I'm aware. I wouldn't really call it a "recall" though? But I guess when you're a site like Benzinga you call it whatever you want to get views...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I'm aware. I wouldn't really call it a "recall" though? But I guess when you're a site like Benzinga you call it whatever you want to get views...
Presumably it is about sending out 29,222 of these with an additional thermal fuse.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16455&d=1360771469
Bit much to use the term recall for a free upgrade.
Anyway, considering this "recall" letter was produced on 13th of January in response to one from Tesla on the 12th (and this is a short term price movements thread) we can pretty much deduct 2500 Model S from 2012 and 1200 vehicles from 2014 from a total of 29222 (must be customer deliveries - no point in declaring undelivered vehicles) and come up with a total of 25,522 vehicles for 2013, of which 4900, 5150 and 5500 are accounted for (Qs 1,2,3) = 9372 in Q4.
Would someone please double check because if this is correct it is pretty, well actually very good indeed.
Last edited:
In the letter to Tesla the NHTSA refers to the company already "recalling" cars, then goes on to describe it as simply a software update and mailed hardware. There is no recall to service centers. Indeed, this is old news, but some in the media want to make more out of this than there actually is.
Last edited:
Deduct 2500 Model S from 2012 and fairly 1200 vehicles from 2014 (@600 pw) from a total of 29222 (must be customer deliveries - no point in declaring / delivering additional vehicles without upgrade part) and come up with a total of 25,522 vehicles for 2013, of which 4900, 5150 and 5500 are accounted for (Qs 1,2,3) = 9372 Model S delivered in Q4
May I ask for a peer review of this calculation.
I think all vehicles that are made and still at the factory are counted, mainly from the earlier seat retention recall that included cars still at the factory. At the very least, it should count for all the cars that have left the factory but not in customer hands (on the way to Europe for instance). Plus it must account for all demo vehicles.
That number can't be right. I don't think NEMA 14-50's are sent overseas. Does it count all inventory parts?
Would be deliciously ironic if a document that surfaced via a FUD campaign let a blowout Q4 cat out of the bag.
Open Questions: Does "units affected" refer to adapters or vehicles? Would international deliveries be counted in this number?
- - - Updated - - -
For comparison, acknowledgement of the seat back mounting recall (June 2013) cites 1,228 units potentially affected:
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM440427/RCAK-13V249-2732.PDF
Well my friends at Zacks had a more civil way of phrasing the matter:
Tesla to Enhance Model S Charging System - Analyst Blog
5:20p ET January 13, 2014 (Zacks.com)Tesla Motors, Inc. announced that it will provide an upgraded wall adapter to its Model S vehicles in addition to the software update provided in December. The automaker intends to prevent excessive heating of the adapters to ensure safety to its customers.
Tesla to Enhance Model S Charging System - Analyst Blog
5:20p ET January 13, 2014 (Zacks.com)Tesla Motors, Inc. announced that it will provide an upgraded wall adapter to its Model S vehicles in addition to the software update provided in December. The automaker intends to prevent excessive heating of the adapters to ensure safety to its customers.
I get the same and on first reading thought "units" would mean "adaptors", but the number looks to be a number for cars and not UMC's or adapters as you couldn't use the adapter without either the cable or the car. For instance, how many people have more than one UMC and 14-50 adaptor? You would have had to purchase them separately and I don't believe that number could be higher than 100 or so.
From the letter:
Makes/Models/Model Years:
TESLA/MODEL S/2013
Mfr's Report Date: January 12, 2014 NHTSA Campaign Number: 14V-006
Components:
EQUIPMENT:ELECTRICAL
Potential Number of Units Affected: 29,222
OK but NEMA 14-50 adapters aren't going out with European cars so this number sounds way too high. My theory is some adapters needing replacement are be in transit from the supplier and need to cover Q1 production or more thus the number is so high. Could easily be wrong but they aren't beating delivery estimates by *that* much.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
i wish that many produced in Q4 but that's way more than guidance and far above the 600/week that Elon recently said they were producing in q4.
According to the Q3 shareholders letter, Tesla went into Q4 with a lot of product ready for Europe (I forget the exact language used). They may well have continued to front end load for Europe and back end load the quarter for US deliveries. That is not to say they did that, but it is eminently possible and I think on balance likely. I have read elsewhere figures exceeding 25000 Tesla Model S Surpasses 25,000 Units Sold In 2013 source: Gas 2 | What is the future of fuel? Whats next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction.
Good point about the NEMA 14-50 not going to Europe - but - is it not correct that there is some formality about the language used with NHTSA. "Potential Number of Units Affected" would that not be a production sequence of vehicles from the first to the last potentially affected (NHTSA does not deal in units of NEMA 14-50 connectors).
Edit: Here is the exact language from the Q3 shareholders letter about Q3 production going in to Q4:
"Production in the quarter significantly exceeded deliveries in order to fill the pipeline of vehicles in transit to Europe and provide cars for service and marketing uses."
Elsewhere I have seen estimates of this figure in the order of 2500 units. 550~600 pw throughout Q4 + 2500 can definitely yield a figure of 9372 deliveries. I also have a feeling that Q3 was a case of fishing for shorts to squeeze on Q4. A big shift to European deliveries seriously dilutes the affect of lease accounting meaning that a 9372 quarter that is disproportionately GAAP profitable per unit sale compared with Q3 will be a very startling result. Almost as though it were planned.
Last edited:
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Thx JC
With all the street's disappointment on deliveries in Q3 I would be very shocked to learn there were 2500 cars that were produced in q3 but not delivered. Again, that just doesn't seem even remotely possible giving what we know about production rates in Q3 (i.e. < 600 pw in Q3). Don't get me wrong, I'd love a big surprise (additional shifts or hidden production line accounted for a big production ramp).
pz1975
Active Member
Couldn't this just be as simple as extra "units" (adapters) having been produced to serve as possible replacement parts if existing ones break? So they are just sitting on service center shelves or wherever extra parts are stored? For example, if they produce 25,000 cars, I am sure there are more than 25,000 drive train units made so a replacement of a defective unit can be done quickly and easily.
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Before someone posts (9000 cars sold in Q4)
called-back adapter units would need to include:
factory bin parts as well as those out in the field. The need is to remove all "bad" parts from existence (including bin parts in a factory, any in-transit or perhaps even at the OEM manufacturer). The unknown is how many bin parts need to be un-binned and replaced and would existing "bad" parts be included in January deliveries and then field-replaced later? This is quite a bit like the Chevy Volt EVSE L1 replacement program they didn't call an official "recall" but happened with early 2011 EVSEs that had scorched some wall plugs due to too-small wiring.
In terms of financing - we all remember he said "no financing needed" in early May just days before the bank deal that lead to the Sr. Notes financing. How long would a factory take to startup? The LG Chem plant (largely unused) in Michigan was an enormous undertaking and took a year or more to staff up and get sort-of not really rolling (remember the PR stories about employees playing cards on the government dime?)
called-back adapter units would need to include:
factory bin parts as well as those out in the field. The need is to remove all "bad" parts from existence (including bin parts in a factory, any in-transit or perhaps even at the OEM manufacturer). The unknown is how many bin parts need to be un-binned and replaced and would existing "bad" parts be included in January deliveries and then field-replaced later? This is quite a bit like the Chevy Volt EVSE L1 replacement program they didn't call an official "recall" but happened with early 2011 EVSEs that had scorched some wall plugs due to too-small wiring.
In terms of financing - we all remember he said "no financing needed" in early May just days before the bank deal that lead to the Sr. Notes financing. How long would a factory take to startup? The LG Chem plant (largely unused) in Michigan was an enormous undertaking and took a year or more to staff up and get sort-of not really rolling (remember the PR stories about employees playing cards on the government dime?)
I'm not sure that's clear. The document refers to a *vehicle* recall addressed by a software update and a new adapter. It is unclear if the affected units refers to vehicles or adapters. It's also unclear if the affected units are "out in the wild," domestic, international, etc.
By way of comparison, there were 1,228 units potentially affected by the seat mounting recall of vehicles produced over a roughly 1 month period during Q2 2013. Tesla was delivering about 1700 units/month during that time.
Last edited:
They don't need to rush that adapter to me. I used it about half a dozen times in the past year. It sounds like quite an over reaction for an accessory. They can put me on the "whenever you get around to it" list. With short interest at such high levels they will latch onto anything and blow it out of proportion, it seems.
You're right that it is not clear. But in terms of binned parts, yes, the set of already produced parts must be accounted for and replaced with upgraded units. Also, consider that the word "Potential" is used in the count.
Here is what I think it means. I believe they had found the issue at the time Vin # 29222 exited the plant and called it for all Vin #s prior to that. That Vin would have been built perhaps in December during the overheated unit discovery. This is kind of how the Vin # is looked at by the Govt. As in "what's your high Vin # for all cars affected".
- Status
Similar threads
