2017 Tesla Model X 75d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Recent Tesla Model S buyers frustrated over new features

Tesla wowed the motoring world when it recently unveiled the all-wheel drive, dual-motor D version that added power and range to the already well-regarded Model S. At the same time, the company showed off a new suite of safe-driving tech like a forward-looking camera, radar and ultrasonic sensors to come standard on all models. While the new features might attract some new buyers into the fold, for a few current owners the upgrades aren't coming as a pleasant surprise at all. Some of them are rallying for Tesla to fix things somehow.
These disgruntled owners aren't upset about what any of the new features actually do; in fact, they love them. The issue is Tesla's secrecy before the reveal. A few of these folks bought their cars just a few months ago, some even in September, according to The San Jose Mercury News. If the upgrades had been publicized earlier, then they would have waited to order versions with the latest and greatest tech.
Some of them are already on the web lodging their complaints. According to The San Jose Mercury News, the website Change.org has competing petitions asking Tesla to find a way to retrofit the features, which the company says isn't possible, and another requesting the automaker to ignore the complainers.

Ford files trademark application for 'Model E'

In early December, Ford filed an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for the name "Model E." Historically, Ford never produced a Model E, and while automakers are known to file for trademarks they never use, some have wondered if the application might be used for a concept car.
Based on other recent events, though, it could be a legal move. In 2000 Ford sued an online start-up called Model E over the similarity of that name to Ford's industry-shaping Model T, but the judge dismissed the case citing lack of proper grounds. In August 2013, Tesla applied for trademark registration for Model E, and at the time, Ford said it would review the application. Tesla actually made two applications for Model E, one for automobiles and structural parts therefore, the other for "providing maintenance and repair services for automobiles," and there are plenty of theories about what the name could be applied to.
The Published for Opposition date for Tesla's applications is December 31, 2013, after which anyone who thinks they'd be harmed by Tesla being granted the trademark gets 30 days to register their issues. This is just speculation, but Ford's application - which was filed for automobiles only - might be about protecting what it sees as unwelcome encroachment on the name Model T, protection it wasn't able to enforce before when the stakes were only online and much smaller.

NHTSA denies Tesla asked for Model S fire probe

The Tesla Model S is being investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration after three of the models caught fire; two of the electric cars impacted debris on the road, and one was involved in a single-car accident. This much we know for sure. Just exactly how the investigation came to be, though, is up for debate.
According to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the California-based automaker requested that the government safety agency open the investigation, saying in a blog post, "We have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as soon as possible into the fire incidents. While we think it is highly unlikely, if something is discovered that would result in a material improvement in occupant fire safety, we will immediately apply that change to new cars and offer it as a free retrofit to all existing cars."
Not so fast, counters NHTSA head David Strickland. Speaking to The Detroit News, Strickland had this to say: "Investigations are independent... We have never ... actually had an automaker ask for a formal investigation, but it causes a couple of implications: If a manufacturer asks me or asks the agency for a formal investigation, you've already made a determination that you may have a defect that imposes an unreasonable risk to safety. ... I don't think that would ever happen."