Official Tesla Model S thread

[donald]

try to keep up, the failures amounted to a loose wire, fixed by a tie wrap, there is no massive failures and there are no massive financial issues

'try to keep up'. Please quit with the personal jibes, else I'll make my own back, per below (just on this occasion).

Think about it for yourself, rather than be a sheep. That is a fault found in some cars. We are not privy to information suggesting that was the only fault with all the cars.

In any case, you've still blundered into missing the point.....

Whether or not transmission faults were found, the point I made was that if they have been able to get the transmission supplier to accept an 8 year unlimited mileage warranty then it is no direct cost to Tesla to offer that extended warranty on the transmission.

Tesla have excelled so far at making 'offers' that look amazing but have very little impact on their business. Remember, they are the company that put the price up on cars that people had already put deposits down on, and said they could pay the higher amount or have their deposits back. They aren't going to miss a trick if they can pass the liabilities back to suppliers, and if it has been found that all the transmission replacements were not needed and were loose harnesses, then the transmission supplier would have then been even more ready to make such an offer to accept the warranty liabilities Tesla are now declaring.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Does anyone know if they are single sourced on that gearbox? I saw a comment somewhere it must be Borg Warner, something about them being the only ones with the capability to build such a device (withstand the force of the motor, small volume production, whatever)

 

[Zythryn]

.... Remember, they are the company that put the price up on cars that people had already put deposits down on, and said they could pay the higher amount or have their deposits back...

Just to clarify for everyone else, Tesla did this once when they were very tiny, when the Roadster came out.
They underestimated the cost to bring the Roadster to market. So they raised the cost and gave reservation holders the choice to get their deposit back or pay the higher price.
With the S, no reservation holder has ever had to pay a higher price than when they placed their reservation.
Didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

 

[evnow]

How about 8 year, 125,000 miles for the 60s and, unlimited mileage for the 85s?

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/infinite-mile-warranty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now we can buy a used S and keep it for 5 years.

 

[mkjayakumar]

Shucks.. now my dreams of buying a used Model S 85 on the cheap with less than 75K miles, has dried out...

 

[mkjayakumar]

well then, there should be no problem Tesla offering a 100K miles Powertrain coverage with their basic warranty, right ?

I think Musk did this with the sole purpose of making me look like a dork..

From a commercial point of view, they appear to have lost money in that singular statement. No-one would've thought any less of them whatsoever if they had said that warranty is only for private use up to 100,000 miles, and/or direct purchases from a Tesla dealer, which would have then guaranteed residual value only if sold back into Tesla, which would then give them a chance to make bigger profits on resales. They have created quite some liability for themselves if they include unlimited commercial usage.

Someone on the TMC forum replied to this very same concern stating that this warranty is not for commercial use. But I have not seen any language to that effect in Tesla motors website

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Might they have cut a deal with the supplier for reduced cost replacement units? Once you have a production line committed the incremental cost of each unit is a lot less anyway. Or can they be rebuilt?

Interesting that the 60kwh has less warranty than the 85, but you'd think the lower performing 60 would stress the part less. Must be a money thing, the higher margin on the 85 enables them to absorb more. It might also be a way to segment the customer base, as a group 60 buyers cheaped out on the high priced options, where the 85 correlates to the Tesla customers who spend like drunken sailors.

 

[donald]

the 85 correlates to the Tesla customers who spend like drunken sailors.

..evidently :lol:

 

[GRA]

Might they have cut a deal with the supplier for reduced cost replacement units? Once you have a production line committed the incremental cost of each unit is a lot less anyway. Or can they be rebuilt?

Interesting that the 60kwh has less warranty than the 85, but you'd think the lower performing 60 would stress the part less. Must be a money thing, the higher margin on the 85 enables them to absorb more. It might also be a way to segment the customer base, as a group 60 buyers cheaped out on the high priced options, where the 85 correlates to the Tesla customers who spend like drunken sailors.

I think it's more likely due to the 60 cycling a higher % of the battery on a daily basis than the 85 for any given range. DOD matters for longevity, as does the need to do a range charge for longer trips that the 85 can do with a normal charge. I know I'd never warranty a smaller battery pack for the same length of time (mileage in this case) as a larger one, for that reason.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

^ That makes sense on the battery, but why offer a longer term on the drive unit for those opting for the higher battery capacity?

 

[donald]

I think it's more likely due to the 60 cycling a higher % of the battery on a daily basis than the 85 for any given range. DOD matters for longevity, as does the need to do a range charge for longer trips that the 85 can do with a normal charge. I know I'd never warranty a smaller battery pack for the same length of time (mileage in this case) as a larger one, for that reason.

Something in the back of my brain says that I saw a clippet, perhaps from an unreferenced/unreliable source, saying the 60 and 85 actually have the same battery packs, but simply the upper 25 is not enabled on the 60. I think there was some issue, perhaps just from the first production runs, that so few people took the 60 that it was not cost effective to make two different packs. Is that rubbish, or true, or was a temporary thing?

 

[GRA]

I think it's more likely due to the 60 cycling a higher % of the battery on a daily basis than the 85 for any given range. DOD matters for longevity, as does the need to do a range charge for longer trips that the 85 can do with a normal charge. I know I'd never warranty a smaller battery pack for the same length of time (mileage in this case) as a larger one, for that reason.

Something in the back of my brain says that I saw a clippet, perhaps from an unreferenced/unreliable source, saying the 60 and 85 actually have the same battery packs, but simply the upper 25 is not enabled on the 60. I think there was some issue, perhaps just from the first production runs, that so few people took the 60 that it was not cost effective to make two different packs. Is that rubbish, or true, or was a temporary thing?

There's been so many claims about the differences between the packs that I've forgotten which one I currently believe Tesla changed their mind early on. IIRR, originally they were going to have three pack sizes, the 40 and 60 would use lower specific energy batteries in different numbers, the 85 would use higher energy but in the same configuration as the 60. When they dropped the 40, I believe they decided to use the same cell for the 60 and 85, but different numbers. And now, I'm not sure what they are doing.

 

[cwerdna]

I think it's more likely due to the 60 cycling a higher % of the battery on a daily basis than the 85 for any given range. DOD matters for longevity, as does the need to do a range charge for longer trips that the 85 can do with a normal charge. I know I'd never warranty a smaller battery pack for the same length of time (mileage in this case) as a larger one, for that reason.

Something in the back of my brain says that I saw a clippet, perhaps from an unreferenced/unreliable source, saying the 60 and 85 actually have the same battery packs, but simply the upper 25 is not enabled on the 60. I think there was some issue, perhaps just from the first production runs, that so few people took the 60 that it was not cost effective to make two different packs. Is that rubbish, or true, or was a temporary thing?

This is the first I've heard of this re: the 60 kWh vs. 85 kWh models.

Are you confusing this w/the 40 vs. 60 kWh models? See http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-model-s-sales-exceed-target" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://insideevs.com/entry-level-40kwh-tesla-model-s-cancelled-60-kwh-cars-all-get-supercharging-hardware/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on that.

 

[cwerdna]

Might they have cut a deal with the supplier for reduced cost replacement units? Once you have a production line committed the incremental cost of each unit is a lot less anyway. Or can they be rebuilt?

could it be that the fix is absurdly simple and costs less than $1 in materials? but why should I interrupt your ranting?

First off, you're assuming all of the drive unit replacements are due to unnecessary replacement and solved by fixes that are under say $10 of materials (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/34141-Drive-unit-problems-explanation-by-Elon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093713_tesla-model-s-drive-unit-replacements-how-big-a-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; are some accounts). I don't think we can definitively say that. Elon's only given us insight into some of the cases and, not surprisingly, he's trying to downplay it.

Even if it is a cheap in terms of materials fix, there's still the labor cost needed to repro the problem, an unknown amount of labor cost to make the fix (e.g. we don't know what's involved in the shim work or whatever work they need to do) and then more labor to verify that fix worked. If the drive unit must be removed, there's yet more cost to doing a 4-wheel alignment. And, there's cost to Tesla providing loaners.

From http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-is-the-third-drive-unit-the-charm.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"We're getting a bunch of faults from the drive unit and main battery pack," said Vince. "Our technicians are taking a look at it now. I'll call you when I have more information."
...
During vehicle logs review, found fault related to internal drive unit failure. Replaced complete drive unit assembly per TDS case #9571."

If you're keeping score, our Model S is now on its third drive unit: the one that came with the car, the one that was replaced in November, and this latest one. And that wasn't the only thing that was replaced on this service visit.

After the power unit was replaced, the Model S needed a four-wheel alignment. That's because the rear subframe must be removed to extract the power unit.

Doesn't sound like a cheap shim nor cable tie would've fixed the above.

 

[Zythryn]

...
Doesn't sound like a cheap shim nor cable tie would've fixed the above.

There will always be extreme cases, that doesn't mean they are typical.
Most owners I know haven't had any issues.

In the last quarterly statement there was no drastic increase in warrantee or service costs.
To me, that indicates the warrantee reserves set aside have not yet been stressed by this issue.

As they identify the issues, they are correcting them, both for existing cars and in the construction process.

One of our cars has had the drive unit replaced twice. The other has had no issues. And the first drive train issue was one of the 30 cent zip tie issues. They just didn't know it at the time.

 

[smkettner]

Might they have cut a deal with the supplier for reduced cost replacement units? Once you have a production line committed the incremental cost of each unit is a lot less anyway. Or can they be rebuilt?

Interesting that the 60kwh has less warranty than the 85, but you'd think the lower performing 60 would stress the part less. Must be a money thing, the higher margin on the 85 enables them to absorb more. It might also be a way to segment the customer base, as a group 60 buyers cheaped out on the high priced options, where the 85 correlates to the Tesla customers who spend like drunken sailors.

I think it's more likely due to the 60 cycling a higher % of the battery on a daily basis than the 85 for any given range. DOD matters for longevity, as does the need to do a range charge for longer trips that the 85 can do with a normal charge. I know I'd never warranty a smaller battery pack for the same length of time (mileage in this case) as a larger one, for that reason.

IMO it is just marketing to move anyone on the fence to grab the 85. Warranty is intended to drive revenue.

 

[TomT]

It is the same reason that an Acura has a longer warranty than a Honda. At the higher price point, it is expected even though they are much the same vehicles...

IMO it is just marketing to move anyone on the fence to grab the 85. Warranty is intended to drive revenue.

 

[DaveEV]

Guys, cut it out. Take it somewhere off-topic if you want to continue your flame-fest.

I'm not looking forward to cleaning up this mess when I get some time to do it.

MOD NOTE: All snippy posts banished to the new thread Snippiness.

 

[Valdemar]

Has anyone been checking on used TMS prices? Any good deals out there?

 

[GeekEV]

The pricing model that Tesla uses for selling their demo/loaner cars seems to be the defacto standard for used Tesla pricing. IIRC it's $1 off per mile plus 1% off per month. IF you can find a year old MS with 12k miles on it that'd be $24k off (assuming $100k sticker). That seems like a pretty good deal to me.