This is Tesla sending a message to all lemon law lawyers that they do not negotiate with terrorists. Seems fair to me.
A $2 recall could have saved the lives of 13 with regard to the GM ignition switch problem, while the Nissan Airbag recall has only been attributed to 3 accidents (0 deaths, 0 injuries) while affecting a million vehicles.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/01394d0c27844fa5be3fa6...
Companies (even standard ones, like Nissan) are willing to recall minor safety issues, while other companies are completely worthless at performing recalls (GM Ignition Switch).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Allegations_and_laws...
At worst, the current GM Ignition switch issue seems to demonstrate gross incompetence, or maybe groupthink. Engineers seemed to try and raise concerns, but there aren't any memos out there like the "Pinto Memo" that implicates upper-management.
------------
Another point, is that the Memo, as used by the prosecution of the case, was considered inadmissible evidence by the Judge. This leads me to believe that perhaps the memo was a grossly exaggerated story, or perhaps misrepresented in some way.
While I agree that publicizing frivolous arguments typically is uncalled for; Tesla has been the target of many attacks for which I initially thought were unsafe product design. If not for this blog I might think it's common for a Tesla to catch fire at random, or that they don't travel the advertised distances.
I think re-wording segments of these blogs to be more factual and less emotionally driven would be nice. The openess that they are trying to provide is at least noteworthy.
After the initial public letter, further details revealed that it was a battery issue that confused everyone involved. In fact, it was even a good design decision. If the car is parked in extreme cold, it will consume power in order to heat the battery so that it is not destroyed, thereby incurring a tens of thousands of dollars expense.
When the reviewer returned to the car parked in a freezing garage after his overnight stay at a hotel to find the projected battery range severely reduced, he telephoned support. It sounds like the support thought that the projected range was affected by the cold, and that warming it would by driving in a circle was likely to make the readings and projections sane again.
It didn't, and he decided to continue on with his trip. The recounting of the trip contained inaccurate details, that were not very material, about the climate control settings and speed. And, the review was generally inaccurate, because it reported that the ange was disappointing without noting the effect of the extreme cold. However, a mistake made in good faith is different than dishonest reporting.
In fact, the issue seems so nonobvious, that Musk himself failed to guess it. His public letter focused on whether the reporter drove over the speed limit, while making no mention of the car heating the battery overnight. Does the telemetry fail to log that power use, or was it so unusual that he didn't even think to look at that time frame?
It seems likely that all (three?) of them simply missed this autonomous heater as consuming a great amount of power. Even though it was a good design decision, since it prevents permanent damage to the battery, it is something relevant to a reviewer whose responsibility is reporting to his readership the real world experience of owning a car with technology they aren't used to.
Anyway, the strategy works, because people only remember that Musk went into detail and cited the car's telemetry. It ends up supporting the narrative that this reporter was one of the many people who unfairly attack the car. However, the real story is that unusual conditions like extremely cold weather can affect battery life, and they are unexpected enough that it isn't immediately obvious to an auto journalist, to the manufacturers' live telephone support, or Elon Musk himself.
That is a story, even if it wouldn't prevent anyone from buying the car. However, no one ever apologized for essentially calling the journalist's entire professional reputation into question. Furthermore, it is a reason for someone to worry that if there does ever turn out to be a serious design flaw, nitpicking over telemetry logs might be a bigger part of the experience than them quickly making good on the warranty.
Finally, I don't think the reporting on fires has been entirely unmerited as though it is so much more rare than it is in other new high end cars. Recall that once upon a time people referred to the Concorde as having a perfect safety record, until it didn't, and that that was due to there being so few rather than that it really was so much safer. I think it's great that Tesla has responded with very dramatic new safety measures, but the safety numbers weren't actually so far superior to anything else on the road.
> However, no one ever apologized for essentially calling the journalist's entire professional reputation into question.
And why should they? It's true that unusually cold weather causes unusually high battery drain, but the fundamental reason the reporter ran of out charge is simply that he tried to. At his last "supercharger" stop, he unplugged the car about 30 minutes before it would have finished charging. Had he waited even an additional 5 minutes, there would have been more than enough charge to return to New York at a comfortable speed, even allowing for the cold weather overnight.
The reporter has nobody but himself to blame for his soiled reputation. Frankly, I think there was an interesting angle about the limitations of electric vehicles, but he tried to push the envelope a little too far. The cold weather limitations of the battery would have made for good reading. The need to plug in overnight and the amount of time required to charge in cold weather could have also been interesting points. Lost in the noise is the fact that he wasn't able to gain charge on a 120V outlet in cold weather (the battery heater used more power than the outlet provided).
But, no, he tried to shoot for the moon with a story about how you just can't trust these newfangled contraptions, and he burned his fingers. Boo hoo.
The bit about the front trunk log is basically saying to these kinds of lawyers that Tesla is not low-hanging fruit, and that they better either have a genuine grievance or really know their stuff before taking them on. Better to announce it early and scare off some of the bad guys, rather than rinse, repeat the exercise every time. If users know that there are logs like these, then they're less likely to pull simple cons like these, and Tesla doesn't waste their mechanics' time in doing all the preliminary diagnostic work.
As everyone reading this site knows, there's always a way around these measures. And someone somewhere is going to figure them out. And then sabotage the car, and it's going to hurt that Tesla has all this logging and it shows nothing fishy.
Not saying they shouldn't use the logging, but it's maybe not so smart to make it a point of contention and then incentivize the circumvention even more.
As start-up advice, I would say you don't have a reality distortion field. If you try arguing with a customer in public, you are very likely to lose, even if you are right on all the facts.
How Musk pulls this off is something I still don't understand, but don't think you can replicate it.
Honesty, openness, lack of bullshit-bingo, the knowledge that he's in it for idealistic reasons first. It's not a reality distortion field if it's reality.
Of course I realize that to you, this sounds like I'm caught in his "reality distortion field".