[HN Gopher] Tesla committed fraud by "grossly" exaggerating EV r...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla committed fraud by "grossly" exaggerating EV range, class
action says
Author : loaph
Score : 129 points
Date : 2023-08-03 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| petedrexel wrote:
| The same is happening with inflation. Corps are grossly
| overstating the 'effects' of inflation when in reality they are
| price gouging simply because they can.
| kneel wrote:
| You can get close to EPA estimate if you drive the speed limit
| and avoid aggressive acceleration, something that almost no one
| does.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The EPA estimate is for 55mph driving in optimal conditions,
| and is fairly accurate in my experience.
|
| It's very easy to exceed EPA estimates in the city. The optimal
| speed to drive a Tesla is about 15mph. At that speed a Tesla
| will exceed EPA range by about 20%.
| asynchronous wrote:
| I saw a YouTube video where some guys "maximalised" the range
| to see how far they could go on one charge, and by reducing
| weight and disabling cabin AC and going under 25 mph were
| able to travel I think over 600 miles. Good to know in a
| pinch.
| MBCook wrote:
| Honestly the cabin AC makes very little difference.
|
| You're right though, that's how you set world records. If
| you drive an EV at like 10 mph you could go a pretty insane
| distance. But no normal person would ever do that.
| secabeen wrote:
| Cabin AC doesn't, but Cabin heat can in older vehicles
| with resistive heating. Heat Pump heating in newer Teslas
| is in the middle.
| MBCook wrote:
| Absolutely. Resistive heating is less than the motors
| doing work, but is easily noticeable compared to AC.
| lewisgodowski wrote:
| Anecdata, but a few weeks ago I drove from LA to SF in my 2018
| Model 3 (long range, single motor). It has a 75 kWh battery pack,
| my drive was 417 miles, and I drove 70 mph for probably 90-95% of
| the trip. I used a total of 95 kWh, which equates to ~329 miles
| on a full charge (100-0%). My efficiency was 226 Wh/mi.
|
| There are absolutely other times when I'll get substantially less
| range, but it's understandably when I'm driving faster of more
| aggressive, or it's colder outside, or it's primarily uphill, or
| there's a strong headwind, etc.
|
| There are a lot of different factors that can affect a car's
| range (regardless if it's an EV or ICE), and it seems like Tesla
| has decided to show the EPA range on the dashboard because
| there's no way they could magically know where you're driving if
| it's not entered in the navigation system. Once you start
| navigation however, it's able to factor in all these
| externalities and give a very accurate estimate. On the first leg
| of the above trip, I arrived to charge within 3% of Tesla's
| estimate.
| abduhl wrote:
| My iPhone can send me alerts that I'm going to be late to work
| based on its tracking of my daily commute and you're telling me
| that a machine that is constantly connected to a GPS network,
| sending data back to home base, and (almost?) capable of
| driving itself has "no way" of "magically knowing where you're
| driving" unless you tell it?
|
| If only they could use some of that data and processing power
| to back out someone's standard commute, driving behavior, and
| local temperature.
| addisonl wrote:
| On top of that, my car can remember the MPGs I got for the
| last tank (and every tank before that) and estimates my range
| off of that. Apparently that's "magic" according to the
| comment you replied to. Tesla apologists always have some
| excuse.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That's exactly what the Tesla does. When I get into the car
| at 8AM, the car assumes I want to drive to my partner's
| workplace, and gives me directions to get there, taking into
| account current traffic and weather conditions, and a
| reliable estimate of what the battery will be when I get
| there.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Shouldn't the car know the current temperature (or at least the
| battery temperature), whether or not the AC is on, etc? Other
| EVs take those into account regardless of whether or not
| something is plugged into navigation.
| jondwillis wrote:
| Personally I just toggle to only show the percentage and
| ignore the battery range estimate. When on longer trips, the
| nav estimate is usually spot on, or at worst a couple of %
| off due to my not-predictable driving behavior.
| [deleted]
| goalonetwo wrote:
| I always found it interesting that almost every EV in real-life
| _exceeds_ their EPA range, while Tesla in real-life cannot even
| get close.
|
| I would not be surprised that Tesla over-optimized everything
| with the EPA test as an utility function. (reminds anyone of the
| VW scandal?)
|
| https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/
| HappySweeney wrote:
| I almost bought one about 5 years ago, and I'm glad I didn't. If
| I had, I would be upset if I wasn't able to simply return the car
| for a full refund, subscription features included, instead of
| what, $50? in any class action payout.
| adolph wrote:
| The class action payout will be more substantial than $50.
| Think something very valuable like an entire year of credit
| monitoring or $500 off your next purchase of a qualified Tesla
| automobile _. * Some restrictions apply; not
| valid in CA, MT, AK; must take delivery of existing stock; not
| valid with other rebates and discounts; value of coupon
| reported as income to IRS....
|
| _
| edgyquant wrote:
| Why would I want a new Tesla if they burned me on my last
| purchase of one? That does not sound like a good outcome nor
| one that punishes Tesla in anyway
| heattemp99 wrote:
| The biggest fail IMO is that if you use this range constantly,
| you'll basically degrade the battery heavily. These top ranges
| require a full 100% charge (bad for the battery) and a pretty low
| level of discharge (bad for any weak cells in the pack). So yes
| in a special case you have that range. Using it often will cause
| faster battery pack degradation.
|
| My Chevy Volt has a 15kwh pack, and only lets you use 10kwh. The
| bottom 2 and the top 2 are never accessible. Which means the
| batteries are never depleted, and never fully charged. I bought
| it knowing I have 10kwh to use around town or on trips (afterward
| the gas engine turns on). I use those 10kwh every single day, for
| all 177k miles of the cars life so far. I still get the same
| 10.3kwh I got on day one I made my purchase decision based on.
|
| Tesla should advertise their packs the same way, explaining that
| the outlier 10kw are for emergencies too.
| yreg wrote:
| Full 100% charge is _good_ for the LFP batteries which have
| been standard in Model 3 and Model Y since 2021.
|
| Indeed, Tesla recommends to charge to 100% at least once per
| week.
|
| https://insideevs.com/news/557527/tesla-model3-lfp-charging-...
|
| edit: read response below
| TheRealSteel wrote:
| As far as I know this isn't true, LFP batteries degrade more
| when charged to 100% than if they're charged to less, but the
| remaining charge can't be estimated accurately unless you do:
|
| https://www.torquenews.com/15475/battery-charging-
| behavior-t...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModel3/comments/yh5ts5/m3_lfp_.
| ..
|
| (They still degrade much less than the other kind of battery
| Tesla uses, however).
| yreg wrote:
| Interesting, it seems they want people to charge to 100% so
| they can precisely estimate the state of charge on the
| road. Still, as you say it doesn't seem LFPs get degraded
| that much when sitting at full charge.
|
| https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-puzzling-reason-
| why-t...
| m463 wrote:
| I think you could use the range and if the battery fails within
| the 8 year warranty they should give you a new one.
|
| Many consumer goods work like this. Lots of cheap power tools
| are sold with the understanding that the consumer will use them
| a few times and no claims will be made during the warranty
| period. Many (most?) gym memberships are sold with the
| understanding that many clients will come a few times, then
| never return.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| EV batteries are very expensive both to produce and to
| install.
|
| No sane company wants to deal with the possibility of paying
| for battery replacement if they don't absolutely have to.
|
| Using the "whole battery" at the expense of its lifespan is
| not only worse for manufacturers, but it's worse for the
| environment as well. I think responsible charging and usage
| is critical for current battery technology.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| Lots of people here missing a part of the issue: Tesla receives
| carbon credits based on the range of the vehicle. If that range
| was exaggerated, they defrauded the government.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| That's interesting ! Could you elaborate please ? Or give some
| links relevant to how the carbon credits are calculated.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Are carbon credits based on the EPA certified range or Real
| World Range accounting for aggressive driving? I'm skeptical
| that it would be the second
| 40four wrote:
| This isn't the title of the article, please follow the guidelines
| :) No need to editorialize.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| Tesla's display shows the EPA range. While this is probably a bad
| idea and that's why no other manufacturer does it, "nobody else
| does it" is nothing but an informal standard and it seems a bit
| awkward to claim the approved government standard, in use at
| government agencies, is so obviously wrong that it constitutes
| fraud.
| MBCook wrote:
| Clearly Tesla knew the EPA range isn't what customers commonly
| got in the real world. They're famous for all their telematics.
|
| If an example car can achieve 700 miles on the EPA test, but
| normal usage averages 150, is it fraud to advertise 700? To
| show 700 on the screen at full charge?
|
| I agree it's an interesting question. If the difference was 5%
| I'm not sure people would care. But at 25% off I think it is a
| very a fair question.
|
| Porsche reportedly tends to outperform its EPA number
| significantly. They chose to lower it (a choice automakers
| have) to provide a more realistic picture given their customers
| seem more likely to use the performance at the cost of raw
| range.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| I mean... no, it's not fraud.
|
| I feel like your example uses numbers that are so aggressive
| one has suspect that they are not real. I don't have a stake
| in this or knowledge beyond a quick Google but the EPA test
| does not look obviously flawed.
|
| The more pertinent question to me would be whether the Tesla
| range can genuinely achieve those EPA numbers with a typical
| car.
| freerobby wrote:
| I'm able to beat rated range pretty easily on my '15 Model
| S on local roads. It's tough once I get on highways and
| exceed 65MPH. EPA is 290 Wh/mi. I typically get 330-350 on
| highways, going about 75 MPH, without the OEM low rolling
| resistance tires, and with roof bars and a bike rack on top
| (but no bike).
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| That's on the regulators to define a metric, lest EVs compete
| on made up numbers. EVs are so new of course that
| organizations are still figuring this out globally.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| But Tesla is using that metric in a place most normally
| don't, and they are doing that purposely as elsewhere they
| use an in house estimation like everyone else.
|
| No gasoline car uses the EPA fuel economy to do it's range
| estimation, EVEN WHEN IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THEM TO DO SO,
| because it's wrong enough often enough to make a range
| estimation using it lose significant value.
|
| Tesla has made a choice to stray from normal industry
| practice. If they have done so in an attempt to sway
| customers with the incorrect numbers, that should be
| considered fraud. That's pretty damn difficult to prove as
| a crime, but not hard to make likely in a civil case.
| freerobby wrote:
| I think the suit is just referencing the rated range
| meter. The trip planner (which is what predicts how much
| battery you need to get to your destination) uses real
| world conditions, not rated range.
| 7speter wrote:
| Most, if any, cars don't get close to their epa fuel economy
| numbers under "normal" conditions.
| kube-system wrote:
| I usually hit the EPA numbers on any car I've owned, when I
| drive the way people are supposed to drive. Although as
| horsepower and vehicle handling has drastically improved
| over the past 30 years, "normal" driving seems to have
| changed a bit.
| kjksf wrote:
| When you look at web page of Tesla (or any other EV
| manufacturer), when they describe the range it's always "est.
| EPA range".
|
| This is 100% truth. It is an estimated EPA range.
|
| What's more it's often actually measured by an EPA. The
| Reuters article that spurred this lawsuit said that EPA, not
| Tesla, tested 6 Tesla cars since 2020. That's at least half
| of them (Tesla has only 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 10 different models
| on sale in U.S. although they have to re-certify if they
| change the battery).
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| This take is a bit weird to me. It's like saying because other
| companies aren't lying that Tesla should be excused from lying.
| It sounds like Tesla has been displaying this number in car
| regardless of the accuracy; and in my opinion leaned into
| lying. From the article:
|
| > The complaint cited testing that found three Tesla models
| fell short of their advertised ranges by an average of 26
| percent. In addition to alleging false advertising, the lawsuit
| said that range estimates provided by Tesla vehicles during car
| trips fail to account for temperature and other factors that
| reduce range.
|
| I've heard people on HN talk about this saying there are two
| separate values the car shows you and one is wildly and
| consistently wrong. The one that's wrong, by the sounds of it
| aligns with their marketing materials.
|
| I won't buy a Tesla, but to me, their advantage is range. Right
| now their only competitors in range are more expensive (though
| quite a bit nicer imho). I imagine if I had bought a Tesla and
| the range wasn't as good as it should be, I would be quite
| pissed...
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| You can buy a Tesla, run the EPA test cycle, and get the
| exact same numbers.
|
| You will get less than "the range" if you drive 90mph on the
| highway until the battery is depleted. Where is Tesla lying
| anywhere in there? The consumer was just ignorant of what the
| EPA rated range means.
| bdamm wrote:
| Right, and the one that is accurate is what you get when you
| put in a destination. The car can't tell you how far you can
| go if it doesn't know where you are going, because of all
| these factors (altitude gain, direction of wind, speed limits
| on the various roads involved, etc) which have a very
| significant effect on the range.
|
| The idea of a single value for "range" is fundamentally
| flawed. Is it Tesla's fault that people don't understand
| basic physics?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Every single other car ever made with a range estimation
| functionality uses past data to estimate your range. For
| like a decade Toyota had this on nearly every vehicle
| despite none of them having GPS integration, and nearly all
| of them were accurate enough to rely on.
|
| You are bending over backwards to come up with an excuse
| for Tesla, when they quite clearly made a choice to either
| be lazy or misleading.
|
| When my gasoline car says "You have 12 miles left", I KNOW
| I can drive 12 miles minimum, as long as it isn't at wide
| open throttle. The car has mountains of data at it's
| disposal, but in reality this technique has been used ever
| since a car could figure out how much gas was flowing into
| the injectors. The assumption is that how you have driven
| for the past ten minutes is a reliable indicator for how
| you will drive over the next ten minutes, and for most ten
| minute periods that is an accurate assumption.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > The car can't tell you how far you can go if it doesn't
| know where you are going
|
| But the car can use your recent driving experience to get a
| good estimate. After all, if you've spent the past 10
| minutes driving at 70 mph into a strong headwind, there's a
| decent chance that your next hour will be spent doing that.
| (Although this does get amusing on I-68 where my range
| estimates are markedly different after cresting the hill
| versus bottoming out in the valleys).
|
| Sure, it's not the _best_ estimate possible. But it 's
| trivial to implement "assume recent past", and it's a far
| better estimate than "synthetic estimate that relies on a
| weighted average of two very different driving conditions."
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| According to the article, that sounds like what they do.
| When the battery hits 50% they switch to estimating the
| range based on your driving on the top of the battery.
| brigade wrote:
| Gas cars have had destination-less range estimates for
| decades, and as far as I know have _never_ based it off of
| EPA fuel economy. Instead, they use the car's own recent
| fuel economy.
|
| Which concept more useful for drivers, the concept of
| remaining range if you keep driving the way you've been
| driving, or "how many miles the car can get in the EPA test
| cycle"?
| Y_Y wrote:
| Does your Tesla really account for the wind along your
| route?
| bdamm wrote:
| Yes.
| mjparrott wrote:
| The government agency is at fault here not Tesla. They need
| to come up with a better test.
| maxerickson wrote:
| No, the EPA test is designed to produce a characteristic
| value that is useful for comparing between vehicles, it's
| not designed to produce an algorithm that takes the state
| of charge of the battery and recent energy demand and
| produces an estimated remaining driving range.
|
| And it's good that it's designed to produce a
| characteristic value that is useful for comparison.
| [deleted]
| jtbayly wrote:
| My memory from the first article I saw on this is that Tesla
| convinced the EPA to _not_ use the EPA 's measurement, and
| instead to trust Tesla's "measurement."
| jackmott42 wrote:
| Tesla display that but also displays highly accurate estimates
| of any trip you plan. To me the real party at fault with EV
| range in the USA is the EPA, which combines city and highway
| range in a single number, which inflates the highway number.
| Every EV that is sold advertises this inflated EPA number.
| Nobody cares about city range, just publish highway range, or
| both, like we do with gas cars.
| MBCook wrote:
| There are two tests you can run for the EPA. What I've heard
| is one favors EVs more and only Tesla uses those numbers for
| their EVs.
|
| I agree the test needs a redesign. No one drives 55, and
| speed has a big impact on EVs due to wind resistance.
| CameronNemo wrote:
| Pretty sad that we can't just drive 55 on highways. Not
| even trucks that are towing will drive 55 always.
| [deleted]
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| You can. Just do it in the right lane, please.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Seems OK at first glance, but if you're in a 65 then the
| trucks (in the right lane) will want to go 65+. Going 55
| in the right lane means they all need to pass you, which
| causes a domino effect onto the other lanes of traffic.
| If you're on a 4-lane highway (2 in each direction),
| going 55 means that trucks that pass you will have to go
| in the fast lane.
|
| If there aren't a lot of trucks around, then going 55 in
| the right lane has less of an impact on other drivers.
| But if there are many trucks (which there usually are,
| IME), then going 10 MPH under the limit will cause a lot
| of headaches for all the other drivers around you.
| MBCook wrote:
| And that's 65. I've been in places where the speed limit
| is 70 but people usually go 75-80.
|
| That's 20-25mph faster than you. At that point you're
| practically impeding traffic, and having a big truck pass
| you is terrifying.
|
| Just because you can legally drive 55 or maybe even less
| doesn't make it safe.
| yurishimo wrote:
| Why do people need to drive slow? Sometimes you gotta get
| somewhere. If they are willing to pay the premium to
| driver faster and follow the law while doing so, what's
| the harm?
| CameronNemo wrote:
| They are not willing to pay the premium, though.
|
| Tell me when highways, bridges, and streets are not paid
| by gas taxes -- you won't.
|
| Tell me when I can trade money for reliably sequestered
| CO2 -- you can't.
|
| edit: I didn't downvote them btw
| yurishimo wrote:
| So you downvote me because you are refusing to engage in
| the "we live in a society" meme?
|
| We've decided collectively how to fund infrastructure and
| engage in climate action as a society. If you don't like
| it, feel free to lobby your neighbors and representatives
| to change the law.
| [deleted]
| sdfignaionio wrote:
| I think you know why: efficiency and safety. Driving fast
| greatly increases fuel consumption and wear on tires. It
| makes crashes more likely and more serious.
|
| Why do people need to drive fast? The gains are minimal
| even if you stay exclusively on a lightly-trafficked
| freeway. In more realistic scenarios, the gains are
| almost nothing. You'll just be the first one to the light
| or traffic jam.
| sdfignaionio wrote:
| There are two important things you're missing:
|
| 1. Tesla's estimates are not "highly accurate". They are
| alleged to use a deliberately optimistic estimate when the
| battery is near full, then gradually switch to a more
| realistic estimate as the battery drains. In particular they
| are alleged to incorrectly account for the weather. This
| means the car will always display nearly the advertised
| number at full charge (and on a test drive). Supposedly Tesla
| _used_ to use a more accurate estimate but then got orders
| from on high to fudge the numbers.
|
| 2. For other car manufacturers, the range estimates are not
| terribly inflated. The report from Edmunds claim that most EV
| models meet or exceed their range estimates, and cars that
| miss their estimates don't miss by anywhere near as much as
| Teslas.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| One important thing you are missing, there are two
| different estimates being referred to. The "miles
| remaining" display on the battery charge gauge (which can
| be toggled to show percentage instead) and the trip planner
| / navigation estimate. The trip planner is very accurate,
| you can view a burn down charge of realtime estimate as it
| changes while you drive and it says what component
| contributed what % to deviate from the initial estimate.
| The "miles remaining" display is an imaginary number that
| is only meaningful if you are driving the same highway mix
| as the EPA test in the same climate conditions
| lsaferite wrote:
| I know we are talking about EVs here, but my ICE has an
| estimated range display and _it_ isn't super accurate _and_
| it doesn't take potential weather (or other factors like
| elevation) into account either. Why would you expect it to
| factor in _potential_ weather when giving a range estimate?
| sdfignaionio wrote:
| Allegedly,
|
| 1. Other companies have more accurate estimates than
| Tesla.
|
| 2. Tesla uses a different and more accurate algorithm
| when charge is low.
|
| 3. Tesla's estimates used to be more accurate.
|
| It doesn't make sense to argue the problem is intractable
| when it has supposedly been solved by many companies,
| _including Tesla itself_.
|
| >Why would you expect it to factor in _potential_ weather
| when giving a range estimate?
|
| I wouldn't expect that. The cars have thermometers.
| maxerickson wrote:
| It's not the potential weather, the one mode for the
| range estimator apparently isn't taking the current
| ambient conditions into account. So it's not factoring in
| the likely load from the heat or AC when it's cold or hot
| and they need to run to keep the vehicle comfortable.
| TheRealSteel wrote:
| How can you say nobody cares about city range? That's all I
| care about.
| sdfignaionio wrote:
| People don't generally drive 200 miles in the city in one
| stretch.
| nsenifty wrote:
| Because people don't tend to drive non-stop for hundreds of
| miles at cities (except perhaps taxis)? You also always
| have a charger nearby.
| DannyBee wrote:
| The lawsuit claims this is false, and that for the first 50% of
| the range, they use a rosy algorithm, then a more realistic
| one.
|
| At least, at some point.
|
| I'll try to get the filing and paste from it, give me a few.
|
| It's "Porter et al v. Tesla, Inc.", in case someone beats me to
| it.
| bdcravens wrote:
| My EV6 shows me a range that seems to be based on recent driving.
| When I've been conservative, the range is high; when I've been
| driving sportily, the opposite. Does Tesla do the same?
| bdamm wrote:
| It does, but only once you put a destination into the
| navigator. At that point, the car will tell you how much power
| remains at the end of the trip (and for a return trip) and that
| number in my experience is always highly accurate.
| Sodman wrote:
| The issue is that the number displayed on the dash can be toggled
| between "% battery remaining" or "miles remaining". The "Miles
| remaining" is actually "EPA rated miles x % battery remaining",
| and NOT "miles remaining based on last 10 miles driven, or
| current navigation destination".
|
| If they removed the 'Miles remaining' number and only showed a
| percentage, you would end up having to do the exact same
| conversion in your head anyways. "Oh I have 43% remaining of my
| 330 mile battery, how much is that?" so this is really just a
| quick shortcut.
|
| Tesla has a separate screen with very clear range estimates that
| the user can toggle (based on last n miles or based on current
| exact 'instant' reading). In addition, when navigating to a
| destination, the nav tells you the estimated battery % on
| arrival, which is also based on current driving and is generally
| quite accurate. In addition, it will tell you during & after the
| trip exactly why the estimated and actual range differed. Eg
| "0.5% extra battery used due to a 5.6mph headwind, 2% extra
| battery used by driving over 70mph", etc.
|
| Having a count-down 'Miles remaining' on the dashboard doesn't
| always make sense, particularly when you haven't entered a
| destination, or if you're switching between highways and back
| rounds a bunch. Either way, it's never going to _actually_ be
| accurate down to the last mile. In reality, you just have to know
| that the miles on the dashboard are "EPA miles", meaning if
| you're driving on a flat surface in good conditions at ~55mph,
| that's what you'll get. If you change your speed, or conditions
| get worse, you know you'll need to adjust it in your head (or use
| the dedicated in-car screen to automatically figure it out for
| you!).
| GuB-42 wrote:
| I don't know how it is done with EVs but my gas car usually
| underestimates my range despite me burning more fuel than
| what's written on the brochure.
|
| It is common sense to take conservative estimates when you are
| missing data. The range indicator on the dashboard is a "will I
| make it" indicator. To help me decide if I need to plan a
| refuel/recharge. I don't want a best case scenario, not even an
| average, I want something like a 90 percentile.
|
| In good conditions, the "enhanced" estimate (with nav) should
| be more than the baseline, as some of conservative estimates
| can now be replaced with more accurate data.
|
| Good thing Tesla is not doing airplanes.
| xracy wrote:
| So, I will say that this has negatively impacted me, and I have
| since sold my Tesla, and consider this to be a bad business
| practice that they should get fined a lot for, and probably just
| stop doing this immediately...
|
| That being said, in the closest thing I will ever muster to a
| defense of Tesla... I think the thing that the articles might be
| missing on this, is this: Would people have adopted electric cars
| that work for them in all of their usecases, if Tesla hadn't lied
| about range to alleviate fears of range anxiety?
|
| People overly sample issues with electric cars based on how far
| they can go, without ever acknowledging the part about them not
| actually needing the full range of the car. And Teslas still work
| for the majority of long drives as well, just with more frequent
| stops than they should have.
| Geee wrote:
| It should probably show "range-range", i.e the range of minimum
| and maximum range with the current battery status. For example:
| "100-300 miles", rather than "300 miles" which it currently does.
| constantcrying wrote:
| 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.
| Cpoll wrote:
| 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.
| Lendal wrote:
| 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.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| 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!
| darth_avocado wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| In my experience, a Tesla driven at 30km/h will exceed its
| EPA range by about 20%.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| data from 3300 drivers from the very article we are
| discussing disagrees with your single anecdote.
| kjksf wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| And yet, data from 3300 drivers disagrees with your
| physics. What's more likely: the data is wrong or the
| model is flawed?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| 3300 drivers did 30km/h tests?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| MBCook wrote:
| 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.
| m463 wrote:
| 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"
| constantcrying wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| So the car only lies to you about its capabilities in some
| contexts? That's reassuring.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| 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
| heattemp99 wrote:
| 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!!"
| MBCook wrote:
| 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.
| lewisgodowski wrote:
| > 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
| Kirby64 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| dragontamer wrote:
| 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.
| redserk wrote:
| 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.
| m463 wrote:
| In tech support parlance, this is called "setting
| expectations".
|
| unfortunately the expectations were already set by the pre-
| sales marketing.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Stop lying about their ranges in the first place...?
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| 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?
| constantcrying wrote:
| >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.
| therouwboat wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| >Of course he was ordered to build it that way
|
| Zero evidence for that.
| dragontamer wrote:
| 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?
| constantcrying wrote:
| 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > If you believe Musk on this
|
| 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.
| abduhl wrote:
| A tale of moving goalposts, as presented by
| constantcrying:
|
| "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."
| kjksf wrote:
| 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.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| > 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.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Intentionally misleading people.. is exactly the
| definition of lying?
| dragontamer wrote:
| To be fair, "lying" isn't a legal term.
|
| "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.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| There is no fraud or misleading people. The EPA test
| cycle is an official test, you can run the test and get
| the same results yourself. It's not fraud that some dumb
| consumers don't understand what an EPA range estimate
| means
| sdfignaionio wrote:
| 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.
| olliej wrote:
| This one actually seems fair - literally the only reason I ever
| considered Tesla was the range. The only reason I didn't buy any
| other EV was because I was waiting for them to catch up to the
| Tesla range. Turns out that advantage was a lie - I hope their
| competitors also sue them.
| brianwawok wrote:
| https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...
|
| It's pretty dang high on the list in actual real world tested
| range.
| vel0city wrote:
| I had a friend buy a Model Y Long Range (EPA 326mi) over a
| Mach E AWD Extended Range (EPA 270mi) mainly because the Y
| supposedly had better advertised range (they were similarly
| priced at the time). 56mi of range along with the big mental
| idea of a bit over 300 or under 300.
|
| In Edmonds testing the difference was really only 13mi.
| Really not _that_ significant in the end.
| brianwawok wrote:
| The cars are just very different. MachE is a car with
| batteries. Model Y is an iPhone with wheels. Trying to buy
| for a single spec is a bit of crapshoot anyway.
|
| I also suspect the range gap is more than 13 in winter, as
| the model Y has more advanced heat pumps.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| This suit isn't about the advertised range -- everybody
| advertises the EPA's rated range. The way the range is
| calculated does favour Teslas, but if you want that changed,
| you'd have to sue the EPA, not Tesla.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Tesla is the only one using that "EPA advertised range" as a
| way of calculating your remaining range. Everyone else uses
| the normal, ICE car way of monitoring current driving
| behavior to get instantaneous efficiency, and rolling average
| over time multiplied by remaining "fuel" in the tank.
|
| Tesla is the only odd one out. Surely Tesla employees have
| driven cars before right? Surely they should understand that.
| duckkg5 wrote:
| I'm selling mine and probably not buying any more Teslas. This is
| exactly the kind of thing that makes it an easy decision.
| brianwawok wrote:
| [flagged]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-03 23:02 UTC)