TSLA corporate outlook

The train of common sense departed long time ago.

In case anyone had any doubts about Ford's aggressive commitment to their pickup truck electrification and greening programs

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2019/08/01/v-8-engine-ford-2020-pickup/1878556001/

LTLFTcomposite said:

Stock's on a tear.

Click to expand...

It was.

I continue to think there is something fundamentally wrong with people who are still long this stock. Bad news comes out--constantly--the stock falls (as it should), then in coming weeks the people long it just forget it and keep buying it up. Then bad news comes out again, in this case Q2, and the stock goes down again.

The still has no plausible path to profitability. It's always "next quarter" with them. If they can't make decent money consistently the stock deserves to fall very far from where it is now. I have no sympathy whatsoever for people losing money being long on TSLA.

Leaf15 said:

Just another huge loss quarter is behind, more to come, unfortunately ... I just do not understand idiots who kept buying it prior to earnings, could have waited and in a few days you could scoop it up at huge discount.

Click to expand...

Because tell me lies tell me sweet little lies. These people still--still!--do not realize that Musk is peddling a constant stream of BS. They hang on his every word and his every fantasy. They also do not realize that just because Tesla makes a great car it doesn't mean it's a great investment.

This was a great speculative buy many years ago but over the past number of years TSLA has massively lagged even boring old S&P500 index.

As was to be expected:

Tesla hit with another lawsuit over a fatal Autopilot crash

The family of Jeremy Beren Banner, who died in March, is suing for wrongful death

Click to expand...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750715/tesla-autopilot-crash-lawsuit-wrongful-death

This A/P fatal crash in Florida last March was virtually identical to the one that killed Joshua Brown (also in Florida) in May 2016. Not that I think Florida is significant, as any divided highway with cross-traffic would present the same conditions.

GRA said:

As was to be expected:

Tesla hit with another lawsuit over a fatal Autopilot crash

The family of Jeremy Beren Banner, who died in March, is suing for wrongful death

Click to expand...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750715/tesla-autopilot-crash-lawsuit-wrongful-death

This A/P fatal crash in Florida last March was virtually identical to the one that killed Joshua Brown (also in Florida) in May 2016. Not that I think Florida is signficant, as any divided highway with cross-traffic would present the same conditions.

Click to expand...

Another repost of a bad article that leave out critical details and makes statements that misrepresent the truth. If you are going to post links 24/7 at least do some reading and post reputable and non-biased talking points with agendas. "Virtually identical" what a joke, the entire bot post is a joke like most of these.

EVDRIVER said:

GRA said:

As was to be expected:

Tesla hit with another lawsuit over a fatal Autopilot crash

The family of Jeremy Beren Banner, who died in March, is suing for wrongful death

Click to expand...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750715/tesla-autopilot-crash-lawsuit-wrongful-death

This A/P fatal crash in Florida last March was virtually identical to the one that killed Joshua Brown (also in Florida) in May 2016. Not that I think Florida is signficant, as any divided highway with cross-traffic would present the same conditions.

Click to expand...

Another repost of a bad article that leave out critical details and makes statements that misrepresent the truth. If you are going to post links 24/7 at least do some reading and post reputable and non-biased talking points with agendas. "Virtually identical" what a joke, the entire bot post is a joke like most of these.

Click to expand...

Seeing as how this topic is for Tesla's corporate outlook, do those details matter? The lawsuit's the thing, and its potential effect on Tesla's reputation just as is the case with the Huang lawsuit. If anyone wants more of the (known) details, those have been discussed in the "Tesla A/P on the road" topic.

BTW, "virtually identical" was my comment, not the article's - do you disagree? What critical details that would make these two accidents not "virtually identical" do you think the article left out? The similarities between the two crashes are undeniable: both daytime in clear weather and good conditions on divided highways with grade-level cross traffic, A/P in both was driving well over the speed limit, both involved a crossing semi that the AEB system failed to recognize (because it couldn't as of 2016, and judging by the results in this case still can't), both cars under-ran the trailer and had the roofs ripped off, killing the drivers.

About the only major difference known was that Banner had only engaged A/P 10 seconds before the collision, whereas Brown's had been engaged much longer. Oh, and this involved a much more recently-built Model 3 with the latest A/P rather than an older Model S, but A/P still seems unable to deal with this all too common case. If you want other articles on the same topic, there are plenty to choose from, but they all tend to the same level of detail: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-sued-wrongful-death-fatal-crash-involving-autopilot/

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/t...wrongful-death-suit-florida/story?id=64706707

GRA said:

EVDRIVER said:

GRA said:

As was to be expected: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/1/20750715/tesla-autopilot-crash-lawsuit-wrongful-death

This A/P fatal crash in Florida last March was virtually identical to the one that killed Joshua Brown (also in Florida) in May 2016. Not that I think Florida is signficant, as any divided highway with cross-traffic would present the same conditions.

Click to expand...

Another repost of a bad article that leave out critical details and makes statements that misrepresent the truth. If you are going to post links 24/7 at least do some reading and post reputable and non-biased talking points with agendas. "Virtually identical" what a joke, the entire bot post is a joke like most of these.

Click to expand...

Seeing as how this topic is for Tesla's corporate outlook, do those details matter? BTW, "virtually identical" was my comment, not the article's - do you disagree? What critical details do you think the article left out? The similarities between the two crashes are undeniable, both daytime in clear weather and good conditions, A/P in both was driving well over the speed limit, both involved a crossing semi that the AEB system failed to recognize (because it couldn't as of 2016, and judging by the results in this case still can't), both cars under-ran the trailer and had the roofs ripped off, killing the driver.

About the only major difference known was that Banner had only engaged A/P 10 seconds before the collision, whereas Brown's had been engaged much longer. Oh, and this involved a much more recently-built Model 3 with the latest A/P rather than an older Model S, but A/P still seems unable to deal with this all too common case. If you want other articles on the same topic, there are plenty to choose from, but they all tend to the same level of detail: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-sued-wrongful-death-fatal-crash-involving-autopilot/

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/t...wrongful-death-suit-florida/story?id=64706707

Click to expand...

It's clear you have never driven a Tesla or can see the nonsense of the article. This has nothing to do with the corporate outlook until Tesla pays enough to impact the company which likely will not. The car was not the cause, think about it.

I think the post is that Tesla, by playing close to the bleeding edge, is taking risks which could ultimately risk it’s Existence. I agree it’s unlikely as Tesla has significant resources and user base which would come to its support (in the form of higher prices) if needed. Certainly nearly all of the other car companies would rather see it fail then up their game.

EVDRIVER said:

GRA said:

Seeing as how this topic is for Tesla's corporate outlook, do those details matter? BTW, "virtually identical" was my comment, not the article's - do you disagree? What critical details do you think the article left out? The similarities between the two crashes are undeniable, both daytime in clear weather and good conditions, A/P in both was driving well over the speed limit, both involved a crossing semi that the AEB system failed to recognize (because it couldn't as of 2016, and judging by the results in this case still can't), both cars under-ran the trailer and had the roofs ripped off, killing the driver.

About the only major difference known was that Banner had only engaged A/P 10 seconds before the collision, whereas Brown's had been engaged much longer. Oh, and this involved a much more recently-built Model 3 with the latest A/P rather than an older Model S, but A/P still seems unable to deal with this all too common case. If you want other articles on the same topic, there are plenty to choose from, but they all tend to the same level of detail: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-sued-wrongful-death-fatal-crash-involving-autopilot/

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/t...wrongful-death-suit-florida/story?id=64706707

Click to expand...

It's clear you have never driven a Tesla or can see the nonsense of the article. This has nothing to do with the corporate outlook until Tesla pays enough to impact the company which likely will not. The car was not the cause, think about it.

Click to expand...

What does my having driven a Tesla have to do with it? I've read the A/P reports from owners on TMC and watched numerous videos of same, the reviews and recommendations of auto enthusiast magazines and consumer organizations, the NHTSA and NTSB accident reports, conclusions and recommendations, and in addition to having had an interest in automated control systems and human interactions with them for several decades, had a girlfriend whose field was human factors engineering, so I used to read the articles published in that society's journal along with discussing some of the work she was doing at both NASA Ames (aviation-related) and Lawrence Livermore (nuke-related).

The technical characteristics and capabilities of A/P are known to be inadequate in this situation; both the NTSB and Consumer's Union have recommended that its use be prevented in situations such as the two Florida crashes it's known it can't handle (and I concur) - here's NTSB's as a result of the Brown crash:

Recommendation: TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION: Develop a method to verify that manufacturers of vehicles equipped with Level 2 vehicle automation systems incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were designed,

Click to expand...

Recommendation: TO THE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS AND TO THE ASSOCIATION OF GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS: Notify your members of the importance of incorporating system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were designed,

Click to expand...

Recommendation: TO THE MANUFACTURERS OF VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH LEVEL 2 VEHICLE AUTOMATION SYSTEMS (VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, NISSAN GROUP OF NORTH AMERICA, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, TESLA INC., AND VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA): Incorporate system safeguards that limit the use of automated vehicle control systems to those conditions for which they were designed,

Click to expand...

Recommendation: TO THE MANUFACTURERS OF VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH LEVEL 2 VEHICLE AUTOMATION SYSTEMS (VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, NISSAN GROUP OF NORTH AMERICA, MERCEDES-BENZ USA, TESLA INC., AND VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA): Develop applications to more effectively sense the driver’s level of engagement and alert the driver when engagement is lacking while automated vehicle control systems are in use.

Click to expand...

They and I believe that all autonomous systems should be so limited, but AFAIK to date only Cadillac's Supercruise is prohibited from being engaged on such roads and also makes use of eye monitoring, which are two of the reasons CR rated it tops among all* the self-driving "semi-autonomous" systems they tested.

*

Consumer Reports looked at five categories on a scale of 1-5 for GM’s Super Cruise, Tesla’s Autopilot, Nissan/Infinity’s ProPilot Assist, and Volvo’s Pilot Assist.

Capability & Performance
Ease of Use
Clear When Safe to Use
Keeping Driver Engaged
Unresponsive Driver

Click to expand...

The above is from electrek, but here's the direct link to the CR test report: https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/cadillac-tops-tesla-in-automated-systems-ranking/

This has been discussed and argued at great length, with citations to the research provided, in the "Tesla's Autopilot on the road" and "Automated vehicles, LEAF and others" topics, so I'm not going to repeat that here.

The question behind the lawsuits is how humans can and will (mis)use the system, and what responsibility the company has for not preventing the common and foreseeable misuses of same, when they have the ability to do so. Tesla can hardly argue that this accident wasn't foreseeable, given that they'd had 33 months between the Brown and Brenner crashes to modify A/P to either remove the deficiencies or, since that was probably technically impossible at the time, prevent it from being used in this situation.

That the driver bears ultimate responsibility for choosing to (mis)use the system isn't in question, but that by itself doesn't relieve the company of all responsibility for preventing such misuse through design where possible, which e.g. is why power tools have safety interlocks, sharp knives have finger guards, and children's toys which have small parts which can be broken off and be a choking hazard are pulled from the market by the CPSC. Unsafe car features are similarly regulated.

There is some gray area, which is why virtually all human-controlled cars sold in the U.S. are able to achieve top speeds well in excess of the highest public road speed limit (85 mph on one toll highway in Texas) in the country, even though there's no good reason for them to do so, numerous good reasons why they shouldn't be able to, and the tech exists to limit them.

Lawsuits are often the precursor to regulation, but it's the PR effects that have the greatest potential influence on Tesla's corporate outlook. To date, Tesla's been fortunate in that none of their fatal A/P controlled crashes has killed anyone other than occupants, so the public and the political backlash hasn't been all that strong (unlike the Uber crash in Arizona that killed a pedestrian, which immediately resulted in tighter regulation and restrictions - people are less concerned that the voluntary occupant of a vehicle is killed than that they might be killed by that vehicle). Tesla got off pretty light in the Brown crash, because they settled with the family early before any lawsuit was filed (and Brown's parents were disinclined to do so in any case), and Brown wasn't married and didn't have kids. But the Huang and Brenner lawsuits are likely to garner more attention, especially if Tesla is dumb enough to let these go to trial instead of settling them beforehand. The direct economic hit of settling the lawsuits isn't significant; it's the potential fallout that can hurt them financially.

BTW, you didn't reply to my question about what critical details were left out of the article.

IEVS:

Another Tesla Executive / Longtime Employee Leaves The Company

Click to expand...

https://insideevs.com/news/363675/another-tesla-executive-departs/

Will Tesla's reorganization lead to improvements and profitability?

J. Eric Purcell, former Director of Manufacturing, Quality at the Tesla factory in Fremont, California is the fourth manufacturing executive to leave the company just this year.

Prior to his most recent position with Tesla — which he held for over three years — he spent nearly three years as the company's Director of Manufacturing for Body, Stamping, and Tool & Die. When he first arrived at Tesla, he spent 10 months as Body & Stamping Senior Manager.

In total, Purcell was at Tesla for almost seven years. Suddenly, just this week, he updated his LinkedIn profile to point out that he's moved on. Purcell is now Director of Global Quality at Gibson Guitar Corporation in Nashville, Tennessee.

Perhaps Purcell is a music lover and has had a lifelong dream to work with guitars? However, this doesn't seem to be the case, since his jobs prior to employment at Tesla were all in the automotive space. Maybe it was just high time to get the heck away from cars? Regardless, the immense list of Tesla executive departures is growing rather quickly.

Tesla has noted a substantial goal of improving quality in manufacturing. Since that has become a focal point, more and more manufacturing execs have departed. . . .

We can only hope that the influx of departures and company reorganization will help Tesla to improve and streamline its processes and lead to profitability moving forward. . . .

Click to expand...

GCR:

Tesla hiking prices for "Full Self-Driving" by $1,000 for some owners

Click to expand...

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...or-full-self-driving-by-1-000-for-some-owners

Tesla announced in an email to owners on Wednesday that it will boost the price of its "Full Self-Driving Capability" suite of driver-assistance features starting Aug. 16. The increase applies over-the-air upgrades for existing Tesla owners who already have some of those features in the Enhanced Autopilot package. . . .

Starting Aug. 16, buyers who already have Enhanced Autopilot will have to pay $4,000 rather than the current $3,000 upgrade charge.

Despite the name, the Full Self-Driving Capability package is not yet capable of driving the car itself. Before the cars can do that, the company has to perfect its Navigate on Autopilot system, which allows Teslas to control speed, follow lanes, and change lanes to drive from a highway on-ramp to off-ramp with minimal driver input as long as the driver is touching the steering wheel. However, various reports have indicated that drivers still have to intervene frequently. The company also has to convince regulators to approve letting its cars on the road without drivers.

Enhanced Autopilot is no longer offered, and its features have migrated to Autopilot, which became standard earlier this year, and FSD, which is the now the only available driver-assistance package. Enhanced Autopilot was an optional package that included adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, and active lane control. Last fall, it added Navigate on Autopilot, but then it was discontinued this spring.

At that time, Tesla made Autopilot standard. It now includes automatic emergency braking and active lane control, but adaptive cruise control and automatic lane changing are reserved for the Full Self-Driving Capability option, which costs $6,000 when ordered on a new car. Those features, along with automatic parking, summon, automatic lane changes, and a link to the navigation system to enable Navigate on Autopilot make up the current set of features of the Full Self-Driving Capability option that are currently active. In the future, Tesla wants to add an advanced summon feature, automatic driving on city streets, and the ability to recognize and respond to traffic lights and stop signs. . . .

Click to expand...

GCC:

Consumer Reports: Government documents show failures by Tesla; NHTSA must do more to hold companies accountable

Click to expand...

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/08/20190808-cr.html

Consumer Reports said that emails and other government documents released publicly for the first time show failures by Tesla regarding its safety claims and the performance of Autopilot.

Consumer Reports (CR) said that the documents reveal that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must do more to ensure investigations are transparent, and ensure companies communicate responsibly with the public about crash ratings.

CR said that the documents show that NHTSA has subpoenaed information from Tesla about crashes involving its Autopilot driver-assist system, and, separately, the agency sent Tesla a cease-and-desist letter last fall to say the agency had become aware of “misleading statements” made by the company about the Tesla Model 3’s safety ratings.

The documents also show that NHTSA has referred Tesla’s safety claims to the Federal Trade Commission and asked the FTC to investigate whether these claims violate laws against deceptive commercial practices.

• We have repeatedly called for an investigation into Tesla’s Autopilot driver-assist system. It can’t dependably navigate common road situations on its own, and fails to keep the driver engaged behind the wheel. The newly public data only reinforces those concerns.
  
  It’s good that NHTSA is digging into the safety of the Autopilot system, but the agency needs to make these investigations public, for transparency’s sake, and to put added pressure on Tesla to fix the system’s flaws. It shouldn’t take a Freedom of Information Act data dump to know what’s going on here.
  
  These documents also show that NHTSA told Tesla to stop making ‘misleading statements’ about the agency’s crash safety ratings, and that Tesla refused to comply, flouting NHTSA’s authority. In response, NHTSA could simply remove the related safety ratings to help mitigate the confusion Tesla is creating for consumers.
  
  This is another reminder that an update to NHTSA’s five-star safety ratings system is long overdue. DOT leadership should take the 2015 proposal out of neutral so consumers can get the information they need on the safety of new vehicles, especially with the proliferation of crucial driver assistance technologies like automatic emergency braking, pedestrian detection, and blind spot warning.
  
  —David Friedman, Vice President of Advocacy for Consumer Reports

Friedman has previously served as both Deputy and Acting Administrator of NHTSA.

Consumer Reports began challenging Tesla’s Autopilot functionality and marketing in 2016, when the organization called on the automaker to disable the automatic steering function in the Autopilot driving-assist system available in its Model S vehicles until the company updated the function to confirm that the driver’s hands remain on the steering wheel at all times.

Consumer Reports at the time also suggested that Tesla should also change the name of the Autopilot feature because it promotes a potentially dangerous assumption that the Model S is capable of driving on its own. . . .

Click to expand...

ABG:

Tesla lawsuit claims thousands lost battery capacity in software update
Tesla owners have been commiserating, say they've lost up to 40 miles

Click to expand...

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/08/tesla-battery-range-lawsuit/

A Tesla owner has filed a lawsuit against the electric vehicle maker, claiming the company limited the battery range of older vehicles via a software update to avoid a costly recall to fix what plaintiffs allege are defective batteries.

The lawsuit filed on Wednesday in Northern California federal court alleges fraud and seeks class action status for potentially "thousands" of such Model S and X owners around the world who have seen the range of their older-generation batteries suddenly curtailed, some by as much as 40 miles (64 km).

The lost range has been a hot topic since May on online owner forums, such as TeslaMotorsClub.com, in which many owners detail how their battery range has fallen. Users say Tesla has taken away range for which they paid extra money via the software update, thereby devaluing the car, limiting the distance they can travel and forcing them to recharge more frequently.

Plaintiff David Rasmussen's 2014 Model S 85 lost battery capacity equivalent to about 8kWh, but was told by Tesla the degradation was normal, the lawsuit says.

Tesla did not immediately respond on Thursday to requests for comment.

In May, after a Model S caught fire in Hong Kong, Tesla said that out of an overabundance of caution it was revising charge and thermal management settings on Model S and X vehicles via an over-the-air software update. The goal was "to help further protect the battery and improve battery longevity," it said.

A month later, Tesla said only a small group of owners was affected by the range reduction and said it planned to improve the impact of the software update, while cautioning that charging behavior was based on a variety of factors.

Some owners who have seen their cars no longer able to charge to 100% have sought redress through arbitration, while at least three have sold their cars, according to Teslamotorsclub.com forum posts. Others have disabled their Wi-Fi to avoid any software updates that could affect their range.

"Under the guise of 'safety' and increasing the 'longevity' of the batteries of the Class Vehicles, Tesla fraudulently manipulated its software with the intent to avoid its duties and legal obligations to customers to fix, repair, or replace the batteries of the Class Vehicles, all of which Tesla knew were defective, yet failed to inform its customers of the defects," wrote the lawsuit.

The lawsuit points to a recent spate of Tesla battery fires, and claims that instead of informing its customers about a potential fire risk, the company "chose to go behind the backs of its customers and use software updates and throttling of the battery to avoid liability."

In its Vehicle Safety Report published on its website, Tesla says vehicle fires are "exceptionally rare" and from 2012 to 2018 there was approximately one Tesla vehicle fire for every 170 million miles traveled. It compares that with data from the National Fire Protection Association and the U.S. Department of Transportation showing a vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled in the United States. Those entities measure fires in all vehicles, not just Teslas.

One owner, Nick Smith of Orlando, Florida, said in an interview he has been frustrated by poor customer service by Tesla, with sluggish response to his calls and emails and being kept in the dark over the true root of the problem and what will be done to remedy it. . . .

Smith's 2013 Model S P85 will no longer charge past 90% following the software update. Tesla told him the loss was due to normal regular battery degradation, he said. . . .

Click to expand...

It is interesting to see how the early Tesla’s are catching up with the rate of degradation.

DougWantsALeaf said:

It is interesting to see how the early Tesla’s are catching up with the rate of degradation.

Click to expand...

You have that wrong. It is not range degradation. Tesla has capped some batteries to charge to only 4.07 Volts per cell instead of 4.2. They have yet to explain why. All we can do so far is speculate at best. And I am sure that we all have opinions on why they are doing that.

https://insideevs.com/news/364347/tesla-model-s-update-lawsuit/ has a few more details on the above class action lawsuit.

If there is a settlement, I wonder if it'll be the usual outcome of law firm gets a ton of $, original plaintiff gets a pretty good deal and everyone else gets a token amount of $/compensation.

cwerdna said:

https://insideevs.com/news/364347/tesla-model-s-update-lawsuit/ has a few more details on the above class action lawsuit.

If there is a settlement, I wonder if it'll be the usual outcome of law firm gets a ton of $, original plaintiff gets a pretty good deal and everyone else gets a token amount of $/compensation.

Click to expand...

Sadly that is the norm...

Evoforce said:

DougWantsALeaf said:

It is interesting to see how the early Tesla’s are catching up with the rate of degradation.

Click to expand...

You have that wrong. It is not range degradation. Tesla has capped some batteries to charge to only 4.07 Volts per cell instead of 4.2. They have yet to explain why. All we can do so far is speculate at best. And I am sure that we all have opinions on why they are doing that.

Click to expand...

Because you get significant extension of battery life and improved margin of safety without leaving much range on the table.

Because you get significant extension of battery life and improved margin of safety without leaving much range on the table.

Click to expand...

Indeed. It makes little sense to charge a large pack of relatively volatile cells to near their maximum rated voltage when you can set a comfortably lower charge ceiling and still get great range. At some point, though, I wouldn't be surprised to see a feature that let Tesla drivers charge closer to 4.2 V/cell right before a trip, with the car bleeding off charge via the climate control or TMS if it wasn't used shortly thereafter.

Nubo said:

Evoforce said:

DougWantsALeaf said:

It is interesting to see how the early Tesla’s are catching up with the rate of degradation.

Click to expand...

You have that wrong. It is not range degradation. Tesla has capped some batteries to charge to only 4.07 Volts per cell instead of 4.2. They have yet to explain why. All we can do so far is speculate at best. And I am sure that we all have opinions on why they are doing that.

Click to expand...

Because you get significant extension of battery life and improved margin of safety without leaving much range on the table.

Click to expand...

Except that a fair number of owners don't feel that the "range left on the table" is acceptable, which is why there's a lawsuit. After all, anyone who is concerned about minimizing degradation and/or maximizing safety is already able to limit the max. voltage by only charging to a lower % (and limiting discharge to a higher %). I don't think the company limiting max. capacity to increase longevity is a bad idea overall, provided the range is considered adequate by the customer, but Tesla sold the cars with 'X' range and then with minimal explanation reduced it to 'X' minus something. If they'd been more transparent about the reason there'd likely have been less controversy, but that would probably open them up to a different lawsuit over safety.

I think this mostly comes down to Tesla not doing adequate development testing in a wide variety of environments, but instead pushing products out quickly with the idea that they'll fix problems as they appear. That may be the norm for software, but shouldn't be for expensive durable goods where lives rather than data may be at stake.

Is there an EV without a drama?