By on April 11, 2014

tesla-model-s-11

Tesla has fired back against the accusations brought in a lawsuit filed against the company earlier this week by a Wisconsin attorney and self-described “Lemon law King” Vince Megna. Mr. Megna’s client, a physician who took delivery of his Model S in March of last year, alleges that he has had repeated problems with the car’s doors and main fuse and that repeated attempts to remedy the problem have met with no success. He is asking that, after four attempts at resolving the issues, the company re-purchase the car under Wisconsin lemon laws intended to protect buyers if a product is faulty and cannot be repaired by the manufacturer.

Tesla’s response, published on their official blog and attributed to “The Tesla Motors Team,” claims factual inaccuracies in the attorney’s statements. The company writes that, although the customer filed an official buy-back request in November 2013, they have continued to work him to resolve his issues, many of which have “elusive” origins. They go on to say that their technicians were unable to replicate customer’s main complaints, problems with the door handles and the car’s main fuse, and that after replacing several of the parts in question without alleviating the situation they began to suspect the car was being tampered with. They noted that all the issues with the main fuse came shortly after the car’s front trunk, which gives access to the fuse, was opened and claim that the part has performed flawlessly since technicians applied a tamper-proof seal to the switch.

Tesla concludes their response by noting that the attorney in question also filed a Lemon Law suit against Volvo in February 2013 on behalf of the same customer and encourages the public to be aware of how opportunistic lawyers can take advantage of lemon laws.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

88 Comments on “Tesla Fires Back Against Accusations Brought By Lemon Law King...”


  • avatar

    Elon: do whatever you need to to make me more $.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Here is where the brash Musk ego could deal a blow to the company. Maybe not with this particular incident, but with how they handle customer concerns like this in the future. Openly doing battle with customers wins little favor in the court of public opinion. Although Tesla will fare better at the moment than other automakers because of it’s current darling status.

    That being said, I’m no proponent of Lemon Laws. Many are far too open to abuse by customers with buyer’s remorse and can be unrealistic/unfair to the manufacturer. However, in a company with high public visibility, you can’t carry the perception of being combative with your customers.

    “Tesla concludes their response by noting that the attorney in question also filed Lemon Law suit against Volvo in February 2013 on behalf of the same customer and encourage the public to be aware of how opportunistic lawyers can take advantage of lemon laws.”

    Sounds like something Musk would put out on Twitter.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      I have no problem with them fighting tooth and nail against what may amount to fraud, but there’s a reason you don’t talk about in-process lawsuits.

    • 0 avatar

      I think that by now, everyone understands Elon’s ego and it being the driving force behind his accomplishments. After what he did in Space X, I appreciate him. Makes me wonder what ever happened to the “AMERICAN” ego that built spaceships – just to beat the Russians, built weapons of Mass Destruction – just to beat everyone else and maintained a vast, sea-born military industrial complex of drones and helicopters and VTOL attack jets to impose its will across the planet? I miss that America sooo much. Now look: foreclosures, China’s got our factories, 144-month auto financing, Obamacare and the Kardashians have a show.

      Elon Musk is an American hero in my opinion.

      • 0 avatar

        > Makes me wonder what ever happened to the “AMERICAN” ego that built spaceships – just to beat the Russians

        The US never beat the Russians at anything in space except stepping on the moon.

        What’s even more sad than playing catchup to save face is taking credit for the work of betters who just happen to reside nearby.

    • 0 avatar
      old5.0

      In 2005, I bought (at an extreme discount) an F-150 with under 5,000 miles that was a buy-back truck. The dealership assured me that they had been unable to replicate the original purchaser’s complaint, but that the truck carried a full factory warranty if something did occur.

      Traded it off @ 250,000 miles after experiencing nary an issue. I suspect the original owner used the lemon law to get out from under a payment they couldn’t afford.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        @old5.0:

        The vehicle may have finally been fixed when you bought it, just as my 05 Odyssey was when I finally traded it after a lemon suit.

        The dealer had failed to fix it 3 times in the first year, then a 4th time after the 12-month limit was up, but by then my lemon suit was under way. The car had no problems when I happily dumped it.

        I’m glad you had a good experience, and I hope they buyer of my car did, too. The difference with me was that the car was not branded with the yellow “L” because it was not a buy back, and Honda admitted to nothing – except they sent me a small check for my trouble.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave W

        Our one brush with lemon laws was with our manual transmission Fiesta. We logged over 40 days in the shop in the first 2 months we owned the car. After we got it back the second time with the same issue both the dealer and Ford recommended that we start the lemon law process. Instead we asked them to do what we thought they would do the first time we brought it in, and asked them to do the second time which was to put in a new transmission. As far as we could tell, it being 2011, there were no extra manual transmissions available as they were all going to build new cars. They didn’t want to log the shop time it would take to ship a new transmission, yet most of the shop time the first 2 attempted repairs were waiting for parts from Germany. We convinced Ford we wanted the car enough to wait for the transmission, (particularly as they told us it would be at least 2 months before we could get another manual hatch with a light interior). 46k miles after our new transmission we’ve had no problems.

        I assume if we had turned it back they still would have put in the new transmission then re-sold it as a lemon. I still wonder why Ford wanted to eat instead of fix the car.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      “Here is where the brash Musk ego could deal a blow to the company.”

      At this point, Musk can get away with it and probably benefits from it. This us vs. them stuff really appeals to the fanboys who like to feel that they’re underdogs who are fighting the good fight against saboteurs who want to kill the dream.

      If Tesla was a mass market automaker, then it would be an entirely different story. But at this point, it’s closer to being Scientology than the Catholic Church.

      • 0 avatar

        > If Tesla was a mass market automaker, then it would be an entirely different story. But at this point, it’s closer to being Scientology than the Catholic Church.

        Tesla’s base is more like the Google Nexus’s.

        There’s issues of substance in this case, but they’re largely untouched for obvious reasons.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Openly doing battle with habitual criminals is another story, however. I suspected something like what Tesla is currently reporting even before this article because I am well aware of how a certain type of individual games the ‘system’ for profit. No lawyer should be proud to call himself “The Lemon Law King” without going under suspicion and with this specific event following a similar suit not even 12 months prior and the situation becomes even MORE suspect.

    In this case, it seems that Tesla’s software does more than just record operating parameters, but every single event with the vehicle. This makes sense in order to make educated repairs rather than mere guesswork based on rather vague codes. ODBII may be good, but it’s still too vague. KNOWING that the problems didn’t occur until someone accessed the fusebox is clear evidence of “tampering” which immediately voids the suit and opens the door for criminal charges against the user.

    If Tesla wins this suit (and it looks like they will in my opinion), then all other suits laid out by this client will be investigated more deeply and most other suits filed by this lawyer may come into question. Since Wisconsin has a “double-pay” penalty rule that can be invoked, it’s very possible either the client or the lawyer have been actively defrauding their victims.

    • 0 avatar
      gtrslngr

      TESLA will lose . Its all but Guaranteed . Why do I say that ? Because I know first hand three excessively well heeled TESLA S owners who’s cars are crap … and may initiate their own lawsuits as well as testify on behalf of this one . And from the non -TESLA sponsored owners forum [ membership only ] Theres a whole lot more out there as well . Suffice it to say …. Elon has been going out of his way to alienate TESLA S owners once the car is sold and out the door . And guaranteed ….. that will bite him on the @$& sooner than later

  • avatar
    gtrslngr

    In light of every previous time Elon has allowed something to wind up in court [ he loses ]

    In light of the three TESLA S owners I know personally [ who to a number call their cars Automotive TechnoDinosaurs and have had multiple problems with both the car and TESLA\'s so called customer service ] all three of which are counting the days till their leases are up and barely using their cars …. especially in winter [ damnedest thing ... the batteries lose 65-85% of their charge when parked outside on a 30f or below day for four hours or more ]

    I’ll say Mr Lemon Law Lawyer has himself a hands down win on his hands if TESLA is stupid enough not to settle out of court . And like another here said … Elons going to do TESLA a world of hurt if the deluded little egomaniacal psychopath lets this go to court .

    Elon Musk and TESLA

    The 21st century version of John Z DeLorean and his cars . Only this time its us [ US ] not Ireland that’ll be stuck with the bill when it all goes wrong

    Want to know the TRUTH about Elon ? Look up , read and ask a few Apple insiders [ which I may or may not be one of ] what Steve Jobs opinion of the man was

    • 0 avatar
      PrincipalDan

      [] > …

      Discuss.

    • 0 avatar
      Kaosaur

      Here’s a suit that Tesla won. http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/go-news-tesla-wins-dealership-lawsuit

      Stop being so disingenuous. In the last thread others pointed out you were borderline libelous.

    • 0 avatar
      daviel

      Tesla has blogged their inability to make things right. Is that a winner?

    • 0 avatar
      JalopNick

      “all three of which are counting the days till their leases are up”

      Tesla just announced they were going to start doing leases last week, so that statement is a bit suspicious.

      Everything I read on the various forums shows that Tesla are indeed bending over backwards to get issues resolved to the owners’ satisfaction which probably goes a long way toward propping up the value of used Teslas. Used ones sell well, i.e. they exhibit depreciation in line with any other vehicle in that price range, so unhappy owners can just sell and move on. It’s not any different than any other brand really, they just get a lot more publicity. None of the Model S owners I know have had any more issues than I had some years ago with a new BMW (first production year from Carolina). They fixed every problem as it came up and I happily owned the car for 8 years.
      Despite their significant issues, I think Tesla are doing a fine job addressing them. I hope it works out for them.

  • avatar
    olddavid

    I wouldn’t categorize Musk with John Z., but the analogy is close. Yesterday’s “adjustment” on the Dow has shown the unrealistic rise of certain stocks, Tesla among the prime examples. There is a reason very smart and driven men have been brought down attempting to take on the entrenched OEM companies. Elon has had an unusually extended “honeymoon” with the motoring press, buying public and stock exchanges based on a nice little car that will be in the buying wheelhouse of only the 1%. Yet he has delusions that he is going to be a full line manufacturer. Do not bet your 2034 operating budget that this will pan out. Battery factory subsidies from myopic states will drive the bottom line only so far. I would actually go so far as to speculate the battery manufacturing business model to be more sound than the driving automobile side.

  • avatar
    Mojo_Mike

    A Tesla in Wisconsin? I thought that these electric cars didn’t do so well in frigid climates.

    • 0 avatar
      Carlson Fan

      I live in MN, Teslas work just fine in the cold. There was a Model S two cars in front of me in the drop off line at school this winter. I believe it was close to -15F that morning. Both kids and the driver looked plenty comfortable inside.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Nah, EVs don’t work in cold climates. That’s why the Model S was Norway’s #1 selling car in March.

  • avatar
    troyohchatter

    Without actual accounts listed facutally with documentation, all claims of good and bad service and such from one individual can usually be contributed to someone having unrealistic expectations or outright BS. For sure, not in every case, but in the majority for sure.

    Tesla’s response states some pretty specific items, the most damning being the placement of tamper tape on the fuse resolving the so called “issue” as well as the legal history of the owner and lawyer both.

    To gtrslngr, if the owners you speak of have interacted with the company and gotten nowhere, resigned to the fact that the issues cannot be fixed or will not be fixed, and have, by your own words, decided to wait for the lease to expire, that’s on them. If I leased a car worth as much as a small house and found it to be unsatisfactory I can assure you I would be all in on litigation or getting support.

    I am no Tesla fanboy nor do I own a Tesla or stock. With that, I am impartial. So, impartially, gtrslngr, I would love to hear more of your friend’s negative experiences, especially what the experience has been to resolve same. Positive or negative, without some teeth to it, it’s just a fanboy bragging or a habitual complainer having their say, neither of which can be considered reputable. I will go as far as to say that taking into account the substantial amount of battery on a Tesla I find it hard to believe it would lose much if any charge sitting in cold weather. But I am easily convinced otherwise with facts. At a minimum y ou can provide the URL of the forum so I can become a member and learn of these issues for myself.

    • 0 avatar

      > To gtrslngr, if the owners you speak of have interacted with the company and gotten nowhere

      He’s just lying. “who to a number call their cars Automotive TechnoDinosaurs”

      O Rly?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @troyohchatter:

      Early-software Teslas would lose meaningful charge overnight (cold or not, like 10 miles) due to keeping their software constantly booted up. This annoyance issue was fixed in a recent software patch.

      By comparison, my Leaf doesn’t lose any range while it sits.

      In any case, gtrslngr’s ravings are – to put it kindly – wrong.

  • avatar

    I don’t think it’s cut and dry at all. Most lemon laws specifically require a defect, not simply repairs. If there is reasonable evidence that outside tampering was performed then the term defect may not be applied. It sounds to me like a case of buyers remorse as people who have genuine lemon law concerns go to normal attorneys, not the equivalent of an ambulance chaser. If Tesla’s statement is accurate then I’d be much on their side. It doesn’t smell like a cover up to me. Plus Id much rather root for a guy like Musk than for a customer that tries to cheat the system. All our lives would be cheaper with less lawsuits.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Repairs can imply a defect in many LL cases.

      • 0 avatar
        troyohchatter

        Agreed, but lemon law doesn’t cover defects or repairs. It covers failed resolutions or continued issues. An isolated defect that is sorted with a repair is not open to the lemon law. The lemon laws in various states sets a burden of proof and a process so one does not have to get knee deep in litigation to get justice.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Correct. I should have gone into more detail. A repair paid for by the company for an ongoing unresolved issue can imply a defect, even if said problem turns out to be a characteristic or other cause aside from defect. This can contribute to a manufacturer losing a LL case.

          Cost issues aside, manufacturers don’t want dealers to “pound parts” in an attempt to satisfy a customer complaint that might not be resolved with a part replacement or a repair because it makes a LL case hard to win when a pile of parts have been replaced and the manufacturer is trying to argue there’s no unresolved defect.

          Manufacturers get more involved with these types of issues now more than ever and will often put the brakes on further repairs for “phantom” issues to avoid not only cost, but implied liability. Most lemon laws specify a number of repair attempts, so they don’t want to use up all their strikes.

          Most manufacturers do not air this laundry on their blogs, however.

          • 0 avatar
            Japanese Buick

            Service writers are also trained in lemon laws and will describe a repeating problem differently each time to mark it harder to classify a recurring problem as such, legally.

        • 0 avatar
          jpolicke

          Well, if the repair corrected the problem it wouldn’t count towards unresolved issues, but for example New York also counts 30 cumulative days of the car being out of service in its first 2 years. Rationale is that a car that’s constantly getting fixed is no better than one that cannot be fixed.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    Say what! Is this the very same Tesla that CR claims makes the best sedan they have tested?

  • avatar
    thegamper

    There is a subset of the population out there that files Lemon Law suits annually. They buy high priced lux car, drive it for a year and demand their money back, never paying a dime for revolving door of high priced vehicles. Manufacturers are well aware of this, I think it is highly suspect that the plaintiff in question has another lemon law suit within the span of a year. Most people can go their whole life without filing one.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      I kind of doubt you could make much of a habit of buying high priced cars and getting them all declared lemons, there actually have to be documented problems and failed resolutions. If the manufacturers are well aware of it, I suspect they would be researching the backgrounds of those filing LL suits and fight back hard.

      • 0 avatar
        thegamper

        I looked for some examples of what I am talking about because I know I have read more than one story about lemon law abuse. But came up with nothing in the minute and a half I spent on it. Hmmm. Anyway, what I recall is that some dealers in urban areas actually have black lists for these customers. That is people with several lemon law claims in their past.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      In 2007/2008 I worked with one of those people at a dot-com. I suspect her family had a tie to the BMW dealership that she used to swap out her cars. Why else would they let her Lemon-Law three cars in a row? Wouldn’t they just tell her to buy a better car somewhere else at some point? The odd thing is that her M3s and 335is obliged her by breaking down constantly and catastrophically. She had a 2006 M3 SMG convertible which she said she loved in spite of having to use the Lemon Law to turn it in for the first E90 335i, which was another Lemon. I didn’t stay in touch with her when I left the company because she was generally an amoral twit, but I’d be curious to see if BMW is still playing ball.

    • 0 avatar
      jcain

      There was a TTAC article about this a while back:

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/tales-from-the-cooler-the-land-of-the-crooked-car-buyer-part-one/

  • avatar
    Ishabaka

    First rule of customer service: never blame the customer. Tesla is claiming the doctor who owns this car is a criminal fraudster. If that is proven false, Tesla will have a black mark on it’s reputation it will never recover from.

    • 0 avatar
      WaftableTorque

      I’m always amazed how, when presented with identical facts, two people can come to two completely opposite conclusions. It seems clear to me that Tesla has done their due diligence to resolve the customers problems, and I see plenty of evidence to blame the customer in this case. If anything, this case is evidence of superior customer service.

    • 0 avatar
      daviel

      I’d say a libel suit may result. Just add another cause of action to the lemon law suit. Is Tesla aware that one significant unfixable problem is enough in most states. Tesla can afford good lawyers, who’d say stop blogging about your lawsuit.

      • 0 avatar
        Kaosaur

        They’re never making an accusation of fraud in the release, they are merely stating the facts of the situation. It only implies fraud because our bias reading those facts leads us to a conclusion of fraud.

        There’s no libel suit to be had here and no allegations being made by Tesla either.

        It’s totally probably most likely fraud though.

        • 0 avatar
          VenomV12

          Exactly, all I saw was a statement of facts. If anyone interpreted it as fraud then so be it but nowhere did I read them implicitly stating that the owner committed fraud.

  • avatar
    RogerB34

    The Tesla lawsuit is a matter to be decided in court.
    The BS about Musk and Tesla doesn’t matter.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    If Tesla wants to be a mainstream car maker, it’s going to have to deal with a customer base beyond just cheerleaders for electric cars.

    The attorney sounds like a typical blood sucking shakedown artist, but it’s incredibly dumb PR to go head to head with a customer over something like whether your product classifies as a lemon at this stage of the company. The second a customer filed a “buy-back” suit should have been when Tesla bought it back. Now you’ve given this ambulance chaser a platform.

    I honestly believe Tesla cars have FAR more problems than are being reported, most of the people that buy are likely Kool-Aid drinkers that look the other way.

  • avatar
    daviel

    Tesla said that on their blog. What does their pleading say at the courthouse? Continuing efforts to fix a problem working with the plaintiff sounds like good faith on plaintiff’s part, and inability to remedy the fault on Tesla’s part. Maybe Tesla should not blog about pending lawsuits.

  • avatar
    rolosrevenge

    Interestingly, both the lawyer and the person who’s car it is have taken to the internet to issue their rebuttals.

    http://thelawaccordingtovincemegna.blogspot.com/2014/04/rebuttal-to-teslas-blog-post.html

    http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/29803-Tesla-Lemon-Model-S-owner-Rebuttal-to-Tesla-s-Blog-Post#2

    • 0 avatar
      Japanese Buick

      I found neither of those convincing. They concentrate on legalities and process (“We sent THREE CERTIFIED LETTERS!!!!) and ignores the substance of the alleged problems. Tamper proof tape over the fuses solved the problem? That’s pretty damning.

  • avatar

    Most of the comments above don’t understand Tesla as a tech startup which places some value on being correct, as compared to the “customer is always right” attitude of most large corp pr.

    It’s possible this might not fly with the general car buying public used be being coddled with kiddy gloves, but that’s hardly Tesla’s target market anyway.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      It’s understood, it’s just a silly risk in my opinion. If they lose, the bad PR would far outweigh the glory of being right.

      • 0 avatar

        > It’s understood, it’s just a silly risk in my opinion. If they lose, the bad PR would far outweigh the glory of being right.

        I agree, it’s why corp pr does what it does.

        However, it’s still a disappointment when the conversation centers on non-conformance to some people-pleasing norm.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      A company that makes an evolutionary version of a product that has existed for over 100 years is not a “tech startup.”

      Tesla is an old-school manufacturing company, but with mouthy management who pretend that it is a tech startup. That rhetoric may dupe the shareholders, but the reality shows up in the financial statements in the form of losses and deferred R&D.

      • 0 avatar

        > A company that makes an evolutionary version of a product that has existed for over 100 years is not a “tech startup.”

        It’s worth pointing out that most “startups” are pretty tech-light. Tesla technically ranks pretty far up with substantive r&d on that scale.

        > Tesla is an old-school manufacturing company, but with mouthy management who pretend that it is a tech startup. That rhetoric may dupe the shareholders, but the reality shows up in the financial statements in the form of losses and deferred R&D.

        The biggest diff here isn’t the losses which I assure you startups generally sustain but the industry. Running some open-source SW to make a social network cost basically nothing except employees’ time.

        It’s somewhat refreshing to see some entrepreneurialism in this sector which is rare for this reason.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Tech startups are alluring because the most profitable ones can generate exceptionally high returns due to their cost structure.

          Manufacturing companies are not like tech companies; they can’t be. Manufacturers are comparatively low-margin businesses. Even successful automakers don’t generate high margins; they make their profits by producing so-so margins in high volume.

          We don’t see small, profitable independent automakers because it isn’t possible to be all of those things. The scale isn’t there, nor is the pricing power; the big guys have inherent advantages.

          • 0 avatar

            > We don’t see small, profitable independent automakers because it isn’t possible to be all of those things. The scale isn’t there, nor is the pricing power; the big guys have inherent advantages.

            Yes, the nature of the sector makes experimentation difficult. Under our current economic framework the mindsets this fosters are inherently conservative.

            I’m just pointing out that it’s nice to see someone give it a shot regardless.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There’s nothing experimental about putting batteries in a car.

            The experimental part is the effort to cope with the deficiencies of the technology by pretending that they have been fixed. Most automakers try to address those flaws by stripping out as much weight as possible and reducing the size of the battery, while Musk installs a very large battery can’t be sold profitably, and then encourages customers to charge it too quickly.

          • 0 avatar

            > There’s nothing experimental about putting batteries in a car.

            Many design elements of the car are interesting if not clever. The computer tech is par for course for a tech startup but might as well be rocket science to the car industry.

            What you’re claiming applies more to the Roadster which I also mocked in a similar way.

            > while Musk installs a very large battery can’t be sold profitably, and then encourages customers to charge it too quickly.

            Battery size/range is closely related to infrastructure support. A lot of decision-making in the early-game of startups amounts to proper compromises, even if it means losing some money for a span. Tesla is doing the right thing *if* they’re to succeed.

      • 0 avatar
        bryanska

        The perception exists that Tesla is a scrappy underdog startup, and Tesla rightly cultivates that image. It pays off.

        The classic example is Apple, who for many years went their own way. The Apple fan base has become a stereotype. It’s the new marketing model of evangelism. It works. It’s also a hell of an insulator against mistakes.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “The perception exists that Tesla is a scrappy underdog startup, and Tesla rightly cultivates that image. It pays off.”

          It does pay off. But that doesn’t make it accurate.

          Those who are under the impression that Tesla has the capability of producing Apple-like margins are in for a rude awakening.

          The fanboys are operating under the illusion that the traditional automakers are too incompetent to allow EV’s to flourish and/or are engaged in some kind of conspiracy to keep them out of the market. But the problem has always been about the inadequacies of batteries, a problem that Tesla has not fixed. This is a problem to be fixed by chemists in labs, not by manufacturing companies.

          • 0 avatar

            > the traditional automakers are too incompetent to allow EV’s to flourish

            Risk aversion is its own kind of incompetence. With the economies of scale afforded the old guard something like the S might not even lose money (or at least less than the Volt) for all the great press, but that wasn’t going to happen.

            Otherwise nobody would bother starting a company.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “Risk aversion is its own kind of incompetence”

            It’s not about risk. Battery technology just isn’t that good.

            Batteries are heavy, bulky and expensive, with poor energy density. They take a long time to recharge, and can’t be recharged in less time without damaging the battery.

            The problems in 2014 are essentially the same as they were in 1914, but for some modest evolutionary improvements that haven’t fixed the inherent disadvantages. Ignoring that isn’t courageous; it’s not even particularly smart.

          • 0 avatar

            > It’s not about risk. Battery technology just isn’t that good. The problems in 2014 are essentially the same as they were in 1914,

            Battery tech in 2014 is good enough for the 90% case, which is significantly better than 1914, with other tech to manage this at the margins and help cover the rest.

            Not a slam dunk is the standard excuse of the risk averse. The main problem here isn’t the tech per se, but the specifics of finances in car manufacturing which creates higher barriers. For example, the same attitude would’ve bet against an oriental island nation hobbled by war-time destruction, labor unions, and a poor rep beating the western giants at their own game.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            I’m not sure what abacus that you used to come up with that 90% figure, but the lack of sales would suggest that this made up statistic is more made up than it should be.

            Even with considerable subsidies, it’s difficult to lure buyers into EVs. That ought to tell you something, but it’s obvious that you have no desire to hear it.

          • 0 avatar

            > I’m not sure what abacus that you used to come up with that 90% figure,

            For every user there’s a distribution of range requirements. Given an averaged curve and some range limit it will integrate to a figure. That figure is likely quite high for 100-200 miles.

            > the lack of sales would suggest that this made up statistic is more made up than it should be.

            There’s necessarily a lack of sales for everything until there isn’t. First for portable computing devices, then pocketable devices, then wearable devices.

            A failure in popularity of said abacus in the west doesn’t necessarily imply such a device will never catch on because it’s “always going to be less useful than something large”.

            > Even with considerable subsidies, it’s difficult to lure buyers into EVs. That ought to tell you something, but it’s obvious that you have no desire to hear it.

            Good thing they sent Edward Deming to japan instead of you.

  • avatar
    Lie2me

    I hear too many grinding axes on this thread to decipher a clear message

  • avatar
    VenomV12

    The fact that this owner has filed not one but two lemon lawsuits in his lifetime and a very short period of time leads me to believe that this is fraud. I mean come on, what are the chances you will have one lemon car in your lifetime, much less two and in a very short period of time?

  • avatar

    I glanced through the Tesla forum thread created by the plaintiff and he seems to have a habit of blaming unrelated problems with other cars on his.

    This along with the video of some supposed door defect only “proving” he and his lawyers have no clue how they’re supposed to work all point to the conclusion that the facts are not going well for their case.

  • avatar
    Atum

    I used to watch Vince Megna videos on YouTube, and he’d get cars such as the Fisker Karma. The Tesla comes at no surprise.

    Now one car with an actual buyback issue: the Pathfinder. Three transmissions in those things before 10K. Ridiculous. Vince could probably spin off as Vince Megna Nissan if this problem with the Pathfinder (and the Altima as well) continues.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India