You are correct - my extreme use of hyperbole is skewing the situation. In reality I am about 50 mins from the Supercharger and 15 from the one being built.
Man - do I have egg on my face....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
You are correct - my extreme use of hyperbole is skewing the situation. In reality I am about 50 mins from the Supercharger and 15 from the one being built.
Man - do I have egg on my face....
Tesla is responsible for supplier quality. OP bought a Tesla.
Informational purposes for folk who aren't experienced with manufacturing:
In manufacturing, there is a system called Receiving Inspection. Your vendors submit a batch of parts. If there has been previous deliveries with no MRB actions (deviations from spec), you do a sampling inspection based on the criticality of the component. Some must have critical dims or tests 100%, with other dims sampled.
When you change suppliers, or there is a new die or tooling, one part per cavity gets 100% first article, then criticals on the remaining units in the lot. They do an SPC analysis to calculate the acceptance rate for future lots based on the criticals. 1.33 CpK or higher.
This is applied to everything from lawn furniture to medical devices. Some parts always get 100% F/A inspection when they are mission critical. You see this in implants and aviation, and sometimes consumer goods when safety is a factor.
If there was an entire batch of parts that have issues, it was either a lack of a correct receiving inspection procedure, or an engineering tolerance window that was not correct for the application.
Some companies look at this as a 'cost center' (it adds production costs), but in truth, it's a profit center if managed right. A defect caught at receiving inspection can save hundreds of thousands of dollars to the bottom line of a company. Fixing something is far more expensive than rejecting a batch of parts.
In the end, the 'fault' always falls on the mfr and supplier combined. The MFR for not having Quality Management System in place to catch incoming defects, and the vendor for not having a QMS with adequate Final Inspection. The Final Inspection checklist on an EV should probably contain a line on the worksheet for charging tests, much like ICE engines get run before putting them into a car.
Just sayin'...
clostridium
Member
Most if not all of the people that have said "do a preflight" also pretty clearly said that this shouldn't happen with a brand new vehicle and also held Tesla accountable for the issue. Please read the posts before making sweeping generalizations.
clostridium
Member
The most important question - are you off the hook from your wife yet?
I'm truly sorry that this all happened to you. There have been posts on other threads about issues with charging ports for cars made around the same time as yours so it's very disappointing that Tesla wouldn't investigate and reach out to people who may be impacted. They could have sent out a ranger with a supercharger connector to assess whether people could plug in successfully and if they couldn't replace or repair the port. Someone else had a port replaced by a ranger so it's possible to do.
Had they done something like that they would have looked great in the eyes of the people they caught the defect on before it mattered. It wouldn't have cost them much to do either.
Craig
They sure are, and this supplier is likely now on the 100% inspection list.
However, that is different from being definitively a design defect, which is what you stated, along with linking it to poor build quality. The build quality would be in the attaching of the charge port to the chassis. If that was done incorrectly warping the part and preventing connector insertion, that would be different.
@McRat fully agree, also aware that suppliers have unexpected/ unknown issues and sometimes don't tell the customer everything..
Same problem. Took delivery 12/28/17. On a very short trip (100 miles RT) I stop at a SC for the first time. None of the chargers worked with my MS no matter what I did. Service center was great as they corrected the problem (I hope) without an appointment. They said they tested it but I have no way of testing myself right now. I decided to not use the MS on a trip to Florida. Big disappointment..
All the critical dimensions on any part are clearly mentioned on the drawing. Fact that home charger fits and super chargers not is a failure to ensure both parts have same design tolerance as both of them fit to same corresponding part.
Actually it's really bad QM on multiple sides. But since he bought a Tesla and not a Plastic Charge Port Ltd. it's Tesla's fault. Tesla can now go to PCP Ltd. and scream at them for delivering a bad part.
Totally agree that properly specified and constructed parts should all work together. And definitely it is Tesla's responsibility to check and correct, they are the end manufacturer. All I was trying to say was that the root cause could be design or it could be construction/ implementation. May very well be the conflicting potion was not fully specified (or poor choice on tolerance), or someone at the supplier tweaked their injection molding machine for a higher run rate and didn't check parts from all cavities for dimensional tolerance. Or the machine had a sensor fail and no one caught the part drift. Or even that the port are in spec, but he superchargers aren't and no one noticed till now.
Many options, of which design is one.
One party ultimately responsible, Tesla.
Back in the Bad Ol' Days, the Corrective Action would often be to fire the Quality Manager and call it a day. Times have changed. Vendors become part of your Quality Management System (ISO 9001), and with the 2015 revision, Risk became a new parameter.
You alter your QM procedures, and do an on-site audit of your vendor. You find the root cause for the system failure, and outline changes they must implement.
But playing the Blame Game is losing proposition in the long run. There is no guarantee that changing vendors will fix anything if you don't first fix the root causes on both sides. It is likely to reoccur since there is a gap in the system.
This is Tesla's fault though. Having worked in the automotive and other large industries, OEMs select their suppliers very, very carefully and require things like tooling re-validation anytime new molds are made or any process is tweaked specifically because of these types of issues.
It seems like either Tesla doesn't have the resources to properly vet supplier quality or doesn't understand supplier impact. It's almost as if Tesla still thinks it a software/tech company and is managing itself like one.
I read all of the posts before posting and have also followed this issue in other threads. Several of the posts here were squarely sharing the blame with the OP, which is nonsensical IMO. And in general people here are kind of downplaying this issue. People on this forum should hold Tesla to the highest standards or they are not going to survive as a company. Most normal people -- not forum readers -- would look at this as a failure of the company and the car. I would almost argue this is a safety issue as the OP had to drive with very limited range and could have been stranded.
I love Tesla but this kind of manufacturing control is very basic. There is a reason that suppliers to the Big 3 are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for down time on the production line if a part fails to meet specs.
I love Tesla but this kind of manufacturing control is very basic. There is a reason that suppliers to the Big 3 are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars for down time on the production line if a part fails to meet specs.
Agree it is Tesla's responsibility. Only took issue with assigning the issue to design/ build quality. Have been a tier 1 supplier. Most of the issues we dealt with were due to our sub-suppliers QC issues (electronics, so any component issue cause a failure of our module). Parts passed 100% EOL full functionality inspection and later failed in the field.
It isn't a design defect, it's a supplier QC/tolerance problem. The issue has been identified and rectified in vehicles currently coming off of the assembly line.
Mandatory recalls are generally reserved for life-threatening safety defects such as brake failures, leaking fuel lines, seat belts that don't work, etc. Not being able to supercharge doesn't fall into this category. In this case, it would be typical for a manufacturer to issue a TSB (technical service bulletin) and a voluntary recall campaign to correct or replace the charge port at the owner's convenience.
I absolutely agree that Tesla could have handled this problem better. The best way would be for them to shave down the over-sized plastic guide in the center of the charge port prior to vehicle delivery, followed by replacing the charge port at the owner's convenience after delivery.
I think the WC maybe in between the UMC and Supercharger. When my MX (with the tight port) was delivered, the delivery person was having a really hard time plugging and unplugging the handle. So here is an expert of charging Tesla having a tough time doing it... we should have suspected something was wrong.
I still think you should take the car into a service center and have your charge port replaced. it is not functioning properly, even though you have a workable, temporary, work-around.
yes... but checking it prior to your VERY FIRST big road trip... I don't understand why so many people feel this advice is unreasonable.
particularly given the OPs wife's misgivings on Tesla ownership. Yes, the blame here does belong to Tesla -- and most of us on this forum often given Tesla a pass on things we should not -- but there is a reason to expect the OP to "go the extra mile" here: The OPs wife.
Think of what could have been avoided if he had. They might have given him a loaner. they might have replaced the charge port prior to the road trip. or they might have modified his charge port to more easily fit the supercharger cable until the charge port could be replaced post road trip.
I also agree that this is a defect worthy of a service bulletin and once this defect was known OP and others in his position should have been notified that SCer use could be problematic and is to be avoided until the problem is corrected.
People expect all systems on their new car to work. Placing an expectation on another person that they should have not expected their new car to work and should have instead verified functionality runs counter to the normal vehicle ownership process. It also implies the new owner is at least partly at fault for thinking their car was good to go.
/rant on
Does anyone verify their jack and lug wrench work, or test the can of fix a flat? Does the On-Star emergency button actually work? What about the third garage door opener? Is the internal truck egress lever functional? Is ABS operational on all four wheels? Should people be told they should have checked these things ahead of time? /rant off
Responding as a member of the cult, how is this a design defect when the design has functioned well for the past five years? This was a manufacturing defect of a batch of a part by a supplier, probably a fraction of a mm. Yes Tesla should have caught it sooner, and yes they should notify affected owners who haven’t supercharged yet (and don’t read the forums) so it can be corrected before they find they’re unable to plug in at a supercharger. But no, it’s not a design defect and the cult isn’t protecting Tesla from improving its quality.