Dear customers, netizens and media friends:
Thank you again for your continued concern.
Our special handling team is working hard, and we will report the latest progress to you:
This afternoon, we have proactively contacted the Zhengzhou Municipal Market Supervision Administration and reported the relevant situation. In order to protect the rights and interests of consumers, we are willing to cooperate fully and provide the raw data of the vehicle half an hour before the incident to the third-party appraisal agency or the technology designated by the government. The regulatory authority or the consumer himself.
At the same time, we urge the Zhengzhou Municipal Supervision Bureau to designate an authoritative and qualified third-party testing and appraisal agency to carry out testing and appraisal work and restore the truth as soon as possible.
We bear all the costs incurred in the appraisal. At the same time, we promise that we will accept it regardless of the test result.
Thank you again for your understanding.

The reason why automobile quality disputes are difficult is because the core issue of such disputes is not the application of the law, but the determination of the facts of the case. In the process of fact finding, it is difficult for the referee to be both a legal expert and an automotive expert. Therefore, if there are no obvious flaws in the appraisal conclusions of a third-party institution that has a large amount of auto expertise and has appraisal qualifications, it is usually There is a definitive effect. Traditional cars do not have a black box and cannot fully record the driving data before and during the accident. Therefore, the previous identification mostly focused on the car body after the accident, and after all, it lacked the support of first-hand data at the time of the accident. It can be seen on Tesla’s official website that the driving data that Tesla actively collects and stores in the cloud is very complete. This includes information on braking and acceleration systems, electronic brakes and accidents. It seems that if the driving data can be obtained from Tesla, this last piece of the puzzle can be completed. But similarly, Tesla also needs to prove that this data is true and reliable and has not been tampered with, otherwise the convincing power will be very low.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 months ago

You see, Tesla specifically pointed out this point, indicating that they also understand that most appraisal agencies are not authoritative enough, and the authoritative and qualified appraisal agencies they expect may only account for a small percentage. The appraisal agency, you sound like a bluff, but it is a bluff. The longer you stay in the legal industry, the more chances you will have to learn that many so-called authentication agencies are laymen on emerging frontiers, asking three questions. There are typos in the appraisal opinions. Can you bear this? All in all, it’s just that the law requires such institutions, so some institutions must support so many idlers. Do you think it is different from the low-level, low-quality, and arrogant people in certain (sensitive words) systems? Tesla clearly understands this point, so it is really necessary to appoint an authoritative and qualified third-party appraisal agency. In other words, except for a few authoritative and qualified, most of the others are actually (sensitive words) packages.

7 months ago

Don’t you worry that even if Tesla gives us the car’s data, we won’t be able to identify it? If I were a qualified professional appraisal agency, even if I couldn’t identify it, I would not admit it. I would just do a test for the items I could test. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t write it or it would be fine. I did a judicial appraisal of land surveying and mapping in Shanghai. At that time, after the court appointed the surveying and mapping institute, I contacted the engineer to ask what drawings I needed to provide, and told me the name of the drawings. Question three I don’t know, me? It’s not that I am not confident in our level, technology and ability. I have also contacted some housing quality inspection agencies that the quality inspection station cooperates with. I asked them privately if it was a real inspection. He told me that it was just a formality. I have also contacted the appraisal agency in the expropriation process. They said that the appraisal unit price is based on the funds prepared for the project expropriation, in a form according to the needs of the entrusting agency. As for the qualifications, there may indeed be a small group of people who have indeed obtained the corresponding academic qualifications, corresponding degrees, or corresponding licenses. As for the ability of real swords and guns, forgive me for being a layman, but contact I feel bad when I come down. How I hope, an expert patted his chest and stood up and said: As long as the Tesla accident vehicle and driving data are given to me, I can definitely detect whether there is a problem with the braking of the vehicle. Maybe this kind of real big brother doesn’t know that he doesn’t go online. It’s a pity.

7 months ago

Consumption guys, I have seen a long time ago that a wholly-owned foreign company can offend so many people in China: that is, Tesla, and other companies have long been unable to do business. It’s not a group of people who use the keyboard High on the Internet and the wallet High in reality, so we saw Tesla crazy offending all walks of life, including car owners, responding to all doubts with the attitude of “dead pigs are not afraid of boiling water”, and at the same time the monthly sales volume has reached 35,000 units. I don’t know if Tesla’s ADAS is really problematic, but “not admitting design problems” is Musk’s bottom line, and this is true in any country. Car owners’ rights protection and interviews with five ministries and commissions can’t change Tesla’s attitude in China. The tough statements of officials and executives are actually an extension of Musk’s personal will. This kind of personal will is directly instilled from the Chinese executives to the technical staff and after-sales-as long as the car owner doubts, don’t hesitate, deny it the first time! Assuming that “brake failure” is really a functional design problem, once Tesla recognizes it in China, it will inevitably lead to a large-scale recall and remedial measures. It will be a serious blow to Tesla’s profits and even move the Tesla brand. fundamental. This time Zhengzhou City directly ordered the surrender of the data, although Tesla made concessions and cooperation that are rare in the world. But I guess that since Tesla obeys 100%, it must be fully confident in the final result. Therefore, the results of personal guessing incidents are nothing more than the following situations: I can’t find out what Tesla has submitted is the driving data of the vehicle half an hour before the accident, including vehicle speed, acceleration, sudden deceleration pedals and steering wheel angle, etc., but these ” “Original data” can only reproduce the operating conditions at the time, and it is difficult to reverse the original code of AP. In fact, Tesla has two barriers. The first is to refuse to hand in driving data, and the second is to refuse to hand in the original AP code. A third-party authority can only find the conflict points in the driving data with a high probability, and reverse how these conflict points caused the accident. It is difficult to conclude the Model 3 conclusion. Even if a third-party authority draws a conclusion against Tesla, Tesla still has room for maneuver. If the problem is found, even if the problem is found, Tesla is not afraid. Why, Tesla can raise this domestic lawsuit to the international level. Because AP is completely developed by the headquarters of the beautiful country, Tesla China is a manufacturing, sales, and operating company. People just refused to submit original data in accordance with Musk’s will. Even if you find out the problem after submitting the data, how much does it have to do with Tesla China? Tesla China directly issued a statement: I would like to thank all departments for their spurs and support to the company. I will continue to be strict with myself. Regarding the problems in the original data, the company will objectively report back to the US headquarters! Once this matter is reflected on the beautiful country, it is equivalent to sinking into the ocean. This kind of transnational and transoceanic problem feedback, one word-procrastination. It is the BW interview conducted five years ago in China for the domestic supervisor, or the order of the Municipal Supervision Bureau this time. I find it difficult to reach the special seven inches. To sum up, I think Tesla’s attitude in China will be softened to a certain extent in the future. If you talk about the previous Tesla, the attitude of the car owner is “don’t find the fault, I’m right”, the attitude of the future Tesla is “I’m sorry, I’m right”. Things have made some progress. Tesla released vehicle status data 1 minute before the accident, including brake pedal displacement, brake master cylinder pressure, ABS actuation, accelerator pedal, vehicle speed, brake master cylinder pressure, etc. At the same time, the system The AEB activation before the collision and the triggering of the collision warning were recorded. But the problem is that the data currently given is not enough to give a conclusion on whether the vehicle is normal or not. Because of the lack of information on the motor torque, is it the forward torque? In addition, the deceleration after ABS is started is approximately 0.63 G value. It stands to reason that after the ABS is started, the deceleration G value should not be so small, and Model 3 must be maintained at about 1G under normal conditions (refer to the 100-kilometer braking test of various media, which is basically maintained at around 1G). Therefore, it is still in a state of “can’t find out why”. The reports published so far are not rich enough in effective information. No matter how authoritative third-party organizations are, they can’t cook without rice. Let’s look at the development of things again.

7 months ago

I feel that Tesla is becoming more and more dangerous, not because the brakes fail, nor is it because of hitting people to death, but when this new energy smart car is built, data sharing will inevitably occur, which can be achieved through special Sla obtains the owner’s information through the data center and makes small actions on specific vehicles. With the current design, if something goes wrong, Tesla won’t fall, so it’s tantamount to acquiescing that something happened to Tesla, it’s a normal phenomenon. After that, Tesla’s system will be more perfect, and Tesla can It is not impossible to control all autonomous vehicles, cause accidents, and kill some specific targets. Then everyone got used to it and felt that this was a natural thing. To start a Tesla, one must be aware of the one-stop ascension. Tesla is using its public relations department to calm people down. Isn’t it wonderful? Because Tesla is too influential, other domestic brands can’t evenly divide the market. After Tesla has finished occupying the market, users have no choice, and then they will really be ascended to heaven at random. People go out once, people are gone, and cars are gone.

7 months ago

I think it is really possible that Tesla has not found any problems with the existing data this time, so they will be very confident. I often encountered some vehicle failures when I was doing tests, and I often had to analyze the problems. However, due to some reasons, it is impossible for me to have all the system diagnostic data and some necessary data definitions for the system. I cannot fully analyze the problem. But at least it is necessary to find out that the problem phenomenon does exist, through the driver’s description and data at the time of the vehicle speed, brake pedal depth, accelerator depth, gear information, soc value, system working status, whether there is a fault code, etc. to correspond one by one, so as to make a one-to-one correspondence. It is confirmed that the problem does exist, so that the problem will be reported, and it will be analyzed and processed by a more professional DRE. If possible, the problem will be reproduced as much as possible, but there is no way for some problems to happen occasionally. There are often many problems that only occur once, and the bus data is also there, but the cause has not been found out. Many problems in the test process eventually become headless cases. Our driver generally does not lie or report problems because it is not good for him. But that’s it, I won’t fully believe what the driver says, because sometimes the information they may pay attention to during driving is inaccurate. Neither blindly believe in data, nor do they blindly believe in rhetoric. There have been many instances of inconsistency between the data and the driver’s statement before, so I have been more careful. What’s more, I have seen that the failure phenomenon does exist on the data, but DRE analysis tells me that the data shows normal conditions. Fortunately, because I want to see the data myself, I just posted a screenshot of the data playback, so DRE has nothing to say. To be honest, I can’t guarantee that Tesla’s engineers will do this. . . Another point is that, as far as I know, the data uploaded by Tbox is only part of the bus data. It does not seem to upload all the bus data, but only some useful or basic information such as vehicle speed, braking, and collisions. Many problem analysis also requires the private CAN data of each module. Some data is critical and not sent to the bus. It only communicates within the controller. If you want to save this data, you have to collect it from the controller separately. Obviously they did not. All data is uploaded through Tbox, and the amount of data is still very large. At present, our car has a total of 6-7 CAN channels, and the bus data of one day has about 4G. So, I said irresponsibly that most of the time when the data was released, there was nothing to be seen. I think the best thing now is to find a car that has said that the brakes have failed, monitor it through a third party, take a long-term test, and it is best to reproduce the failure of the failure again, collect all the required data, and don’t have to worry about it all the time. The so-called malfunctioning data last time.

7 months ago

I don’t know that a bunch of analysis codes are what I think. What people want is the raw data recorded, which is the record of various sensor signals. Judging from the data is nothing more than whether there is a brake signal, an acceleration signal, a steering signal, etc., combined with the speed of the car. Record, gyroscope record and time to make a judgment. It is enough to determine whether it meets the owner’s description, what? I also think that the government’s debugging for tsl may not be successful, but it is indeed a step forward. At least you know what the data is like. As long as you check enough, the cost of fraud will be higher.

7 months ago

In the end, it is up to trouble to defend rights? The Tesla incident cannot be ended like this. Commentator: Qin Daixin, with the intervention of the regulatory authorities and Tesla’s cooperation in the investigation, the public opinion field of Tesla owners’ rights protection incident has temporarily come to an end. Satisfying full stop. Looking back on the entire incident, from the beginning of the car owners’ rights protection not going well, to the “car roof rights protection” event that caused concern, to the hard-line attitudes of both sides to detonate public opinion, to Tesla’s apology and the intervention of the regulatory authorities, I had to say “car roof rights protection”. “Is the turning point of the whole event” plot trend “. If this matter ends here and all parties are silent, will people come to an embarrassing conclusion: rights protection still has to rely on “noisy”? I have to say that such a possibility exists. Car owners’ rights protection on the roof can’t help but remind people of the violent rights protection incident of Mercedes-Benz car owners two years ago. Although the companies involved are different, the cause is that consumers are deeply troubled by rights protection. They can only choose to “make rights protection”. . Compared with the Mercedes-Benz rights defense incident, in this Tesla incident, the response of the third-party supervisory authority is obviously faster and more efficient, but we cannot deny that the “after-the-minute” intervention and delayed supervision still have not undergone fundamental changes. . While we are relieved that the Tesla incident has been resolved, we must also sweat for the deep-seated contradictions behind it. The difficulty of consumer rights protection can be said to be the consensus of many people. Long battle lines, high costs, and poor results are the status quo that many rights defenders are facing. How can consumers protect their rights if they do not follow the path of defending their rights in the public opinion field? When will the channel for rights protection be truly unimpeded? It is worthy of our continued reflection and improvement. In fact, when confronted with rights protection issues, whether it is the helpless action of consumers relying on “noisy” to attract attention, or the arrogance and negativity of the company involved, it can be said that it is a natural reaction to safeguard their own interests based on their respective positions. Companies do need to truly respect consumers and improve their own service awareness, but it is difficult to achieve self-discipline when relying on corporate self-discipline when they need to give up a lot of benefits. Consumers certainly don’t want to pay the price of decent dignity to defend their rights, but sometimes they can only choose to “go out” in the face of damage to their vital interests. In order to restrain the behavior of the two, the key is to look at third parties who are detached from their interests. Therefore, if you want to eliminate the behavior of “promoting rights protection”, the key is to change the weakness and lag of third-party supervision and ensure the smooth flow of rights protection channels. Regarding the rights protection incidents that have occurred in recent years, third-party regulatory agencies should deeply reflect on how to strengthen the quality of consumer rights protection services, and promptly intervene to replace “after-the-fly”, paving the way for consumers to defend their rights and free them from relying on “trouble” to protect their rights. Only in this way can we fundamentally prevent the recurrence of car roof rights protection incidents and allow rights defenders to step down from the “car roof”. Relevant departments should be more aware that the biggest obstacle on the road of consumer rights protection lies in the unequal status between enterprises and consumers. Large enterprises are prone to arrogant attitudes of bullying customers by relying on their own strengths. Correspondingly, individual consumers are often in a disadvantaged position. The prerequisite for solving the problem is to allow both parties to have the conditions and environment for equal dialogue. At this time, the timely intervention and support of the third-party regulatory authority is the greatest confidence for consumers and their most powerful “backstage”. Only by this can the unequal status of the dialogue between the two sides be compensated, and its important role must not be absent or delayed. Third-party supervision cannot be a “third person” outside of the matter, and cannot be a display or spectator. It must effectively perform its own supervisory functions, make good use of the “sword” in hand, and truly use iron shoulders to shoulder the morality of consumer rights. This is not only responsible for consumers, but also responsible for enterprises. Only when consumers have the confidence and confidence to defend their rights in the event of trouble, can they truly feel at ease about consumption and enterprises, and create a good market environment. It is a real win-win situation.

7 months ago

Tesla’s concession is related to the direct intervention of relevant departments. On April 21, the State Administration for Market Regulation instructed the Henan Province, Shanghai Municipality and other regulatory authorities to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers in accordance with the law. That night, Tesla posted a message on Weibo that it was willing to provide raw vehicle data half an hour before the incident. The issue of vehicle data has always been disputed between rights defenders and Tesla. The rights defender said that the vehicle was not speeding at that time, and the speed was about 60 km/h. When trying to slow down, it was found that “the brake pedal was stiff and difficult to move”, and then the brake failed. Tesla’s response before this was: The speed before the driver stepped on the brake pedal for the last time was 118.5 km/h. The specific data this time showed that within 30 minutes before the accident, there were many times over 100 km/h, and there were also many times of stopping. Tesla means that the vehicle was running well before the accident. On the premise of not providing vehicle data to the owner, the owner questioned that the 118.5 km/h data was fabricated by Tesla. However, in the eyes of professionals in the automotive industry, the workload of data modification is relatively large, and the traces of modification will be more obvious. The driving data is measured in milliseconds, and the half-hour-long data is even more massive. In addition, it must be connected with the data before and after half an hour. If you want to modify it, the workload is huge. In theory, car companies can modify the data, but professional engineers can easily find out whether the data has been modified. According to Tesla’s public data, Tesla’s narrative for the 5 seconds before the vehicle crash is reasonable. However, based on this part of the data, it is still impossible to determine whether the driver’s misbehavior caused the accident. If the position sensor of the brake pedal fails, the vehicle will also have problems collecting the user’s braking behavior, and it will not be able to correctly sense the actual depth of the brake pedal. It is possible that the user has used a lot of effort to depress the pedal to the end, but the vehicle cannot collect a complete signal. In this case, it is difficult to determine whether it is a problem of the vehicle itself or the accident caused by improper operation of the user through data analysis. This time Tesla agreed to submit the data to a third party for identification, but the data does not fully interpret the truth. 1. There is a possibility of omission in data sampling. According to relevant technical personnel of new energy vehicles, the current maximum sampling frequency for uploading from the car to the cloud is once a second, but it may only take 100 milliseconds for the owner to brake suddenly. In addition, cost and data leakage are things that car companies will worry about when uploading data. 2. How to interpret the data is still a problem. Experts studying autonomous driving said that for the purpose of protecting trade secrets, the data format of each car company is often more complicated, and some professional third-party organizations are also difficult to understand. In the judicial process, it is also difficult for consumers to take the initiative in producing evidence. 3. The software of electric vehicles is highly complex, and it is difficult to determine the responsibility or judge. Electric vehicles are now mostly driven by hardware to software-defined, and Tesla is one of the best. Therefore, it is no longer possible to rely solely on data such as vehicle speed and braking in the determination of accidents. If it is a software failure, it is even more difficult to restore. Tesla’s autopilot system has also been involved in past accidents. Therefore, under the combined effect of complex internal and external conditions, it may be difficult to make accurate judgments for third-party organizations that only rely on data for analysis. The essence of this dispute also raises a deep-seated question-who owns the control of the original data of electric vehicles? The existing laws at home and abroad attribute the control of driving data, including braking and steering, to individuals. However, car companies have signed agreements with car buyers on the grounds of optimizing vehicle performance or obtained data from consumers through a consumer authorization model. At the legal level, the control of driving data attributable to individuals is controlled by car companies at the practical level. Therefore, in an accident, disputes are more likely to arise when there is a division of powers and responsibilities. Therefore, in this rights defense incident, the owners of rights defense vehicles did not have the initiative to provide evidence.

7 months ago

Now so many official departments have spoken from the standpoint of consumers, and Tesla said that, in fact, it is arranging the official army. Tesla has always supported the appraisal, and now he is asking for appraisal. To put it bluntly, people are not afraid of appraisal. This is happening now. If the problem is not detected in the end, not only will the credibility be discredited, but it will also have a great impact on foreign investment. If it is detected as a small and insignificant problem, it will inevitably be suspected of being kidnapped by public opinion and deliberately egged. If you have a big problem, you will also be questioned why you did not intervene earlier, and intervene only after so many accidents. Is it because the other party is the imported foreign capital.

7 months ago

Judging from the large number of out-of-control incidents at present, it may be a bug in the program, and the recorded data may not provide true feedback on the vehicle status. Therefore, the prerequisite for the appraisal work is to provide the source code for the Chinese security department and officially recognized information security. And provide a few Teslas with software engineering mode that can read all the data in real time, let the information security company come to see if there is any leakage of sensor data or wrong provision of data.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x