Possible outcomes of NHTSA investigation and Tesla response

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

You infer something I did not imply.

But, let's face the facts: Elon did reverse himself. I'm glad he did - he should not have said what he did at the time. If he had adopted this path from beginning, which I did suggest at the time (not that he'd listen to me), Tesla would have been better off. Instead, Tesla has been in damage control mode for the past few months and he admitted it did affect demand. I'm glad it looks like things are going to work out, but let's not sugar coat the truth.

- - - Updated - - -



What makes you think it's optional? It's performed "upon request or as part of a normally scheduled service."

It temporarily affected demand.

He didn't reverse his position: he said in November that there wouldn't be a recall and that if the NHTSA found a way to improve the car it'd be offered as a free retrofit.

 

[smorgasbord]

The Model S has no normally scheduled service. If you recall, the $600 service is not mandatory and the warranty remains intact. So without normal service, it isn't required.

If you buy a Honda, no-one forces you to bring it in for normally scheduled service, but it's still called normally scheduled service. Tesla's normally scheduled service is no different.

- - - Updated - - -

It temporarily affected demand.

He didn't reverse his position: he said in November that there wouldn't be a recall and that if the NHTSA found a way to improve the car it'd be offered as a free retrofit.

He originally said there would be no recall and no physical modification.

A couple weeks later, Tesla said:

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.

So, I guess what happened is that the "highly unlikely" thing did happen, and something was discovered that resulted in a "material improvement in occupant fire safety."

 

[RABaby]

If you buy a Honda, no-one forces you to bring it in for normally scheduled service, but it's still called normally scheduled service. Tesla's normally scheduled service is no different.

Tesla does not manufacture ICE vehicles. Service on an ICE is done to maintain the engine. There is no engine in an S. Service is not required.

You took a position on this being a recall and a safety issue and are unwilling to move on that. This is a position many others do not share and some have stated that clearly here with their rationale. Stating a position and letting it stand is fine. To continue this back and forth is infantile and not worth my time because it accomplishes nothing. If Elon or Tesla comes out to declare this a recall or a requirement, then you can say I told you so. Until that time, more responses on the same issue is serving some other purpose.

 

[smorgasbord]

Tesla does not manufacture ICE vehicles. Service on an ICE is done to maintain the engine. There is no engine in an S. Service is not required.

A Tesla is more than an electric motor. The brake pads, discs and fluid, air conditioning, power steering fluid, etc. all need regular servicing, as do EV-specific things like battery coolant replacement. Regular service is indeed required for your Tesla.

Why you and others have degenerated an argument on the safety retrofit into something else is beyond me.

 

[AlMc]

Regardless of the ongoing debate, the retrofit does not appear to change the driving dynamics of the car much. I would encourage everyone to get this plate. It may seem great to go 'commando' but sooner or later a 'commando' battery pack is going to sustain a puncture that could have been prevented by having the plate installed. While this may not be a human safety issue and Elon has stated TM will replace any car damaged by this type of accident the mission of the company, as well as the value of the company, will be compromised by additional battery fires.

 

[kenliles]

Regardless of the ongoing debate, the retrofit does not appear to change the driving dynamics of the car much. I would encourage everyone to get this plate. It may seem great to go 'commando' but sooner or later a 'commando' battery pack is going to sustain a puncture that could have been prevented by having the plate installed. While this may not be a human safety issue and Elon has stated TM will replace any car damaged by this type of accident the mission of the company, as well as the value of the company, will be compromised by additional battery fires.

That sounds like good advice to me. Tesla's made the cost benefit on this a no brainer.
Keep up the good work Elon and team

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If you buy a Honda, no-one forces you to bring it in for normally scheduled service, but it's still called normally scheduled service. Tesla's normally scheduled service is no different.

- - - Updated - - -



He originally said there would be no recall and no physical modification.

A couple weeks later, Tesla said:

So, I guess what happened is that the "highly unlikely" thing did happen, and something was discovered that resulted in a "material improvement in occupant fire safety."

He also mentioned the modification in November without reference to fire safety.

 

[jerry33]

A good scientist or engineer will change their opinion when new facts come to light. That's the scientific method. I don't see any problem here.

 

[gpetti]

Regardless of the ongoing debate, the retrofit does not appear to change the driving dynamics of the car much. I would encourage everyone to get this plate. It may seem great to go 'commando' but sooner or later a 'commando' battery pack is going to sustain a puncture that could have been prevented by having the plate installed. While this may not be a human safety issue and Elon has stated TM will replace any car damaged by this type of accident the mission of the company, as well as the value of the company, will be compromised by additional battery fires.

True enough. Originally I was thinking the change was a factor of about .1 which would mean about 40kilometers for me; however on rereading the announcement I realized that this was .1 percent, or a factor of .001 which is basically irrelevant if accurate. Given this would mean almost no downside, I can't see why I wouldn't opt for even more safety, no matter how unlikely the event. Above all if we can eliminate any further statistical debates and reduce or eliminate FUD opportunities that would be awesome. One thing I'm curious about is whether this hampers battery swaps in any way.

 

[AlMc]

True enough. Originally I was thinking the change was a factor of about .1 which would mean about 40kilometers for me; however on rereading the announcement I realized that this was .1 percent, or a factor of .001 which is basically irrelevant if accurate. Given this would mean almost no downside, I can't see why I wouldn't opt for even more safety, no matter how unlikely the event. Above all if we can eliminate any further statistical debates and reduce or eliminate FUD opportunities that would be awesome. One thing I'm curious about is whether this hampers battery swaps in any way.

Apparently the apparatus sits infront of the battery pack and does not hinder the swap. I had my 12K mile service sceduled for April 9th weeks before the 'fix' was announced. I called Friday to add the 'fix' to this service call and if no one else reports about battery swapping first hand, I will ask.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Moderators isn't it time to rename this thread? "Assuming heightened fire risk" has been disproven. I believe since it has been proven that it is not more likely to catch on fire tan ice cars (not even the shorts are claiming this anymore)
That line should be deleted. Might as well have a topic with a title including assuming the earth is flat

 

[Robert.Boston]

Moderators isn't it time to rename this thread? "Assuming heightened fire risk" has been disproven. I believe since it has been proven that it is not more likely to catch on fire tan ice cars (not even the shorts are claiming this anymore)
That line should be deleted. Might as well have a topic with a title including assuming the earth is flat

Good idea; title has been updated.

 

[pz1975]

Not sure where to put this, but this seems like the right place.

I had a small service issue to deal with today with my Model S and I asked the SC guy about the new battery plate. He said it is in total about 1 foot in width and about 2/3 the width of the car in length, weighs about 1-2 pounds and is made of titanium with an aluminum coating on the surface. He said the total labour time for installation (retrofit) is 1 hour.

I think with the weight of it being so low, the actual materials cost is going to be very small (did someone have a quote of titanium cost by weight?). The labour is 1 hour but this is split up among the dozens of SC's out there and can be done slowly over time scheduled in when they have empty space so it shouldn't result in any 'extra' labour time than what they already had available for at the SCs.

 

[Auzie]

This thread seems to be the best fit to post GM's response to faulty ignition switch. That fault most likely caused some deaths, and resulted in $1.3b recall of 2.6mill GM cars.

GM places 2 engineers on leave in inquiry

I find GMs response wrong on so many levels, but scapegoating 2 low level employees tops it. The way GM handles its corporate responsibility tells me a lot about its culture. Looks like blame game push down.

If any low level employee can derail GM in such significant way, that tells me a lot about that company's internal control processes.

I find GMs response hard to believe and impossible to respect.

 

[JPP]

This thread seems to be the best fit to post GM's response to faulty ignition switch. That fault most likely caused some deaths, and resulted in $1.3b recall of 2.6mill GM cars.

GM places 2 engineers on leave in inquiry

I find GMs response wrong on so many levels, but scapegoating 2 low level employees tops it. The way GM handles its corporate responsibility tells me a lot about its culture. Looks like blame game push down.

If any low level employee can derail GM in such significant way, that tells me a lot about that company's internal control processes.

I find GMs response hard to believe and impossible to respect.

The reason for the engineers getting disciplined is this:

"Mr. DeGiorgio has been identified in documents as the engineer who approved a change to improve the switch in 2006. But the change was never cataloged as a new part, and G.M. did not recall cars with the original, defective switch."

If GM never assigned a new part number to a revised/re-engineered ignition switch, then you don't know when in forward production the newer version appeared. Thus GM now has to recall millions more vehicles, many of which likely have a 'good' ignition switch.

 

[Auzie]

The reason for the engineers getting disciplined is this:

"Mr. DeGiorgio has been identified in documents as the engineer who approved a change to improve the switch in 2006. But the change was never cataloged as a new part, and G.M. did not recall cars with the original, defective switch."

If GM never assigned a new part number to a revised/re-engineered ignition switch, then you don't know when in forward production the newer version appeared. Thus GM now has to recall millions more vehicles, many of which likely have a 'good' ignition switch.

It is hard for me to accept that blame for such huge damage can be assigned to 2 relatively low rank individuals. If that is the case, then GM internal control processes are insufficiently guarding against allowing individuals to derail the company in such significant way. These two engineers were not particularly high in the corporate hierarchy so how could they have a capability to cause so much damage.

 

[RABaby]

It is hard for me to accept that blame for such huge damage can be assigned to 2 relatively low rank individuals. If that is the case, then GM internal control processes are insufficiently guarding against allowing individuals to derail the company in such significant way. These two engineers were not particularly high in the corporate hierarchy so how could they have a capability to cause so much damage.

Those engineers did not on their own decide to make a change, and this is a significant change considering its function.
It came about because of a problem and changing the part would be the resolution to the problem.

The way things typically work in engineering and manufacturing is that when a part is changed (form, fit, function) it gets a new part number and that new part number is entered as an equivalent, or preferred, or required replacement in the parts list. If GM does not have this sort of system, there is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

Assuming they do have part numbering standards, the engineers only do the design and there is a protocol for numbering. The decision to not change the part number would have involved others, who may have been very careful to avoid a paper trail, but this was all about money.

Until proven otherwise, I believe the engineers were instructed to use the same part number.
In the aerospace industry, there are debates about whether a part number should be changed when there are very minor changes and there is a debate about form, fit, and function, but if it is an improvement that affects safety, there is no debate.

So I believe the engineers are scapegoats, or possibly paid co-conspirators because they should have blown the whistle, and the real criminals disregarded the impact of their decision in the desire to hide the problem and save money. This is not the first time similar penny pinching efforts have taken place in the auto industry - remember the Pinto. If there were executives responsible for directing the engineers to not change the part number, they should be located and prosecuted for manslaughter. The existence of a system and standards can be easily answered and the avoidance of direct answers by executives (we are researching it) is just stalling to work out a defense.

 

[Auzie]

Those engineers did not on their own decide to make a change, and this is a significant change considering its function.
It came about because of a problem and changing the part would be the resolution to the problem.

The way things typically work in engineering and manufacturing is that when a part is changed (form, fit, function) it gets a new part number and that new part number is entered as an equivalent, or preferred, or required replacement in the parts list. If GM does not have this sort of system, there is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

Assuming they do have part numbering standards, the engineers only do the design and there is a protocol for numbering. The decision to not change the part number would have involved others, who may have been very careful to avoid a paper trail, but this was all about money.

Until proven otherwise, I believe the engineers were instructed to use the same part number.
In the aerospace industry, there are debates about whether a part number should be changed when there are very minor changes and there is a debate about form, fit, and function, but if it is an improvement that affects safety, there is no debate.

So I believe the engineers are scapegoats, or possibly paid co-conspirators because they should have blown the whistle, and the real criminals disregarded the impact of their decision in the desire to hide the problem and save money. This is not the first time similar penny pinching efforts have taken place in the auto industry - remember the Pinto. If there were executives responsible for directing the engineers to not change the part number, they should be located and prosecuted for manslaughter. The existence of a system and standards can be easily answered and the avoidance of direct answers by executives (we are researching it) is just stalling to work out a defense.

Thank you RABaby for detailed insight into this murky matter. The scenario in which engineers acted on their own accord does not make sense to me for many reasons. The main one being that there is no pay off and there is significant downside risk for salaried employees to act contrary to business systems and procedures.