Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Tesla wants to buy out your free supercharging
I believe most of the Tesla fans actually own one and most of the skeptics never have and probably never drove one. Sent from AT Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Wednesday, May 17, 2023, 4:06 PM, EV List Lackey via EV wrote: On 17 May 2023 at 6:52, Josh Landess via EV wrote: > > "...I don't know that you have noticed, but there is quite a bit of > > Tesla negativism" here on EVDL. I fail to understand it. ..." > > I wouldn't say that there's "quite a bit of Tesla negativism" here. Maybe it seems that way to the folks who are devoted Tesla fans and loyalists. There are a few of us who have reservations about Tesla's cars, Tesla, and/or its CEO. There are also a few who seem to have unswerving loyalty to the cars, the company, and the CEO. I think that the two sides probably just about balance out. > As for myself, I have mixed views. They do not balance out to exactly > "equal", but I try to give credit ... I guess I have a summary view on > certain things. I haven't taken a survey and I don't plan to, but my impression is that most people here also fall somewhere in the middle. > In the particular case of the issue under discussion (incentives for > giving up vehicles equipped with the free supercharging), I do think > there is possibly (but not definitely) an element of sleaze to Tesla's > throttling some packs to charge at such slow rates that the owner is > incentivized to get rid of the vehicle. I expect that the diehard Tesla lovers will find a way to justify just about anything that others might call sleaze. Meanwhile, the Tesla skeptics willl say that it confirms what they always suspected. Let's face it - questionable or sleazy business practice is par for the libertarian-capitalist course. Nothing is more important than "shareholder value," ya know. In that way Tesla is pretty much like everybody else. Maybe it's just me, but that seems kind of disappointing from a company that used to talk up how they were going to save the world from ... whatever. Oh, also, "Don't be evil." So it goes. Thanks to Tesla for advancing the state of the art in EVs, and for showing other automakers, drivers, and *governments* what's possible. But NO thanks to Tesla for breaking laws - for example VOC limits - and labor standards. I read that they were also hit with more than 800 environmental lawsuits in Germany. It's amazing what Tesla get away with, usually with, at most, just a little slap on the wrist. NO thanks to Tesla for the way they've often treated their factory workers, expecially women and minorities. Lawsuits there too. And NO thanks to Tesla for control-freaking their cars. As Phil and Sharkey suggest, If they can take away features without asking you, you don't really own your Tesla. Tesla is far from the only game in town for EVs. USians have many more choices now than 10 years ago, and the selection is even wider in Europe. So I think it's a good thing having a Tesla-preference balance here on the list, and talking about it. That way you're well informed when you decide where you're going to spend your hard earned EV bucks. David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it. Use my offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Fertility is hereditary. If your parents didn't have any children, neither will you. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/30f6c1db/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Tesla wants to buy out your free supercharging
hey both told me that > > it is performing within spec, that they could upgrade the battery to > > 90 from 70 for something like $22k (new) or less if I was ok with a > > battery that was not as fresh (I don't remember the exact definition), > > but they told me that they will not guarantee that the work will > > improve the supercharging speed. I'm guessing it would, but I also > > think it's downright improper for them to ask that I spend that kind > > of money, and even be willing to spend more if there's something that > > would help address the supercharging speeds, and they just won't offer > > it. (And this is a 2015 vehicle one would think if there's some > > onboard hardware or software that is the bottleneck that it would be > > possible to upgrade it). > > > > I may disagree about the value of a battery replacement or upgrade, > > though I do think there's an issue there of whether gen1 vehicles can > > be revised to handle the latest battery technology. We can't expect a > > company to make packs of 18650 cells for dozens of years when they > > have moved on to other formats. > > > > "...I don't know that you have noticed, but there is quite a bit of > > Tesla negativism" here on EVDL. I fail to understand it. ..." > > > > I haven't paid attention, but I'm not surprised. Many EV forums I run > > across have an issue with Tesla critics and/or sycophants making the > > forum somewhat more difficult to use. As for myself, I have mixed > > views. They do not balance out to exactly "equal", but I try to give > > credit and credit where I think they are due, in all things, and in > > the case of both Tesla and its CEO, this results in mixed thinking, > > though I guess I have a summary view on certain things. In the > > particular case of the issue under discussion (incentives for giving > > up vehicles equipped with the free supercharging), I do think there is > > possibly (but not definitely) an element of sleaze to Tesla's > > throttling some packs to charge at such slow rates that the owner is > > incentivized to get rid of the vehicle. That is, they may throttle > > the speeds in the name of safety or battery longevity (I'm not sure if > > they've actually given a reason), but I question if it's in part > > because they want to provide an extra incentive for the owner to get > > out of the car. In my case, while I can say a number of good things > > about the vehicle and my experience with it, and at one time I had > > visions of upgrading the battery and keeping the vehicle for the rest > > of my life (and driving around the country free of supercharging > > fees), if I do get out of this Tesla it would probably be in trade for > > a non-Tesla long-range BEV. There are several reasons for this > > including the extremely slow supercharging speeds, the > > still-somewhat-inadequate range (compared to what I need), and some > > other issues not based on the vehicle itself. > ___ > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org > No other addresses in TO and CC fields > HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ > > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/d567839b/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/da278393/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
Re: [EVDL] Why Toyota Isn't Rushing to Sell You an Electric Vehicle
Here, you guys can get one of these. https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-3-outsold-china-hong-guang-mini-ev-2021-5? Sent from AT Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Wednesday, May 17, 2023, 6:29 PM, (-Phil-) via EV wrote: Since we are railing against the "Man" today (Auto Manufacturers): https://jalopnik.com/toyota-focusing-on-hybrids-not-electric-vehicles-1850440908 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/071ad1de/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/c15d6e49/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
[EVDL] Why Toyota Isn't Rushing to Sell You an Electric Vehicle
Since we are railing against the "Man" today (Auto Manufacturers): https://jalopnik.com/toyota-focusing-on-hybrids-not-electric-vehicles-1850440908 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/071ad1de/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Tesla wants to buy out your free supercharging
Ahh, yeah. Well I too don't like the "big brother" aspects of a connected vehicle, so I have root level access and have denied Tesla almost all access to my vehicle. They can't make any more changes, they can request logs, and my car will not report and logging. I allow the mobile app API and software notifications, but that's about it. I too couldn't justify the price of a Tesla, which is why I now only drive salvage. Selling my past salvage repairs has paid not only for the current Teslas, but also a good amount of my house. As far as the radio, all Teslas still sold from the factory historically or currently have FM. Only a really tiny subset of the older cars whose owners elected to pay Tesla a multi-kilobuck fee to upgrade their infotainment computer (MCU) are fast with the dilemma of having to spend another half kilobuck on the new FM tuner should they want to keep FM. AM is a different story, starting in 2017 the Model 3 was introduced without it. Starting in 2021, ALL models only have FM, no AM. But in their defense, AM reception in a modern vehicle is pretty poor, even more so if it's an EV. (Just too much near-field electrical noise) For Starlink, I worry it's essentially a ponzi scheme, as the satellites are only good for about 2 years, then they have to replace them. I'm not sure they will be able to afford to keep doing that, but maybe I'm wrong. Also, Elon promised $100/month, and now it's a lot more for that. On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:00 PM Mr. Sharkey wrote: > Phil; > > Oh, I have no complaints about the technology, > obviously, the vehicles are the cutting edge of > automotive advancement. Like you, however, I find > the practices of the company to be questionable, if not outright evil at > times. > > It's not that I'll ever get any first-hand > experience with the cars, however, as they are > far outside my price range, and I have brick-wall > convictions about the level of surveillance and > monitoring that they are capable of. My weekly > round-trip of 30 miles into town for groceries > doesn't justify spending the equivalent of five > or six years of my fixed social security income > on even their "lowest price" offerings. > > The FM radio comment came from this thread on the EVDL: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/ev@lists.evdl.org/maillist.html > > I'm a broadcast engineer by trade, so anything > that cuts at listener numbers comes with a high > credibility price. I did follow the link in the > tread by Paul Dove, but didn't see any solution > or work around for the noted deletion of the FM > radio, and never heard anything more about it. > EV's in general have been killing off AM radio, > as they don't want to spend the additional > research, design cost for implementing noise > suppression to cut back on interference to the > medium-wave bands. (worth noting: the AM radio in > my conversion EV works just fine) > > I suppose I have less credibility now that I am > supporting Musk's other major technology > investment, Spacex. just this month I became a > Starlink customer. It's everything it's supposed > to be and more, letting me cut the cord to the > telephone company and use my cell phone out in > the sticks. Of course, with no contract, there's > no protection from monthly service price > increases. There have been two this year of > $10/mo each. Lesee, quick math. Starlink claims > 1,000,000 paid customer accounts. At $20/mo > increase in last four months, they have an > additional $24M to launch more rockets filled > with satellites. I guess, in my own small way, > I'm paying for the next RUD (Rapid Unplanned > Disassembly, i.e. "explosion") after launch. > > I suppose we pick and choose our own personal poison. > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/1718f57e/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Tesla wants to buy out your free supercharging
On 17 May 2023 at 6:52, Josh Landess via EV wrote: > > "...I don't know that you have noticed, but there is quite a bit of > > Tesla negativism" here on EVDL. I fail to understand it. ..." > > I wouldn't say that there's "quite a bit of Tesla negativism" here. Maybe it seems that way to the folks who are devoted Tesla fans and loyalists. There are a few of us who have reservations about Tesla's cars, Tesla, and/or its CEO. There are also a few who seem to have unswerving loyalty to the cars, the company, and the CEO. I think that the two sides probably just about balance out. > As for myself, I have mixed views. They do not balance out to exactly > "equal", but I try to give credit ... I guess I have a summary view on > certain things. I haven't taken a survey and I don't plan to, but my impression is that most people here also fall somewhere in the middle. > In the particular case of the issue under discussion (incentives for > giving up vehicles equipped with the free supercharging), I do think > there is possibly (but not definitely) an element of sleaze to Tesla's > throttling some packs to charge at such slow rates that the owner is > incentivized to get rid of the vehicle. I expect that the diehard Tesla lovers will find a way to justify just about anything that others might call sleaze. Meanwhile, the Tesla skeptics willl say that it confirms what they always suspected. Let's face it - questionable or sleazy business practice is par for the libertarian-capitalist course. Nothing is more important than "shareholder value," ya know. In that way Tesla is pretty much like everybody else. Maybe it's just me, but that seems kind of disappointing from a company that used to talk up how they were going to save the world from ... whatever. Oh, also, "Don't be evil." So it goes. Thanks to Tesla for advancing the state of the art in EVs, and for showing other automakers, drivers, and *governments* what's possible. But NO thanks to Tesla for breaking laws - for example VOC limits - and labor standards. I read that they were also hit with more than 800 environmental lawsuits in Germany. It's amazing what Tesla get away with, usually with, at most, just a little slap on the wrist. NO thanks to Tesla for the way they've often treated their factory workers, expecially women and minorities. Lawsuits there too. And NO thanks to Tesla for control-freaking their cars. As Phil and Sharkey suggest, If they can take away features without asking you, you don't really own your Tesla. Tesla is far from the only game in town for EVs. USians have many more choices now than 10 years ago, and the selection is even wider in Europe. So I think it's a good thing having a Tesla-preference balance here on the list, and talking about it. That way you're well informed when you decide where you're going to spend your hard earned EV bucks. David Roden, EVDL moderator & general lackey To reach me, don't reply to this message; I won't get it. Use my offlist address here : http://evdl.org/help/index.html#supt = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Fertility is hereditary. If your parents didn't have any children, neither will you. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Tesla wants to buy out your free supercharging
Thanks Phil. I've been being very mature in my resolve to not throw in on this off-kilter topic for fear of offending the poor, downtrodden Tesla owners who are feeling persecuted here. > modifying YOUR car without YOUR permission Oh, but no, YOU may own the ~hardware~ but THEY own the software, you only get to use it in compliance with the End User Agreement License. Anyone here actually bother to read (and understand) theirs? > How many other things have they taken away secretly? What comes to mind immediately is owners coming out to their cars and finding that the recent pushed update has deleted their FM radio from the entertainment system. Sure, they can get it back - for the small fee of $500 (or so the story goes). From the outside, without sipping the Tesla Kool-Aide, it all looks like a big, expensive shell game. Cars, even big shiny, luxury electric ones, will never save the planet. ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Tesla wants to buy out your free supercharging
will not guarantee that the work will > > improve the supercharging speed. I'm guessing it would, but I also > > think it's downright improper for them to ask that I spend that kind > > of money, and even be willing to spend more if there's something that > > would help address the supercharging speeds, and they just won't offer > > it. (And this is a 2015 vehicle one would think if there's some > > onboard hardware or software that is the bottleneck that it would be > > possible to upgrade it). > > > > I may disagree about the value of a battery replacement or upgrade, > > though I do think there's an issue there of whether gen1 vehicles can > > be revised to handle the latest battery technology. We can't expect a > > company to make packs of 18650 cells for dozens of years when they > > have moved on to other formats. > > > > "...I don't know that you have noticed, but there is quite a bit of > > Tesla negativism" here on EVDL. I fail to understand it. ..." > > > > I haven't paid attention, but I'm not surprised. Many EV forums I run > > across have an issue with Tesla critics and/or sycophants making the > > forum somewhat more difficult to use. As for myself, I have mixed > > views. They do not balance out to exactly "equal", but I try to give > > credit and credit where I think they are due, in all things, and in > > the case of both Tesla and its CEO, this results in mixed thinking, > > though I guess I have a summary view on certain things. In the > > particular case of the issue under discussion (incentives for giving > > up vehicles equipped with the free supercharging), I do think there is > > possibly (but not definitely) an element of sleaze to Tesla's > > throttling some packs to charge at such slow rates that the owner is > > incentivized to get rid of the vehicle. That is, they may throttle > > the speeds in the name of safety or battery longevity (I'm not sure if > > they've actually given a reason), but I question if it's in part > > because they want to provide an extra incentive for the owner to get > > out of the car. In my case, while I can say a number of good things > > about the vehicle and my experience with it, and at one time I had > > visions of upgrading the battery and keeping the vehicle for the rest > > of my life (and driving around the country free of supercharging > > fees), if I do get out of this Tesla it would probably be in trade for > > a non-Tesla long-range BEV. There are several reasons for this > > including the extremely slow supercharging speeds, the > > still-somewhat-inadequate range (compared to what I need), and some > > other issues not based on the vehicle itself. > ___ > Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org > No other addresses in TO and CC fields > HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/ > > -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20230517/d567839b/attachment.htm> ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
Re: [EVDL] EVLN: Tesla wants to buy out your free supercharging
On 5/16/2023 11:41 AM, Willie via EV wrote: "...I don't think it is cost effective to replace a battery when it starts losing significant range..." [] "I don't personally drive the 13S85 but feel like I could live with reduced SuperCharging power rather than attempt to sue Tesla over the issue. If the limit were down to 40kw, I would be far more assertive/aggressive. ..." The max I've seen is about 70 kW, but it quickly gets below 60, then 50, then 40. I've had it checked out by the local service center and made sure they took the request seriously and they both told me that it is performing within spec, that they could upgrade the battery to 90 from 70 for something like $22k (new) or less if I was ok with a battery that was not as fresh (I don't remember the exact definition), but they told me that they will not guarantee that the work will improve the supercharging speed. I'm guessing it would, but I also think it's downright improper for them to ask that I spend that kind of money, and even be willing to spend more if there's something that would help address the supercharging speeds, and they just won't offer it. (And this is a 2015 vehicle one would think if there's some onboard hardware or software that is the bottleneck that it would be possible to upgrade it). I may disagree about the value of a battery replacement or upgrade, though I do think there's an issue there of whether gen1 vehicles can be revised to handle the latest battery technology. We can't expect a company to make packs of 18650 cells for dozens of years when they have moved on to other formats. "...I don't know that you have noticed, but there is quite a bit of Tesla negativism" here on EVDL. I fail to understand it. ..." I haven't paid attention, but I'm not surprised. Many EV forums I run across have an issue with Tesla critics and/or sycophants making the forum somewhat more difficult to use. As for myself, I have mixed views. They do not balance out to exactly "equal", but I try to give credit and credit where I think they are due, in all things, and in the case of both Tesla and its CEO, this results in mixed thinking, though I guess I have a summary view on certain things. In the particular case of the issue under discussion (incentives for giving up vehicles equipped with the free supercharging), I do think there is possibly (but not definitely) an element of sleaze to Tesla's throttling some packs to charge at such slow rates that the owner is incentivized to get rid of the vehicle. That is, they may throttle the speeds in the name of safety or battery longevity (I'm not sure if they've actually given a reason), but I question if it's in part because they want to provide an extra incentive for the owner to get out of the car. In my case, while I can say a number of good things about the vehicle and my experience with it, and at one time I had visions of upgrading the battery and keeping the vehicle for the rest of my life (and driving around the country free of supercharging fees), if I do get out of this Tesla it would probably be in trade for a non-Tesla long-range BEV. There are several reasons for this including the extremely slow supercharging speeds, the still-somewhat-inadequate range (compared to what I need), and some other issues not based on the vehicle itself. ___ Address messages to ev@lists.evdl.org No other addresses in TO and CC fields HELP: http://www.evdl.org/help/
