Official Tesla Model S thread

[edatoakrun]

CBS 4 News reported several weeks ago that Riley’s family said they modified the vehicle to only travel at a top speed of 85 miles per hour after Riley received a speeding ticket in March for going 112 miles per hour...

Up until the firmware release this week with the new speed limiter, the only way I knew an owner could limit the speed was to put the car in valet mode, which limits it to 70 MPH. I'm not sure how they set a limit of 85...

The reports state TSLA limited the top speed, at the owner's (father's) request.

If TSLA made an attempt to do so, and its was ineffective (as claimed) then there it may be a reason to find additional liability for TSLA for the deaths.

...Back to personal responsibility, if my son had gotten a speeding ticket for doing 112 MPH , you can damn well be sure I wouldn't be letting him use the car at all anymore.

I would have no problem with regulating teenage drivers to relatively low-speed and low-powered vehicles during the first few years of driving.

In fact, I have suggested to friends that they buy Nissan LEAF's for their teenage sons.

Not only for crash safety, but to reduce the risk of being responsible for an unwanted pregnancy to near zero...

[jlv]

The reports state TSLA limited the top speed, at the owner's (father's) request.

Source?

[SageBrush]

The reports state TSLA limited the top speed, at the owner's (father's) request.

No it doesn't, you trolling little POS.
The newspaper article quoted an Aunt who said she thought her brother (the father) asked Tesla about a speed controller.
Here is the text of the newspaper

Pat Riley said her brother, James, knew that Tesla loaner cars had an 85 mph maximum speed. So after Barrett was cited in March, his first traffic offense, the father asked Tesla to adjust the car’s top velocity.

[EVDRIVER]

Ed,

The moderators and site admin have been discussing your posting behavior for some time for a variety of reasons. There have been complaints from forum members because of your postings, some not returning as a result. It was suggested to remove your access to the site, I argued against this on your behalf some time ago and suggested an additional warning which has since past. There will be no further debate or discussion on this topic and any further complaints will result in your access to the site being removed. You are entitled to your opinion here but you have been excessively disruptive. There will be no further warnings past this point, the site admin will remove your access for a variety of reasons.

[GRA]

I find Ed's one-sided monomania re Tesla to be as tedious as most people do, but everyone here has the option of putting him in their 'ignore' (now renamed 'foe') file, so why shouldn't we leave the responsibility to each individual as to whether or not to read his posts, as long as he doesn't violate forum rules (I would personally love to see far more mod attention paid here to ensuring civility, and less to censoring opinions). Everyone here's an adult, and should be capable of deciding for themselves the value of an individual's contributions - mere disagreement with someone's opinions, regardless of the number of people who do so, should never be the standard by which banning decisions are made.

That brings me to another point, dividing people into 'friends' or 'foes'. That's exactly the sort of 'us or them' partisan categorization to which our political discourse has degraded, where both sides treat anyone who disagrees as 'the enemy'. 'Ignore' is a neutral term, as there can be a variety of reasons for putting a poster in that category, so I'd much prefer to see the 'foe' option returned to its previous designation of 'ignore'. Personally, my feeling is that anyone who gets so worked up by a dissenting viewpoint expressed by an anonymous poster in a hobbyist forum on the internet as to consider them a 'foe' needs to recalibrate their perspective, and get a life.

[Zythryn]

Opinions are one thing.
Misrepresenting what a report says, or flat out lying about it is not defendable.

The reports state TSLA limited the top speed, at the owner's (father's) request.

This is not what the report said. Now, if it were simple sloppiness and Ed apologized, that would be one thing. But that isn’t his MO.

[cwerdna]

Ed,

The moderators and site admin have been discussing your posting behavior for some time for a variety of reasons. There have been complaints from forum members because of your postings, some not returning as a result. It was suggested to remove your access to the site, I argued against this on your behalf some time ago and suggested an additional warning which has since past. There will be no further debate or discussion on this topic and any further complaints will result in your access to the site being removed. You are entitled to your opinion here but you have been excessively disruptive. There will be no further warnings past this point, the site admin will remove your access for a variety of reasons.

Who are the complainers? Tesla fanboys? "Cult of Elon" members?

While Ed and one other person are usually overly negative about Tesla, I've learned to take what they post on that subject with a huge grain of salt. And, I personally ignore most of Ed's posts relating to Leaf battery degradation, range on degraded batteries, etc.

I find Ed's one-sided monomania re Tesla to be as tedious as most people do, but everyone here has the option of putting him in their 'ignore' (now renamed 'foe') file, so why shouldn't we leave the responsibility to each individual as to whether or not to read his posts, as long as he doesn't violate forum rules (I would personally love to see far more mod attention paid here to ensuring civility, and less to censoring opinions). Everyone here's an adult, and should be capable of deciding for themselves the value of an individual's contributions - mere disagreement with someone's opinions, regardless of the number of people who do so, should never be the standard by which banning decisions are made.

I agree. There are some folks here (including this thread) who are just not very civil. Others have had issues w/one of those folks in other threads.

As long as Ed's and the other person who is rather negative on Tesla are civil and post correct information, there should be no reason to remove them. I'd rather see them here than a whole bunch of cult of Elon members. There's a Tesla fanboy on another (non-Tesla) forum I'm on and it's become both tedious (at times) and comical.

The complainers should just skip over their posts and/or add the two to their foes list.

[EVDRIVER]

Ed remains an active member and this is not a matter of being negative on Tesla or someone being a fanboy or not. It is not a matter of opinions either. I’m confident that anyone warned on this site (which is very rare) knows what the issues are. As I have always said everyone is entitled to their opinions no matter how extreme. Ones’s opinion or difference of is not an issue.

[GRA]

Opinions are one thing.
Misrepresenting what a report says, or flat out lying about it is not defendable.

The reports state TSLA limited the top speed, at the owner's (father's) request.

This is not what the report said. Now, if it were simple sloppiness and Ed apologized, that would be one thing. But that isn’t his MO.

You and anyone else have the ability to rebut his claims, so where's the problem? If he consistently acts as you say, then eventually no one will bother reading or replying to him. And all that assumes that the same facts are subject to only one interpretation, which is rarely the case. We all parse facts/statements through our own set of pre-existing biases, which raises the resonance of some facts/statements and lowers others. Ideally, we are aware of those biases and try to eliminate them, but even so, we're likely to have very mixed success.

[edatoakrun]

Opinions are one thing.
Misrepresenting what a report says, or flat out lying about it is not defendable.

The reports state TSLA limited the top speed, at the owner's (father's) request.

This is not what the report said. Now, if it were simple sloppiness and Ed apologized, that would be one thing. But that isn’t his MO.

You and anyone else have the ability to rebut his claims, so where's the problem?...

"The problem" is no factual rebuttal, because I was not making a claim, I was stating the facts, as reported by multiple high-integrity sources:

Crash victim’s dad had Tesla’s top speed lowered

Barrett Riley’s aunt, Pat Riley, said the teen’s father had the car’s speed lowered to a maximum of 85 mph after Barrett was cited for speeding in March.
After Barrett Riley got a ticket for driving 112 mph in March, his father had the teen’s 2014 Tesla Model S altered so it could not go faster than 85 mph, Riley’s aunt, Pat Riley, said Friday...

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/sun-sen ... 2161958324

...Barrett Riley’s aunt, Pat, told CBS4 News that the family knew about the speeding ticket and that Barrett was not at all reckless and was often the designated driver for his friends.

She said that after the ticket Barrett’s parents had Tesla alter the car so that it could not go faster than 85 miles per hour...

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/05/10/n ... auderdale/

And even a TSLA apologist rag stated:

...The father was aware of his son’s lead foot and attempted to address the issue following the speeding ticket.

Knowing that Tesla’s loaner cars can’t go over 85 mph, James Riley reached out to Tesla to see if they could limit the top speed of his son’s car, which Tesla did on request...

https://electrek.co/2018/06/26/tesla-de ... l-s-crash/

I don't know why anyone would want to make a fool of themselves by repeating false statements made by one of MNLs most accomplished liars without doing their own simple search for the facts, first.

But then, I also don't know why those who continue to make fools of themselves by driving Teslas and ICEVs, would also want to point that out on this forum.

Ed remains an active member...

No, I do not.

See my on-topic at:

Abusive behavior and threats by moderators on MNL.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=26111