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. 

    • bloopernova@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dunno. The musky chodelet has avoided consequences for his actions so far. I doubt there will be any significant change or punishment for tesla.

      • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        His simps will just run interference for him. Stupid shit like “well yeah range is lower because , it’s science bro.”

      • idkwhatimdoing@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is a single thing about Twitter that has gotten better? Selling my Tesla for an electric Mustang was the best choice I’ve made in a while.

        I don’t give really a shit about him, but from the dropoff in Twitter’s usage and value to production and publicity issues at Tesla and cutting off the Ukraine army’s access to Starlink, it seems there’s, well, a lot to hate about him. And like he might not be that good at his job.

        • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I really wish Ford would have named that vehicle something different and made a kick ass electric muscle car for the mustang name.

          Also the account you’re replying to is 5 hours old.

        • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The starlink thing is a bit more complicated then that. https://apnews.com/article/spacex-ukraine-starlink-russia-air-force-fde93d9a69d7dbd1326022ecfdbc53c2

          Tldr: Starlink had been providing Ukraine Starlink access for free and specifically didn’t allow them to use it in Crimea only. They weren’t under a military contract or anything that would have required them to do so and I can definitely see the perspective that it would be a bigger step as Crimea is contested land in a different way than Ukraine as a whole.

          When Russia took over Crimea, they did it in such a way that it wasn’t a full invasion and was cloaked in “the people voted to be part of Russia” though we know there were many shenanigans afoot such as a “not Russian” military presence and it’s pretty obvious it was in response to the Revolution of Dignity within Ukraine.

          Anyway, the US didn’t provide Ukraine with weapons or anything like that to defend themselves from Russia at that point (which, to be fair it wasn’t even close to the same situation as when Russia actually invaded Ukraine) though they did slap a bunch of sanctions on Russia and wagged their finger at them.

          So Crimea is a bit of a different situation and the US govt had been pretty clear at that time that Ukraine should only be using the US provisions for defensive purposes, not for attacking Russia, which Crimea could be construed as being part of Russia. Not to mention at the time Russia was very much threatening nuclear war.

          Ultimately, it’s a much more complicated situation then a lot of people prefer to actually discuss and instead will immediately label you an Elon lover or Russian apologist or Tankies or w/e if you don’t pretend it’s a black and white good/bad situation.

          For example, Ukraine does literally have a Nazi batallion in their military, (Azov) and the US is indirectly funding and providing them with weapons with very little oversight. I think that’s wrong and should be called out, however pretty much any discussion of that in the MSM or by people of congress gets you labeled a Putin supporter or Russian propagandist.

          For an even more recent example, look at what’s been going on in Israel/Palestine over the past several decades. Israel has systematically fucked over the Palestinian people, which has bred a far right terroristic group (Hamas) and lead to thousands upon thousands of deaths on both sides (but mostly Palestinians) and you have people on MSM calling for basically genocide of the Palestinians and Jewish celebrities claiming persecution if you don’t agree with every word of the Israel line, yet even the Israeli citizens don’t agree with what their government has been doing.

          There’s so much gray and mess in these situations but instead of thoughtfully look at the underlying causes and potential real reasons these things are happening (it’s not just because Musk sucks, Putin sucks, and Hamas sucks, and the Israeli government sucks, though they do don’t get me wrong) everyone just picks a team and ignores any truthful pushback.

          I ended up writing way more then I intended to, my b.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        as someone who makes an appropriate income enough to afford a Tesla

        7h old account that posts nothing but inflammatory comments. I guess shitposting is paying 6 figures nowadays?

  • silverbax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “If we are investigated and it turns out we lied to get more sales, it could hurt our sales if we can’t continue to lie about our products.”

  • vector_zero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get where they’re coming from.

    If there’s a probe that results in no substantial findings, it would likely still impact sales for some period of time, simply because there was a probe. In that case, Tesla’s concern is justified.

    If, however, they do find that Tesla is exaggerating their range, then I hope the lawsuit is spectacular and expensive.

    My parents have a Tesla (they bought it used), and its range is shite.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      … which is why there won’t be a probe unless there are findings first. And from the sounds of it, there are findings.

      If Tesla really did create a “special team” to deal with this issue, then that means it’s very much a real issue. Reuters is a reliable publication - they would have gathered evidence before reporting that.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just goes to show that you should not create a situation where a probe like that is justified. This is all Tesla’s own fault.

    • Toto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think Tesla is above wild swigs in public perception. You’re likely already in a camp.

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        On the market, like most companies, they’re most definitely not above wild swings in public “perception”

          • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think there’s a bit of a real anti-musk sentiment that is partially real and fair and partially extremely overblown.

            Musk isn’t a great guy, but I can’t say I know a single billionaire that is. I have many friends who own Teslas and by all accounts they’re great cars, I just went and checked out a new Model X my friend purchased and it looks great, feels great, sounds great and is arguebly better for the environment then most ICE cars. I wanted a Tesla for a long time too because it was the only viable option for quite a while and without a doubt pushed other companies to try and catch up, which is a good thing without a sliver of a doubt it my mind.

            I don’t know if I’d say Musk is a Nazi, but he definitely says some idiotic shit and outright lies for his own gain, but again that’s certainly not a Musk-specific problem. We had fucking Donald Trump as president.

            Edit: guess I’m in a ranting mood

            It is honestly humorous how much Musk has managed to thoroughly destroy his reputation with the centristy crowd, Tesla was beloved as was SpaceX for genuinely pushing the envelope for what American companies could do, most of that praise should go to the actual engineers making those things possible. You’d have 'muricans coal rolling Teslas and actively destroying them out in public, now the right sorta like Musk because of how he took down a lot of the censorship at Twitter (which… Honestly I am torn about, because I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, but it’s a private company yada yada don’t want to get into that aspect it’s a whole other can of worms) and the Left (who already weren’t a fan of Musk for the most part) and the centrists absolutely hate him.

            I don’t know what calculous he thought he was doing, probably something about his bottom line and how the left is much more pro-tax the rich whereas he can fleece the right much easier with the, “one day you could be insanely wealthy like me” line.

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    ·
    1 year ago

    If enforcement of federal laws does not cause a “material adverse impact” the penalty is far too low.

  • hogunner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “…But investigating my frauding will affect my ability to continue profiting off my fraud.”

    -Elon probably

  • Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh boo hoo!!!

    If you need to lie to your customers to make a buck you don’t deserve to be in business.

    Tesla and Elmo can both eat a dick.

    • Chocrates@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Elon is an idiot but if we could get him to fuck off to an island somewhere I’m hoping Tesla can still do some good.
      I think they lit a fire under the big car companies and made them invest in electric. They are still playing catch-up.

      But yeah I want Elon to disappear and stop being a dip shit.

      • penquin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        True. I also disagree that he’s an idiot. He’s just an evil/asshole person.

          • hansl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not a fan of Musk but dumb luck will only get you so far. He’s been successful for too long to be a stumbling idiot. Maybe a successful market manipulator that never got caught, or a great salesman for his ventures, but I wouldn’t use idiot to describe him.

            And the “he started with millions” doesn’t cut it fully either. He’s the richest man on earth, surely he had to bet on the right things more than once.

            He just never should be at the helm of a company structured like Twitter was. Apparently Tesla built their VP level around Musk with great success.

  • db2@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cry more you little incompetent trust fund shit. (Elon, not OP)

  • Joker
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is an SEC filing. They are required to disclose to investors that this is going on and could impact their investment. Pretty standard stuff. They are not complaining that the feds are hurting their business or scaring people away from buying their cars - at least not in this filing. All they are saying is there’s this significant thing going on that could have an impact on the company’s value.

    It would probably be smart for Tesla to settle this quickly and quietly because their range estimates are completely bonkers. Some kind of “agree to disagree on testing methods and we will pay up and do a better job” thing without this going too far. A VW diesel-gate kind of situation would be devastating to them. Elon is such a polarizing figure to begin with and there are some pretty good EV alternatives out there now. The only real killer feature they have left is the Supercharger network. Before anyone says FSD, it’s a scam and it doesn’t work.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I might bring wrong here but I’m pretty sure the claim in the title is incorrect?

      Tesla is under numerous investigations which are all disclosed in thar same filing, and any one of them could lead to what the title says.

      The title makes it sound like it’s THIS specific one.

      This could do nothing for example, but the AP one could be really bad? Tesla isn’t signaling out which one it thinks is the most materially damaging if they have to do something.

      • Joker
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe you are correct. Maybe they are latching onto the range issue because it affects every Tesla owner, past and present. Also very easy to prove.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Tesla doesn’t lie about the EPA range though. It’s reproducible even if those aren’t “real world” driving. If we want real world driving numbers that’s up to the EPA to change the methodology.

          Range displayed is always just an estimate anyway, with so many variables. If they’ve fudged what gets displayed somehow that is clearly bad and we need to know, but the EPA range (edit: on a brand new vehicle) is legit. I dont see how them being wrong on this would be so dire.

          I think the AP investigations are a much bigger problem and also impact nearly all Teslas. What if Tesla has to disable AP or can’t let people beta test FSD which could grind their data collection to a halt? That seems immensely more material adverse to me

          Edit: clarity, but also to add, what if they can’t even sell FSD period.

          • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, you definitely need to be careful and the conditions need to be close to ideal, but I routinely get the rated range in a model 3 without any trouble. It’s like any other car though - elevation change, weather and driving habits play big roles in efficiency. The car also has nearly 500hp on the top end so it’s very easy to kill your trip efficiency with even just one or two bursts of high acceleration.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sort of yes and sort of no.

            Tesla displays the vehicles “range” as the EPA range minus any battery degradation. The number doesn’t fluctuate otherwise.

            However, if you plus a destination into the trip computer, it actually computes the estimated efficiency and you can estimate the range from it.

            Every other EV instead has a “guess-o-meter” which estimates the remaining range of your car based on current driving habits and derived efficiency by looking at the recent X number of miles driven… this gives you a good range estimate which automatically factors in recent weather, terrain and driving habits. It also takes into consideration your current battery health.

            Only the trip computer is particularly accurate. Tesla has theirs, while everyone can download the app abetterrouteplanner.

            Personally, I think it’s a relatively non-issue. Rather, there is a methodological difference between estimating the range. Gas cars, otoh existed for 100 years without having a range estimator.

            • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, it’s top line number is basically the estimated range at 250WH/mi given the cars estimate of battery capacity.

              It’s not hard to get or even beat 250WH/mi in good weather on relatively flat highway if you are moderately careful about it. It’s definitely an upper limit though, which I think is appropriate. I don’t care how much range the car has with a lead foot. Top Gear showed that an M3 can get better mileage than a Prius when both are doing performance laps, so that’s kind of just a dumb way to measure range/efficiency.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A VW diesel-gate kind of situation would be devastating to them.

      Dieselgate is estimated to have killed 5,000 people per year in Europe alone (and they were selling those cars worldwide).

      There is a big difference between lying about how far your car will go on a charge and releasing toxic (and illegal) chemicals into the air while the car is driving… especially when the car has the capability to capture those chemicals but the system was deliberately setup to only activate while the car was undergoing safety checks.

      VW’s “solution” to the scandal was to basically do what Tesla is accused of right now. They modified the car to give it worse MPG in winter than what was advertised to buyers (as far as I know, the system to capture chemicals requires a lot of heat, and you need to run the engine at higher RPM to create enough heat in winter).

      • Joker
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where I’m going with the comparison to VW is we don’t know where that rabbit hole goes with Tesla. Diesel-gate just kept getting worse for VW the more investigators dug into it. Tesla appears to be an even less professional operation. I can only imagine what would come out if there was a real investigation there.