US Justice department to investigate Tesla range claims.

[CaliPorsche]

it has always surprised me that the controls on these range claims are not regulated better.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/busi...range-claim?cid=external-feeds_iluminar_yahoo

 

[Jonathan S.]

Tesla does not cheat on the test, but instead Tesla essentially studies for the test.
And the test questions are published in advance by EPA.
The fact that Tesla models come nowhere near their EPA ratings on highway roadtrips is not a factor in the EPA ratings.

The full passage alas provides no insight on this:


Certain Investigations and Other Matters

We receive requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the SEC, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and various local, state, federal and international agencies. We routinely cooperate with such regulatory and governmental requests, including subpoenas, formal and informal requests and other investigations and inquiries.

For example, the SEC had issued subpoenas to Tesla in connection with Elon Musk’s prior statement that he was considering taking Tesla private. The take-private investigation was resolved and closed with a settlement entered into with the SEC in September 2018 and as further clarified in April 2019 in an amendment. The SEC also has periodically issued subpoenas to us seeking information on our governance processes around compliance with the SEC settlement, as amended.

Separately, the Company has received requests for information, including subpoenas, from the DOJ. These have included requests for documents related to Tesla’s Autopilot and FSD features. Additionally, the Company has received requests for information, including subpoenas from the DOJ, regarding certain matters associated with personal benefits, related parties, vehicle range and personnel decisions. To our knowledge no government agency in any ongoing investigation has concluded that any wrongdoing occurred. We cannot predict the outcome or impact of any ongoing matters. Should the government decide to pursue an enforcement action, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand.

We are also subject to various other legal proceedings, risks and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. For example, during the second quarter of 2023, a foreign news outlet reported that it obtained certain misappropriated data including, purportedly, among other things, non-public Tesla business and personal information. Tesla has made notifications to potentially affected individuals (current and former employees) and regulatory authorities and we are working with certain law enforcement and other authorities. On August 5, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of all U.S. individuals impacted by the data incident, followed by several additional lawsuits, that each assert claims under various state laws and seeks monetary damages and other relief. If an unfavorable ruling or development were to occur in these or other possible legal proceedings, risks and claims, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position or brand.

 

[CaliPorsche]

Agree - but ultimately the purpose here is to allow consumers to make an informed decision.

So whether it is changing the test construct or moderating the behaviors of those taking the test (when looking for loopholes and mechanisms to skew the result) - something needs to be corrected.

And it feels like it should not be that hard to fix frankly - we use reference standards all over the world in engineering benchmarking.

To be clear I am not bashing Tesla here - but as a recent entrant to the EV world it amazed me when researching anything to do with Range how hard it was to get to a benchmark that can be used with confidence.

 

[Jonathan S.]

Agreed that the EPA test needs to be overhauled.
But I have to see any indications that Tesla has been dishonest in following the EPA testing protocols.

 

[porsche_coyote]

I suspect that this is a big nothing burger. The EPA publishes a test protocol, and Tesla has optimized for that protocol. The protocol is not representative of all driving conditions, but I will defend the EPA's test in saying that as bad as it is, that test is more realistic than the world's other major controlled test, WLTP. And either test is going to give more consistent, comparable results than some YouTube channel driving the car at 70 mph.

Don't get me wrong: I like seeing other people devise their own tests, but the EPA test is still the gold standard in terms of being carefully designed, consistently applied, and actually comparable between cars.

What this also highlights is that cars are more than 1-dimensional numbers. The combined EPA or WLTP cycle doesn't tell the whole story, and neither do 0-60 figures.

The Taycan turns out to be a better long-distance cruiser than the EPA figures suggest, and a better performance car than mere 0-60 figures would indicate.

None of the numbers out there really tell that story very well.

 

[kort]

without getting into a political rant, all I will say is that the US federal justice system has little credibility. and this remark is based not on the political issues they are embroiled in but the facts surrounding the Epstein case are being buried. WHERE IS THE GUEST LISTS?

this tesla investigation is just more political nonsense.

 

[DougFrisk]

I suspect that this is a big nothing burger. The EPA publishes a test protocol, and Tesla has optimized for that protocol. The protocol is not representative of all driving conditions, but I will defend the EPA's test in saying that as bad as it is, that test is more realistic than the world's other major controlled test, WLTP. And either test is going to give more consistent, comparable results than some YouTube channel driving the car at 70 mph.

Don't get me wrong: I like seeing other people devise their own tests, but the EPA test is still the gold standard in terms of being carefully designed, consistently applied, and actually comparable between cars.

What this also highlights is that cars are more than 1-dimensional numbers. The combined EPA or WLTP cycle doesn't tell the whole story, and neither do 0-60 figures.

The Taycan turns out to be a better long-distance cruiser than the EPA figures suggest, and a better performance car than mere 0-60 figures would indicate.

None of the numbers out there really tell that story very well.

The question is, does the EPA or WLTP number provide useful information to consumers? Arguably the WLTP is better than the EPA, but the thing about range is it just doesn't matter. Day to day, you charge at home and start every single day with plenty of range. The only time range matters is when you are making a single trip that's farther than the car's range. Even there, the charging curve is more important than the range.

Speaking of, Edumunds put out an article today on charging speed.

Edmunds EV Charging Test: How fast does each EV charge? | Edmunds

 

[porsche_coyote]

The question is, does the EPA or WLTP number provide useful information to consumers? Arguably the WLTP is better than the EPA, but the thing about range is it just doesn't matter. Day to day, you charge at home and start every single day with plenty of range. The only time range matters is when you are making a single trip that's farther than the car's range. Even there, the charging curve is more important than the range.

Speaking of, Edumunds put out an article today on charging speed.

Edmunds EV Charging Test: How fast does each EV charge? | Edmunds

Totally agree on the question of range importance relative to charging speed.

On the EPA vs. WLTP question, I think EPA's numbers are closer to real-world in US driving conditions for most vehicles (not as much for the Taycan, but the variance there is a rare case).

The Taycan is a useful illustration of this: WLTP range for the Taycan Turbo is 280 miles, a number which I've never seen even under the best conditions. Porsche have apparently re-tested the Turbo for EPA for the current model year, as the range figure is now claimed to be 238 for the EPA combined cycle, which is pretty close to my Winter combined range.

That suggests to me that EPA's figure is closer to a useful guide than WLTP, since it's more likely to reflect real-world experience.

Unfortunately, back to the whole 'no single number captures the car' point I made at the outset, the Taycan is a great road trip EV despite the relatively low EPA range figures, owing in part to its great charging performance.

 

[Jonathan S.]

Perhaps Edmunds can rework that table to reflect the typical charging speed of a derated EA in the Northeast.
Or for the new networks that Vermont is building out now from 2019 and 2020 grants comprising stations of two 50kW chargers each.

 

[Zcd1]

Speaking of, Edumunds put out an article today on charging speed.

Edmunds EV Charging Test: How fast does each EV charge? | Edmunds

This is a great resource, and it's about time someone put this together - thank for posting!

 

[Jonathan S.]

That chart is just a cruel tease for any CCS1 driving in Northern New England. My Taycan is usually not much faster charging than a Bolt.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Edmunds is useless faux data. They need to show ambient temperature, battery temperature, and use the same charger at the same time. The variables are not shown. This is no better than an observation.

 

[Zcd1]

Edmunds is useless faux data. They need to show ambient temperature, battery temperature, and use the same charger at the same time. This is no better than an observation.

How about this:

 

[Vercingetorix]

How about this:

Much better, but tests need to be repeated, what 10 times before meaningful data can be used? Only manufacturers have the money to do that.

 

[Zcd1]

Much better, but tests need to be repeated, what 10 times before meaningful data can be used? Only manufacturers have the money to do that.

LOL - okay, you let us know which OTHER semi-comprehensive resource you'd suggest we use to compare charging speeds...

I'm sure we're all ears (and eyes)