Technology

59119 readers

2901 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

[email protected]

694

Tesla warns that a federal probe into whether it exaggerated the range of its cars may lead to a ‘material adverse impact on our business’ (fortune.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

86 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tesla warns that a federal probe into whether it exaggerated the range of its cars may lead to a ‘material adverse impact on our business’::Earlier this year, Reuters reported that Tesla had created a special “diversions team” to avoid dealing with complaints from customers about their vehicle ranges.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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