AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)08/06 Report--

On March 2, 2020, a car owner Tesla posted on Weibo that the configuration of the upgraded after-drive version of the domestic standard Model 3 had been downgraded and that the car was equipped with a vehicle controller code-named 1462554 (FSD chip HW3.0), but when the owner removed the vehicle controller, he found it was code-named 1465773 (FSD chip HW2.5).

Compared with the HW2.5 chip, the computing power of the HW3.0 chip is 21 times that of the HW2.5 chip. The stronger computing power means that when the vehicle is on autopilot, it will be able to deal with more complex data, thus helping the vehicle to achieve better autopilot. At the same time, the HW3.0 chip is also the core of Tesla's fully autopilot process to achieve traffic light recognition function. Tesla models with HW2.5 and below hardware are unable to achieve this function.

As the incident continued to ferment, Tesla issued a statement on the "made in China Model 3 EIA list" on its official Weibo on March 3, saying that it would replace the HW3.0 service free of charge for car owners whose controller hardware is HW2.5. According to Tesla's official statement, due to the impact of the epidemic on his supply chain, some domestic Model 3 which did not choose FSD to ensure timely delivery, so use HW2.5 instead of HW3.0.

However, in the eyes of car owners, the HW2.5 installed on domestic Model 3 real cars is obviously different from the HW3.0 on the configuration table of environmental protection information, which is the most basic configuration mistake. Tesla's explanation of "supply chain problem" is difficult for Chinese consumers to accept. Therefore, some car owners also choose to resolve the matter by legal means.

Recently, the Civil judgment of second instance on Product liability dispute of Li Zhilong and Tesla Automobile sales and Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd., issued by the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate people's Court, rejected Chen's appeal against Tesla's request for core change. this judgment is final.

The event is as follows: on March 7, 2020, Chen bought the imported version of Tesla Model3 from Tesla Company, with a total price of 447900 yuan. In August 2020, when Chen used the vehicle, the warning option of "driving visual picture temporarily degraded" system appeared many times on the vehicle machine system, and the problem could not be eliminated by itself, and many electronic functions could not be used during the period. It is understood that the problem is caused by the lack of hardware computing power of the vehicle-assisted driving chip (part model 1483112), while the domestic Model3 model carries the vehicle-assisted driving chip (part model 1462554) in the same period, because the hardware performance is 21 times that of the part model 1483112, so "driving visual picture temporary degradation" rarely appears in this part of the vehicle. After that, Chen learned that the vehicle driving assist chip on the purchased vehicle was not model 1462554. Later, Chen negotiated and communicated with Tesla company many times, asking for the replacement of Chen Fang's driving assist chip (model 1462554). Tesla company refused to deal with it, and claimed that the replacement could only be done through fully automatic driving assistance software at a purchase price of 64000 yuan. To replace the accessory for Chen. To this end, Chen filed a lawsuit to the court, claiming that Tesla sales company and Tesla company had fraudulent behavior on the chip models of the vehicles involved, and asked Tesla to replace them.

Tesla argued that: 1. The vehicle delivered by Tesla sales company conforms to the contract agreement and meets the requirements of the vehicle escort certificate. Chen Fang is used normally, and Tesla sales company has fully fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the law; 2. "driving visual picture is temporarily degraded" is a normal system hint, not a fault.

The court of first instance held that according to the existing evidence, it was not enough to conclude that Tesla sales Company and Tesla Company had made a clear commitment that the chip model of the vehicle involved in the case should be 1462554. The court of first instance did not support Chen's request for Tesla sales company and Tesla company to replace it with the purchase of vehicle driving assist chips.

Chen refused to accept the judgment of the court of first instance and filed the above with the Beijing Municipal No. 2 Intermediate people's Court, requesting to reject the judgment of first instance and change the judgment according to law. The court of second instance ruled that neither party had submitted new evidence. The court confirms the facts ascertained by the court of first instance. Chen's appeal cannot be established and should be rejected and the original judgment should be upheld; the judgment of first instance finds the facts clearly and the applicable law is correct and should be upheld. This judgment is final.

The full text of the judgment document is attached below:

Welcome to subscribe to the WeChat public account "Automotive Industry Focus" to get the first-hand insider information on the automotive industry and talk about things in the automotive circle. Welcome to break the news! WeChat ID autoWechat