Porsche isn't lying about their max speed either, just because you can't reach it with 300kg of load and bad weather.
Hypothetical Porsche didn't setup customer service teams to lie to customers on a mass-scale when the complaints came in though.
We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
This is literally and precisely, a conspiracy perpetrated by Tesla and its executives to trick users into thinking Tesla cars have more range than they truly do.
Is that alleged? I saw only the support telling customers that this is expected. "There is nothing wrong with your car, don't bother comming. It is expected that sometimes your car gets galf the range." is not a lie at all. It seems absolutely truthful and in fact the total opposite of exaggerating the range of the car.
>We have evidence of Tesla service-cancellation teams. We have evidence of Tesla's software purposefully being inaccurate when above 50% charge, and then slowly becoming more accurate when reaching 50% or less charge.
The algorithm claim seems extremely weak. Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.
The "service-cancellation teams" seem somewhat stranger. I don't think cancelling a service appointment is damning in any way, though.
The fuel-meter is absolutely lying to you at 50%+. And the customer-service reps know it, and they even have trained responses over this conspiracy.
The allegedy cospiracy would be that Tesla managment and its employees were conspiring to quickly deal with customer complaints. But what is actually illegal there? Note that the representatives were truthful when they dismissed customers. Their cars were not broken.
The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody.
>The more-and-more it is proven that your "just lying" is a coordinated effort across your company, the more and more it looks like fraud to ... well everybody.
But there is zero evidence for this. There is no lie here. At best there are misleading statememts about performance.
"Fraud" is a legal term, and "intentionally misleading people" is the very definition of Fraud. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud
In fact, it seems like Fraud is still Fraud at the reckless or negligent levels. No intent needed (though I'm sure proving it at the "intent" level will get them more of a case).
So... is this Fraud? Well, yes. It would be. But the next step is for these plaintiffs to prove the fraud in court. It seems like they have a strong argument though.
Of course he was ordered to build it that way, it's not like some worker is just going to decide by himself.
Zero evidence for that.
> The directive to present the optimistic range estimates came from Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, this person said.
> “Elon wanted to show good range numbers when fully charged,” the person said, adding: “When you buy a car off the lot seeing 350-mile, 400-mile range, it makes you feel good.”
-------
This is evidence, is it not?
If the plaintiffs have a sworn, signed statement from the person claiming that then it could be presented as evidence during the trial, subject to cross-examination.
If all they have is the article it's hearsay i.e. "evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath"
Also known as: bupkis.
If you believe Musk on this the lawsuit is practically pointless. Having an optimistic algorithm is not illegal and even alledging that it somehow is seems absurd.
Seriously, you shouldn't believe Musk with regards to lawsuits.
If Musk knew anything about law, he wouldn't have been forced to buy Twitter last year. The world was revealed to how ignorant this guy is to the law.
-------------------
By the way, this is a civil case, not a criminal case. "Illegal" is almost a non-sequitur.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud
> In civil litigation, allegations of fraud might be based on a misrepresentation of fact that was either intentional or negligent. For a statement to be an intentional misrepresentation, the person who made it must either have known the statement was false or been reckless as to its truth. The speaker must have also intended that the person to whom the statement was made would rely on it. The hearer must then have reasonably relied on the promise and also been harmed because of that reliance.
All they have to do to successfully sue here is prove that the other side was "misleading", and that they "knew about being misleading" (intentional), or even the lower-standard of recklessness (they didn't know they were misleading, but they didn't do enough research to prove their own statements true before telling customers).
Welcome to Civil Law. The standards are much lower than criminal law. But its just money, so that makes sense.
“Unless you can get some actual developer to testify that he was explicitly ordered to build the algorithm to report a range which he knew was impossible to reach or something similar, this seems practically irrelevant.”
“Zero evidence for that.”
When confronted with evidence that the algorithm was specifically designed to show an unrealistic, misleading, and apparently impossible to meet range based on orders from the highest authority in Tesla:
“Certainly not [evidence] for anything illegal.”
You are making stuff up. Musk said optimistic, which directly implies that it should be truthful and accurate, just not representative of average performance.
And it absolutely isn't moving the goalpost. If you didn't think I was initially asking for evidence that would support the legal claim against Musk I don't know what to tell you...
It demonstrates that their original range claim was a lie.
Has there ever been a single one of these systems overestimating by tens of miles consistently and for nearly every individual?
Putting a team together to tell customers their cars are fine seems completly legal and not a conspiracy in any way.
This isn't difficult. Tesla is not required to use the EPA range estimation figures to do any range estimation internally, it's literally only something that goes on the window sticker. Tesla instead chose to design their range display to do something that no other automaker did, and use a KNOWN OVERESTIMATOR as their methodology for range estimation.
Nobody else has to set up these call centers because nobody else chose to set up their range meters in such a way to mislead customers. It's really that simple.
unfortunately the expectations were already set by the pre-sales marketing.
Teslas appear to always show the EPA range at full and it sounds like they stay very optimistic for quite a long time, giving drivers a very unrealistic picture.
That’s lying to the customer. They’re not trying to be useful but to look good.
And in every EV range comparison I’ve ever seen, teslas are the ones that can’t meet their claimed range by a fair margin. Other brands are almost always close to accurate or in some cases do noticeably better than claimed.
Only Tesla does this.
Take a look for yourself. EPA range vs a "real world" test is all over the place depending on vendor, and even depending on the car. Rivian, Kia, Nissan all have ranges that are under by similar percentages as Tesla. Only Porsche seems to heavily sandbag here.
E.g., suppose the EPA range is 300 miles, you started from with a full charge, are 100 miles into your trip, and are at 1/2 charge. If what others have said is correct by default Tesla will estimate you have another 150 miles of range left (EPA range of 300 x 1/2 charge), whereas many others would say you have 100 miles of range left (you went 100 miles so far on 50% charge so if nothing changes the remaining 50% should give another 100).
If you look at the state of charge % (and use the miles setting, instead of %), then sure. It'll be optimistic unless you drive the standard EPA route.
Honestly though, because battery drain is so dependent on route, elevation traveled, temperature, etc, I find the 'guess-o-meter' estimates to be mostly useless. You'll frequently find other vehicles that will start optimistic and degrade over time as well.
What's your source? Cause I don't think that's true... [1][2]
Here's InsideEV's comparison to EPA range where Tesla is a huge outlier:
https://insideevs.com/news/679024/recurrent-tesla-range-lowe...
The question is if it is illegal.
I agree that reporting a maximum possible range is meaningless and might be misleading. But it is still a truthful metric making it a quite dubious legal claim.
>other EV tries to give a realistic range based on the temperate and your driving habits.
What I saw was specifying the test conditions under which the range was achieved and including disclaimers about possible factors which can reduce the range. Certainly more honest.
I leave my car showing battery as % all the time, because the % * epa range number is meaningless
EDIT: wait, I don't see it. I think there was a setting in older software?
I swear there was a range calculation setting that was like "average" and "ideal"
Take the 911 GT3, a car I picked at random. Car and Driver testing found the following:
>The GT3 offers both a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic (a.k.a. PDK) or a six-speed manual. ... At our test track, the automatic managed a 2.7-second 60-mph time while the six-speed manual test vehicle snapped off an impressive 3.3-second run to 60 mph.
https://www.caranddriver.com/porsche/911-gt3-gt3-rs
Porsche advertises 0-60 times of 3.2 seconds for the PDK and 3.7 seconds for the manual. They undersold the car by 10-15%.
I'm more cynical than most, but it actually isn't normal to over-promise and under-deliver to the extent Tesla does.
That's not to say there aren't other class actions that ought to be considered, such as the whole FSD debacle. Now that is one I would definitely join.
EPA created a repeatable test where the car runs at a certain speeds, most likely without wind resistance.
If you drive faster, the car will use more energy per mile therefore will have lower range than the EPA estimate.
If you drive slower, they car will use less energy per mile therefore will have higher range than the EPA estimate.
If there's head or side wind, the car will use more energy => lower range.
Someone drove Model 3 for 606 miles, at extremely low speeds: https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17405906/tesla-model-3-hy...
If you did ONLY low speed city driving you would do even better!