[constantcrying]

Seems like a pretty weak claim to be honest. I think it is pretty obvious that maximum range refers to maxium range under ideal conditions and that using more eletronics in the car reduces the range.

Porsche isn't lying about their max speed either, just because you can't reach it with 300kg of load and bad weather.

[dragontamer]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/tesla-exaggerate...

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.

[constantcrying]

>lie to customers

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.

[dragontamer]

> Is that alleged?

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.

[constantcrying]

No, this is about the claim that representatives told customers that is normal, that their cars have lower ranges than advertised.

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.

[dragontamer]

Fraud is illegal. And all fraud is ... is just lying to a degree enough that the courts care.

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.

[constantcrying]

But the suggestion that tesla was lying seems already far fetched. If anything their adertising was misleading.

>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.

[therouwboat]

>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.

Of course he was ordered to build it that way, it's not like some worker is just going to decide by himself.

[constantcrying]

>Of course he was ordered to build it that way

Zero evidence for that.

[dragontamer]

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-ba...

> 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?

[kjksf]

Depends.

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.

[constantcrying]

Certainly not for anything illegal.

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.

[Nullabillity]

> 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.

It demonstrates that their original range claim was a lie.

[redserk]

I've worked tech support at a couple of different organizations early in my career. It does not seem at all unusual to create a team dedicated to a particular class of issue so other support staff can focus on a broader range of issues.

[mrguyorama]

This is an issue that tesla created on purpose though. These people are confused that their car is not going as far as THE RANGE DISPLAY shows they will go. Hundreds of millions of cars have been made over the past twenty years with range displays that you can trust to hit zero BEFORE you run out of gas, due to estimating with recent driving data, and probably a gentle bump down of the number to make sure drivers have a safety net when they are stupid.

Has there ever been a single one of these systems overestimating by tens of miles consistently and for nearly every individual?

[constantcrying]

And what should Tesla do instead?

Putting a team together to tell customers their cars are fine seems completly legal and not a conspiracy in any way.

[mrguyorama]

Do the same, less inaccurate thing that every single other car maker has always done and give more accurate range estimations? Something Tesla already does in the route planner, and also show they know how to do as the battery meter gets closer to empty, when they switch out their estimation for more accurate ones?

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.

[Nullabillity]

Stop lying about their ranges in the first place...?

[m463]

In tech support parlance, this is called "setting expectations".

unfortunately the expectations were already set by the pre-sales marketing.

[brandonagr2]

What lie to customers? A team to stop ignorant customers from wasting everyone's time isn't a conspiracy, there was nothing wrong with the car or performance, what would a service visit achieve?

[MBCook]

Basically every other EV tries to give a realistic range based on the temperate and your driving habits.

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.

[Kirby64]

https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/

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.

[tzs]

I think what the person above you is talking about is not EPA range vs "real world" range. It is "car's estimate of remaining range before you have to recharge" and " real world remaining range before you have to recharge".

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).

[Kirby64]

If you use the navigation, or use the Energy app on the car, then both of those will appropriately tell you your expected remaining range and the arrival state of charge. It does this quite well.

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.

[Delphiki]

> 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.

What's your source? Cause I don't think that's true... [1][2]

[1]https://youtu.be/fvwOa7TCd1E?t=2233

[2]https://youtu.be/xg6-Vc9CSwk?t=2589

[Tarragon]

Carwow is in the UK and tests the claims against the European WLTP test. The claim is that Tesla doesn't meet their EPA range ratings.

Here's InsideEV's comparison to EPA range where Tesla is a huge outlier:

https://insideevs.com/news/679024/recurrent-tesla-range-lowe...

[constantcrying]

>Only Tesla does this.

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.

[ChrisClark]

If you want the accurate range prediction, navigate to somewhere, the prediction is always spot on to the percent. Or view the energy screen, also extremely accurate. Just don't depend on the EPA range, go with what the car calculates when you navigate and you will never have an issue.

[mplewis]

So the car only lies to you about its capabilities in some contexts? That's reassuring.

[heattemp99]

The car is optimistic in general, if you drove at city speeds on flat land. But if you tell it exactly where you're going, it calculates based on the route required. If you started at the top of a mountain pass, the more accurate range would actually show MORE miles than the general gauge. "Omg, Tesla is under promising range now!!"

[brandonagr2]

The tiny battery gauge is just showing what % the charge is, either in % or in % * epa range. There is no lie, just showing you the state of your battery pack currently. If you want to see what charge you will have in the future taking into account your driving then you navigate to your destination and the car makes a very detailed estimate of state of charge in % at your destination.

I leave my car showing battery as % all the time, because the % * epa range number is meaningless

[MBCook]

All that says to me is the car knows how to calculate that, which undermines Tesla’s position in my mind. Otherwise they’d use the EPA range everywhere.

[m463]

tesla has two settings for range calculations, I forget what they were, but it was like realistic and ideal or similar.

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"

[sdfignaionio]

Bad example. Porsche's performance numbers are famously conservative. Most reviewers easily exceed what is advertised.

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.

[Lendal]

Yeah, I've got no problem with the range on my Tesla. It's not difficult to achieve. Tesla gives you all the software tools you need to achieve it onboard. No, it's not the way most people would want to drive their car regularly, but it's definitely achievable if you're really in a pinch such as when we were driving through South Dakota in bad weather, very far from the next charger. It wasn't fun but we did make it, driving very carefully and doing exactly what the car said to do.

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.

[darth_avocado]

I think it’s a disingenuous to use this argument. Even if you drive at 25mph on a flat road on a day with moderate temperatures and no wind, Tesla’s range drops quite a lot more than a mile for every mile driven. Like yeah, if you’re using air conditioning and driving at 70 mph, it makes sense your range will drop more. The problem is that they’re pretending under ideal conditions, you can achieve that max range, but ideal conditions would literally require you to turn its computer off, which would not be possible to do as a consumer.

[bryanlarsen]

In my experience, a Tesla driven at 30km/h will exceed its EPA range by about 20%.

[mrguyorama]

data from 3300 drivers from the very article we are discussing disagrees with your single anecdote.

[kjksf]

It's not an anecdote, it's physics.

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...

[abduhl]

And yet, data from 3300 drivers disagrees with your physics. What’s more likely: the data is wrong or the model is flawed?

[bryanlarsen]

3300 drivers did 30km/h tests?

[bryanlarsen]

Are you looking at a different article? In my reading of the linked article there are three anecdotes of ~200 mile trips, most assuredly not done at 30km/h.

[bdamm]

You're talking about hypermiling, and that isn't the condition under which the Tesla EPA ratings are achieved. I have done hypermiling from time to time (and Tesla's navigation will request you do it if your range runs low) and you can indeed get better results than the EPA rated figure.

[jackmott42]

No, the indicated range is no maximum range under ideal conditions! Its just a mix of city and highway driving, which is better than pure highway driving.

If you did ONLY low speed city driving you would do even better!

[Cpoll]

These claims are always ambiguous, but there are reasonable limits. Every car has a 0-60 of 3 seconds — if it's falling off a cliff.