this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
496 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
3922 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s not right though. Tesla was uniquely inaccurate. This Ars Technica article I read a few days ago goes into more detail. No other manufacturer has such inaccurate range estimates. In fact, most exceed their estimates.
Certain manufacturers may have standard operating practices of keeping the AC running, or how close to the trace line they drive — there is a tolerance for some error.
If Tesla STICKER ranges are unrealistic, they are likely abusing the general EPA phrasing of “using good engineering judgment” that usually accompanies emissions legislation to push their ranges higher.
The other part of the ars technica concerns the actual estimates when driving the car. Above 50%, they are not providing accurate estimates.
Given recent events at the company formerly known as Twitter, though, do you really expect different from Musk?
Yes exactly. One could do mental gymnastics to try to defend this, but the balance of evidence and past decisions by Musk makes it obvious that this is far from innocent. This is theft by misrepresentation.
All I’m saying is that unless Tesla is advised by a certification witness to change their test method, they are unlikely to do so and it will be hard to argue that their sticker ranges aren’t lawful.
The software case on the other hand is misleading at best. I would characterize that as fraud, but I’m not a lawyer
I’m not a lawyer either, so your guess is as good as mine. From where I’m sitting, it seems to me that there is ample evidence, including internal communication and the activities of the “diversion” team, that this was NOT an engineering decision. When the problem was revealed, there was no attempt to correct it. I personally don’t see how this is so hard to argue when it is so blatant.