Stability Control (ESC) for the Roadster

Really? I don't think the Roadster needs ESC. I'd also think they'd get some sort of a waiver like they have for the airbags.

They should, however, have ESC for the Model S.

Telsa Motors' NHTSA Temporary exemption for E.S.C systems

I found this on the net and just wanted to share. Telsa MOtors had files a petition to the NHTSA for exemption on Electronic Stability Control Systems so follow the link. petition-temporary-exemption-from-electronic-stability-control-requirements-fmvss-no-126.htm

" Tesla sold or leased 276 Roadsters in the United States during 2010 and 62 Roadsters during the first quarter of 2011"

Yeah, I mentioned that a while back here:
end of advanced airbag exemption

Resurrecting an old thread that may have been more relevant than we realized.

Recently I had noticed that a request got filed to get an ESC exemption for the Roadster:

Federal Register | Tesla Motors, Inc.; Receipt of Petition for Temporary Exemption From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS No. 126

...Tesla has requested an exemption for the Roadster model for a period from September 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011...

Click to expand...

Well, I happened to be by the Menlo Park store / prep center, and noticed more Roadsters than I expected parked all around the side. They didn't quite look like they were ready for immediate delivery as most were somewhat dirty, and many had headlights removed (perhaps getting the Xenon upgrade?). I noticed all over the place paperwork on the dash saying something like "hold for ESC".

Does that mean that they are now required to add ESC before they can deliver them?
Maybe the request for an exemption got denied?
Funny thing in the auto-biz is it seems the model year starts a little early. For instance as we go into September/October many manufacturers are pushing 2012 models which may include new regulations.


Also related:
ESC vs TCS

TEG said:

Funny thing in the auto-biz is it seems the model year starts a little early. For instance as we go into September/October many manufacturers are pushing 2012 models which may include new regulations.

Click to expand...

Yeah but I though Tesla was eschewing this nomenclature. My 2.5 was built on 10/7/10 which to any other car manufacturer that would be a 2011 model but my title says 2010. This seems really odd. Assuming production of the Roadsters will be done by the end of the year they can sell them into 2012 was 2011 models without having to comply w/ 2012 regs. Is production actually going to spill over into 2012? Seems like a lot of money to spend for just a handful of cars - I'm sure it would be cheaper to have whatever production spills over into 2012 to be kept as spare parts for cars that are wrecked.

Yeah, I thought the same too. Why can't they just call all the remainder 2011's and not worry about 2012 regs?

Electronic stability control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...The NHTSA requires all passenger vehicles to be equipped with ESC by 2012...

Click to expand...

Why would they need an exemption for production Sept 1 - Dec 31?
Perhaps they anticipated needing to sell Roadsters into 2012, but the last minute demand of "last chance" meant they sold out sooner than expected?
Or maybe some other regulation means that ones made after Sept 1 must have the ESC? I don't know.

Hmm:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-11965.htm

...SUMMARY: In April 2007, the agency published a final rule establishing a new Federal motor vehicle safety standard on electronic stability control (ESC) systems for light vehicles. As part of that rulemaking, the final rule notice stated that NHTSA had decided to defer the standard's requirements related to the ESC telltales and controls until the end of the phase-in period (i.e., until September 1, 2011)...

Click to expand...

It does look like they specified specific calendar dates, and not just let the manufacturers decide when to start the "2012" clock.
The previously deferred rule called for having something like 95% of 2011 models having ESC...

It would suck if Tesla had to engineer an ESC solution just for the last batch of cars.
If that were the case, I would think they would be better off selling them somewhere else (South America?) where the new ESC isn't required.

Tdave said:

I'm trying to think of another explanation to explain this. Is Tesla using the Roadster as an engineering test bed for an ESC system for the Model S? TEG, did you see the ESC note on multiple cars, or just one or two?

Click to expand...

I didn't look at all of them, but it was many. Perhaps all that were there in the lot.

I suppose "hold for ESC" could mean wait for the waiver to go through. When was the most recent Roadster delivery in the US?

doug said:

I suppose "hold for ESC" could mean wait for the waiver to go through.

Click to expand...

Yes, that would probably be the best outcome if there is in fact a delay related to stability control regulations.

When the Roadster sells out here in the US they plan to import cars from Europe to have something in the showrooms that cannot be sold here in the US. I would guess test rides/drives are OK and Apparently there are enough LHDs to do this.

Not to dash anyone's hope here, but the folks in Menlo Park say they have no knowledge of Electronic Stability Control being developed for the Roadster, and do not ever expect anything given the high costs of doing so.

However, they're close to having the xenon lighting upgrade ready.

smorgasbord said:

However, they're close to having the xenon lighting upgrade ready.

Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to this. Call your closest store and see if they'll put your name on a list.

Another link on the subject:

NHTSA - Tesla Motors, Inc.; Receipt of Petition Temporar...


---

----

Apparently, Terrafugia got an exemption for their airplane/car:
Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 125 (Wednesday, June 29, 2011)
AOPA Online: Design exemptions pave way for 'roadable aircraft'
(Is it a car? Is it a plane? Probably not a very good car or a plane, but what is the value in having both in one?)

A naysayer stepped forward:

Regulations.gov
http://www.regulations.gov/contentS...f11fdb&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

It seems like they might have submitted their comment right at the end of the 30 day review period so that Tesla didn't have time to respond...