NHTSA Tire issue reported on Tesla 21 Inch tires

[lolachampcar]

I just dropped a note to Huibert Mees who heads chassis engineering for Tesla. The message was simple. The number of MS are growing and telling people that 4-5K of life in rears is normal when the failure mode is inside cord and the outside having 50% or more tread depth is not going to fly much longer. There are too many people that are getting too upset and, sooner or later, they are going to find each other, reinforce their displeasure and start doing something about it.

It has already started. I quoted 110th's thread above as an example.

Tesla needs to get in front of this and they should probably start with a unified believable message from the Service Centers.

 

[FlasherZ]

I agree with much of what you say but the local service center is saying that 5-6K miles is normal, that inside tire wear comes with the negative camber and that's that. When Tesla is trying to pass off this problem as "normal", that's where good level headed people call BS and then begin using other avenues to get the point across, such as the NHTSA.

Perhaps an occasional service center tech or advisor is saying this, but I haven't run into that situation. Then there are the escalation paths to the service managers, regional managers, and engineering (as well as executives like Jerome). Most of those who have advocated filing NHSTA cases haven't bothered to even use those paths, they want to run straight to the government hoping that a government agency will beat Tesla up for them.

 

[DIL]

I just dropped a note to Huibert Mees who heads chassis engineering for Tesla. The message was simple. The number of MS are growing and telling people that 4-5K of life in rears is normal when the failure mode is inside cord and the outside having 50% or more tread depth is not going to fly much longer. There are too many people that are getting too upset and, sooner or later, they are going to find each other, reinforce their displeasure and start doing something about it.

It has already started. I quoted 110th's thread above as an example.

Tesla needs to get in front of this and they should probably start with a unified believable message from the Service Centers.

Excellent advice. Coming from you, I hope they listen.

 

[joesp85+]

Let me explain a bit further for everyone.
I brought my car into service at 3700 miles to get the 2nd row cupholders installed(a complete waste so far, but only $150) and to have the order the parts for the moonroof noise leak. I asked them to do an alignment check since I was also concerned after reading about it, and offered to pay the $300 to do it. The service adviser in Costa Mesa, Ca, said that would be a waste of my time, and offered to check the amount of tire tread left instead.
The next day when I picked up the car, no one told me about the condition of the tires. Only after prodding, they let me know I only had 5mm left in the rears..
When I called my service adviser the next day for explanation, he also said that this would be normal to replace the tires at 5K, and that most owners who own the P85+ are doing that.
This seems ridiculous to me. I emailed ownership about the same thing, but all I got was an email saying that this was common on the P85+ and that they couldn't do anything about it.
So what other options did I have?? I hope Tesla reads this thread...maybe Hubert Mees/Jerome will see this and help us owners of the P85+ who spent $130k like I did for the car. Now do they expect us to pay $6k a year for tires?? At this rate I need 3 set of tires per year driving 15K miles per year??
For those who also have this issues, did Tesla replace your tires for free and check the alignment/control arms??

 

[FlasherZ]

I emailed ownership about the same thing, but all I got was an email saying that this was common on the P85+ and that they couldn't do anything about it.
So what other options did I have??

Ask to speak to the service manager; ask to speak to the regional service executive.

Tesla is having to deal with people who don't understand that summer high-performance tires wear at a significantly higher rate and are not used to them; I've never owned a car that had these types of tires (normally I'm dealing with bias-ply issues on my classics!) and I was a bit dismayed when I found out I'd have to figure that into the equation. Not angry at Tesla, just something I didn't think about when I purchased the car (and since I had a Sig reservation, I wasn't going to take a downgrade to 19" without compensation; I don't like the spoked wheel look anyway).

That said, it's clear there is an issue on some cars only that is causing the inside shoulder to wear very oddly, mine is one of them.

So Tesla finds itself in a position having to look at case A or case B for any given car, and it's clear that the communications channels are still challenges -- as Jerry says above. Jerome initially responded telling me that I have to expect tire replacement at 10,000 miles or so, and when I sent him pictures he then asked the team to look into my case in more detail given the wear patterns.

I hope Tesla reads this thread...maybe Hubert Mees/Jerome will see this and help us owners of the P85+ who spent $130k like I did for the car. Now do they expect us to pay $6k a year for tires?? At this rate I need 3 set of tires per year driving 15K miles per year??
For those who also have this issues, did Tesla replace your tires for free and check the alignment/control arms??

Tesla is aware of the issue and there has been talk of a specific suspension fix "kit" being developed for this issue, although I haven't heard real confirmation of that quite yet. As of yesterday, the service center had not received any news of a kit being available yet.

Tesla took my car in August and studied its wear patterns and alignment before putting a new set of tires on it; they will pick it up on Monday again to look over the wear and make some determinations on what can be done. Unfortunately, as we're approaching winter here I will be putting on the 19" wheels for durability. They have a treadwear rating of twice the length of the summer tires, but nonetheless I'll look for odd wear patterns. (And before jerry cautions me about comparing treadwear ratings between manufacturers, I already know but am using the rough difference as a measure that the Hankooks should last longer than the Conti's... )

 

[100thMonkey]

Perhaps an occasional service center tech or advisor is saying this, but I haven't run into that situation. Then there are the escalation paths to the service managers, regional managers, and engineering (as well as executives like Jerome). Most of those who have advocated filing NHSTA cases haven't bothered to even use those paths, they want to run straight to the government hoping that a government agency will beat Tesla up for them.

There are a couple of things compounding the frustration for folks which could make this a PR headache for Tesla. many folks are coming to EV's accepting that they have to pay more up front but are told time and again that long term cost of ownership of EV's makes up for it. In addition, we are told time and again that EV's are more environmentally sustainable. I think Tesla is attracting quite a few folks who are willing to shell out the cash up front and step up considerably in the class of car they are buying because they see a relatively guilt free path to high performance, something before now unavailable in the market place. I believe this is a hallmark concept for Tesla's branding and has been one of the keys to their success, so diverging to far from this image is risky, IMHO.

I for one am still trying to wrap my head around what appears to be a grotesquely wasteful level of tire consumption and trying hard to find the right balance for me of cost and performance. I can overlook the substantial resource foot print of all the aluminum and other parts of the car as a one time impact, but tires are consumable and actually made out of oil, a barrel per tire, probably even more for these high performance tires. It seems somewhat antithetical for Tesla to be so petroleum reliant in their design. To be clear, we are not talking 4X the cost/consumption of "normal tires", we are talking many fold more for a tire that is $1K a piece (rear P+) and only lasts 5,000 miles, it's more like a factor of 15 times more expensive and 4 times the resource consumption. The tire situation alone negates nearly all of the environmental and economical benefits of EV ownership, the added gallons of oil consumed approaches what a gas car consumes in petroleum in that same year. If you come into this unaware of what you are getting into, it can be quite a slap in the face, and is surely going to continue to wrangle unwitting customers even once the alignment issues gets resolved.

What I seek as a customer may be unusual, but I don't think so, it's something I thought Tesla had nailed, its a balance of high performance with economical long term cost of ownership. I want the maximum traction stability I can get with at least a medium life tire, I don't expect a miracle, I know it's a heavy car but 5K miles is crazy. I like how the P+ handles but Tesla needs to find a way to maximize performance without sacrificing soo much tire life. Maybe even the P+ customers need to be given a choice on whether they want the suspension/alignment tuned for the better performance of negative camber or tuned for longer tire life/more even wear.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I like how the P+ handles but Tesla needs to find a way to maximize performance without sacrificing soo much tire life. Maybe even the P+ customers need to be given a choice on whether they want the suspension/alignment tuned for the better performance of negative camber or tuned for longer tire life/more even wear.

I find it unlikely Tesla will add two tuning specs. Most likely is a tweak to the factory recommended specs (whether the car comes within those specs is another story as some people have noted). This is also complicated by the need to meet federal stability control standards.

 

[Dave EV]

I find it unlikely Tesla will add two tuning specs. Most likely is a tweak to the factory recommended specs (whether the car comes within those specs is another story as some people have noted). This is also complicated by the need to meet federal stability control standards.

There is no issue here with the factory recommended specs. I think we've seen enough cases where the cars are simply somehow ending up grossly out of spec (namely large amounts of toe-out in the rear) which is causing the tire wear issues people are seeing. Get the rear toe dialed in within spec and you fix the tire wear issue. Camber doesn't seem to be the major cause of tire wear here - as long as toe is in spec.

You also make the car more stable as well - toe out makes the car easier to rotate and toe in makes the car more stable - not what you want when trying to keep the car from spinning under extreme maneuvers.

 

[Dale Adams]

I agree with much of what you say but the local service center is saying that 5-6K miles is normal, that inside tire wear comes with the negative camber and that's that. When Tesla is trying to pass off this problem as "normal", that's where good level headed people call BS and then begin using other avenues to get the point across, such as the NHTSA.

This is precisely what I was told when my 21" rear tires wore out on the inside edges at 4600 miles. Even when the service center did an alignment and found the rear had significant toe out they still held to this line.

 

[lolachampcar]

Stepping back a few feet from the problem, I think it is reasonable to assume the following-

MS crosses a lot of boundaries. If you are concerned about service costs and consumption of rubber then you should not be driving a high performance sports sedan as they will consume more resources than their tamer counterparts. I admire your focus but coming from the resource consuming side of sedan ownership it is unreasonable to expect a P85+ to have a small footprint. MS has a high performance sedan version and thus Tesla clearly need to identify it as a "high maintenance" version of the car for those customers not used to these things. I agree that this is needed so that Tesla does not tarnish the low service image of the S model. The car itself sends mixed messages which is a good thing. Tesla just needs to explain that one is Jekyll and the other Hyde.

Almost all air suspension cars have two or greater degrees of negative camber in the rear and yet only a small portion of these cars are eating the inside shoulder in 4-5K miles. It is my opinion that all will eat the inside shoulder reducing overall tire life but we need to concentrate on the 4-5K types as this is not normal. Toe out is suspect.

Tesla needs to engage with a unified message on both the sales side and the service side. The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging you have a problem. That was the goal of my note to Tesla, have them acknowledge the problem and develop a unified thought out communication strategy. I doubt seriously if it makes any difference coming from me or any of the other members of this forum who care for Tesla but thanks for the thought.

You will get attention if the issue is reported to the NHTSA but is that really necessary? I feel part of Tesla and thus my first reaction is to handle things "in house".

 

[montgom626]

yep, in more ways than just economy... it supposedly takes a barrel of oil to make a single tire.!

It takes 7 Gallons of oil for one average tire.

 

[tomas]

You will get attention if the issue is reported to the NHTSA but is that really necessary? I feel part of Tesla and thus my first reaction is to handle things "in house".

also keep I'm mind SC personnel have average tenure of < 3 months in this fast growing company so wrong to perceive variance in skill or reaction as TM directive. Ownership@

 

[Doug_G]

You will get attention if the issue is reported to the NHTSA but is that really necessary? I feel part of Tesla and thus my first reaction is to handle things "in house".

Unfortunately that ship has sailed, and in a worse way than with NHTSA. Medved just posted an Edmunds video where they lay it all out - their car's rear tires went flat, and they discovered they were corded on the inside rim. They found it was a bad alignment - toe out - causing extreme wear. See:

Abnormal Tire Wear - Page 2

 

[AmpedRealtor]

So question... why is it so difficult to deliver a car from the factory with proper alignment? My brand new 2007 Prius also had an alignment issue out of the gate, so this is not unique to Tesla. However, alignment problems on a Tesla manifest themselves in a much more dramatic way. I would hope that Tesla is taking this seriously.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Unfortunately that ship has sailed, and in a worse way than with NHTSA. Medved just posted an Edmunds video where they lay it all out - their car's rear tires went flat, and they discovered they were corded on the inside rim. They found it was a bad alignment - toe out - causing extreme wear. See:

Abnormal Tire Wear - Page 2

I'm not sure if it's worse than NHTSA. I bet not much media will report on the Edmunds test (esp. given it was part of larger podcast and not a special report), but I know for certain they are constantly monitoring the NHTSA (they had a report on the unintended acceleration complaint immediately after it was posted).

- - - Updated - - -

So question... why is it so difficult to deliver a car from the factory with proper alignment? My brand new 2007 Prius also had an alignment issue out of the gate, so this is not unique to Tesla. However, alignment problems on a Tesla manifest themselves in a much more dramatic way. I would hope that Tesla is taking this seriously.

I'm guessing it may have to do with the way cars are delivered. That's probably why there needs to be some cleanup and checks after the cars arrive (although if it's a direct delivery that may not be viable).

 

[lolachampcar]

My comment on the NHTSA was more of a let's not pile on but instead try to pleasantly dial up the pressure on Tesla to act.

With respect to the average tenure of SC personnel, I could not agree more. I am also finding that Tesla poaches competence at an alarming rate leaving a diluted team on the front lines. However, you can bet that, if Tesla were to issue a response from on high, the foot solders would provide the appropriate answer. I believe it is time for Tesla to provide its people that guidance.

Oh, and the first or second time your field personnel find toe out in a production car (from the customer having issues or just caught in an normal alignment check) you issue $100 toe bars to the PDI team and tell them to take three minutes to check each and every car before it is delivered. If the car is delivered directly, the customer gets a visit and a check. Why on earth would you let something so easy to check fester into a full on boil on the butt?

 

[ecarfan]

?..coming from the resource consuming side of sedan ownership it is unreasonable to expect a P85+ to have a small footprint... Almost all air suspension cars have two or greater degrees of negative camber in the rear and yet only a small portion of these cars are eating the inside shoulder in 4-5K miles. It is my opinion that all will eat the inside shoulder reducing overall tire life but we need to concentrate on the 4-5K types as this is not normal. Toe out is suspect

This is the first time I have heard someone state that the abnormal 21" tire wear is not just due to misalignment of the P+ Suspension but is also related to the optional air suspension. Or am I mis-reading lolachampcar's post?

My S85, arriving in early December, will have air suspension but is not a P+ so has 19" wheels.

 

[lolachampcar]

The air suspension allows for the low ride heights which generate high negative camber in the rear (top of rear tires tilt inward loading the inside shoulder of the tire). 19" set ups are not as wide and are more compliance than 21s so the contact patch has a better chance of distributing the weight.

I think it comes down to a matter of degrees (pardon the pun). Toe out + stiff side walls + wide tire + high negative camber = 4-5K before the inside shoulder wears out. Remove the toe out and things get better. Further remove the stiff side walls and wide tire and things get even better. The informal tire wear survey showed, in general, the above results.

The real question for me is if -1.0 or so of camber is good for the coil spring cars, why would anyone want more in the air cars?

 

[jerry33]

Oh, and the first or second time your field personnel find toe out in a production car (from the customer having issues or just caught in an normal alignment check) you issue $100 toe bars to the PDI team and tell them to take three minutes to check each and every car before it is delivered.

I'll second the toe bars. They're reliable and never go out of calibration.

- - - Updated - - -

The air suspension allows for the low ride heights which generate high negative camber in the rear (top of rear tires tilt inward loading the inside shoulder of the tire). 19" set ups are not as wide and are more compliance than 21s so the contact patch has a better chance of distributing the weight.

Correct.

The real question for me is if -1.0 or so of camber is good for the coil spring cars, why would anyone want more in the air cars?

No idea on this one. Personally, I think some engineer made a calculation error or was working from incorrect assumptions, but I don't have any data to back up that opinion.

 

[lolachampcar]

I think Tesla's engineers made the decision to use the same geometry for the air cars as for the coil cars. Put differently, I think they chose not to pair the air springs with a different upper link to maintain the same camber. I would guess that this was done to limit the number of part numbers and ease the production process as rear power assemblies could be built without regard for suspension spring choice.