Internet.

Literally not once ever made this claim for this story and this situation. And yes I can make this claim, this IS what's happening. But not in THIS story.

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

only an idiot would buy a Tesla at this point.

As opposed to?  Every brand has had their own scandal.  In terms of the EV market as well, the Ioniq is the only one that I think that properly competes with price to performance [that doesn't have some massive things overshadowing it]

 

e.g. GM Bolt's every single Bolt was recalled from 2021 and prior due to LG Chem battery issues

Ford, Mach-e's have a recall for an issue that Ford hasn't figured out how to fix yet (fused high voltage connectors I believe)

Nissan, while can't really prove it, they effectively make the leaf's battery prematurely die by not having active cooling (so once that goes, it's almost better to buy a new one).

Toyota is pretty far behind in the BEV market, but the company itself had the acceleration scandal (they had documentation showing the flaw, but chose to blame the driver)

GM Ignition (had to add this one in, because it's so horrible).  GM knew of a design flaw that was literally killing people and sat on it for years because they determined it would cost more money to recall than it was to pay out and cover up deaths [over 90 people died]

Kona - Same issue with Bolt's all of them recalled due to battery fires

 

So you could say that only an idiot would buy a Tesla, but given that the majority of people I'd argue don't work on their own vehicles and EV's require a lot less maintenance, R2R issues are not necessarily the reasons why not to purchase (compared to the competitors).  Things will change once Tesla stops scaling, and once other manufacturers actually compete against Tesla's.

 

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yes, yes there is. Using software to change a piece of hardware and what that hardware can do is a hardware change, end of. This is my un-changeable stance on this.

 

You'll need one hell of a argument to change my mind on this one.

The hardware, the physical hardware, was not changed. All that was changed was the software that controls the hardware.

 

Are you going to claim that Microsoft are changing my hardware if they update Windows on my machine just because it alters which order the CPU executes instructions in?

 

Are you seriously going to claim that Tesla did a hardware swap through the Internet? Because that is what you are arguing right now, and I think it is stupid.