-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Be aware! Missing Control Arm Nut: Potential Safety Issue
- Thread starter RoyalDoveMY
- Start date
Snow Drift
[Off-Road Assist] Activated
TomServo
Active Member
No, his comment that "they looked fine" was not a statement of fact in a technical or legal sense, it was in response to my question "could you take a LOOK and see any "visible" damage", his previous statement that "he couldn't confirm anything unless he jacked the car, removed the wheels and checked the nuts with a torque wrench" meant to me exactly what he said. And I asked him to take a "look with me" to confirm I was looking at the right parts not to conduct any formal inspection or repair. We both looked at the car and didn't feel any need to "get it in writing" I knew exactly what he meant.
Last edited:
EnrgyNDpndnce
Member
Yeah I saw that article but wont read it, or any other hit piece articles by Gus. That guy for some reason makes it his life’s work to find obscure Tesla issues on a few cars then publish an article suggesting the issue affects the entire fleet (or at least a majority). He only ever cites anecdotal evidence (like this entire thread) and never even tries to find relevant statistical data on the subject of his writing. I’m done with that guy, won’t even think about clicking on an article if he’s the author.
Btw that doesn’t mean this issue is not important. It is especially important to those it is affecting, and I would be raising hell with Tesla if this happened to my car. But the FIA seen on this and other threads (this happened to 5 cars so it MUST be a widespread issue) with no effort at all to find meaningful data is mind boggling. If this has happened to you please do report it to NHTSA. They will (or should at least) take an objective view and determine how serious or widespread the issue actually is.
I don't think these nuts are on the tie rods despite the thread title, but even if they were then you wouldn't loosen them to adjust tracking. And they really don't look like they're adjustable for camber/castor adjustments. So I think they're only going to get undone if the ball joint itself is being replaced, and any shop replacing a ball joint should be able to torque the nut up to the right spec. Having said that, Tesla should be able to torque it to the correct spec too...!!!
If there's a design problem then there's nothing the shop can do, and if it's a production line assembly issue then all the shop has to do is use their torque wrench correctly.
You have misinterpreted the comment in my post.
As the saying goes "if it isn't written down, it didn't happen", meaning that that anything that is said carries no credence in a court if law and cannot be relied upon as a defence if you were in the dock, for example, for manslaughter due to your car careering off the road and killing someone.
Anyway, back to your 'technician' visit....
I fail to understand how as a 'technician' he would possibly wish to state that it " looks fine" from a mere cursory glance with the inference that there wasn't anythingfor you to worry about, particularly with such a critical safety issue that could compromise the safety of you, your passengers and other road users.
Personally I would be *insisting* that a formal inspection was undertaken with a written report issued, whether it be by the so called 'technician' (I use the term loosely) who clearly doesn't attach any importance to customer safety and just couldn't be bothered to inspect, or I'd insist it get transported to a service centre for attention.
If I were such a technician, my conscience would not allow me to leave a customer with a false sense of security based upon a cursory glance and a glib comment. Nor would I wish to have on my conscience any subsequent consequences caused by my lack of care and responsibility.
The issue originally posted has subsequently manifested several other owners with the same issue, so not an isolated case, one concerned owner actually reported a concern over an 'unusual noise' from the front suspension, arranging a SC visit. Tesla 'technicians' fobbed him off as they couldn't replicate the noise when they road-tested the car, so never bothered to even look what could possibly be causing it!
This casual and informal approach by Tesla is the very reason why cars are still leaving the factory with shoddy build quality and inherent faults that they were aware of years ago, but they couldn't be bothered to resolve..
Shoddy cosmetic presentation with I'll fitting panels and poor paint quality is one thing, but critical safety related issues that compromise the safety of their vehicles *must* be taken seriously and rapidly addressed otherwise it is a ticking time bomb that could have dire consequences for you or I, our loved ones or other innocent people.
The 'technician' who said "it looks fine" will of course not be admitting to making such a statement in court.
Unless I missed it, there are actually two incidents noted here, not 5. I believe the comment re 5 was just to illustrate a point.
Seriously? Why all these comments re litigation? Pretty quick to pile on for someone who just joined - does nothing to add to the discussion. An agenda perhaps?
I'm responding as more a benefit for anyone else reading this thread as there seems to be a lot of users chiming in who get the basics wrong consistently.
Per the OP:
"We noticed the other day that our Model Y's (VIN 0307xx, barely a month old) front right tire was pointing inward (top pointing inward) more than it should be." That's negative camber, which all vehicles require. The missing locknut affected camber per the OP.
Here are two quick and easy ways of checking if your suspension and/or drivetrain is loose:
- Rock your car back-and-forth (accelerate slowly and then brake) and side-to-side (drive slowly and go fully left to right) and listen for any knocking or unusual sounds.
- Jack a wheel up and try rocking the wheel in out and back and forth. Everything should be tight and track straight (not tilting or movement).
Every car (ICE, BEV) has a suspension system and it's basically the same. Tesla, like every other automotive manufacturer, has some secret sauce, but that's not important for diagnosing.
Per the OP:
"We noticed the other day that our Model Y's (VIN 0307xx, barely a month old) front right tire was pointing inward (top pointing inward) more than it should be." That's negative camber, which all vehicles require. The missing locknut affected camber per the OP.
Here are two quick and easy ways of checking if your suspension and/or drivetrain is loose:
- Rock your car back-and-forth (accelerate slowly and then brake) and side-to-side (drive slowly and go fully left to right) and listen for any knocking or unusual sounds.
- Jack a wheel up and try rocking the wheel in out and back and forth. Everything should be tight and track straight (not tilting or movement).
Every car (ICE, BEV) has a suspension system and it's basically the same. Tesla, like every other automotive manufacturer, has some secret sauce, but that's not important for diagnosing.
Is that "users chiming in who get the basics wrong consistently" aimed at me?!
Yes, clearly with the nut missing and the balljoint bolt loose and wearing a bigger hole in the upright, then it's now in completely the wrong place and is affecting camber, hence the OP's observation.
My point was that if you go to a shop for tracking they won't undo that nut. And if you go to a shop for a full alignment including camber adjustment, I still don't think they'll touch that nut. I very much doubt that the design has that bolt through a big clearance hole with the nut holding it into a specific position to fine tune the geometry. I would expect an eccentric bolt or something somewhere else to adjust the length of the lower arm for geometry adjustment.
So yes it's important to check the nut now, yes Tesla probably ought to investigate, but no I don't think people need to worry about that nut every time they get alignment checked, which is the statement I was responding to.
hill
high fiber member
new low? hmmmm ~ i see your forum join date was this year. Maybe that explains the new low for tesla view. Sorry to say, even the pre-facelift model S had some of these completely snap. Tesla tried to say it's not a warranty problem. LOL. in stead they'd rather blame the driver for smacking a curb, regardless of no curb rash. It's always good to read some of the early posts.
not to sound oppositional but this line of thought flies in the face of the very standards our department deals with - every day. California's DOSH (setting such standards on trains planes automobiles) not only requires a torque wrench to be calubration checked - when used at a specific setting prior to its use for that day & location, but it also requires a 2nd set of eyes, before it goes to QC - where they will either look for small torque paint dabs &/or work order signatures showing both operator and second set of eyes completed the specific task. So yes, it's NOT an instantly defective torque wrench ... and yes - there's issues w/ both an operator and QC person. It happens - still - despite multiple levels of safety. From experience, upon receiving a component that was signed off by both builder & inspector - the missing component wasn't noticed until the component was installed, and that person didn't even notice except for the fact stuff wouldn't go together right.
.
Last edited:
As a mechanic I find this hard to believe. Not one picture where it is clear a nut was fastened to the stud. And even if the nut was not up to correct torque I will nut vibrate lose as these are specialized nut to absorb vibration to prevent fall off. And the threads would have sufficed Have damaged.
NY_Rob
Member
^ (referring to the very first photo in this thread) you don't think the galling marks in the flat area of the control arm are from a nut/washer that was there at one point? To me those circular marks sure look like they were made by one of those special washers Tesla uses. It also looks like they use nyloc nuts, so they should not vibrate lose in any case.
Yes, they are working to fix it. We have been told it may take at least a week and a half...waiting for parts and then installing and making repairs. This service visit will also include repairing the front trunk sensor issue, as well. In the meantime, they've given us an X as a loaner until they are done.
Parts ordered by SC:
- FRONT LOWER LATERAL LINK ASSEMBLY
Part #: 1188341-00-C
- NUT,HF,M14-2.0,[10],ZNNI
Part #: 1111533-00-A
- FR KNUCKLE, RH
Part #: 1188316-00-D
- NUT,HF,M10-1.5,[10],ZNNI,PTP
Part #: 1111145-00-A
TomServo
Active Member
Wow, that's scary. Thanks for posting this.
BTW just for perspective:
here are the manufacturers that had the highest number of recalls over the past five years, according to ISeeCars.com:
General Motors
Recalls: 213
Vehicles affected: 54,942,962
Ford
Recalls: 209
Vehicles affected: 24,892,471
Chrysler
Recalls: 208
Vehicles affected: 40,726,068
Mercedes-Benz
Recalls: 117
Vehicles affected: 3,150,014
Volkswagen
Recalls: 109
Vehicles affected: 6,510,514
And these manufacturers had the lowest number of recalls among top U.S. carmakers from 2014 through 2018:
Tesla
Recalls: 8
Vehicles affected: 210,727
Volvo LLC
Recalls: 14
Vehicles affected: 190,444
Suzuki Motor of America
Recalls: 24
Vehicles affected: 482,866
Porsche Cars North America
Recalls: 27
Vehicles affected: 257,732
Tie: Subaru of America Inc.
Recalls: 35
Vehicles affected: 3,465,501
Tie: Land Rover
Recalls: 35
Vehicles potentially affected: 477,080
BTW just for perspective:
here are the manufacturers that had the highest number of recalls over the past five years, according to ISeeCars.com:
General Motors
Recalls: 213
Vehicles affected: 54,942,962
Ford
Recalls: 209
Vehicles affected: 24,892,471
Chrysler
Recalls: 208
Vehicles affected: 40,726,068
Mercedes-Benz
Recalls: 117
Vehicles affected: 3,150,014
Volkswagen
Recalls: 109
Vehicles affected: 6,510,514
And these manufacturers had the lowest number of recalls among top U.S. carmakers from 2014 through 2018:
Tesla
Recalls: 8
Vehicles affected: 210,727
Volvo LLC
Recalls: 14
Vehicles affected: 190,444
Suzuki Motor of America
Recalls: 24
Vehicles affected: 482,866
Porsche Cars North America
Recalls: 27
Vehicles affected: 257,732
Tie: Subaru of America Inc.
Recalls: 35
Vehicles affected: 3,465,501
Tie: Land Rover
Recalls: 35
Vehicles potentially affected: 477,080
Similar threads
- Article
