Model S and X air suspension reliability

[Tiger]

Do you really think that Tesla intentionally planned to have this break?

It can be either a failsafe for over torque or planned to snap at collision for crumple zone.

 

[IvesSM]

Question ref Air Suspension on the X.

Do you think "exercising" the Air Suspension weekly will have a positive effect on longevity?

I find with many things today if you don't use it regularly it is more likely to not work when u need it.

 

[FalconWingRide]

that is very logical thing to do

it looks like it was purposely engineered like that to snap at that spot...
but maybe it was over torqued or just defective...

I'm leaning towards engineered because when the bolt was removed there was no place in the subframe where the scored section of the bolt was needed to notch into place. Also, the torque specification could be part of the engineering to allow it to break over time and or miles of stress. The issues I and many others have had with the sealed upper control arm ball joints grinding and squeaking at 50k miles due to inadequate lube in them makes me feel that too was planned.

Do you really think that Tesla intentionally planned to have this break?

Yes. They intentionally don't support the Right To Repair Act but instead have their own MoU and last August created a Pact with Rivian that is less than what is required by law in the RTRA. https://www.aftermarketnews.com/tes...an and,and Alliance for Automotive Innovation.

Teslas' position channels repair revenue back to them. The design of the MX and MS are derived from Mercedes-Benz parts supplies and have some of the same early parts failures and inner tread wear due to excessive camber engineered into the design.

"Alfred P. Sloan, the CEO of General Motors, and his colleagues came up with a radical new idea that would change not only the auto industry but the entire economy: planned obsolescence. GM would simply convince customers that one car in a lifetime wasn't enough."

 

[FalconWingRide]

Do you really think that Tesla intentionally planned to have this break?

Yes, planned obsolescence is real. It was created by GM execs years ago and most other manufacturers of automobiles and other products have followed them. They can test a product like ball joints and place a specific amount of lubricant in it so that it fails around a specific time to bring in new service revenue. Lots of venture capitalists will not invest in a company that builds a product to last too long and does not plan for new revenue generation by end-of-life and failures. You see it all the time with mobile technology, the software will eventually be "end-of-life" and programmed to no longer accept updates to new software because of the age of the hardware to force the purchase of a new device.

Tesla also doesn't comply with the Right To Repair Act and has produced their own MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) and Pact with Rivian to do what it wants regarding how the vehicles it sells are repaired. Doing it their way makes them more money on parts replacement, and tire replacement due to the suspension issues they engineered into the vehicle. Negative camber isn't something that baffles engineers, it was very easy to allow the rear suspension of the Model S and X to have negative 2.5 degrees of camber which is in their alignment specifications. After bushings begin to wear the negative camber gets worse. To compound the problem the torque forces delivered through the half shafts force the tires into a further compromising amount of negative camber resulting in tires of some owners only lasting 3,000 miles if they always set the air suspension to low or very low.