First, the known facts. On Sunday, Apr. 24 of this year, Pete Cordaro had driven his
Tesla Model S about 73,000 miles, making it one of the higher-mileage electric
vehicles on the road. The Model S
is an all-electric vehicle introduced by Tesla in 2012, and currently retails
for about $70,000. While driving
slowly on a back road in Pennsylvania looking for mushrooms, he hit a pothole
and heard a "snap." The
left front hub had separated from the control arm of the suspension
system. In simple turns, the front
driver's side wheel fell off.
According to a New
York Times report of the story, Tesla at first refused to pay for the
repair, saying it wasn't covered under warranty. When Mr. Cordaro complained, they picked up some of the tab
and asked him to sign an agreement that included nondisclosure language. Exactly what he wasn't supposed to
disclose is not clear. The Times report said the language, strictly
interpreted, would have prevented Mr. Cordaro from informing the National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) about the incident. But Tesla denies this, saying the only
reason for what they called a "goodwill agreement" was simply to keep
their beyond-the-call-of-duty good deed from resulting in legal action against
them. One can imagine lots of
other customers with out-of-warranty complaints suing Tesla and saying,
"Hey, you did it for him, now you gotta do it for me."
The Times
article also reports that there have been numerous other complaints about Tesla
suspension problems on the NHSTA website.
But the pro-electric-vehicle website Inside
EVs reports that most of these complaints are suspiciously similar, and may
have been posted by one disgruntled Tesla owner who has adopted multiple
anonymous names. The Inside EVs report concludes that the
main problem here is not defective suspensions, but an amateurish publicity
department at Tesla which has allowed a small, isolated incident to get more
public exposure and attention than perhaps it deserved.
Fortunately, no one was hurt when Mr. Cordaro's wheel
came loose. If he has really been
driving his Tesla for 73,000 miles on icy, salty Pennsylvania roads, his car
has probably experienced more rust than you are likely to encounter anywhere in
California, the birthplace of the vehicle. And the fact that this is probably the only such incident is
only one aspect of a truly impressive thing that Tesla is trying to do: become a major player in the U. S.
automotive industry beginning from scratch. It's understandable that they will make a few fumbles on the
way.
From literally dozens of U. S. automakers that tried to
make a go of it in the early days of the automotive industry, the Big
Three—Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors—were the only ones who survived the Great
Depression of the 1930s and continued to flourish. The challenges of breaking into an industry whose
foundations go back more than a century is enormous. It's made harder by the fact that many states have laws that
prevent automakers from selling directly to consumers, which is what Tesla
wants to do.
Why is that?
The roots of the problem lie in the way early automakers set up their
distribution systems. Rather than
pay for the expense of sales facilities in thousands of cities and towns, the
Big Three sold franchises to private investors who then owned the car-sales
franchise for that make in their towns.
Initially, the franchise deals were stacked in favor of the auto
manufacturers. During slow times,
the franchisees were committed to buy a fixed quota of cars from the makers,
even if they couldn't sell any.
In reaction, the franchise owners joined together and
got state laws passed that protected their franchise status. In particular, these laws made sure
cars were sold only through
locally-owned franchises, not directly by auto makers, who would otherwise be
competing with their franchisees.
Like the similarly-arranged Coca-Cola franchises, these
arrangements have enriched franchise owners, sometimes for generation after
generation dating back to the 1930s.
But Tesla, the new kid on the block, doesn't want to do business that
way. Franchises add a middleman
that Tesla wants to bypass. And
Tesla argues that because electric vehicles represent a threat to
gasoline-powered vehicles, current car-franchise owners would have a conflict
of interest in selling both kinds of cars.
Despite all these historical handicaps, Tesla is now
legitimately regarded as a major automaker, having sold its 100,000th vehicle
late last year. On a recent trip
to the East Coast, I encountered a Tesla charging station outside a motel in
Lexington, Virginia, along I-81.
It was a set of half a dozen or so vaguely gas-pump-shaped things, but
instead of a hose there was a cable.
I had the temerity to unhook one from its stand and look into the
end. There were two coaxial-looking
connectors about an inch apart, and some smaller connectors at the bottom. According to a Wikipedia article on the
"supercharging" stations, they can supply up to 135 kW during a 15 to
30-minute charge cycle that will give a Model S another 180 miles or so of
charge. If you assume those cables
won't handle more than 30 amps or so, they must run a voltage of several kV and
down-convert it in the car to the couple of hundred volts or so that the main
battery takes. If I am wrong on
these estimates, I will be glad to be corrected by someone who knows more about
the charging stations than I do.
Anyway, the challenge of designing and making a new type
of car from scratch, and not only doing that but building the infrastructure to
sell, service, and supply charging for them, is tremendous. Tesla had federal government help to
the tune of a $400 million loan early on, which is not something every company
gets, but it's reportedly been paid back and the company appears to be doing
well now on its own.
All the same, I suspect Tesla's mechanical engineers
will be investing in some rapid-corrosion testing equipment to see what driving
thousands of miles on salt-covered roads does to their latest designs. Even one wheel falling off is too many,
and I hope Mr. Cordaro's wheel incident will be the last one for Tesla for a
long time.
Sources: The New
York Times article on the wheel incident appeared on June 10 online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/tesla-motors-model-s-suspension.html. The Inside
EV article on the same incident is at http://insideevs.com/tesla-issues-response-to-model-s-suspension-failure-allegations/,
and cites Mr. Cordaro's original posting of the incident at
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/suspension-problem-on-model-s.69204/. My explanation of the auto franchise
issue is based on the discussion at https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/.
I also referred to the Wikipedia articles on Tesla Model
S, and Tesla's discussion of Supercharger stations at https://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger.
If my battery on my Model S 70 is below 25% charge, I usually get an initial rate of 300+ amps (DC) at 327 volts when I start charging at the superchargers. As it the battery acceptance rate goes down the amps go down. When they go below 100 I'm usually at 190+miles of range and carry on to the next (Free!) charger
ReplyDelete