Tesla To Voluntarily Recall Every Model S Because One Seat Belt Came Apart (jalopnik.com) 207
An anonymous reader writes: Earlier this month, a passenger in a Tesla Model S turned to talk to people in the back seat, and her seat belt somehow disconnected itself from the front seat. According to a Tesla spokesperson, "The seat belt is anchored to the outboard lap pretensioner through two anchor plates that are bolted together. The bolt that was supposed to tie the two anchors together wasn't properly assembled." Though the company hasn't been able to replicate the issue on any other cars, Tesla is issuing a recall for roughly 90,000 Model S vehicles so they can test that bolt.
Introduction (Score:5, Funny)
Hello, my name is Elon "Setting the bar so high my competitors throw up from the altitude" Musk. Nice to meet you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Reminds me of the movie fight club where the guy supposedly worked for a car company, and part of his job was working with formulas to determine if the cost of lawsuits from deaths would be higher than the recall cost.
At least according to a Mother Jones story from 1977 [motherjones.com], something similar did happen at Ford, although it wasn't based on lawsuit costs, it was based on a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figure for the dollar value of a human life.
You need to assign a cost to deaths. (Score:2)
If you're not doing a design where you cost the various design alternatives, you're doing it wrong, and may even not minimise the thing you're 'caring most' about.
It is always - for example - possible to improve safety of cars through expensive technical means. ...
More complex construction with better crash absorbtion properties,
But, if your vehicle is twice as safe as the rest of the fleet, and yet due to your safety upgrades costs eight times more than one that is only 1.1* as safe, you may actually end u
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, states continue to ban the selling of Tesla cars via online.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Introduction (Score:5, Insightful)
I think even '$100 a pop' would be insanely high cost to assign a quick check of a seatbeat assembly that can be probably done in a minute in the parking lot. A typical oil change costs under $20 and that actually involves moving a car into the service bay, using up a filter and oil, getting under the car/jacking up the car, the associated liability risk associated with doing all that, and time to get the oil out. Compared to that opening the door and checking out a seatbelt attachment is nothing.
That's also assuming 100% participation rate in the recall. For run of the mill recalls, participation rate generally peaks no higher than 75%. I would expect this one to be even lower since most folks will feel assured with a self-check and not bother.
Re: (Score:2)
A typical oil change costs under $20
It might cost you $20, but how much does it cost the place doing the oil change?
I suspect oil changes are essentially loss leaders to get you into a shop where they can
find other (more expensive) work that they can do...
Re: Introduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 for participation rate. I agree. Participation rate might be even lower for them since there are fewer dealers so it is more inconvenient. How about treating owners as somewhat intelligent? They could post a youtube video that shows you what it should look like and say: "if yours doesn't look like this please come in for a complementary expection and (whatever the equivalent is) oil change." I'm sure their is liability issues as the owner that thought they were smart enough to do self inspection would st
Re: (Score:2)
I think you and a lot of others are missing the point. They are not doing this to fix all model S cars out there. They are doing this to find out, whether other cars even have a problem there and to finally find out what it might be.
Tesla doesn't even know yet whether there is a problem worthy of a recall and yet they are not willing to wait for another belt to come undone, which might never even happen. They don't jeopardize their customers life and proactively do a recall.
That's what's special about this
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me Tesla will come ahead on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Introduction (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, Tesla is quite different - you can buy an annual $600/year service plan that covers everything except tires, and for a bit more, you can have it that Tesla will come to you to service it.
The thing is, an ICE takes a lot of maintenance - between stuff like engine oil and other fluids, there's a bit of tuning to keep things in shape. An EV is different - there's actually very little in the power train that requires regular servicing - so much so that users may go for years between tune-ups (Tesla recommends users come in at least once a year to get service and replace consumables like brakes). Most ICE service schedules range from every 3 months to every 6 months.
And yes, Tesla will probably come out ahead - I mean, look at the other recalls out there - between Toyota's sudden acceleration, GM's ignition switch and many others, either the company didn't act until forced to, or they still don't act, even when there are multiple deaths attributed to the flaw.
So they get a lot of PR over it - "we're recalling every Tesla S to make sure the seatbelts are bolted on correctly, even though there was only one failure and everyone lived, and the government isn't making us do it, but we will because it's the right thing to do."
Re: Introduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Introduction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Per WindBourne's recommendation, I award you one million virtual mod points. ... I mean, I know the mod points are already virtual in the first place, but that's not what I meant. At least I didn't say cyber mod points.
Carry on.
Re: Introduction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I see your argument but suspect you are wrong in Tesla's case. Don't have it handy but my understanding is that Tesla is barely profitable and at that only profitable because of incentives. ~$20 a car (more if they do as some say and actually drive to you do to the service) might very well be well into the single digits of their profit. They want to scale up which would make them profitable. Better to find and figure out how to fix production issues now with 90k cars in your fleet vs when you are making 90k
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the cars will get the seat-belt inspection as part of their next regular maintanence/servicing. So the actual cost to do the check wont be anywhere near as high (even less if you include all the cars who's owners wont bother with the recall at all)
Re: Introduction (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems a bit... Insane though. 90,000 at a measly $100 a pop (labour, booking etc) = $9m minimum. If they keep that up, they'll eventually eat into the profit so bad they fail. Last I checked, they're not technically profitable as it is without subsidies.
You mean for only $9 million dollars, they can get 90,000 people to voluntarily come into a dealership where they are exposed to marketing collateral and a chance to talk with a sales person. Sounds like a pretty inexpensive marketing campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
And what are those 90K already-owner-of-a-Tesla people supposed to be buying? An oil change?
Re: (Score:2)
And what are those 90K already-owner-of-a-Tesla people supposed to be buying? An oil change?
Their next car, of course. Maybe their wife needs a Model X, maybe their child needs a Model 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems a bit... Insane though. 90,000 at a measly $100 a pop (labour, booking etc) = $9m minimum. If they keep that up, they'll eventually eat into the profit so bad they fail...
Reading the actual story and announcement (yeah, craaaazy!) the test is to visually inspect the base of the seat belt and apply a sudden yank of at least 80 pounds force by the tech, followed by another visual inspection to see if anything deformed, bent, or otherwise broke.
This is not a cost of $100 per. For most people this will be 60 seconds added to their existing regular inspection.
Re: (Score:2)
and a lot of drivers will just schedule there regular service around it. They'll say "ah its been 8mths close enough to a year" so why don't you check my motor software version and brakes while you are at it? The slightly increased frequency of service might be enough to compensate entirely for the expense of ~60s a seat belt giving it a yank and checking if it is bent.
Other car companies have done this too (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a Good Company. I wish more of them did things like this!
They do. Once I took my car in for routine service at the dealership. On the bill it mentioned a complimentary inspection of my seat belt buckle per manufacturer recall XYZ. My car was "old", the warranty expired. I think over the decades I've seen stuff like that three times. Twice the inspections for defect or abnormal wear were negative. Once a part's lot number was such that the part was replaced for free.
On a fourth occasion I received a traditional recall, a letter in the mail saying bring the car in to have part ZYX replaced. The other three were silent recalls, surprises during routine service.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a metric ton of shares when they were at ~24. No, I still haven't sold them.
Re: (Score:2)
No maybe just tightening a few nuts or whatever. They might have some slack manufacturing compacity so the recall could be ~free to them (already paying someone full time but don't have enough work to keep them busy, plus maybe small fraction of people bother). But regardless; it is a good policy. Especially with such a technology driven device. It isn't just selling more cars to people, what about a new $10k quick charge battery or charger? I'm guessing the opportunities for follow on sales are larger when
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that you are paying for this recall if you ever buy a Tesla, right?
Yes, yes, i'll buy a Tesla. (Score:2)
Yes, the marketing campaign is flawless. My next car will be a Tesla, and my decision is based only on the articles published here on /.
Re: (Score:2)
If they came out with one in the $40k range, I would buy one, but at $100k, who can afford one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one area where the "lower cost of living" areas of the country kind of get shafted.
I make ~$65k per year. In my area - that's fine. I bought a recent construction 1800sqft 4 bedroom house for $115k. Food and electricity are cheap here - I have no problem living comfortably on my salary - EXCEPT when it comes to buying something like a car. Cars cost about the same regardless of where you are in the country. As such while I'm making over twice the median income for my area - even $40k for a car
Re: (Score:2)
In most "high cost of living" areas the higher wages don't make up for the house prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I like living in a high cost of living/high salary location. It makes it a lot easier to travel. On the other hand, I bought a house before the bubble started. I might not be a fan otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
QFT. My sister just learned that lesson and is moving back to Dayton, OH after a few months near Boston. She was being paid more, but probably all of the extra pay (and then some) was sucked up by the $1900/month rent for a tiny old house with no A/C and no garage (or even off-street parking). She was previously paying probably a bit more than half as much for something much newer, larger, and better-equipped.
All she
Re: (Score:2)
Is not about what you make, it's about what you spend. By your own admission you make more than I do, and I just bought a Tesla Model S with my savings. And that's in a country where the S costs even more due to our low currency exchange rate with the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they came out with one in the $10k range, I would buy one, but at $40k, who can afford one?
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a $35k Tundra, it isn't so expensive. At 0% APR, it costs me $577.77 a month.
I would tend to compare the Tesla to an Avalon Hybrid, which bases out at about $41k, so for double the price, you get a car that out performs the Avalon, and uses no gas. I am not sure it is worth the trade off.
Me too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the marketing campaign is flawless. My next car will be a Tesla, and my decision is based only on the articles published here on /.
I'm also planning on getting a Tesla as my next vehicle.
It's largely because of context. I *hate* how my dealership inserts itself between me an my purchase and tries to siphon off money for itself. I went through the trouble of looking for the *same* model and make of my previous purchase between two dealers - and got two "rock bottom" prices that were $1000 different. I know they were "rock bottom" prices, because the dealership told me so.
There's also the reliability context. GM has a problem with its ignition switches, denies the problem for a decade, and once a hundred deaths occur [usatoday.com] fixes the issue without telling anyone, and backdates the paperwork [wikipedia.org] in an attempt to hide the issue.
For the longest time I couldn't rationalize Tesla stock analysis in the financial news. It's almost as if the analysts were looking at Tesla as a black box company: they make some product, have some capitalization, have some profit/loss, and it's a good/bad buy.
As near as I can figure, the financial analysts have an algorithm that actually looks at Tesla as a black box company and makes an heuristic estimate of whether it's a good buy or not. Periodically, an analyst chooses Tesla for review and then rationalizes the heuristic output based on whatever news has recently happened.
(I think that's how all financial analysis is done, actually. It's always "markets are *up* because of $X, markets are *down* following $Y", and so on. It makes the reader think that market fluctuations are caused by these newsworthy events.)
No one in the financial news seems to clue in that the company is building a battery factory, or that the cars had (at the time) the highest rating on Consumer Reports, or that they own a nationwide chain of chargers (and are building more), or even that they are currently selling electric vehicles.
Nope - none of that matters. Porsche plans [cnn.com] to make an electric vehicle, and Tesla's stock tanks.
Apparently, in the financial markets context doesn't matter.
But if you look at the context, Tesla is the best product on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
It's largely because of context. I *hate* how my dealership inserts itself between me an my purchase and tries to siphon off money for itself. I went through the trouble of looking for the *same* model and make of my previous purchase between two dealers - and got two "rock bottom" prices that were $1000 different. I know they were "rock bottom" prices, because the dealership told me so.
Now, it depends on the total price of the car but, given a new car in the $30k range, that isn't a big difference (Would you be upset if someone said a rock bottom price was $100 and another said it was $97?)
One dealer may be paying a lot more to occupy their lot - or may have less sales volume, requiring them to make up the overhead over fewer purchases.
Now, I'm not saying you want to pay $1k more but, percentage-wise (assuming a $30k vehicle) a 3% difference is pretty minor - or may be due to something a
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, Tesla's market cap was 1/4th of Ford's. Yeah, I think they have a bright future, but that's beyond optimistic with so many risks to Tesla future. Good product has little to do with good stock.
News vs Reality (Score:2)
News: "Tesla issues recall affecting 90,000 electric vehicles for seatbelt defect"
Reality: "Priding itself of quality and execution, Tesla issues voluntary recall for loose seatbelt screw despite improbability that human assembler screwed up more than once."
Re: (Score:2)
What is Happening: "Priding itself of quality and execution, Tesla issues voluntary recall for loose seatbelt screw despite improbability that human assembler screwed up more than once."
What People Hear: "Tesla is the next in a long line of Auto Makers whose vehicles are deathtraps."
Smart move. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's as if Musk is asking himself "How would GM handle this?", then doing the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
It's as if Musk is asking himself "How would GM handle this?", then doing the opposite.
There's nothing at all wrong with learning from other peoples' mistakes. And GM is definitely a great company to look at when you want an example of what NOT to do (for just about anything).
Re: Smart move. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree: some are better than others. Maybe not as good as Tesla, but this isn't a binary thing. And since not everyone can afford a $100k Tesla, most of us are going to be stuck buying from one of the other companies. Personally I've been pretty happy with my Mazda and Volvo, and my Hondas before that were well-built cars. It's usually the American companies that seem to have something bad going on, though in recent years it seems like Toyota's been working on catching up with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Volvo is WAY down the list. And mazda is just barely above average.
Sadly, JD Powers refuses to rate Tesla. Interestingly, Tesla is now at the same sales volume as Porsche was in 2000. And if all goes well Tesla will surpass Porsche by 2018. Of course, the question is, will JD Powers finally rate Tesla then?
Re: (Score:2)
That's an "initial quality" survey. Why anyone even bothers with that thing, I have no idea. It's exactly what it sounds like: they survey people who *just got* their cars. It has zero bearing on long-term reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
This may interest you:
http://www.jdpower.com/sites/d... [jdpower.com]
(PDF warning)
Oddly, I've nary a problem with my BMWs over the years - nothing major, at any rate. On the other hand, I keep them properly maintained. Yes, yes it is expensive but it seems to be worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
how about this one?
http://www.consumerreports.org... [consumerreports.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but that's only about Tesla, nothing else. I don't have a Tesla so I can't really speak to its long-term reliability. It doesn't surprise me that a rather new car company with a lot of new tech is having some issues. However there's probably also the effect where high-end cars usually have more complaints than low-end cars, which is why the luxury makes historically did somewhat poorly on JD Powers' surveys: people who pay $50-100k for a car are a lot pickier and quick to complain about small issues
Re: (Score:2)
And GM is definitely a great company to look at when you want an example of what NOT to do (for just about anything).
Except cash government checks.
They're good at that.
So is Tesla. Except then they pay the money back, ahead of schedule.
Re: Smart move. (Score:2)
Even then, this is voluntary. Chances of every Model S owner bringing their car in is simply not going to happen. Half, maybe.
Re: (Score:3)
Recalls are usually checked at routine maintenance time, too. My Subaru (I'd love a Tesla, but they don't suit my driving needs) got a couple of minor repairs - nothing likely to be life-threatening, just stuff that would probably cost them more to repair if they ignored it - for free when I took it in for its scheduled maintenance.
Now, Teslas don't need a lot of servicing, but they do get some. I'm sure some people will schedule a special service time to have the seatbelt checked, but for most people they'
Re: Smart move. (Score:2)
Re: Smart move. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They cost enough money, they have to be good. (Score:2)
Of course, it's a lot easier to do that when you have a high margin luxury product.
Re: (Score:2)
Luxury, yes, but I'm not actually sure about the margins. They make money on every car sold, but they still end up in the red most quarters due to things like R&D costs. Now, maybe they just spend a ton on R&D (and probably also things like Supercharger stations, the new factory, etc.), but they aren't exactly raking in the dough the way "high margin" implies.
Re: (Score:2)
I think their stated profit margin per car was around $9k, which is a pretty good margin in the automotive industry. The company as a whole may not turn a profit quarter to quarter, but that is because they are making large investments in other areas as you mentioned.
Re: They cost enough money, they have to be good. (Score:2)
obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Which car company do you work for?
A major one.
Re: obligatory (Score:2)
The man is a marketing genius (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now the auto industry is reeling from a serious of serious "we had a problem, but we didn't want to say anything" scandals, from the GM ignition switch to the VW super smoggers, and don't forget the shrapnel bags. The entire ecosystem is full of distrust, some of it fairly active distrust.
In this environment a one off assembly mistake where there was no accident, no damage of any kind, is a marketing opportunity you couldn't even buy in a normal market environment.
Musk already recalled all his cars once, to bolt extra belly armor on them because of an accident which would have been considered extreme in any vehicle, and in which his car came out smelling like a rose.
This recall is going to be a lot cheaper. No engineering, not even any replacement parts, but now Tesla is Even More Different(tm) because they recalled a potential problem immediately, before anybody even asked about it.
Based on Musk's previous behaviour I think he really cares that his products are perceived as the best. I am not making a character reference because I don't know the guy, but he obviously cares about at least the appearance of superlativeness.
The guy runs a marketing machine that reminds me of the late Mr. Jobs in his prime.
Re: (Score:2)
Volvo used to act like musk. Their cars were back in the day built like sherman tanks and were designed properly.
Re: (Score:2)
And they looked like Sherman tanks and drove like them.....
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! My '98 V70 is the most comfortable car I've ever owned. It does not drive like a tank, more like a well worn-in Lay-Z-Boy.
Not saying that the sample lot was all that high-end, well there was the '96 Mazda Millennia, that was a nice car too.
I happen to like the way the V70 looks. This may explain why my wife picks my clothes when we go out, and makes me take the 2001 Volvo S60.
Re: (Score:2)
I can confirm this, my wife T-boned a Volvo that run a red light in front of her. Our Honda Civic was totaled, the Volvo went into 540 degree spin. I've seen the Volvo and I could not tell where it was hit. Under very close inspection I found one place with slightly scratched paint. In contrast the whole front of the Civic was crumbled, the engine shifted, it was an unrepairable mess.
Re: (Score:2)
For a long time, Volvo equated indestructibility with safety. Then they finally noticed that "safety" means not injuring the occupants, and this is best achieved by dispersing the crash energy via destroying the vehicle rather than having the frame remain rigid and transferring the energy to the occupants. Other manufacturers are still way ahead of Volvo on this.
Re: The man is a marketing genius (Score:2)
Unlike Honda (Score:2)
Still can't get my airbag fixed.
If it was GM... (Score:2)
They would simply release a statement that the customer is at fault and if anyone is unhappy about it they will give you a $5.00 coupon off of your next GM vehicle purchased at full MSRP prices only.
Nope (Score:2)
QC Issue (Score:2)
This is simply a QC issue. Bolts were not tightened (or were absent?) in a single vehicle's driver-side seat-belt. It could have been a single oversight. Or, a disgruntled line-worker. Or, a tired one who has the flu. The first step, out of caution, is to recall all other vehicles assembled that day. The next; recall all that this person (or robot?) touched. Last, because we're talking about a life-saving device, and the work to check each one at the dealer is minimal, then it's the only reasonable
Re:Good of them (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's more that they can't afford to have something go wrong because they know the press will rip them apart. This will cause hundreds of shit journalists to delete the sensational clickbait articles they were working on, and gives huge cred. to their quality.
If a seatbelt in a Toyota comes apart, nobody gives a shit, and you couldn't pay a reporter to make a story about it. Is there some name for this type of "quality curse", similar to what Apple has?
Re: (Score:2)
what happens if a seatbelt bolt comes apart and then the car spontaneously bursts into flame?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that only happened once. And there was a tree involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Except other car companies are not known for this. Excellent customer service AND marketing all rolled into one.
Re: (Score:2)
Luxury brands are. And Tesla is a luxury brand - compare them to how Mercedes treats you if you buy an S Class, not how GM treats you.
Re:Not that unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but it's a lot better than many other car companies, where they do the bare minimum required by law to keep their customers safe. It's one of those cases where a little bit of money creates a lot of goodwill. I'd much rather buy a car from a company that is proactive about potential safety problems rather than requiring people dying in accidents before the government forces them to admit a problem, which is exactly what happened with GM and their shitty ignition switches. At this point, I don't give a shit how good the Volt or Bolt are technically, I really don't want a GM no matter what because I simply don't trust them.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is I don't think this is even a little bit of money, in practical terms this recall is free. This isn't a hard choice for them. Now when something costs some money and is not directly associated with a safety related part of the car but arguably could indirectly cause a safety risk, then we can evaluate their response versus other companies.
Re: (Score:2)
It might not cost them a lot of money to do the actual work of the recall. But you can bet money that it'll cost them as easy fodder for their opponents.
Re: (Score:2)
> No, but it's a lot better than many other car companies, where they do the bare minimum required by law to keep their customers safe.
Yeah, the difference is those other companies have 10-100x as many vehicles on the road.
Re:Not that unreasonable... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the difference is those other companies have 10-100x as many vehicles on the road.
Right, then they still avoid a recall on 90,000 cars to save the same amount of money, even though they make many times as much money as does Tesla and ought to be able to afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my 90s Acura was the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good thing, but it's nothing to bow down and worship them over either.
Yeah, it's amazing how some fanboys choose to spin everything into a positive light.
There are only 90,000 of these on the road. One seat belt detaching itself from its anchors could conceivably be a big deal. For comparison, there have been 630,000 Ford F-Series vehicles sold in model year 2015 - if six or seven of those exhibited this same issue, wouldn't that be kind of bad?
Re: (Score:2)
If one of the big ones had six or seven issues we wouldn't even know about, it would be just swept under the rug. You just have to do a google search to know that most other car companies just ignore those until the number of actual victims reach the three digits (I think GM holds the record with more than a thousand injured before their ignition recall). And even then, most only do a recall after receiving a court order.
It is not about being a fanboy, it is about trying to praise and generate good publicit
Re: (Score:3)
It is when Chrysler latches kill children, and Chrysler spends millions of dollars fighting the recall. Or Ford and GM who have both been found to have covered up safety issues, and quietly fixed them, hoping nobody would notice and they wouldn't have to recall the proven and known unsafe vehicles.
For a car company to do a recall like that hasn't ever been done in the USA. So yes, it is quite extraordinary.
Re: (Score:2)
1) They are taking the opportunity to do the right thing, check out every car for other issues, and getting great publicity. If they find one more car with an assembly problem like this, and however remotely possible that car is in an accident, this recall paid for itself.
2) It probably won't cost them anything at all because the techs are paid a salary and need somethi
Re: So much Elon cocksucking. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not that special... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This seems to indicate that the dealer has to provide the recall fix for free but doesn't have to pay for the damages that might have occurred because of the failure: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/r... [dot.gov]. It's possible that I'm not interpreting that correctly but, I've had recall work done on my FJ numerous times and never paid a penny for it. Presumably because the things that were being fixed hadn't caused any secondary damage.