Tesla "Reduce Matching" Provoke Controversy: What Kind Of "Core" Do You Have In Your Car?

Tesla is on the cusp of hardware configuration.

Recently, Tesla owners revealed that the models of vehicle controllers installed on the domestic Model 3 purchased by them were not consistent with those listed on the vehicle list.

According to the domestic Model 3 "list of vehicles for environmental protection information of electric vehicles", the vehicle controller type of the model is Hardware 3 (HW3.0), but the owners said that the actual configuration of the vehicle is Hardware 2.5 (HW2.5).

This is not an example. Many Model 3 owners encountered the same situation. After seeing the news, the owner quickly checked himself and found that his car was also equipped with Hardware2.5.

Tesla was quickly surrounded by public opinion. Some people jokingly commented that the new car thought it was the first prize, but unexpectedly received the reply of "thank you patronage", which is a lottery shopping experience.

This is not the first time Tesla has fallen into product controversy. In fact, before the vehicle controller was exposed to "reduce distribution", some owners also reflected that the same model and the same price car carried different specifications of batteries, resulting in different mileage of vehicles.

In March 3rd, Tesla issued a statement on the official micro-blog, acknowledges the existence of the vehicle controller's "reduction matching" delivery, and said that the owner of the home-made car that has been put on the car now can make an appointment to replace HW3.0 as long as it carries HW2.5 on the vehicle. However, such a statement did not calm down the dissatisfaction of all consumers. The owner thought Tesla was suspected of being "fraudulent" and asked for replacement of accessories and compensation for losses. Some Model 3 owners who had not been included in the free upgrade sequence were dissatisfied. They thought Tesla was "discriminate".

In March 10th, the Ministry of industry and commerce also intervened in the matter, interviewed Tesla, and ordered it to rectify immediately according to the relevant provisions to ensure consistency in production and product quality and safety.

Some people know how to "reduce" after exposure.

"The 3 China made in February 27th was upgraded to the latest version 4.2, and the ice cream bucket was not shown. Is it HW2.5's car? It's not that domestic is 3? " In February 28th, Mr. Shen, from Suzhou, Jiangsu, sent out such a micro-blog.

Mr. Shen was one of the first Tesla owners to find the domestic Model 3 not configured HW3.0. After the above micro-blog issued, there were other micro-blog accounts in Tesla micro-blog's message, referring to the matter.

Mr. Model, the 3 homeowner from Tianjin, told reporters on twenty-first Century economic report that after Tesla chips were exposed, he immediately asked his staff to list their own cars. The list shows that the HW3.0 chip he bought was built, but soon he knew that the HW2.5 chip was actually loaded.

What is the difference between HW3.0 and HW2.5? From the name, the version is different, but in fact, HW2.5 is a product of Tesla's cooperation with NVIDIA. HW3.0 is Tesla's self driving chip. According to Tesla's introduction, HW3.0's image processing capability is 21 times that of HW2.5, and its computing power has increased by about 7 times.

In March 3rd, Tesla released the statement on "China made Model 3 EIA list" on top of official micro-blog. Tesla in official micro admitted that, based on the Shanghai super factory supply chain status, part of the standard renewal of the upgraded version of Model 3 installed hardware is indeed HW2.5.

Tesla also proposed a solution, saying that with the capacity and supply chain recovery, the HW2.5 Model 3 owners will be free to replace HW3.0 as planned.

But not everyone can be satisfied with the above approach. "I don't accept it. You don't have to upgrade me." Mr. Hong said, "what I bought is HW3.0. How can I upgrade it? It means that you lied to me and I found it. Now I will pay for it. Do I have to thank you? This is obviously a fraud. "

Many owners have similar ideas, and some even suggested that Tesla was suspected of "fraud" and should "return a compensation three". Recently, news came out that some domestic car owners were collecting evidence and preparing for collective prosecution.

However, in combination with the definition standards of legal provisions, judicial interpretations and the typical cases of the Supreme People's court, there are still many difficulties in the claim of fraud and "retreat one compensate three" advocated by Tesla owners. In practical cases, courts often consider various factors, such as whether the two sides have made specific agreements on related matters, whether the problem is serious, whether the handling measures are complex, and whether they have caused greater adverse effects on consumers.

In March 11th, in an exclusive interview with the economic report reporters in twenty-first Century, Wu Feng, director and partner of Langcheng law firm in Beijing, said that in actual litigation, the plaintiff needs to prepare for the collection of evidence from the legal definition standard and the factual level, including how to use evidence to transform objective facts into legal facts.

Imported cars also have "reduced distribution".

In addition to the domestic Model 32019 years of delivery of imported models also appeared the same situation.

A referee obtained by the economic news reporters in twenty-first Century showed that a car owner from Chengdu, Sichuan got the Tesla purchased in May 2019, but the autopilot chip of the car was not the 3 version of its request.

"The plaintiff has repeatedly asked for the purchase of vehicle chips before paying for the purchase of vehicles and delivery of vehicles. The latest version 3 is not the old version of 2.5. The defendant also confirmed that the vehicle purchased was 3 in the sales process. But the plaintiff on the 20 day of May 2019, after Tesla after-sales service telephone inquiries, the purchase of vehicles for the 2.5 version of the old chip. The referee document shows.

Why does the owner insist on the 3 version of the chip? The explanation in the referee's document is that Tesla's publicity, press releases and news reports are clear that Tesla vehicle handling of the driverless chip is version 3, which involves pilotless driving, and the 3 version of the chip is more capable of processing at high speed and ensuring safety.

The owner of the car took Tesla to court, and clearly put forward the idea of "repaying three claims": returning the car purchase amount to 439 thousand and 500 yuan and paying the purchase tax 39 thousand and 700 yuan, and at the same time, it should pay 1 million 318 thousand and 500 yuan.

However, the above referee did not decide on the appeal, but transferred the case to the people's Court of Daxing District, Beijing, on the grounds of jurisdiction objection. After the plaintiff appealed again, the people's Court of the Chengdu hi tech Industrial Development Zone re accepted the case. At present, there is no more public information in the case.

It needs to be pointed out that after the chip "reduction" event was fermented, owners of large number of imported models joined the ranks of rights protection. However, Tesla did not promise to import car owners to upgrade chips free of charge.

In March 13th, an insider from Tesla China told the twenty-first Century business reporter that it would upgrade the imported FSD vehicle (Full Self-Driving, fully automatic driving) to HW3.0. "Recently, we are also closely communicating with customers, hoping that they will understand."

The HW3.0 chip is designed to serve the development of FSD functions. From the functional point of view, Tesla owner told reporters that HW2.5 is completely enough at this stage. "If the car uses the standard version of auxiliary driving, less than 3, now the FSD function 2.5 chip performance has enough redundancy, only when the FSD is more powerful in the future, the 3 chip redundant computing power can be used."

But similar expressions are being questioned as "washing the white". It is pointed out that the problem is not whether it can be used now, but that the same price is used to buy lower configuration hardware.

However, the rights of imported cars and domestic models are not the same. Imported cars do not have a list of vehicles for environmental protection information. They are more likely to face insufficient evidence when claiming compensation or requiring replacement. Recently, a car owner found Tesla's information on the imported vehicle models provided by the Ministry of industry and commerce, trying to win the right and interest.

As mentioned above, it is difficult to determine "fraud", but the lawyer pointed out that in the case of Tesla's "reduction allocation", it may involve two levels of legal liability. Apart from fraud liability, there is also liability for breach of contract.

"If the Tesla car purchase contract signed by the owner and Tesla is clearly agreed on the chip configuration, for example, the 3 contract is expressly agreed, but the actual import is delivered to the consumer is the 2.5 version. Then Tesla should upgrade the chip free to the 3 version according to the contract, which is a party responsible for the breach of contract stipulated in the 107th provision of the contract law. Type "take remedial measures". Wu Feng said.

?