Problems plaguing Tesla Roadster

Based on Evan's post it does look pretty clear, more so that I had been lead to believe.

Running out of gas can cause damage, but it only happens a low % of the time and is far less serious that having to replace a Tesla battery pack.

 

Bravo - you got across in a sentence what I was going for and too 3 paragraphs to not quite say.

How well do you think the iphone would have done if it had a flaw of a similar magnitude - my daughter might be currently drooling for a Palm Pixi 4 when her contract is up this summer.

 

Thanks for the rose glasses version, looks like an apt short
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/tsla

 

Yes, it is covered. The fact that internally they refer to it as bricking is not going to play well. I should have the Autoline Daily podcast in my iTunes queue - I wonder what John McElroy's ( no relation ) take on this will be.

 

SteveMcelroy said

Clearly Tesla has been *very* upfront about the issue. Your criticism is uninformed.

As a matter of perspective, I like a manufacturer to give a customer the option of low SOC use for an emergency, and expect the customer to recognize the possible negative consequences. But then I understand the notion of taking responsibility for my actions.

E.g., if I bought a LEAF I would appreciate the 90% DoD ability, but would anticipate very rarely (if ever) dropping below 25%.

 

That was from my post #37 - take a look at my later posts, #'s 42 and 44.

The couple of news accounts that I had read stated that the issue had not been clearly outlined by Tesla. Later comments, particularly from Evan show that the problem is documented fairly well, a point that I admitted. It was not uninformed - it came from the original article and then at least one follow up. Here is my original statement-

I still think that it is a big enough issue that Tesla should have a statement that says that if the car batteries are not always kept charged the battery pack will completely fail and that the damage will be about $40k and not covered under warranty, but that would have been bad PR, especially for a company with plans of an IPO. I think that they should have been more open and clear, but I do admit that the did mention that severe damage could result in a number of places. I do however disagree that they have been *very* upfront - you can argue upfront, but not *very*. In fact I think that they have been keeping this on the down low.

I think that the big issue is that this is not normal with any other sort of consumer product - your iphone does not brick if you let the battery run to zero and your car's engine does not seize up if you are a few hundred miles late on an oil change. As I said before, if this hits the news cycle it will be a real kick in the teeth for all EV's even though it affects only a small niche vehicle that has just about run its production course (assuming that the upcoming Tesla's do not share it).

 

the iPhone got flaws its just all about the advertising

 

Sure - the iphone 4 had the whole antenna issue. Apple did not handle it well at the start, then got absolutely hammered in the media and wound up giving away a ton of bumper cases for free. How do you think Apple would handle it if something relatively easy to do bricked the phone - how do you think it would play if Apple told the affected to go pound sand and then leaked negative info about them to the press?

 

Yep. I remember that one. I was told by my salesman, by my "advocate," and by the owner's manual that you have to plug in the car.

Every car requires certain care. Plugging in is part of the care an EV requires. The Roadster is a very expensive, high-performance sports car, and as such requires special care. If you need to drive somewhere where there are no plugs and you would arrive in a low state of charge, then the Roadster is the wrong car for the trip. If you need to store the car, a place without plugs is the wrong place to store it. These are limitations of an EV. If you cannot accept them, you should not buy the car. If you need to park at the airport for several weeks where there are no plugs and you'd arrive there with a low SoC, then the Roadster is the wrong car for the trip. Drive a stinker or take a cab.

No, it wouldn't hurt to add some more idiot-proofing. But the fact is that this car is the first of its kind, is very expensive, and serves a niche market. It really requires extreme negligence to do what those 3 or 4 owners (out of 2,500) did.

You would not buy a ten thousand dollar tailored Italian suit and then "store" it in a paper bag on the street on a rainy day. Leaving a Tesla Roadster unplugged for weeks at a time is just like that. Those owners had weeks to arrange for their cars to be moved to appropriate storage. This is not a design flaw. It's proof that no matter how well you design something, somebody will find a way to do something wrong.

 

I hope Tesla's standards are higher than that and they add an extra layer of safety. I expect that they are and a fix will be coming.

A $10,000 failure rate of 4/2500 = is gross for a simple owner oversight.

 

Object lesson in going to the source and not relying on the media for second-hand (at best) information.

 

I wouldn't call it "simple owner oversight." I'd call it gross negligence. But, yes, they've said the Model S and Model X will be different.

 

I wonder what Lexus would say if I drained my engine oil, and 'bricked' the car by driving before I refilled. I mean, sure, one little paragraph in the user manual warns that this "may" cause damage, but COME ON. The manual is 400 pages, and not one single person said a word about it at the dealership when I took ownership.

If it is that big a deal, Lexus should have required that I be read the riot act and sign I understand before giving me the car.

Oh, wait. Tesla did that too.

p.s. I also was not told how important the brakes can be.

 

I figured they would fix it. This reminds me of the Apple iPhone 4 antenna problem, the fanbois insisted it was all the users fault, but Apple did fix it in later models.

 

A better analogy would be if your parked your Lexus for 2 months with 1/4 tank of gas and when you came back it took $10,000 to repair the damage that caused.

 

Keiichi,

with all due respect, I think that you're preaching to the wrong choir.

If you really want to understand the current situation with EVs, the LEAF
in particular, go over to mynissanleaf.com and see what they're up to.
They are not a bunch of beaten down EV loosers. They are living the
life, walking the walk, and actively and aggressively exploring the
current boundaries and future potentials of the new technology. :rockon:
Explorers at the edge of automotive innovation; pioneers for sure.

(The LEAF is not an exclusive, high cost, PR gimmick aimed at the
fortunate few. It is the closest thing out there right now that suggests
what a popularly supported EV of the future might be. Other EVs by
Mitsubshi, Ford, Smart, maybe Fiat, etc may establish valid claims to
having a long term presence/influence… but that remains to be seen.)

Hang around over there, lurk a while. But if you've got any real
commitment to understanding as opposed to just making vicarious
comments, join up and enter the discussion.

I double-dog dare ya.

Even though I don't own an EV -- yet -- I'm keenly interested in them.
To help ensure that I know what the real EV situation is, I've been a
member at mynissanleaf.com since April 2010.

Ball's in your court...