3 ms·

That is not accurate. Tesla regularly issues recalls (some of which can be fixed in the field) proactively, and a "typical" company may try to keep a problem qu

That is not accurate. Tesla regularly issues recalls (some of which can be fixed in the field) proactively, and a "typical" company may try to keep a problem quiet or wait until forced to by safety bodies. I mean for goodness sake, look at the behavior of "typical" German carmakers with the dieselgate scandal (which continues). Against that backdrop, Tesla is a model of upright behavior. I realize that not everything Elon Musk does is rainbows and unicorns, but there's some serious animus against Tesla in the comments here that is not borne out by objective facts (although plenty of cherry picking is, of course, possible to exaggerate problems that are not uncommon across these industries).

dragontamer 7y ago
I'm talking about the SolarCity case, as well as Walmart's allegations against Tesla. SolarCity knew that their solar panels were catching on fire. There was NO recall issued in the past years. Period. Another note: Walmart's dealing with SolarCity (AND Tesla, post-purchase) is horrifying. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of-the-state-of-new-york-new-york-county/walmart-inc-fka-walmart-stores-inc-v-tesla-energy-operations-inc-fka-solarcity-cor/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of... > Moreover, Tesla's wire management practices were negligent and inconsistent with prudent industry practices. Loose and hanging wires were present at multiple Walmart locations, resulting in abraded and exposed wires, decreased insulation, and a phenomenon known as arcing that substantially increases the risk of fire by causing electricity to travel through an unintended path. Tesla also failed to "ground" its systems properly, violating basic practices for the installation and operation of electrical systems in a way that increased the risk of electrical fire. ------- I don't care how cheap you make your system! The fact of the matter is, SolarCity / Tesla's reputation is in tatters because of this fire incident, and Tesla management has done NOTHING to reassure its customers that they've got the fires under control.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  Looking at legal briefings from only one side in one court case is not going to leave you with a realistic, objective look at the situation. It is the starting point in a negotiation, and is by definition one-sided. It's an example of the kind of cherry picking I was referring to. Using hyperbolic language in comments may be an effective rhetorical tool, but it reduces the credibility of your argument. The objective fact is that Tesla and Walmart are working together to solve these problems as it's literally in everyone's interest to solve them.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > The objective fact is that Tesla and Walmart are working together to solve these problems as it's literally in everyone's interest to solve them. Not really. Walmart is well past that point. Walmart is literally suing Tesla over what Walmart perceives as gross incompetence on this issue. > Looking at legal briefings from only one side in one court case is not going to leave you with a realistic, objective look at the situation. In general, no. But in practice, Walmart has a very strong reputation in the business world. Walmart is well known to be an upstanding business that gives lots of leeway to its contractors. In fact, its pretty rare for Walmart to sue contractors, despite the fact that Walmart is a huge business with probably thousands of contractors working with them. Furthermore, the Legal Briefing Walmart has prepared is unusually well-researched. The briefing makes clear that Walmart went to extraordinary lengths to help Tesla in this case: > Walmart nevertheless worked closely with Tesla to explore a potential path toward re-energization of the systems. Walmart discussed with Tesla in detail the concerns it had about the conditions it discovered at the sites, and Walmart's consultants helped educate Tesla's personnel on how to conduct solar system inspections properly, including the types of conditions that can contribute to the risk of fire, how to use equipment and tools properly to look for and correct such conditions, and how to follow site safety and inspection protocols. Walmart gave Tesla over a year to correct the defects and to raise the quality of the inspections. And yet fire-after-fire continued to break out at Walmart stores across the country. This wasn't some sort of one-off crazy event. And all the evidence has been documented already. Sure, these court documents show Walmart's perspective on the matter, but they're not allowed to lie or slander in these court documents. Walmart started to move and investigate after the 3rd fire. A total of seven fires took place before Walmart sued (and even after Tesla allegedly de-energized systems). This is a systemic issue.
- hef19898 7y ago
  From whom did SolarCity source their modules? Seriously asking because it was either faulty modules or faulty installations. And in the first case I guess Tesla could hold the module supplier accountable.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    A lot of the fires were around the Amphenol connectors. Walmart seems to think it was faulty installations. In either case: Walmart's patience started to run thin after the 3rd fire. Then fire #4, #5, #6, and #7 happened, and then Walmart sued Tesla. What I'm saying is: a faulty module could be the blame for fires#1 through Fire#3. But by the time Fire#7 breaks out and Tesla still hasn't done anything to help Walmart out... well... that's really not looking good for Tesla the company.
    - hef19898 7y ago
      Seven fires and a law suite before Tesla started to consider to fix things? Ok, that's bad. I wouldn't be amused neither.
      - dragontamer 7y ago
        Hmmm, it looks like I was imprecise with my words. Its not that "Tesla didn't consider to fix things", its that "Tesla didn't fix things". Walmart is suing for gross incompetence. Tesla reps were there investigating the fires. What Walmart is alleging in the filing is that Tesla's representatives were incompetent at fixing the problem (and negligent in their installation practices). So Tesla certainly was roped into the fire-investigations. But after 7 fires and a year of working with SolarCity / Tesla, Walmart grew impatient and started to sue Tesla.

dragontamer 7y ago

I'm talking about the SolarCity case, as well as Walmart's allegations against Tesla. SolarCity knew that their solar panels were catching on fire. There was NO recall issued in the past years. Period. Another note: Walmart's dealing with SolarCity (AND Tesla, post-purchase) is horrifying. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of-the-state-of-new-york-new-york-county/walmart-inc-fka-walmart-stores-inc-v-tesla-energy-operations-inc-fka-solarcity-cor/ https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of... > Moreover, Tesla's wire management practices were negligent and inconsistent with prudent industry practices. Loose and hanging wires were present at multiple Walmart locations, resulting in abraded and exposed wires, decreased insulation, and a phenomenon known as arcing that substantially increases the risk of fire by causing electricity to travel through an unintended path. Tesla also failed to "ground" its systems properly, violating basic practices for the installation and operation of electrical systems in a way that increased the risk of electrical fire. ------- I don't care how cheap you make your system! The fact of the matter is, SolarCity / Tesla's reputation is in tatters because of this fire incident, and Tesla management has done NOTHING to reassure its customers that they've got the fires under control.

Robotbeat 7y ago
Looking at legal briefings from only one side in one court case is not going to leave you with a realistic, objective look at the situation. It is the starting point in a negotiation, and is by definition one-sided. It's an example of the kind of cherry picking I was referring to. Using hyperbolic language in comments may be an effective rhetorical tool, but it reduces the credibility of your argument. The objective fact is that Tesla and Walmart are working together to solve these problems as it's literally in everyone's interest to solve them.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  > The objective fact is that Tesla and Walmart are working together to solve these problems as it's literally in everyone's interest to solve them. Not really. Walmart is well past that point. Walmart is literally suing Tesla over what Walmart perceives as gross incompetence on this issue. > Looking at legal briefings from only one side in one court case is not going to leave you with a realistic, objective look at the situation. In general, no. But in practice, Walmart has a very strong reputation in the business world. Walmart is well known to be an upstanding business that gives lots of leeway to its contractors. In fact, its pretty rare for Walmart to sue contractors, despite the fact that Walmart is a huge business with probably thousands of contractors working with them. Furthermore, the Legal Briefing Walmart has prepared is unusually well-researched. The briefing makes clear that Walmart went to extraordinary lengths to help Tesla in this case: > Walmart nevertheless worked closely with Tesla to explore a potential path toward re-energization of the systems. Walmart discussed with Tesla in detail the concerns it had about the conditions it discovered at the sites, and Walmart's consultants helped educate Tesla's personnel on how to conduct solar system inspections properly, including the types of conditions that can contribute to the risk of fire, how to use equipment and tools properly to look for and correct such conditions, and how to follow site safety and inspection protocols. Walmart gave Tesla over a year to correct the defects and to raise the quality of the inspections. And yet fire-after-fire continued to break out at Walmart stores across the country. This wasn't some sort of one-off crazy event. And all the evidence has been documented already. Sure, these court documents show Walmart's perspective on the matter, but they're not allowed to lie or slander in these court documents. Walmart started to move and investigate after the 3rd fire. A total of seven fires took place before Walmart sued (and even after Tesla allegedly de-energized systems). This is a systemic issue.
hef19898 7y ago
From whom did SolarCity source their modules? Seriously asking because it was either faulty modules or faulty installations. And in the first case I guess Tesla could hold the module supplier accountable.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  A lot of the fires were around the Amphenol connectors. Walmart seems to think it was faulty installations. In either case: Walmart's patience started to run thin after the 3rd fire. Then fire #4, #5, #6, and #7 happened, and then Walmart sued Tesla. What I'm saying is: a faulty module could be the blame for fires#1 through Fire#3. But by the time Fire#7 breaks out and Tesla still hasn't done anything to help Walmart out... well... that's really not looking good for Tesla the company.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Seven fires and a law suite before Tesla started to consider to fix things? Ok, that's bad. I wouldn't be amused neither.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      Hmmm, it looks like I was imprecise with my words. Its not that "Tesla didn't consider to fix things", its that "Tesla didn't fix things". Walmart is suing for gross incompetence. Tesla reps were there investigating the fires. What Walmart is alleging in the filing is that Tesla's representatives were incompetent at fixing the problem (and negligent in their installation practices). So Tesla certainly was roped into the fire-investigations. But after 7 fires and a year of working with SolarCity / Tesla, Walmart grew impatient and started to sue Tesla.