Official Tesla Model S thread

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Via IEVS:
Tesla Model S Crashes Into Back Of Van As Adaptive Cruise Control Fails To Stop Car – Video
http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-crashes-into-back-of-van-as-adaptive-cruise-control-fails-to-stop-car-video/

FWIW, I agree with the comments posted by "ModernMarvelFan" and "It's NotAbouttheMoney".
 
GRA said:
Via IEVS:
Tesla Model S Crashes Into Back Of Van As Adaptive Cruise Control Fails To Stop Car – Video
http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-crashes-into-back-of-van-as-adaptive-cruise-control-fails-to-stop-car-video/

FWIW, I agree with the comments posted by "ModernMarvelFan" and "It's NotAbouttheMoney".

Not surprisingly, I disagree.
The driver was an idiot.
The manual it's very explicit about TACC and the driver assistance sensors NOT being able to detect a stationary object.

The emergency braking is also very explicit about the fact that emergency braking will not avoid a collision, but it will lessen the speed of impact. In some cases it will stop in time, but going from highway speeds to zero?

The area I have the biggest concern with is if the emergency braking didn't engage at all, which I can't tell if it did. Frankly, it didn't look like it.

Tesla's biggest failure in this is calling the system "auto-pilot". They shouldn't have done that until it is truely an auto-pilot which can handle traffic as a primary driver, not as backup to a human driver.
 
Its a shame that video is so edited, I'd like to see what it looked like 5-10 seconds before the accident. A situation like that, where the driver in front of you suddenly changes lanes, leaving you staring squarely at the bumper of a stopped vehicle, has to be one of the worst case scenarios. The car looks small enough that the stopped van *should* have been visible, so it may be a case where the driver was too complacent, and not watching the road ahead. Just returning from a 2400 mile trip to Pennsylvania and back, with Autopilot in my 70D, I have learned a lot of what to expect the TACC and Autopilot to do for me, and what not to expect. It certainly has its limitations, especially in pouring rain, construction zones, curvy or hilly roads, etc, so I just turned off the Autopilot and steered myself. As others commented, I still think that these features will cause fewer accidents and save more lives, but I don't know if the American public is responsible enough, or has enough common sense, to use them properly.
 
Zythryn said:
The area I have the biggest concern with is if the emergency braking didn't engage at all, which I can't tell if it did. Frankly, it didn't look like it.
If the driver intervenes, that overrides emergency braking as the car then assumes that the driver is in charge.
 
Reported in the DK yesterday, and picked up by the financial press today just before the NYSE close:

U.S. Regulators Begin Looking at Suspensions in Tesla’s Model S

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also questions car marker’s nondisclosure agreements with customers


...Tesla allegedly offered to cover some costs for repairing affected vehicles so long as customers kept the problem to themselves.

“NHTSA is examining the potential suspension issue on the Tesla Model S, and is seeking additional information from vehicle owners and the company,“ the agency said in a statement. “NHTSA learned of Tesla’s troublesome nondisclosure agreement last month. The agency immediately informed Tesla that any language implying that consumers should not contact the agency regarding safety concerns is unacceptable, and NHTSA expects Tesla to eliminate any such language.”...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-regulators-begin-looking-at-suspensions-in-teslas-model-s-1465508937

Tesla Suspension Breakage: It’s Not The Crime, It’s The Coverup

June 8, 2016 By Edward Niedermeyer
...For several months now, reports have circulated in comment sections and forum threads about a possible defect in Tesla’s vehicles that may cause suspension control arms to break. Many of those reports appeared to come from a single, highly-motivated and potentially unreliable source, a fact which led many to dismiss them as crankery. But as more reports of suspension failure in Teslas have come in, Daily Kanban has investigated the matter and can now report on this deeply troubling issue.

...to repair a defective part in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement, is unheard of in the auto industry. More troublingly, it represents a potential assault by Tesla Motors on the right of vehicle owners to report defects to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s complaint database, the auto safety regulators sole means of discovering defects independent of the automakers they regulate...
http://dailykanban.com/2016/06/tesla-suspension-breakage-not-crime-coverup/

Suspension Problem on Model S

Discussion in 'Model S' started by gpcordaro, Apr 28, 2016.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/suspension-problem-on-model-s.69204/
 
Interesting. I look forward to hearing more about this and seeing what the review to determine if there should be an investigation is.

NDAs for repairs doesn't sound right.
However, this is the first I have heard of the issue or of the alleged NDA requirement.
 
Tesla's response
A few things need to be cleared up about the supposed safety of Model S suspensions:

First, there is no safety defect with the suspensions in either the Model S or Model X. Since we own all of our service centers, we are aware of every incident that happens with our customer cars and we are aware of every part that gets replaced. Whenever there is even a potential issue with one of those parts, we investigate fully. This, combined with extensive durability testing, gives us high confidence in our suspensions. With respect to the car that is discussed in the blog post that led to yesterday’s news (more on the blog post below), the suspension ball joint experienced very abnormal rust. We haven’t seen this on any other car, suggesting a very unusual use case. The car had over 70,000 miles on it and its owner lives down such a long dirt road that it required two tow trucks to retrieve the car. (One to get the car to the highway and one to get it from the highway to the service center.) When we got the car, it was caked in dirt.

Second, NHTSA has not opened any investigation nor has it even started a “preliminary evaluation,” which is the lowest form of formal investigatory work that it does. On April 20th, as part of what it has told us it considers “routine screening,” NHTSA informally asked us to provide information about our suspensions. On April 30th, we provided all relevant information to NHTSA. NHTSA has since told us that we have cooperated fully and that no further information is needed. Neither before nor after this information was provided has NHTSA identified any safety issue with Tesla’s suspensions. This can be confirmed with NHTSA.

Third, Tesla has never and would never ask a customer to sign a document to prevent them from talking to NHTSA or any other government agency. That is preposterous.

When our customers tell us something went wrong with their car, we often cover it even if we find that the problem was not caused by the car and that we therefore have no obligations under the warranty. In these situations, we discount or conduct the repair for free, because we believe in putting our customers’ happiness ahead of our own bottom line. When this happens, we sometimes ask our customers to sign a “Goodwill Agreement.” The basic point is to ensure that Tesla doesn’t do a good deed, only to have that used against us in court for further gain. These situations are very rare, but have sometimes occurred in the past. We will take a look at this situation and will work with NHTSA to see if we can handle it differently, but one thing is clear: this agreement never even comes close to mentioning NHTSA or the government and it has nothing to do with trying to stop someone from communicating with NHTSA or the government about our cars. We have absolutely no desire to do something like that. It is deeply ironic that the only customer who apparently believes that this document prevents him from talking to NHTSA is also the same one who talked to NHTSA. If our agreement was meant to prevent that, it obviously wasn’t very good.

Fourth, Tesla’s own actions demonstrate just how rigorous we are about bringing issues to NHTSA’s attention. Not only do we regularly meet with NHTSA, we have also shown that we won’t hesitate to conduct proactive and voluntary recalls even when there is only a slight risk of a safety issue. Most recently, Tesla recalled third row seats in the Model X even though not a single problem had been reported by any customer. Before that, Tesla recalled a front seat belt pretensioner, even though not a single injury had occurred. In both of these situations and others before them, Tesla took these actions before anyone reported a concern to NHTSA. We did them on our own, because it was the right thing to do.

There is no car company in the world that cares more about safety than Tesla and our track record reflects that. The Model S is 5-star safety rated in every category and sub-category and Model X is expected to receive the same rating as soon as the government finishes testing. Recently, a Model S was in a very high speed accident in Germany that caused it to fly 82 feet through the air, an event that would likely be fatal in vehicles not designed to the level of safety of a Tesla. All five occupants were able to exit the vehicle under their own power and had no life-threatening injuries.

Finally, it is worth noting that the blogger who fabricated this issue, which then caused negative and incorrect news to be written about Tesla by reputable institutions, is Edward Niedermayer. This is the same gentle soul who previously wrote a blog titled “Tesla Death Watch,” which starting on May 19, 2008 was counting the days until Tesla’s death. It has now been 2,944 days. We just checked our pulse and, much to his chagrin, appear to be alive. It is probably wise to take Mr. Niedermayer’s words with at least a small grain of salt.

We don’t know if Mr. Niedermayer’s motivation is simply to set a world record for axe-grinding or whether he or his associates have something financial to gain by negatively affecting Tesla’s stock price, but it is important to highlight that there are several billion dollars in short sale bets against Tesla. This means that there is a strong financial incentive to greatly amplify minor issues and to create false issues from whole cloth.

That said, sometimes Tesla does make genuine mistakes. We are not and have never claimed to be perfect. However, we strongly believe in trying to do the right thing and, when we fall short, taking immediate corrective action.
 
Excellent points, especially the fourth.
I am very happy to hear Tesla responded quickly to this.

The fourth point was thie biggest one that immediately occurred to me. It just seemed very out of character.

I wonder if the SEC will look into the blogger for such a publication in efforts for financial gain?

I am also happy to hear about the rarity of this event.
I've also been reading how this part, in other makes of cars, can and has failed at less mileage.
 
The lower priced version of the model S is interesting.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-motors-to-restart-sales-of-lower-range-model-s-sedan-1465476547

I like the way you can get in at a lower price then upgrade the car later. It looked like the only thing you'd need to add is leather to have a pretty nice car.
 
What seems indisputable, is that at least one Model S suffered a parts failure that could have led to a severe crash, and offered the vehicle's owner compensation to sign a non-disclosure agreement on the subject.

TSLA's response below, IMO is factually challenged and amateurish, on several points.

The owner has reported (on the Tesla thread previously posted) that he lives and regularly drives on a paved roads, with no "very unusual use".

I actually live more than half a mile from asphalt, and do ~5% of my total driving off-pavement, but the worst abuse my LEAF's suspension has ever taken (and one torn tire sidewall) was from potholes on paved roads.

The nondisclosure document does not seem to be limited as TSLA suggests.

Attacking Edward Niedermayer and the DK as part of a conspiracy of short-sellers is a new low in TSLA's disinformation campaigns.

That's the sort of accusation previously made only by idiots on forums (like this one) after they run out of factual arguments.

garsh said:
Tesla's response
A few things need to be cleared up about the supposed safety of Model S suspensions:

First, there is no safety defect with the suspensions in either the Model S or Model X. Since we own all of our service centers, we are aware of every incident that happens with our customer cars and we are aware of every part that gets replaced. Whenever there is even a potential issue with one of those parts, we investigate fully. This, combined with extensive durability testing, gives us high confidence in our suspensions. With respect to the car that is discussed in the blog post that led to yesterday’s news (more on the blog post below), the suspension ball joint experienced very abnormal rust. We haven’t seen this on any other car, suggesting a very unusual use case. The car had over 70,000 miles on it and its owner lives down such a long dirt road that it required two tow trucks to retrieve the car. (One to get the car to the highway and one to get it from the highway to the service center.) When we got the car, it was caked in dirt.

Second, NHTSA has not opened any investigation nor has it even started a “preliminary evaluation,” which is the lowest form of formal investigatory work that it does. On April 20th, as part of what it has told us it considers “routine screening,” NHTSA informally asked us to provide information about our suspensions. On April 30th, we provided all relevant information to NHTSA. NHTSA has since told us that we have cooperated fully and that no further information is needed. Neither before nor after this information was provided has NHTSA identified any safety issue with Tesla’s suspensions. This can be confirmed with NHTSA.

Third, Tesla has never and would never ask a customer to sign a document to prevent them from talking to NHTSA or any other government agency. That is preposterous.


When our customers tell us something went wrong with their car, we often cover it even if we find that the problem was not caused by the car and that we therefore have no obligations under the warranty. In these situations, we discount or conduct the repair for free, because we believe in putting our customers’ happiness ahead of our own bottom line. When this happens, we sometimes ask our customers to sign a “Goodwill Agreement.” The basic point is to ensure that Tesla doesn’t do a good deed, only to have that used against us in court for further gain. These situations are very rare, but have sometimes occurred in the past. We will take a look at this situation and will work with NHTSA to see if we can handle it differently, but one thing is clear: this agreement never even comes close to mentioning NHTSA or the government and it has nothing to do with trying to stop someone from communicating with NHTSA or the government about our cars. We have absolutely no desire to do something like that. It is deeply ironic that the only customer who apparently believes that this document prevents him from talking to NHTSA is also the same one who talked to NHTSA. If our agreement was meant to prevent that, it obviously wasn’t very good.

Fourth, Tesla’s own actions demonstrate just how rigorous we are about bringing issues to NHTSA’s attention. Not only do we regularly meet with NHTSA, we have also shown that we won’t hesitate to conduct proactive and voluntary recalls even when there is only a slight risk of a safety issue. Most recently, Tesla recalled third row seats in the Model X even though not a single problem had been reported by any customer. Before that, Tesla recalled a front seat belt pretensioner, even though not a single injury had occurred. In both of these situations and others before them, Tesla took these actions before anyone reported a concern to NHTSA. We did them on our own, because it was the right thing to do.

There is no car company in the world that cares more about safety than Tesla and our track record reflects that. The Model S is 5-star safety rated in every category and sub-category and Model X is expected to receive the same rating as soon as the government finishes testing. We don’t know if Mr. Niedermayer’s motivation is simply to set a world record for axe-grinding or whether he or his associates have something financial to gain by negatively affecting Tesla’s stock price, but it is important to highlight that there are several billion dollars in short sale bets against Tesla. This means that there is a strong financial incentive to greatly amplify minor issues and to create false issues from whole cloth.Recently, a Model S was in a very high speed accident in Germany that caused it to fly 82 feet through the air, an event that would likely be fatal in vehicles not designed to the level of safety of a Tesla. All five occupants were able to exit the vehicle under their own power and had no life-threatening injuries.

Finally, it is worth noting that the blogger who fabricated this issue, which then caused negative and incorrect news to be written about Tesla by reputable institutions, is Edward Niedermayer. This is the same gentle soul who previously wrote a blog titled “Tesla Death Watch,” which starting on May 19, 2008 was counting the days until Tesla’s death. It has now been 2,944 days. We just checked our pulse and, much to his chagrin, appear to be alive. It is probably wise to take Mr. Niedermayer’s words with at least a small grain of salt.

That said, sometimes Tesla does make genuine mistakes. We are not and have never claimed to be perfect. However, we strongly believe in trying to do the right thing and, when we fall short, taking immediate corrective action.
 
Summary of the current situation at the link below:

NHTSA warns Tesla over non-disclosure pacts

U.S. auto safety regulators have chastised Tesla Motors over reports that it used nondisclosure agreements with consumers in exchange for covering out-of-warranty repair costs on some of vehicles.

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman said in a statement that the agency learned of a “troublesome” Tesla nondisclosure agreement last month over a repair issue that could have safety implications.

“The agency immediately informed Tesla that any language implying that consumers should not contact the agency regarding safety concerns is unacceptable, and NHTSA expects Tesla to eliminate any such language,” said NHTSA spokesman Bryan Thomas...

Tesla representatives told the agency that it was not the company’s intention to dissuade owners from contacting NHTSA, the spokesman said.

In addition, NHTSA has begun a “pre-investigatory” examination of potential suspension failures on the Model S reported by the Daily Kanban, and is seeking additional information from the company and owners, the spokesman said...
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160609/OEM11/160609815/nhtsa-warns-tesla-over-non-disclosure-pacts

DK special edition has links to ~27 reports:

June 10, 2016 By Bertel Schmitt


Today is Friday

Tesla Special Edition...
http://dailykanban.com/2016/06/friday-morning-car-news-roundup-june-10-2016/
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
The lower priced version of the model S is interesting.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-motors-to-restart-sales-of-lower-range-model-s-sedan-1465476547

I like the way you can get in at a lower price then upgrade the car later. It looked like the only thing you'd need to add is leather to have a pretty nice car.
A big advantage of this new "60" is that it will Supercharge more quickly than the old S60. One will also be able to routinely charge to 100% and I would expect the battery degradation over time to be slightly reduced over the old one with the smaller battery pack.

Although it doesn't much interest me, I would expect the most commonly added option to be Auto Pilot; people who have it rave about it.
 
dgpcolorado said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
The lower priced version of the model S is interesting.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-motors-to-restart-sales-of-lower-range-model-s-sedan-1465476547

I like the way you can get in at a lower price then upgrade the car later. It looked like the only thing you'd need to add is leather to have a pretty nice car.
A big advantage of this new "60" is that it will Supercharge more quickly than the old S60. One will also be able to routinely charge to 100% and I would expect the battery degradation over time to be slightly reduced over the old one with the smaller battery pack.

Although it doesn't much interest me, I would expect the most commonly added option to be Auto Pilot; people who have it rave about it.
While I'm a big fan of automatic emergency braking and leaning towards ACC, Autopilot in its current state is too in-between to be something I'd want. You're either driving the car with your hand(s) on the wheel and paying full attention to the road, or you're not and the car is capable of doing so by itself in all situations. Human nature being what it is, if something works 999 times without your input you expect it to do so the 1,000th time as well, and you're likely to let your attention wander. As has recently been shown, Autopilot isn't to that level yet, and you probably need something like 6 nines reliability or better to make true autopilot a viable, safe option.
 
GRA said:
...While I'm a big fan of automatic emergency braking and leaning towards ACC, Autopilot in its current state is too in-between to be something I'd want. You're either driving the car with your hand(s) on the wheel and paying full attention to the road, or you're not and the car is capable of doing so by itself in all situations. Human nature being what it is, if something works 999 times without your input you expect it to do so the 1,000th time as well, and you're likely to let your attention wander. As has recently been shown, Autopilot isn't to that level yet, and you probably need something like 6 nines reliability or better to make true autopilot a viable, safe option.
While I tend to agree with you, the people who do have AP say that it helps a lot in rush hour traffic and on long freeway trips. Since it would be utterly useless where I live I'm not interested; although it might be a help on long interstate trips, I just don't find those particularly difficult with plain old cruise control.
 
dgpcolorado said:
GRA said:
...While I'm a big fan of automatic emergency braking and leaning towards ACC, Autopilot in its current state is too in-between to be something I'd want. You're either driving the car with your hand(s) on the wheel and paying full attention to the road, or you're not and the car is capable of doing so by itself in all situations. Human nature being what it is, if something works 999 times without your input you expect it to do so the 1,000th time as well, and you're likely to let your attention wander. As has recently been shown, Autopilot isn't to that level yet, and you probably need something like 6 nines reliability or better to make true autopilot a viable, safe option.
While I tend to agree with you, the people who do have AP say that it helps a lot in rush hour traffic and on long freeway trips. Since it would be utterly useless where I live I'm not interested; although it might be a help on long interstate trips, I just don't find those particularly difficult with plain old cruise control.
I was thinking of the recent rear-ender in rush hour traffic of an auto-pilot-engaged Model S when I wrote the above. It's a perfect example of trusting the tech and assuming that it will handle any situation, causing your attention to wander and slowing your reactions. We need better humans or better autopilots!

I did find it interesting that the sequence leading up to the accident was specifically warned as being beyond auto-pilot's capabilities in the owner's manual. What % of owner's ever even open same? When I get a new car I read the thing cover to cover, but judging by the number of questions here and on other EV forums that could be answered just by RTFM, I'm in a distinct minority. Although I imagine many Model S/X owners are more technically interested and a higher % might actually read the manual, I'd be surprised if it went over 30%. That being the case, relying on "but the manual says not to trust it in that situation" strikes me as an unacceptable defense, and I believe Volvo's attitude is the only acceptable one - if the car crashes while the car's driving itself, that's on Volvo, and until the company's willing to accept that responsibility they won't offer it.
 
pchilds said:
The title to that article you have cited was:

Musk Says Feds Clear Tesla of Supension Issues; Cites ‘Fraudulent’ Customer Complaints

And the author, in a later article summarizing the entire fiasco, points out why you need to take all of Musk's claims with a grain of salt...

Contrary To Musk’s Suggestion, NHTSA Did Not Call Tesla Suspension Complaints ‘Fraudulent’

by Jeff Cobb June 14, 2016

Despite tweets last Friday by Tesla CEO Elon Musk implying federal regulators have dismissed allegations that Model S suspensions have design defects, this is not the case.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) actually said last week it is looking further into concerns initially raised by writer Edward Niedermeyer in the Daily Kanban, and is contacting consumers and reviewing complaints it has on file...
http://www.hybridcars.com/contrary-to-musks-suggestion-nhtsa-did-not-call-tesla-suspension-complaints-fraudulent/
 
I suggest reading some of those complaints yourself:

NHTSA search, 2014 Tesla Model S

There are legitimate complaints in those results (and having to pick a year misses other complaints, so try other years too). But pick out the ones about the suspension. You'll see gems like this:
I AM FILING THIS COMPLAINT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I AM NOT THE VEHICLE OWNER. I AM NOT A US RESIDENT AND HAVE USED A MADE UP ADDRESS TO SATISFY YOUR WEBSITE REQUIREMENTS.... THIS CAR IS FOR SALE AS A SALVAGE WRECK.... THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THAT ALL OF THE ALLOY SUSPENSION COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN TORN CLEAN AWAY. IT IS MOST PROBABLE THAT THIS FAILURE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE CRASH AND NOT THE RESULT OF IMPACT DAMAGE.
This one person - Keef Leech (aka Keef Wivaneff) - filed most of these suspension issue complaints. He has no actual knowledge of the accidents that occurred. He simply scours the internet looking for photos of damaged Teslas (take a look at his Flickr page). I'd be more apt to trust his complaints if he were to act more like an investigative reporter. You know, actually contact all of these owners, or look up the police accident reports. Get some real data to back up these conclusions that the suspension was to blame. But instead, he's just looking for photos on salvage car sale websites, drawing his own conclusions strictly from photos, and filing NHTSA complaints himself with no actual information.

So no, the NHTSA may not call the reports fraudulent. But Keef sure underminds his credibility by filing these unresearched, unsubstantiated reports.

Another article on the subject: The story behind the ‘false’ Tesla suspension complaints to NHTSA
 
Back
Top