Possible outcomes of NHTSA investigation and Tesla response

[mitch672]

In the last paragraph, the NHTSA mentions "Teslas increased ride height and increased underbody protection should reduce both the frequency of strikes and the resultant fire risk"' so it was probably mutually agreed to, so they can both save face.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchResults.action?searchType=PROD&prodType=V&targetCategory=A&activeTab=1&searchCriteria.model_yr=2013&searchCriteria.make=TESLA&searchCriteria.model=MODEL%20S&searchCriteria.prod_ids=1839811

 

[EarlyAdopter]

Note that it's just additional shielding up front and not the entire length of the battery. Cost is therefore likely very small.

There have been no fires since the fluke two impalements (I discount the Mexico high speed drunk driving accident as it was willful negligence), despite the fact there have been more miles driven by Model S since the fires than before. This to me bolsters the stastical safety argument. But that's not enough for some people.

A year from now when there have been no more fires and the statistical safety argument has been long forgotten, people will have something more tangible to use to dismiss fire concerns thanks to the titanium plating.

Conversation a year from now:
Last Remaining Tesla Skeptic: "Yeah, nice car, but don't they catch fire when they run over things?"
Everyone Else in the World: "Not since they added titanium armor."

Much better than:
Evergone Else in the World: "Naw, that was a fluke one time thing."

You can see how much more convincing and definite the first response is versus the second, which still leaves some overhanging doubt.

Good move by Tesla and worth a few hundred dollars per car.

 

[ckessel]

In the last paragraph, the NHTSA mentions "Teslas increased ride height and increased underbody protection should reduce both the frequency of strikes and the resultant fire risk"' so it was probably mutually agreed to, so they can both save face.

I noted this in the short term thread, but that verbiage makes me wonder if Tesla is going to be allowed to change the ride height back. If part of the reason to close the investigation was the raising of the ride height, that'd seem to preclude being able to lower it again.

 

[sleepyhead]

In the last sentence it says:

The closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist, and the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by new circumstances.

Does anyone know if this is common language for NHTSA?

 

[SteveG3]

Conversation a year from now:
Last Remaining Tesla Skeptic: "Yeah, nice car, but don't they catch fire when they run over things?"
Everyone Else in the World: "Not since they added titanium armor."

Much better than:
Evergone Else in the World: "Naw, that was a fluke one time thing."

You can see how much more convincing and definite the first response is versus the second, which still leaves some overhanging doubt.

Good move by Tesla and worth a few hundred dollars per car.

EarlyAdopter this makes a lot of sense. This solution is far better at addressing the emotional aspect of consumer evaluation of the cars.

 

[The Blue Owl]

I noted this in the short term thread, but that verbiage makes me wonder if Tesla is going to be allowed to change the ride height back. If part of the reason to close the investigation was the raising of the ride height, that'd seem to preclude being able to lower it again.

I don't see that as a necessary conclusion from that wording. I think the new armor changes the equation, since it allows the car to withstand the worst impacts imaginable.

During the course of 152 vehicle level tests, the shields prevented any damage that could cause a fire or penetrate the existing quarter inch of ballistic grade aluminum armor plate that already protects the battery pack. We have tried every worst case debris impact we can think of, including hardened steel structures set in the ideal position for a piking event, essentially equivalent to driving a car at highway speed into a steel spear braced on the tarmac.

I think Tesla wouldn't have included lowering in the 5.9 firmware if NHTSA disagreed.

- - - Updated - - -

In the last sentence it says:

The closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist, and the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by new circumstances.

Does anyone know if this is common language for NHTSA?

It appears so. I found the same phrase used when they closed previous investigations. For instance, see here.

 

[ckessel]

I think Tesla wouldn't have included lowering in the 5.9 firmware if NHTSA disagreed.

Yea, that's why it puzzled me. The NHTSA verbiage talks about the problem being solved as a combination of raising the ride height and protective additions. Yet, there's no recall, so I guess neither is required? Rather mixed set of messages from the NHTSA wording.

 

[772]

Yea, that's why it puzzled me. The NHTSA verbiage talks about the problem being solved as a combination of raising the ride height and protective additions. Yet, there's no recall, so I guess neither is required? Rather mixed set of messages from the NHTSA wording.

Doesn't the adjustable lowering in 5.9 come with a disclaimer about possible increased risk from road debris? The position of Tesla was that the car was already very safe even without this additional reinforcement... the Model S fire rate is much lower compared to ICEs, and there were no injuries due to the fires. I guess NHTSA agrees, too, since Tesla thought it was OK to enable auto-lowering again even without the additional reinforcement.

 

[mitch672]

I'm confident enough to buy Jan 16 $230 leaps, should be well ITM before then, 20 months of time left.

 

[smorgasbord]

I noted this in the short term thread, but that verbiage makes me wonder if Tesla is going to be allowed to change the ride height back. If part of the reason to close the investigation was the raising of the ride height, that'd seem to preclude being able to lower it again.

Yes, I agree but the NHTSA goes on to state "A defect trend has not been identified." So, there does appear to be some wiggle room. If I were in charge, I would only let shield retro-fitted cars go back to the previous low ride height. We'll see how Tesla approaches it - the last thing they need is to enable lower ride height and then have another fire.

At any rate, my prediction of Tesla needing to add more under armor has been validated. Musk should never have said it wasn't needed. That comment made me very concerned about holding onto the stock. I'm more comfortable about adding to my holdings now.

 

[PeterJA]

At any rate, my prediction of Tesla needing to add more under armor has been validated. Musk should never have said it wasn't needed.

Musk said it wasn't needed for human safety, and he still says that, because it is still true.

 

[brianman]

Tesla deploying titanium shield.

This is the most extreme of possible solutions Tesla could have done and shows that NHTSA did determine there was an elevated risk of fire and Tesla was forced to respond.

No, it does not.

 

[smorgasbord]

Musk said it wasn't needed for human safety, and he still says that, because it is still true.

We can split hairs if you like. From CNN's report at the time:

"There's no reason for a recall," the outspoken CEO said in defense of the electric cars during a conference Tuesday hosted by The New York Times Dealbook blog. "If you read the headlines, it sounds like Teslas have a greater propensity to catch fires than other cars. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth."

Retrofit is not recall, but I do wonder what behind the scenes negotiating went on. Something did, because otherwise how would the NHTSA know about the retrofit before the rest of us?

 

[brianman]

Interesting that the stock went down to $120 based on NHTSA fears, but once the worst reasonable outcome occurs, the stock rallies from $207.

You think the NHTSA and Tesla announcements today were the worst reasonable outcome? Wow, we have very different imaginations and understandings of reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I agree but the NHTSA goes on to state "A defect trend has not been identified." So, there does appear to be some wiggle room. If I were in charge, I would only let shield retro-fitted cars go back to the previous low ride height. We'll see how Tesla approaches it - the last thing they need is to enable lower ride height and then have another fire.

In charge of NHTSA or Tesla? If I were in charge of either organization, I wouldn't introduce this new restriction.

- - - Updated - - -

Retrofit is not recall, but I do wonder what behind the scenes negotiating went on. Something did, because otherwise how would the NHTSA know about the retrofit before the rest of us?

"Relevant disclosure" to the interested enforcement agencies does not imply negotiation.

For example, would you expect the seatbelt retrofit information would have been provided to NHTSA before or after customers were told? I would expect before. Does this imply that there was negotiation regarding the seatbelt retrofit? No it doesn't. Do I think there was negotiation for the seatbelt retrofit? No.

That said, I seems totally reasonable that discussions have been ongoing (at a slow, government pace) since before the first comment by the NHTSA about any of this drama.

 

[The Blue Owl]

You think the NHTSA and Tesla announcements today were the worst reasonable outcome? Wow, we have very different imaginations and understandings of reality.

Agreed. To my mind, the worst outcome would have been if there was something inherent in the Model S design that made the car vulnerable and which couldn't be fixed without a complete re-design.

As it is, I just think it will put to rest any lingering concerns about safety, real or imagined. Anyone bringing up questions about Tesla's safety will now be met with a barrage of "yeah? how does your car behave when driving over an alternator/concrete block/steel spike?".

The only thing is the added cost, but people pay $thousands more for leather seats and audio upgrades. I mean, even if the cost isn't absorbed by Tesla (at a negligible hit to their margins), I think buyers wouldn't even blink at a $700 increase in sticker price (or whatever the cost may be, likely lower.)

 

[PeterJA]

We can split hairs if you like....

Retrofit is not recall, but I do wonder what behind the scenes negotiating went on. Something did, because otherwise how would the NHTSA know about the retrofit before the rest of us?

You are implying that NHTSA found a safety defect and negotiated with Tesla to correct it with the retrofit. This implication is contradicted by all evidence, including the agency's statement that "A defect trend has not been identified."

NHTSA is an acronym for National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, not driver-convenience-and-public-perception Administration. Tesla's stated reason for the retrofit is driver convenience and public perception, not driver safety. There is a large difference between those alternatives, IMO, not a hair to split.

 

[mitch672]

Everyone should take some time to read the "Complaints" section on that NHTSA site for the Model S.
Apparently the "shorts" have nothing better to do than to comb threads on this website, then file reports on the NHTSA website. Not one report had a VIN number, I believe most of the reports are from non-owners, looking to damage TSLA

Edit: 2 of the 19 reports have a VIN

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/SearchResults.action?searchType=PROD&prodType=V&targetCategory=A&activeTab=1&searchCriteria.model_yr=2013&searchCriteria.make=TESLA&searchCriteria.model=MODEL%20S&searchCriteria.prod_ids=1839811

 

[Auzie]

Tesla Motors ‏@TeslaMotors 11h
Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S: https://medium.com/p/544f35965a0d
View summary

I am so impressed with how Tesla handled this investigation and with the extensive measures taken to improve the car. Videos of crumbling road debris under the speeding car are so reassuring.

 

[smorgasbord]

You are implying that NHTSA found a safety defect and negotiated with Tesla to correct it with the retrofit.

No, I'm stating the obvious fact that Tesla told the NHTSA that they were doing a retrofit to all cars before the NHTSA finished their report. Then I'm speculating that that wasn't the only communication between them.

Clearly the NHTSA felt that the retrofit was pertinent enough to include it in their conclusion. I believe it had some bearing.

- - - Updated - - -

In charge of NHTSA or Tesla? If I were in charge of either organization, I wouldn't introduce this new restriction.

Will you back that statement up by not bothering to have the retrofit applied to your vehicle?

 

[MikeC]

No, I'm stating the obvious fact that Tesla told the NHTSA that they were doing a retrofit to all cars before the NHTSA finished their report. Then I'm speculating that that wasn't the only communication between them.

Clearly the NHTSA felt that the retrofit was pertinent enough to include it in their conclusion. I believe it had some bearing.

- - - Updated - - -



Will you back that statement up by not bothering to have the retrofit applied to your vehicle?

I think that NHTSA knew they were "offering" a retrofit but that it was not mandatory for owners to accept. Similarly, NHTSA probably knew they were providing the option to keep it from going to low mode. NHTSA would be overstepping its bounds to mandate those based on the limited number of incidents, but in the interest of consumer protection I think they wanted to ensure that owners could take extra precautions as they see fit.

I will not be getting the armor - I didn't think there was a problem before and I still don't.