Doesn’t make sense - from an engineering perspective. The shaft mates with the splines in the DU. Both sides would need “tighter tolerances” to work consistently (not just the shafts)…. I also checked with my SC today, as I have had an open well documented case with lots of Tesla engineering involvement. When I “checked in,” this was the response.
Huh? Most likely it is just the tolerances in the CV joints that is different, not the splines.
Who knows. The point being, you just can’t tighten the tolerances on one part and leave the mating parts loose.
But the CV joints are 100% part of the shaft. So they can change the tolerances of them independent from the vehicle.
But that assembly mates with the drive unit - slides into the mating DU splines. With Rivian, that’s where the problem lies. Rivian has been packing this “interface” with heavy grease to mitigate the slop between parts. With Rivian, it’s not vibration brought on by loose tolerances between mating parts, but rather “tocking” when starting or stopping. Like this vibration issue, some have it and some don’t. Thankfully, I got “lucky” on the Rivian and don’t have this sloppy tolerance issue on mine. And yes, I had mine packed anyways, for good measure. Maybe Tesla should be going the same.
Not yet. I had to take it immediately on a long trip. Maybe 300 easy miles will be good for break in? Will do soon.
This assumes the "fault" is in the CV joint, not the spline connection to the drive unit. Tighten tolerance is used loosely here, the male side of the mating joint can be bumped up in it's min or max material condition changing the interface without changing the female side. Lots of ways to skin a cat.
Well, not really - from an engineering perspective. It’s about variability and elimination of tolerance build up. Both ends (DU receptacle and Shaft assembly plug) need to be addressed to ensure no tolerance build up/interference.
You don’t know the specified tolerance range for either side so you can’t say which needs to change and by how much.
Or a revision letter on the part. Former Design engineer 100% agree with you.
If you're gently driving it, that might have some impact. Less than 5 mins out of chill mode (WTF, mate!). Your pedal is your "Mode" control. I'm in Plaid mode 24/7. Whether I'm driving purposefully or with elderly people in the car, it's Plaid mode.
No one questions that, but you aren’t able to find fault in what I said either. If it’s the CV joint it’s entirely captured within the subassembly. If it’s the mate to the motor housing the shaft side may just need to get bigger to have less slop and the motor housing side tolerance may not need to change to accomplish that.
Didn’t realize we were in a, “looking to find fault arms race”. It would be nonsensical for either of us to assume or assert we know the tolerances on all parts in question. My only point was, from an engineering perspective, mating parts need to be part of the tolerance change evaluation equation - and not just half of them. Doing so would be equally nonsensical. Given this is Telsa we are talking about, “nonsensical” surely could be in play. Cheers.
Just pointing out that it’s possible, don’t take it personally. Yes, fit classes usually are applied to both sides, but you can tighten up one side to shrink a clearance.
Nope, just pack the slop with grease is all.
Seems to be working for those out the gutter edges go the tolerance bands (for both mating parts).
