Musk Says the Tesla Model S Suspension Controversy is Over

2016 Tesla Model S

Elon Musk is declaring the controversy that erupted over reports of Tesla Model S suspension failures to be over, completed, completed, finito.

The Tesla founder and CEO fired off a string of tweets late Friday, saying that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration was done hunting into the matter, and added that the majority of complaints had been identified to be fraudulent.

Yesterday, TTAC examined the specifics of the case that sparked accusations of a significant Model S security concern and a cover-up on the component of the automaker. The firestorm of controversy, ignited by a Daily Kanban blog post by ex-TTAC editor Edward Neidermeyer, centered on a Pennsylvania man whose 2013 Model S skilled an unusual upper ball joint failure.

A non-disclosure clause in the “goodwill agreement” handed to the owner during the vehicle’s repair procedure raised even a lot more questions. The NHTSA, which had been contacted by Tesla owners and other folks, examined the language in the document and announced it was hunting into the suspension problem.

Although this was going on, Tesla fired back at critics with a lengthy and unusually harsh weblog post of its personal, denying there was a security concern and singling out Neidermeyer for his post.

It now looks like Musk desires the final say on the matter. Taking to Twitter last night, he announced, “NHTSA confirmed right now that they discovered no security concern with the Model S suspension and have no additional need for information from us on this matter.”

He then added, “Of greater concern: 37 of 40 suspension complaints to NHTSA were fraudulent, i.e. false location or car identification numbers have been utilised.” Musk then questioned the intentions of those who made false complaints.

Looking into the situation, TTAC’s Mark Stevenson and Bozi Tatarevic discovered that the non-disclosure agreement, whilst unusual, was likely unenforceable. The automaker would have a potentially ruinous PR disaster on its hands if it attempted to silence consumer complaints.

The suspension failure that led to the controversy looked to be the outcome of a damaged rubber ball joint boot that allowed water and road salt to enter the ball joint, ultimately top to its premature failure. The broken boot remains a mystery — it could have been compromised when it left the factory or broken when the owner drove his Model S down rutted Pennsylvania roads.

Automobile Testimonials – The Truth About Automobiles

Tesla Model X Owner Says His Car Crashed Itself

Tesla Model X crash

A California man is seeking for answers — and repairs — right after he claims his 5-day-old Tesla Model X unexpectedly accelerated into a constructing at full speed as he was attempting to park.

Puzant Ozbag took to the Tesla forum to describe the June 5 incident, which launched his automobile into the wall of an Irvine store and left his wife with minor airbag-connected injuries.

In his words:

Our 5 day old Tesla X these days even though entering a parking stall suddenly and unexpectedly accelerated at higher speed on its personal climbing over 39 feet of planters and crashing into a constructing.

The airbags deployed and my wife’s arms have burn marks as a consequence.

This could have effortlessly been a fatal accident if the car’s wheels had been not turned slightly to the left. If they were straight, it would have gone over the planters and crashed into the retailer in front of the parking stall and injured or killed the patrons

The acceleration was uncontrollable, seemed maximum and the automobile only stopped because it hit the constructing and brought on enormous damage to the creating.

Following the crash, Ozbag referred to as his Tesla delivery consultant, who place him in touch with the automaker’s roadside assistance provider. The automobile was towed to a AAA storage facility.

Tesla Model X crash

When questioned by forum commenters, the owner said the vehicle was operating at really low speeds, wasn’t in Autopilot mode, nor was it using the “summon” function. Ozbag stated Autopilot only engages at speeds above 18 miles per hour, and he was only going 3 to 5 miles per hour at the time.

Ozbag told the forum he wanted Tesla to find out why his Model X behaved the way it did.

“That is the question I want Tesla to answer,” he wrote. “A software glitch or a pc malfunction, either way the outcomes could have been much worse and wants to be completely investigated.”

Regardless of regardless of whether the crash was caused by a malfunction or human error, the Model X has been a thorn in Tesla’s side considering that it first rolled off the assembly line. Most consumer complaints target the vehicle’s signature “falcon wing” doors, which can unexpectedly open and close on their personal.

The electric automaker is at present becoming sued by a man who says door glitches rendered his Model X unsafe and undriveable. For the duration of last week’s public shareholders meeting, Tesla CEO Elon Musk delivered his most recent apology to Model X owners for the inconvenience, and stated that imminent software program upgrades will tame the wonky doors.

[Source: Elektrek] [Images: Puzant: imgur]

Vehicle Critiques – The Truth About Cars

See the Planet from a Tesla Model X, Spend a Actually Huge Windshield Replacement Bill

press03-model-x-front-three-quarter-with-doors-open

Tesla Model X owners may want to double check their insurance coverage coverage before hitting these rural highways in search of ecologically sensitive adventure.

Now that the electric SUV is rolling out of Fremont in bigger numbers, owners are beginning to encounter the typical headaches that come with car ownership. One particular nagging issue owners are discovering is the expense of replacing the acres and acres of glass that make up the vehicle’s panoramic windshield. (Which takes place to be the greatest in the industry.)

Not surprisingly, large glass equals a big repair bill when the Model X encounters wayward pebbles. 1 St. Paul man took to the Tesla Motors on the web forum following his vehicle suffered a windshield crack in the course of a Grand Canyon road trip with his family members.

The replacement cost? Just shy of $ two,300, just before tax. “Ouch,” was the general response from forum dwellers.

Based on exactly where an owner lives, and what coverage their insurance provider offers, that crack could be a extremely costly one. Some states require mandatory coverage for windshield harm. A single forum poster living in Toronto, Canada said his policy covers windshield repair, but the higher cost of the replacement is nevertheless less than the minimum deductible quoted for a Tesla ($ five,000).

No support there.

Of course, there are a lot of who’ll say the owners produced their Model X bed, and ought to lie in it. Hardware comes with a price, no one demands an electric SUV, and so on, and so forth. Consider it all you like, but that isn’t the point here. Who actually thinks about their windshield (and what it might expense to replace) when getting a automobile?

[Source: Elektrek]

Automobile Reviews – The Truth About Cars

Ghost in the Machine: Man Sues More than Possessed Tesla Model X

Tesla Model X, Image: Tesla Motors

Negative PR from customers annoyed by their difficulty-plagued Tesla Model X SUVs continues to hammer the electric automaker.

A lawsuit filed against Tesla by a California man is the most current bit of poor news (and press) for the firm. According to Barrett Lyon, the bizarre electrical gremlins operating loose in his Model X turned his automobile into a static driveway decoration.

It is no wonder Tesla CEO Elon Musk sleeps at the office and keeps his desk at the end of the production line.

The issues reported by Lyon and the initial delay in obtaining the Model X to customers are a big purpose why Musk wants to manufacture his own parts.

Lyon, who already owns a Tesla Roadster and a Model S, paid $ 162,000 for the automobile. Soon soon after, strange factors started to happen.

“The doors do some weird, wicked things,” Lyon told Courthouse News. “If you get in and slide sideways and accidentally tap the brake, the driver’s side door slams shut on your leg. That is not a quite good factor to have come about to you.”

The automatic doors also slammed shut on his wife, Lyon claimed, and opened unexpectedly, causing damage to the doors and products inside his garage. In parking lots, the doors open into other autos, he claimed.

The gripes outlined in the lawsuit do not finish there. According to Lyon, the autonomous Autopilot feature swerves the vehicle into other lanes for the duration of rainstorms, the self-parking feature doesn’t operate 90 % of the time, and the touchscreen freezes for no reason.

Allegedly, Tesla Motors was unable to fix the car, so Lyon filed suit to get his acquire quantity and registration fee back. He’s also seeking damages for breach of warranty and California Lemon Law violations.

The Model X now sits idle in his driveway.

“You acquire a vehicle like that, you expect it to perform,” Lyon said. “It’s grow to be clear to me that the automobile wasn’t ready for buyers. The service center is completely unprepared for the type of troubles they’re obtaining.”

In April, Tesla recalled 2,700 Model X vehicles to stop rear seatback failures. Other situations of issues with the model’s signature “falcon wing” doors have been reported, as effectively as complaints about loose weatherstripping and frayed carpets.

[Source: Courthouse News Service] [Image: Tesla Motors]

Auto Critiques – The Truth About Vehicles

Tesla Does not Want You to Operate on Its Vehicles

TeslaRepair

Tesla Motors has been proud to state its focus is on selling vehicles and not trying to make profit from their service centers — but the actual world final results prove otherwise.

I stumbled on a thread where a Tesla owner with a failed portion was in a position to acquire a replacement from the EV manufacturer. Even so, and this is key, Tesla would not provide guidelines for installing it.

Tesla’s direct sales structure and independent nature allows it to bypass practically all regulations and agreements presently in location relating to service information and repair software program. These regulations and agreements exist to allow owners and independent shops to have the same details and diagnostic tools as dealers so they have the capability to perform repairs appropriately on their own.

Tesla desires no component of it.

Massachusetts was the very first state to pass a “Right To Repair” law in 2012 with 86 percent of the voters supporting the measure. The law demands motor vehicle manufacturers to offer the exact same diagnostic and repair sources to owners and independent shops as they would their franchised dealers. Numerous producers currently provide this information by way of service manuals and websites exactly where access can be bought.

The law also requires manufacturers to supply diagnostic tools for obtain. The companies have provided access to obtain factory diagnostic tools or pass-thru devices which enable the very same functionality in order to repair cars.

At 1st glance, Tesla seems like they are complying by the law as they have a service information web site that allows owners and independent shops to buy timed access. When I attempted to access the site and purchase one hour of access for $ 30, I was unable to proceed as the internet site only allows buy by Massachusetts residents and shops.

My initial thought was that the website was setup only to comply with the Massachusetts law, but I rapidly located out that Tesla was not providing access to diagnostic software program on the site, which is a requirement of that law.

The wording of the law defines a dealer as “any person or organization who, in the ordinary course of its company, sells or leases new motor vehicles to customers or other finish users pursuant to a franchise agreement and who has obtained a class 1 license pursuant to sections 58 and 59 of chapter 140 and diagnoses, solutions, maintains or repairs motor autos or motor automobile engines pursuant to said franchise agreement.” Tesla Motors operates a wholly-owned subsidiary in Massachusetts know as Tesla Motors MA which holds a class 1 license but does not have a franchise agreement given that it is owned by Tesla Motors. Given that there is no franchise agreement in spot, it appears that Tesla Motors MA cannot be identified as a dealer in this law and, therefore, would not have to meet the requirements to provide service details and diagnostic software program.

A lawsuit where the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association sued Tesla Motors MA and Tesla Motors Inc. to cease them from selling vehicles in the state supplies much more clarity on the definition. The lawsuit was primarily based on a law that allowed franchised dealers to sue manufacturers for unfair selling practices. Tesla eventually won the lawsuit as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decided that the dealers did not have a case as the law did not allow franchised dealers to sue unaffiliated manufacturers. One particular crucial piece of the judgement pertained to the definition of franchised dealers. The judgement included the following statement:

Very first, although the parties do not address this point, it is not completely clear that the plain language of § 4 (c) (ten) applies to the defendants’ conduct and renders it unlawful, as the plaintiffs contend. They maintain that § 4 (c) (ten) prohibits a manufacturer such as Tesla, straight or through a subsidiary such as Tesla MA, from owning or operating in the Commonwealth “a motor automobile dealership” selling its own line make of automobiles. “Motor vehicle dealership” is a term defined in c. 93B as:

“any particular person who, in the ordinary course of its enterprise, is engaged in the business of selling new motor automobiles to buyers or other finish users pursuant to a franchise agreement and who has obtained a class 1 license pursuant to the provisions of [G. L. c. 140, §§ 58 &amp 59]” (emphasis added).G. L. c. 93B, § 1, inserted by St. 2002, c. 222, § 3. Because neither Tesla nor Tesla MA is engaged in the business of promoting new Tesla motor cars in Massachusetts “pursuant to a franchise agreement,” there appears to be a question whether or not Tesla’s business model entails the operation of a “motor vehicle dealership” inside the meaning of c. 93B, § four (c) (ten), and consequently no matter whether, by its literal terms, the proscription of § 4 (c) (ten) applies to the defendants at all.

The judgement place an emphasis on the clause “pursuant to a franchise agreement” because Tesla does not hold such an agreement in the state and couldn’t be regarded a motor vehicle dealership. Even the highest court in the state is not able to label Tesla as a dealer, so it appears that Tesla and any individual else who has a related sales structure can skate by and not adhere to the “Right-To-Repair” law.

It appears that Tesla has setup the service internet site for Massachusetts to look like they are delivering the essential details and voluntarily following the law. However, because they are not delivering diagnostic software program and tools, they are only following some portions of it. This appears to go against the Tesla Code of Company Ethics and Conducts that states in Section 1: “Obeying the law, both in letter and in spirit, is the foundation on which this Company’s ethical requirements are constructed.”

Massachusetts may have been an isolated case as other states were considering “Right-To-Repair” legislation of their personal and might have caught on to the Tesla exclusion if that legislation was given a chance. Sadly, the Massachusetts law ended up becoming used as the framework for “Right-To-Repair” agreements nationwide.

In order to avert costly fights in every state, the aftermarket component and repair associations drafted up voluntary agreements with the two largest automotive manufacturing associations. The agreement in between the Automotive Aftermarket Sector Association (now known as Auto Care Association), Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, Alliance of Automobile Producers and the Association of International Automakers was signed in January of 2014.

This new agreement cancelled all pending legislation and stated that the provisions, which consist of creating a standardized diagnostic interface accessible to owners and independent shops, would go into impact with model year 2018. The agreement is a massive win for independent shops and owners as it will allow them access to proprietary application functions at a cost.

Tesla got away scot-free on two fronts when it comes to this agreement.

Initial, considering that they are not a member of either of the two automaker groups that signed the agreement, they do not have to abide by it. Second, given that the agreement was based on the Massachusetts law, it still integrated a franchise agreement as portion of the description for a dealer in the agreement, so even if Tesla joined an alliance they would nonetheless be exempt.

This is wonderful news for Tesla and their $ 600 a year upkeep plans as it will force owners to come back to their service facilities for repair. Owners will be stuck taking their automobiles to Tesla service centers since even replacements of door handles demand a firmware reinstall employing the Tesla software program.

Tesla declined to comment, but Aaron Lowe of the Auto Care Association was more than pleased to speak. His organization is a single of the largest proponents of enabling shoppers and independent repair shops access to work on cars and was involved in the law and agreement discussed above. He confirmed that the 2018 national agreement did not apply to Tesla and that the automakers that did sign the agreement have to give a standardized cloud resolution for diagnostic software.

Tesla has advertised themselves as an open organization that desires to advance electric automobile improvement and released patents in order to assist other individuals in developing EVs. The open patent policy has also completed Tesla a lot of great in boosting their image and brand loyalty. Some Tesla owners are defending the automaker by stating it should not release service details as it could aid other individuals reverse engineer Tesla’s product and ruin its image if a person were to, let’s say, result in a fire from performing a repair on their personal. Service information is not going to help another automaker reverse engineer any Tesla product. As an alternative, they are much more most likely to purchase a automobile and tear it down to see what’s inside. I think our proper to own a automobile involves repair and precludes any proper Tesla may have to boost their public image.

I thought about paying the $ 30 for a single hour of access by putting in a Massachusetts zip code. Nonetheless, a Youtuber who did something equivalent and shared some info with his viewers is apparently getting sued by Tesla, so I decided against it.

On that note, Tesla is significantly more high-priced than any other automaker when charging for service data. The Audi Service subscription allows 24-hour pass for $ 35, or a monthly pass for $ 250. This pass offers you access to service data along with with diagnostics and vehicle reflash software program if you are an independent shop. Tesla, on the other hand, charges $ one hundred for a 24-hour pass and $ 350 for a monthly pass for only the service data.

Tesla ought to be required to follow the path of the other automakers in providing service information and access to diagnostic software program so owners and independent shops can repair their vehicles.

Maybe the business groups I spoke with will take it up.

[Image Credit: Steve Jurvetson/Flickr/CC BY two.]


The Truth About Vehicles » Auto Reviews

Tesla Expanding Referral System, Nonetheless Probably Going To Be Messy

Tesla Model S Center Stage

In a letter to Model S owners, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stated that its referral “experiment” had gone properly and that the organization would be expanding the plan, according to HybridCars.

Owners can refer as numerous men and women as they want, and even though the “free” Model X cars have probably already been claimed in each and every of the three sales regions, the top referrer by Oct. 31 can trade in their Model S for a P85D with “ludicrous” speed mode. Referring 10 new purchasers now means you can get a totally loaded “Founder Series” Model X for the cost of a base Model X (a $ 25,000 savings according to the company).

It’ll still probably be ugly for whomever wins at the end.

Dealers in California have named the system illegal, saying the referral program amounts to “bird dogging” by the manufacturer.

Tesla has responded to the allegations by expanding the program and ignoring everybody anyway.

“We looked cautiously at these regulations,” Tesla spokesman Ricardo Reyes told HybridCars. “They have been enacted decades ago to avoid rogue salespeople, not from stopping close friends from recommending merchandise they enjoy.”


The Truth About Cars » Automobile Reviews

Tesla Model X Referral Winner Accused of Spamming Referral Links

Tesla Building Circa March 2015

According to the Tesla Motors Club, the referral program that would award a single Model X to a fortunate loyalist in exchange for referring 10 new Model S buyers may possibly already be over. “Kevin2686″ may likely be the North American winner for the free of charge Model X contemplating he managed to refer ten new purchasers.

Forum members say Kevin2686 spam posted his referral hyperlink, and certainly on a CNET news story about the promotion a user named “Tesla2000″ offered $ 1,000 up front and $ 1,000 later with a hyperlink to Kevin2686’s referral code. In Tesla’s fairly vague referral language:

“Please note that we could withhold credits, discounts or other awards exactly where we believe customers are acting in undesirable faith or otherwise acting contrary to the intent of this program.”

This may not finish effectively. 

We currently know that the potential referrer would probably qualify for an income tax credit from the feds for referring ten new Model S purchasers. It now seems that, at least according to the Tesla community, the referring winner could have used unsavory indicates as effectively.

Must Tesla withhold the auto for spam posting, it could be a fight over the “free” $ 133,000 car.

The only winner in Tesla’s referral program — at least in the U.S. — might quite effectively be Tesla itself.

Screen Shot 2015-09-03 at 12.36.46 PM

The Truth About Automobiles » Automobile Critiques