Range Extender Class Action Claim

[mhaze]

This is dumb.. they refunded the deposit so there are no damages. You purchased the truck just like it stated on the order. The possibility of a future accessory is not relevant. If they didn’t refund your deposit for the range extender, they you might have a case.

I'm not even seeing the supposed "class". Cancellation was said to be due to "a lack of demand" which directly means that the pack wasn't wanted by very many people.

• People that put a deposit of $100 down on a three motor truck?
• Of those, people who later put down the $1000 deposit on a deliverable configured Cyberbeast?
• Those who paid the Beast price, and got the Beast?
• Of those, the subgroup who were later unhappy when the extended battery pack was cancelled?
• Of those, the further subgroup who felt grievously injured by the cancellation?
• And of those, the tiny part so injured as to imagine legal remedies?

The speed of the shrinking of the "CLASS"...

Is it a Class of One?

Sponsored

 

[mongo]

I'm not even seeing the supposed "class". Cancellation was said to be due to "a lack of demand" which directly means that the pack wasn't wanted by very many people.

• People that put a deposit of $100 down on a three motor truck?
• Of those, people who later put down the $1000 deposit on a deliverable configured Cyberbeast?
• Those who paid the Beast price, and got the Beast?
• Of those, the subgroup who were later unhappy when the extended battery pack was cancelled?
• Of those, the further subgroup who felt grievously injured by the cancellation?
• And of those, the tiny part so injured as to imagine legal remedies?

The speed of the shrinking of the "CLASS"...

Is it a Class of One?

I fit the first 4 bullet points.
5th not so much because the theoretically weight numbers made things questionable. Which led to almost purchasing an AWD with unlimited supercharging while Range Extender was still listed as an option to create the best towing configuration. Had that happened, I'd fit numbers 5 and 6 and be pushing to know when they were more likely than not to cancel it.

In the alternate universe where they did make and sell it, the lawsuits would likely be regarding performance and reliability (it possibly would have had two of the problematic PCS modules)
https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/range-extender-details-from-patent.54724/

 

[dalton108]

Just for my malpractice insurance and any of my bar associations: I’m not participating in this forum as a lawyer. Nothing I’ve written or suggested should be construed as any type of legal advice. If I were anyone’s lawyer that would be explicitly stated and agreed to. Short of that, I’m not anyone’s lawyer. Nothing I write in this forum is legal advice.

 

[REM]

Just for my malpractice insurance and any of my bar associations: I’m not participating in this forum as a lawyer. Nothing I’ve written or suggested should be construed as any type of legal advice. If I were anyone’s lawyer that would be explicitly stated and agreed to. Short of that, I’m not anyone’s lawyer. Nothing I write in this forum is legal advice.

but is THIS disclaimer considered legal advice?

 

[mhaze]

I fit the first 4 bullet points.
5th not so much because the theoretically weight numbers made things questionable. Which led to almost purchasing an AWD with unlimited supercharging while Range Extender was still listed as an option to create the best towing configuration. Had that happened, I'd fit numbers 5 and 6 and be pushing to know when they were more likely than not to cancel it.

In the alternate universe where they did make and sell it, the lawsuits would likely be regarding performance and reliability (it possibly would have had two of the problematic PCS modules)
https://www.cybertruckownersclub.com/forum/threads/range-extender-details-from-patent.54724/

The world views here are intriguing.

Perceive the market appetite and build for the widest part of that, and propose an option then delete it if it doesn't fit within that view, versus submit to the whim of a customer who perceives himself as the victim, without regard for the broader realities.

70wHr is added by a battery pack extender, and that gives 130 miles of range. But the CT is a truck with a truck bed. We can put tanks of diesel in it to fill up the toys. We can put tanks of gas in it for other toys. And we can put battery packs in it for things that want batteries.

And Guess What? We can buy battery packs at Amazon. Here's a 40kWh pack (the Tesla option was 50)

https://www.amazon.com/Dawnice-Lithium-Battery（2Sets-Mounted-Storage/dp/B0FSRYLRZQ

So whatever injustices are perceived within the Tesla product cancellation discussed here, it has to go beyond "Absence or Presence" of the item. Similar items are widely available from alternative suppliers.

And it's a competitive market, in which any company is able to build a battery pack with a form and fit tailored to the CT. I bet Tesla'd even make a deal to get it done and help.

It's certainly nice that I have the time to discuss the finer points of this issue. But I do because of the 2-3 extra hours per day that I have as a result of the Tesla self driving freed up.

 

[mongo]

The world views here are intriguing.

70wHr is added by a battery pack extender, and that gives 130 miles of range. But the CT is a truck with a truck bed. We can put tanks of diesel in it to fill up the toys. We can put tanks of gas in it for other toys. And we can put battery packs in it for things that want batteries.

And Guess What? We can buy battery packs at Amazon. Here's a 40kWh pack (the Tesla option was 50)

https://www.amazon.com/Dawnice-Lithium-Battery（2Sets-Mounted-Storage/dp/B0FSRYLRZQ

So whatever injustices are perceived within the Tesla product cancellation discussed here, it has to go beyond "Absence or Presence" of the item. Similar items are widely available from alternative suppliers.

It's certainly nice that I have the time to discuss the finer points of this issue. But I do because of the 2-3 extra hours per day that I have as a result of the self driving freed up my time.

There is a huge chasm between mobile recharging solutions and integrated range extention. There is no similar item.

Any 120V/240V AC based recharging solution is limited to the 11.5kW onboard charger which is too slow for practical use as an extender. 40kWh would take 3.5 hours to transfer and gain me 30 or less miles. Faster to drop the trailer, go Supercharger, come back for it, then Supercharge again.

Any higher rate recharging system needs HV DC output and CCS signaling which requires custom electronics or three phase 480V power to run the majority of off the shelf units.
Battery based systems then need recharged at their rate, somehow.

40kWh of additional integrated battery capacity boosts range 30% without increasing Supercharging time. Rather, it can reduce charging time both because of increased distance between stops, and by reducing the departure SOC avoiding the worst part of the charge curve. The base pack already doesn't max out SpC over most of the curve, so the extender can charge without adding to the session duration.

 

[dalton108]

There is a huge chasm between mobile recharging solutions and integrated range extention. There is no similar item.

Any 120V/240V AC based recharging solution is limited to the 11.5kW onboard charger which is too slow for practical use as an extender. 40kWh would take 3.5 hours to transfer and gain me 30 or less miles. Faster to drop the trailer, go Supercharger, come back for it, then Supercharge again.

Any higher rate recharging system needs HV DC output and CCS signaling which requires custom electronics or three phase 480V power to run the majority of off the shelf units.
Battery based systems then need recharged at their rate, somehow.

40kWh of additional integrated battery capacity boosts range 30% without increasing Supercharging time. Rather, it can reduce charging time both because of increased distance between stops, and by reducing the departure SOC avoiding the worst part of the charge curve. The base pack already doesn't max out SpC over most of the curve, so the extender can charge without adding to the session duration.

Correct it’s not a substitute. And as to your earlier point, I can check all five of the first six bullets points. The issue is not whether there is a potential class of people who could seek legal remedies, the issue is there is no breach of any duty owed to us.

They proposed to sell a product and subsequently decided that they wouldn’t and returned our money. Nothing about the range extender qualifies as an inducement for us to separate separately by the truck knowing full well what we were bargaining for which in the case of a Cyberbeast was a truck with a 300 mile range.

At the time of purchase you were offered the opportunity to pre-order a different planned product that might improve that range. That’s it. Those are two separate offerings.

That’s why there’s no lawsuit here, not because there aren’t a class of people who are similarly situated that could join together if there was some breach on behalf of Tesla. There just isn’t any breach on that front.

As I’ve said before, there is a big potential class action lawsuit depending on how Tesla decides to navigate the various offers that they’ve made with respect to FSD. At no time was my agreement limited to “supervised” FSD.

A lot of people don’t understand that they have been relegated to that specific limited offering. I was promised full autonomy not supervised semi autonomy. There are many many people who are in the same class as I am. There are many people who are not.

If Elon tries to make me purchase some additional subscription or in any way thinks that I’m going to pay him more money for full autonomy he will see me in court. Not everyone is in that position and I think there are a lot of people who do not understand that.

The state of California did Tesla a big favor when they made them change what they were calling their product, or what it was that they were offering for sale from FSD to “FSD supervised.” I’m assuming that Tesla and their lawyers understand that there’s a period of time for where the offer they were making and the one I accepted on several of my cars was full autonomy at some point in the future.

If not, that’s what courtrooms are for.

 

[CT_AZ_4x4]

but is THIS disclaimer considered legal advice?

Only to the extent that it is NOT legal advice, lol.

 

[mongo]

Correct it’s not a substitute. And as to your earlier point, I can check all five of the first six bullets points. The issue is not whether there is a potential class of people who could seek legal remedies, the issue is there is no breach of any duty owed to us.

Just for the record, it wasn't my point. I was providing my unique conformance to the previous poster's class filter.

 

[dalton108]

Just for the record, it wasn't my point. I was providing my unique conformance to the previous poster's class filter.

That’s fair. I understood that you were being rhetorical. I only used the word “point” for lack of a better term. I know you weren’t arguing pro class action.

 

[bg002h]

@CT_AZ_4x4 like myself is one of a handful of lawyers that are regulars here (though we are not YOUR lawyers). He’s already given you a rundown of how your hypothetical lawsuit would go down.

Neither misrepresentation, nor fraudulent inducement, nor any concepts (or law) related to real property are relevant to your situation. You’ve stated that you’re not a lawyer. That’s obvious. My best advice for you would be to consult one. Get this out of your system, by having someone who is licensed in the great state of California explain this to you and move on.

And yes sometimes people here can be aggressive and not particularly kind. Like anywhere else there’s a mix of people. You have some rabid fanbois, some cranks, some pedantic assholes (), some very smart ladies and some pretty cool and funny dudes.

What you might be missing here is that you’re not finding a lot of support for the idea of a class action lawsuit. The consistency in the feedback that you’re getting ought to tell you something.

But again, the best way for you to evaluate whether you have a meritorious claim against Tesla along the lines you suggest is not to get on the Internet on an owners forum (which is generally going to be a place peopled by folks who are fans of the car in question). It’s to engage a lawyer in your jurisdiction who can counsel you regarding your options and available remedies, if any.

Exactly. You can not win suit just because someone else is a douche. That’s not how it works.

 

[CyberGus]

Exactly. You can not win suit just because someone else is a douche. That’s not how it works.

For this, I am grateful

 

[bg002h]

For this, I am grateful

Well, don’t be too grateful. Any lawyer will tell you that you can sue just about anyone for anything…but good lawyers point out there are things that have no injury or remedy and courts aren’t there to force apologies and silly things like that.

Do I think Tesla broke many promises? Yeah, of course. But broken promises are like… part of life…imagine if every kid sued his dad for missing his kids ball game or big recital?

 

[sefar]

The CT will arrive by date a, no b, no c, no d…x10
CT will have 500 mile range
Ct will have a ranger extender for sale
CT will be an exoskeleton design, allowing for larger door openings than other cars
CT will have solar tonneau cover
CT will have t-slot tracks in the bed floor for securing cargo
CT will seat 6
CT will have FSD (not sfsd)
CT will have ASS
CT will tilt to allow you to drive your four wheeler or motor bike up the ramp that deploys out from the tailgate
CT FS will have off road lights

I do not believe this is an exhaustive list of things Tesla said they would do but failed to deliver. And I’m not counting things that are implicitly promised such as our gas pedals won’t fall over and get stuck at 100% accelerator and all the other glue related failures.

All these shenanigans, while obviously scummy things to do to trick people, I don’t believe are actually illegal. Kinda like how diamonds up until maybe 10-15 years ago could be filled with clear glue to make them look like precious stones…such malfeasance is so common in the market place of scammers that prosecuting all is infeasible thus caveat emptor.

Red Bull doesn't give you actual wings either. Nothing illegal in anything here as in against the law or criminal. Unless the promise is a binding contract in the state where it was given (TLDR, it isn't) there is no civil claim for any of that stuff.

The law would write it off as puffery or marketing spiel in this context. It was stated before the vehicle was introduced after all, not told you by a salesperson at delivery. Given the level of knowledge of many of the Tesla salesfolk I have encountered who had to Google to answer my questions, I would never put much faith in anything they said.

 

[dpoll995]

lol I can’t believe this thread is 10 pages long now.. talk about a waste of space…

Sponsored