So, what is your alternative. A leaf? They were the only ones that made a usable vehicle. Now if they had a bunch of competitors this would be reasonable criticism but nobody else was doing anything.
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Wednesday, May 17, 2023, 11:08 AM, (-Phil-) via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: To be clear, I love every Tesla I've owned, and I think overall Tesla is a great company, but it's not without its problems: The older S/X models don't have the charge port, wiring or contactors to reliably support supercharging at over 400A, which in practice is about 150kW. Starting in software 2019.16.x Tesla started limiting most all of the older pack IDs to substantially less than this limit to supposedly "prolong pack life". They did not give owners a choice in this matter, which I believe is wrong. They "took away" a capability without owner consultation. It's done. Period! Another example: In 2015 people started seeing this alert "BMS_a159_wotCycleCounter" and had their cars performance capped at 300kW, even if they had paid good money for a "Performance" model. This was triggered regardless of actual conditions after 2500 full "go pedal" (accelerator) stomps, even if only for a few milliseconds. I was one of the people who exposed this "CounterGate" and eventually forced Tesla to walk this back. (I also reset the counter on a number of cars before they did) It's unethical to "take away" a feature of the car by remote software update and yet that's what they did with zero owner notification. They almost never release proper release notes for the software updates, so hapless owners install them blindly. Had they stated this up-front in the purchase agreement or at least in the owner's manual, then maybe they would have had a leg to stand on, but they didn't. The aforementioned 2019.16.x Range and supercharging speed neuter is another example of this 4 years later. I have rolled software back to prior versions for many owners who are quite reasonably pissed that Tesla unceremoniously took capability away. It would be fine if they gave owners the option of "extending pack life" but they just universally clamped this limit on ALL models regardless of pack condition. Also, as most of you know, when Tesla catches wind that a car has been branded "Salvage", or taken out of its original home market, they flag the car as "unsupported" in their systems. They used to deny ANY parts purchase for any car so flagged, but luckily they finally walked that policy back. Since 2014 they had been removing supercharging from such flagged Model S/X cars, even if the car was sold with "free unlimited supercharging". Model 3/Y were left alone until sometime in 2020, and then they too began seeing their supercharging disabled, even if they had been charging fine for years! They do this by accessing the car remotely over the cell network and modifying the car's configuration in the car itself. This is a felony under federal law as far as I understand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), codified under Title 18 U.S. Code § 1030. I have restored supercharging on over 2000 cars since 2015 where Tesla illegally disabled it. If Tesla chose to ban these cars from their network, that would be one thing, it's their network, but they are doing so by modifying YOUR car without YOUR permission. That's not really far off from having a couple of guys show up in a Model X at 11pm and remove the 21" performance wheels you paid a premium for and leave you with 19" steel wheels! Starting a few months ago after 7 years of crippling cars for a weak excuse, they now finally offer a way to get your supercharging restored, though it will cost you dearly and it's not guaranteed. Here is the document outlining their policy: https://www.docdroid.net/z3UM0m9/tn-18-00-001-unsupported-vehicle-policy-r3-pdf To see their prior policy where they 100% refuse to allow supercharging, EVEN with an inspection: https://www.scribd.com/document/425591536/TN-18-00-001-Unsupported-Vehicle-Policy How many other things have they taken away secretly? -Phil On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 6:53 AM Josh Landess via EV <ev@lists.evdl.org> wrote: > > On 5/16/2023 11:41 AM, Willie via EV wrote: > > > > "...I don't think it is cost effective to replace a battery when it > > starts losing significant range..." > > [....] > > "I don't personally drive the 13S85 but feel like I could live with > > reduced SuperCharging power rather than attempt to sue Tesla over the > > issue. If the limit were down to 40kw, I would be far more > > assertive/aggressive. ..." > > > > The max I've seen is about 70 kW, but it quickly gets below 60, then > > 50, then 40. I've had it checked out by the local service center and > > made sure they took the request seriously and they both told me that > > it is performing within spec, that they could upgrade the battery to > > 90 from 70 for something like $22k (new) or less if I was ok with a > > battery that was not as fresh (I don't remember the exact definition), > > but they told me that they will not guarantee that the work will > > improve the supercharging speed. I'm guessing it would, but I also > > think it's downright improper for them to ask that I spend that kind > > of money, and even be willing to spend more if there's something that > > would help address the supercharging speeds, and they just won't offer > > it. (And this is a 2015 vehicle.... one would think if there's some > > onboard hardware or software that is the bottleneck that it would be > > possible to upgrade it). > > > > I may disagree about the value of a battery replacement or upgrade, > > though I do think there's an issue there of whether gen1 vehicles can > > be revised to handle the latest battery technology. We can't expect a > > company to make packs of 18650 cells for dozens of years when they > > have moved on to other formats. > > > > "...I don't know that you have noticed, but there is quite a bit of > > Tesla negativism" here on EVDL. I fail to understand it. ..." > > > > I haven't paid attention, but I'm not surprised. Many EV forums I run > > across have an issue with Tesla critics and/or sycophants making the > > forum somewhat more difficult to use. As for myself, I have mixed > > views. They do not balance out to exactly "equal", but I try to give > > credit and credit where I think they are due, in all things, and in > > the case of both Tesla and its CEO, this results in mixed thinking, > > though I guess I have a summary view on certain things. In the > > particular case of the issue under discussion (incentives for giving > > up vehicles equipped with the free supercharging), I do think there is > > possibly (but not definitely) an element of sleaze to Tesla's > > throttling some packs to charge at such slow rates that the owner is > > incentivized to get rid of the vehicle. That is, they may throttle > > the speeds in the name of safety or battery longevity (I'm not sure if > > they've actually given a reason), but I question if it's in part > > because they want to provide an extra incentive for the owner to get > > out of the car. In my case, while I can say a number of good things > > about the vehicle and my experience with it, and at one time I had > > visions of upgrading the battery and keeping the vehicle for the rest > > of my life (and driving around the country free of supercharging > > fees), if I do get out of this Tesla it would probably be in trade for > > a non-Tesla long-range BEV. There are several reasons for this > > including the extremely slow supercharging speeds, the > > still-somewhat-inadequate range (compared to what I need), and some > > other issues not based on the vehicle itself. > _______________________________________________ > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org > No other addresses in TO and CC fields > HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/d567839b/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/da278393/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
