695
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
695 points (95.1% liked)
Technology
59559 readers
2162 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is an SEC filing. They are required to disclose to investors that this is going on and could impact their investment. Pretty standard stuff. They are not complaining that the feds are hurting their business or scaring people away from buying their cars - at least not in this filing. All they are saying is there’s this significant thing going on that could have an impact on the company’s value.
It would probably be smart for Tesla to settle this quickly and quietly because their range estimates are completely bonkers. Some kind of “agree to disagree on testing methods and we will pay up and do a better job” thing without this going too far. A VW diesel-gate kind of situation would be devastating to them. Elon is such a polarizing figure to begin with and there are some pretty good EV alternatives out there now. The only real killer feature they have left is the Supercharger network. Before anyone says FSD, it’s a scam and it doesn’t work.
I might bring wrong here but I'm pretty sure the claim in the title is incorrect?
Tesla is under numerous investigations which are all disclosed in thar same filing, and any one of them could lead to what the title says.
The title makes it sound like it's THIS specific one.
This could do nothing for example, but the AP one could be really bad? Tesla isn't signaling out which one it thinks is the most materially damaging if they have to do something.
I believe you are correct. Maybe they are latching onto the range issue because it affects every Tesla owner, past and present. Also very easy to prove.
Tesla doesn't lie about the EPA range though. It's reproducible even if those aren't "real world" driving. If we want real world driving numbers that's up to the EPA to change the methodology.
Range displayed is always just an estimate anyway, with so many variables. If they've fudged what gets displayed somehow that is clearly bad and we need to know, but the EPA range (edit: on a brand new vehicle) is legit. I dont see how them being wrong on this would be so dire.
I think the AP investigations are a much bigger problem and also impact nearly all Teslas. What if Tesla has to disable AP or can't let people beta test FSD which could grind their data collection to a halt? That seems immensely more material adverse to me
Edit: clarity, but also to add, what if they can't even sell FSD period, and need to refund all sales of it, PLUS damages to owners?
Edit: Just some other thoughts on this only semi related to the actual accusation, but batteries degrade, and Tesla does show a degraded range on their estimates, but maybe we need better laws like EPA ranges must be met for X years. It would force manufactures to declare a range lower than the car is capable of (no one drives below 0%) as they would need a reserve. It would also help offset any variations from the actual EPA test. I believe Tesla warranties the battery for up to 30% degradation over 8 years or X km, so that would get lowered somewhat due to the reserve. I think something like this would be better for consumers overall?
Sort of yes and sort of no.
Tesla displays the vehicles "range" as the EPA range minus any battery degradation. The number doesn't fluctuate otherwise.
However, if you plus a destination into the trip computer, it actually computes the estimated efficiency and you can estimate the range from it.
Every other EV instead has a "guess-o-meter" which estimates the remaining range of your car based on current driving habits and derived efficiency by looking at the recent X number of miles driven.. this gives you a good range estimate which automatically factors in recent weather, terrain and driving habits. It also takes into consideration your current battery health.
Only the trip computer is particularly accurate. Tesla has theirs, while everyone can download the app abetterrouteplanner.
Personally, I think it's a relatively non-issue. Rather, there is a methodological difference between estimating the range. Gas cars, otoh existed for 100 years without having a range estimator.
Yeah, it's top line number is basically the estimated range at 250WH/mi given the cars estimate of battery capacity.
It's not hard to get or even beat 250WH/mi in good weather on relatively flat highway if you are moderately careful about it. It's definitely an upper limit though, which I think is appropriate. I don't care how much range the car has with a lead foot. Top Gear showed that an M3 can get better mileage than a Prius when both are doing performance laps, so that's kind of just a dumb way to measure range/efficiency.
Exactly. I don't think Tesla showing the EPA range after degradation and state of charge is anything to be concerned about. If there's a problem with doing that, then the problem lies with the EPA/regulations.
I'm not sure what this whole different numbers at 100% vs at 50% is unless they do turn on a guess-o-meter if you reach 50%, or maybe Tesla is fudging the battery degradation to show a higher 100% and then adjusts it as you start driving, but either way, I don't think it's the big deal this articles title is trying to make it out to be. The number at 100% will be accurate to the EPA test cycle on a new vehicle, and I think that's the critical piece here. They aren't lying about that. The numbers have been audited.
I do still think we need better more accurate EPA tests.
Edit: Actually if they are lying about the level of degradation to fudge the numbers, that could impact warranty claims and the 30% threshold, so that would be bad.
Some people have complained that their Tesla does half the estimated / EPA range when they drive in winter. If those complaints are accurate then it's a valid complaint.
Everyone knows range is weather affected, but not by half. If it's that bad then people need to be told - they shouldn't find out when they get stuck with a flat battery on the side of the road in a snow storm that they probably shouldn't be driving in. That's dangerous and it will happen if the range estimate says you have more than enough charge to reach your destination.
It would probably make sense for the EPA to have a cold weather test to help give a better picture.
Cold weather really isn't 50%, especially with the heat pumps. Like maybe on a non heat pump, if you don't preheat, and have a lead foot directly onto a highway, but even then.
All that said, none of that is the doom and gloom of the title if that's all it is.
I still think the real risk is from AP/FSD.
This range thing probably won't result in anything significant
Yeah, you definitely need to be careful and the conditions need to be close to ideal, but I routinely get the rated range in a model 3 without any trouble. It's like any other car though - elevation change, weather and driving habits play big roles in efficiency. The car also has nearly 500hp on the top end so it's very easy to kill your trip efficiency with even just one or two bursts of high acceleration.
Dieselgate is estimated to have killed 5,000 people per year in Europe alone (and they were selling those cars worldwide).
There is a big difference between lying about how far your car will go on a charge and releasing toxic (and illegal) chemicals into the air while the car is driving... especially when the car has the capability to capture those chemicals but the system was deliberately setup to only activate while the car was undergoing safety checks.
VW's "solution" to the scandal was to basically do what Tesla is accused of right now. They modified the car to give it worse MPG in winter than what was advertised to buyers (as far as I know, the system to capture chemicals requires a lot of heat, and you need to run the engine at higher RPM to create enough heat in winter).
Where I’m going with the comparison to VW is we don’t know where that rabbit hole goes with Tesla. Diesel-gate just kept getting worse for VW the more investigators dug into it. Tesla appears to be an even less professional operation. I can only imagine what would come out if there was a real investigation there.