Kevin Sharpe's decreased Roadster range

[Kevin Sharpe]

So in my own experience, Tesla is concerned but takes care of things that have a precedence. Second of all, if you voice your concern in a professional manner you will be heard.

I did exactly this from April 2012 to August 2014 and it achieved nothing. I communicated directly with the Country Director for Tesla UK and previously the Director who was responsible for Europe. I'm a customer who purchased the extended "warranty" and I should never have been put in the position where my car deteriorated to the point where it is no longer usable for my regular journeys.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't it just be a different opinion?

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't have to listen to it.

I have documented the history of my issues with Tesla in the OP and this was all done under the radar while I was busy promoting Tesla at ten events a year. Like it or not, Roadster owners in the UK are very worried about what's happening and while they may not be voicing it publicly today they will.

Whether my battery issues are degradation due to age/mileage/whatever or a 'faulty' repair by Tesla in 2011 I can't be certain but I do know that my car has now degraded to the point it's no longer useful and it did that under the full watch of Tesla.

I will use every means open to me because I believe Tesla cannot treat customers in this way... in the social media age twitter is highly effective as you'll see next week when the story is on the BBC.

 

[bonnie]

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't have to listen to it.

Of course you don't. I just ask that you don't continue to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as only disagreeing because they're either stockholders or Tesla fans.

I will use every means open to me because I believe Tesla cannot treat customers in this way... in the social media age twitter is highly effective as you'll see next week when the story is on the BBC.

And there it is.

 

[JRP3]

I can't say that I have an issue with Kevin using any means possible to get a result if he feels he's been wronged, even if I don't necessarily agree with the "severity" of his plight. Obviously I don't want the bad press for Tesla, just as I don't want unhappy car owners.

 

[scaesare]

Something as important as the battery cannot be taken as a whole.

Of course it can. A warranty is simply an accepted set of terms. If that warranty is for "the battery pack", then that's what will be evaluated.

Car batteries are a series of six 2.1v cells for a nominal voltage of 12.6v, but may have an acceptable range of 12.0 to 13.2 volts. If you have a single 1.8v cell pulling the entire battery down to 12.2 volts which is still within range, you will likely not get a replacement under warranty.

If you observe a sheet to be failing and its the other sheets pulling up the numbers, then its a defecting component. Eventually, the sheet will die much faster than other sheets and will lead to shutdown of the entire ESS. By that time, the warranty might have ended.

If you observe a component to be failing, and you have warranty for the said component, then fix it.

Please define "failing".

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a customer who purchased the extended "warranty"

As you've conceded, your warranty is not applicable to the issue of degradation. Why mention it?

I should never have been put in the position where my car deteriorated to the point where it is no longer usable for my regular journeys.

Given that the range loss is within guidance previously provided by Tesla, how is the car no longer usable? Would this be that your expectations did not account for published guidance?

I want my Model S to get me round trip to and from a specific regular destination about 125 miles away from me. I could do it when new. I no longer suspect that I can, due to range loss. That is expected and was disclosed.

(Don't get me wrong, I have every potential to experience a similar issue in my S, and I'd love to see things work out equitably for everybody. but that doesn't change the fact that logical fallacies don't support your argument)

 

[abasile]

For me personally the real issue is whether an electric car owner should expect anything from the battery in terms of a range guarantee. I believe it's critical for mass adoption to take this worry away from consumers and afaik Nissan do just that with their battery warranty.

Nissan's battery warranty is helpful to a degree, but it doesn't provide any remedy (at least in the U.S.) until the measured loss of range is approximately 34%, equivalent to four "capacity bars" on the LEAF's dash display. 19% loss after 2+ years would certainly be considered "normal", regardless of whether or not there happens to be a weak cell, sheet, etc.

While Tesla's response to your situation isn't ideal, I expect better of Tesla than Nissan, and I understand that you have worked hard as an advocate for EVs, I feel that bringing the BBC into the fray is unwarranted. On the other hand, I suspect that at this time a negative piece on EVs will be overshadowed by coverage of the Scotland issue.

 

[bonnie]

I can't say that I have an issue with Kevin using any means possible to get a result if he feels he's been wronged, even if I don't necessarily agree with the "severity" of his plight. Obviously I don't want the bad press for Tesla, just as I don't want unhappy car owners.

I don't have an issue with using the media (social or otherwise) to get results when other methods have failed. But the BBC? After seeing twitter feeds poking at first Top Gear and then BBC, I have no expectation that it will be presented in a fair way. And while you say 'by any means necessary', I suspect you don't mean by presenting the facts in a skewed manner. Which, of course, is exactly what I expect the BBC to do, given past history. I have this 'play fair' gene, that kind of requires all cards on the table. If you're going to win, do so in the daylight, not by other means. BBC doesn't fit with that when it comes to EVs. Just my opinion, of course. ymmv.

 

[JRP3]

I should never have been put in the position where my car deteriorated to the point where it is no longer usable for my regular journeys.

Part of the problem is you have somewhat arbitrarily assigned your personal regular trip length, which is far beyond normal, as the default cutoff point. What would you say to someone who can't use their Roadster for their regular journeys after only 15% degradation, or 10% degradation? The only difference in those instances is they have slightly longer regular trips than you do. You would all be well within Tesla's expected loss for the Roadster, would you find their claims reasonable as well?

- - - Updated - - -

I have this 'play fair' gene, that kind of requires all cards on the table. If you're going to win, do so in the daylight, not by other means. BBC doesn't fit with that when it comes to EVs. Just my opinion, of course. ymmv.

Sure, but if you think you've been treated unfairly does your response still need to be fair, especially when confronted with a "larger" opponent?

 

[djp]

If we take the PIA data as a representative sample, Kevin's pack is on the low end but not an outlier. As the fourth lowest pack out of 153, and roughly 2,450 Roadsters on the road, that means about 64 packs have lower capacity than Kevin's. A good chunk of these will still be on original warranty, CPO or ESA. Are they all due replacement for early degradation, even though the degradation is less than Tesla predicted, and range loss is specifically excluded from the warranty?

 

[bonnie]

Sure, but if you think you've been treated unfairly does your response still need to be fair, especially when confronted with a "larger" opponent?

Easy! Yes.

So for example, at the office ... I'd never blindside someone in a meeting even if I knew they were pulling something underhanded. I had a reputation for calling people ahead of the meeting, with plenty of notice, to let them know I'd be bringing up certain issues so that they'd have time to prepare. The way I look at it is that if I'm right, I shouldn't have to resort to anything but facts on the table. And if everyone has a chance to bring their facts to the table and it ultimately shows that I'm wrong, then that's the right outcome. Because it's not about winning or losing, it's about doing what is right.

 

[hcsharp]

The problem is nothing is defined. Ignoring Kevin's methods of attempting to get justice, which I don't necessarily agree with, To say range loss is not covered is rubbish. That's what our batteries do - they give us range. If you can turn the car on, drive it out of the garage before it's dead, then you still have some range and the ESA will not cover the repair. But it obviously should. So where do you draw the line between range loss that's covered by the ESA and range loss that's not? It's not defined. Defects cause range loss. Defects are covered, range loss isn't. Go figure.

He previously had issues with one of his sheets which did cost him some range (or would have), but they covered that repair under warranty. They didn't say "Sorry, range loss isn't covered" even though range loss was, or would have been the result. Unless he has lots of bricks that are low (which I doubt) then it sounds like a defective component to me. The bottom line is anything that goes wrong with your ESS ultimately causes range loss. And if only one brick is way lower than all the others, and dropping fast (which it will), then that is by definition not normal wear and tear. When you have 98 good and one bad, you can't say the bad one is "normal."

- - - Updated - - -

Something as important as the battery cannot be taken as a whole. If you observe a sheet to be failing and its the other sheets pulling up the numbers, then its a defecting component. Eventually, the sheet will die much faster than other sheets and will lead to shutdown of the entire ESS. By that time, the warranty might have ended.

If you observe a component to be failing, and you have warranty for the said component, then fix it.

If your iphone's wifi reception sucked, and the apple tells you, its okay though, cuz the LTE antenna is doing great and is faster than your home wifi anyways .... you'd tell them to shove it. And that's a $600 product. For a $40,000 product, you bet your butt the guy is pissed.

Well said. (although i don't get the iphone analogy.) Someone asked why that brick/sheet will die much faster than the others. The reason is because it's now being stressed at a much higher level than all the other bricks. It will degrade and fail exponentially faster than the others. That's why I (and spaceballs and others) recommended that he keep driving the car, and drive it hard. Before long it will be within Tesla's parameters for a failed ESS that's covered by the ESA. Tesla will not argue "It's within normal parameters for wear and tear" when it only goes 50 miles.

 

[woof]

I guess I just don't understand the drama of "forcing a return to gas". So the car doesn't go as far as it used to...but it still goes pretty far...farther than any other production EV 'cept the Model S. You've lost 40 miles of range...how long does it take to charge to pickup 40 miles of range? Hours? Days? No, just a few minutes. And, aren't you well associated with one of the largest free charging networks in Great Britain?

ZeroNet is the national charging network that delivers what EV drivers need. It neutralises range anxiety through simple, robust and reliable Charging Stations at locations drivers can trust. Drivers can eat, play, work or sleep while topping up their vehicles.

Don't you want to use your own product?

 

[Electroman]

Hiding behind an ESA that explicitly states that capacity is not covered, is all fine and dandy for TM to cover itself against a law suit in a court of law.

In the court of public opinion that would fail miserably even if only 5% of customers exhibit that defect. Because in the minds of a prospective buyer there is always a worry if their battery might be the one that would fall into that 5%.

Njssan had the same 'head in the sand' attitude for over two years with, 'all is normal, nothing to see here move on' response with a select buy back for a few. And the sales fell miserably down to 500 a month.

And then Nissan woke up and did two wonderful things :

- gave a capacity warranty for 70% (approx) for 60k miles. They have without fuss replaced under warranty so far with new more durable batteries

- went one step further and announced an amazing battery replacement price which is very fair and even lower than many expected.

Result : sales have now zoomed to 3k+ a month.

I am not at all saying TM is exhibiting those Nissan (ex) traits. But this is something to watch out for when it comes to capacity.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Defects cause range loss. Defects are covered, range loss isn't. Go figure.

Cause and effect is fairly important. Basically if that range loss is caused by a defective part, it's covered (only because defects are covered).

If you look carefully at Tesla's statement, they have already looked specifically at the number 8 brick (the weakest one) and determined that the specific brick has degraded at a rate that's considered normal and was operating as normal (AKA not defective). That is why they are unwilling to replace that brick/sheet. Tesla isn't only considering the pack as a whole.

Also, with the data presented, we do not know that the #8 brick is the only one at that level or if there are other bricks at a similar level.

 

[pharma5]

That's why I (and spaceballs and others) recommended that he keep driving the car

+1, but should be driven normally, if extensively. If there's a truly fatal flaw, it should eventually get to an undriveable condition and fit a warranty claim (or potential cause of action).

If however it only continues to lose range at the rate causing all the attention (-20 ideal miles per year, just in the past year), then at the end of 2015 it will finally get to 70% of original capacity (~135 ideal miles). Of course that will be around 65,000 on the odo (not 50,000). And likely with new packs and associated parts available. And less drama for all.:wink:

- - - Updated - - -

If you look carefully at Tesla's statement, they have already looked specifically at the number 8 brick (the weakest one) and determined that the specific brick has degraded at a rate that's considered normal and was operating as normal (AKA not defective). That is why they are unwilling to replace that brick/sheet. Tesla isn't only considering the pack as a whole.

Agree. They appear to have checked the component and determined it is within acceptable range by whatever criteria.

Now that component may be a very low performer in general, and poorly matched to it's better-performing (perhaps quite high-performing) neighbors, but it appears Tesla determined the weakest link was still considered "normal". And from the PiA data we see the pack as-a-whole is not outrageously bad.

 

[apacheguy]

And then Nissan woke up and did two wonderful things :

- gave a capacity warranty for 70% (approx) for 60k miles. They have without fuss replaced under warranty so far with new more durable batteries

- went one step further and announced an amazing battery replacement price which is very fair and even lower than many expected.

Result : sales have now zoomed to 3k+ a month.

This is actually a rare example of one area where Nissan has one upped Tesla. While the terms of the battery warranty aren't great and they are unlikely to help anyone except those experiencing the most dire degradation rates (because, well, Nissan will say the pack is operating "within spec" so surely there can't be anything wrong), the battery replacement is, IMO, a good deal. It likely is contributing somewhat to the boost in sales.

 

[dpeilow]

Kevin, didn't you post somewhere that this brick's CAC was in the 120s while all your others were in the high 140s?

 

[Martini]

Fair point, but on the other side of the coin, he coughed up an equvent of $21k US. Considering one could buy a new Roadster pack for around $36k a few years ago, you would think that a $21k warranty would yield better treatment of the customer.

This seems to be the real issue--the battery warranty is expensive for what it covers. I can see having some buyer's regret over that. All the other stuff is beside the point.

 

[JRP3]

Easy! Yes.

So for example, at the office ... I'd never blindside someone in a meeting even if I knew they were pulling something underhanded. I had a reputation for calling people ahead of the meeting, with plenty of notice, to let them know I'd be bringing up certain issues so that they'd have time to prepare. The way I look at it is that if I'm right, I shouldn't have to resort to anything but facts on the table. And if everyone has a chance to bring their facts to the table and it ultimately shows that I'm wrong, then that's the right outcome. Because it's not about winning or losing, it's about doing what is right.

I agree in principal but the problem is assuming the other side will act in a similar manner, especially in an unequal contest, as in an individual going against a large company.

And then Nissan woke up and did two wonderful things :

- gave a capacity warranty for 70% (approx) for 60k miles. They have without fuss replaced under warranty so far with new more durable batteries

A similar warranty from Tesla would not help Kevin because of his unusual range requirements. So while I agree a specific warranty regarding range would be nice even an 80% guarantee would not apply in this case, though it might soon.

As to defect vs wear, yes part of the pack is dropping capacity faster than others but still within wear parameters as far as Tesla is concerned. Similarly you can test cylinder compression levels in an ICE and they will not be all exactly the same. If one is lower than others but still within spec you don't get a new engine or a repair even if maximum performance is not exactly the same as when new. Eventually if it does drop out of spec and performance is significantly reduced then you would.

One other point, while Kevin has done quite a lot of pro Tesla promotion he's also spent a good amount of time previous to this criticizing them, especially for building the Model S instead of a next generation Roadster. Neither position should factor into whether or not he gets the service he wants.

 

[sethr]

As a C.P.O. purchaser, neither was available to me (except in the form of the 37 month bumper to bumper C.P.O. warranty, which at the time I bought my Roadster was an additional cost option, which I got.) but if I understand correctly, Tesla offered both a battery Extended Service Agreement (ESA), and also a Battery Replacement Agreement (BRA). I assume Mr. Sharpe did not purchase the latter, or he would have exercised that option instead of making a claim under the ESA. Perhaps this is why the two options were offered to begin with - Tesla knew that Mr. Sharpe's current situation would not be covered by the ESA, so they also offered the BRA. (I am assuming here that Mr. Sharpe is the original owner and had both options available to him.) So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mr. Sharpe's real problem that he did not purchase the BRA when he bought his Roadster? Of course, this is 20:20 hindsight....

 

[bonnie]

I agree in principal but the problem is assuming the other side will act in a similar manner, especially in an unequal contest, as in an individual going against a large company.

I can only control my own actions. So far my approach has worked out for me. Even as an individual dealing with large companies.

- - - Updated - - -

As a C.P.O. purchaser, neither was available to me (except in the form of the 37 month bumper to bumper C.P.O. warranty, which at the time I bought my Roadster was an additional cost option, which I got.) but if I understand correctly, Tesla offered both a battery Extended Service Agreement (ESA), and also a Battery Replacement Agreement (BRA). I assume Mr. Sharpe did not purchase the latter, or he would have exercised that option instead of making a claim under the ESA. Perhaps this is why the two options were offered to begin with - Tesla knew that Mr. Sharpe's current situation would not be covered by the ESA, so they also offered the BRA. (I am assuming here that Mr. Sharpe is the original owner and had both options available to him.) So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mr. Sharpe's real problem that he did not purchase the BRA when he bought his Roadster? Of course, this is 20:20 hindsight....

I don't believe the battery replacement option was offered originally to Roadster owners and it's my understanding that it was never offered in the UK.