Tesla Sued Because ‘Insane Mode’ Isn’t Insane Enough

According to 126 Tesla customers, the Model S sedan P85D performance version can eat dirt, because its “insane mode” isn’t as insane as the company claims.

Bloomberg reports that the customers, who live in Norway, have now filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk’s automotive company. They’re looking for “unspecified reimbursements” because they believe the car’s “insane mode” isn’t exactly as advertised.

“[It] has too low horsepower,” Kaspar N. Thommessen, a lawyer for the customers, told Bloomberg. “And of course, it affects the car’s performance, according to the consumers.” One customer told the Norwegian newspaperDagens Næringsliv that the car’s advertised horsepower—700—and its acceleration claims—0 to 60 mph in roughly 3.3 seconds—were total bullshit. (In 2015, Consumer Reports noted that it took 3.5 seconds.)

Tesla, for its part, said that tests from both the company and outside groups show the stated specifications are indeed accurate. “[The tests have] demonstrated that the Model S P85D’s acceleration and motor-power numbers have always been accurate … [and] confirmed as accurate by European regulatory authorities,” a Tesla spokesman told Bloomberg.

In June, Norway’s Consumer Council ruled against Tesla in a similar case, awarding Model S P85D buyers about $6,000 each over claims the car didn’t meet its power specifications. But as the website Electrek explained at the time, that dispute may have been more a symptom of deceptive advertising rather than outright lying:

The issue revolved around the way Tesla was listing the power of its motors for the Model S P85D, which has two motors. When first introducing the vehicle, Tesla was marketing the vehicle as having a combined motor output of 691 hp (467 in the back and 224 in the front).

While those are indeed the correct outputs of each motor, the vehicle was never able to achieve those numbers due to several other limitations than only the combined potential output of the motors.

Tesla claimed that they always made it clear that the numbers were for the motors and not the vehicle itself. The automaker also highlighted that it didn’t actually change the actual performance ratings of the Model S P85D, but some owners still felt deceived.

Either way, for upwards of $100,000, it’s not surprising at least a few customers are quibbling over the car’s performance. According to Bloomberg, the Oslo District Court will hear the case in mid-December.

The most recent dustup is yet another in Tesla’s long line of new headaches. Yesterday, we reported that hackers were able to infiltrate the Model S from 12 miles away; last week, the company and Autopilot supplier Mobileye got into a public fight over safety concerns. And then there was the lawsuit Tesla filed last week against an oil executive, claiming he impersonated Elon Musk using a dumb Yahoo email address.

Hey, Elon, you doing okay, buddy? Do you need a facial or something? Maybe some wine?

Read More

Tesla’s New Lease Financing Disclosure: Who Writes This Stuff?

Beyond the minimal short-term effect of the new announced financing agreement, the fact that Tesla continues to choose every way possible to “spin” its narrative in a dissembling way is another red flag for Tesla investors. The Deutsche Bank financing agreement is just a drop in the bucket of all of the capital that Tesla will need over the next three years but the company just couldn’t resist suggesting otherwise. What’s amazing to me is that there is also not a lot more scrutiny about Tesla’s claims that its May 2016 financing was supposed to be all the capital needed to support “full production” of the Model 3 and to complete any additional investment needed for the Gigafactory.

Read More

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket explosion: news, updates, analysis

On Thursday, September 1st, one of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets exploded on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida. The incident occurred as SpaceX was preparing the vehicle for an upcoming launch, which would have sent the Israeli communications satellite Amos 6 into orbit. To see if the Falcon 9 was ready for the mission, the rocket was about to undergo a static fire test — in which the main engines are turned on while the vehicle is constrained. But as propellant was being loaded into the Falcon 9 for the test, an explosion occurred around the upper portion of the rocket. Follow along here for the latest news about the accident as SpaceX tries to figure out what went wrong.

Read More