Judge Requires Tesla to Repurchase Model S Plaid Due to Track Braking Defect

Judge Requires Tesla to Repurchase Model S Plaid Due to Track Braking Defect

      Tesla / Rudskogen

      Receive The Drive’s daily newsletter

      Stay updated with the latest car news, reviews, and features.

      A Tesla Model S Plaid owner successfully sued the electric car manufacturer after his vehicle overheated its brakes on the first turn during a track day. He accused Tesla of false advertising, as the company promoted the car specifically for track use, which did not align with his experience. As a consequence, the judge ordered Tesla to repurchase the 1,020-horsepower sedan.

      The ruling was made by the Oslo District Court, citing a breach of Norway’s Consumer Protection Act. Vilhelm Dybwad, the owner of the Model S Plaid who filed the lawsuit against Tesla, shared his disappointing experience with The Drive. “The standard brakes are terrible, insufficient, and outright hazardous for any form of track driving,” he remarked in an email. “We received a warning that the brakes were overheated while braking for the first corner (after the warmup lap) at Rudskogen Motorcenter.”

      This track is quite demanding, designed by F1 track expert Hermann Tilke. At just over two miles long, the main layout includes 14 turns, long high-speed straights, and approximately 140 feet of elevation change. Turn One, where Dybwad’s Model S Plaid encountered braking issues, is a slightly uphill left-hander that necessitates significant braking before entering Turn Two. Immediately following is a half-circle that connects to another straight where high-powered vehicles reach speeds in excess of 100 mph. The point is: Even if the Tesla's brakes managed to endure the first turn, they would barely have time to cool down before encountering another high-pressure scenario that could lead to failure.

      That’s Turn One on the far right side, following the extended start/finish straight. Rudskogen

      Dybwad is part of a car enthusiast group in Norway called Amcar. The club’s technical committee drafted a statement regarding his EV's performance issues and provided testimonies along with independent testing to demonstrate the Model S Plaid did not perform as promised. They placed an experienced track driver in the Plaid at Rudskogen, where it failed once more after the first turn. This evidence was compelling in court, leading legal authorities to scrutinize Tesla’s marketing claims.

      The district court concurred that Tesla promoted the Model S Plaid as track-capable, even showcasing it on a racetrack in multiple videos while asserting it could “continuously lap the track without performance degradation.” Tesla reportedly contended that Dybwad could have opted for carbon ceramic brakes, which work better in high-heat scenarios, but these were not available until 10 months post his purchase. Typically, this would be the point where The Drive would contact the automaker's PR team for a response, but Tesla does not have a PR department.

      Determining that the matter merited action under the Consumer Protection Act, the court mandated Tesla to compensate Dybwad with $122,972 USD plus interest, in addition to covering his legal fees of $26,869 USD. This effectively voided his purchase of the vehicle. Tesla can appeal the ruling, though Dybwad’s legal team expressed confidence to Nettavisen.

      Dybwad alongside his Model S Plaid. Amcar

      Have a tip or question for the author? Contact them directly: [email protected]

Judge Requires Tesla to Repurchase Model S Plaid Due to Track Braking Defect Judge Requires Tesla to Repurchase Model S Plaid Due to Track Braking Defect Judge Requires Tesla to Repurchase Model S Plaid Due to Track Braking Defect

Other articles

Judge Requires Tesla to Repurchase Model S Plaid Due to Track Braking Defect

The owner of the 1,020-horsepower electric vehicle asserts that the brakes malfunctioned following a turn during a track day, resulting in a court decision that Tesla's promotion of the vehicle was deceptive.