3 ms·

The silly thing about all this is eMMC is a wear part. Tesla made a really serious mistake and didn't take that into account and now the user is "holding it wr

The silly thing about all this is eMMC is a wear part. Tesla made a really serious mistake and didn't take that into account and now the user is "holding it wrong". That needs to be in a place where the user or a technician can service it easily. They were just trying to save a penny or a second of engineering time and now pretending they knew all along.

FireBeyond 6y ago
It is. But its wear is almost exclusively for Tesla's benefit, not the customers. That's what's galling to me. Capturing extensive logging data so Tesla can do product improvement is NOT something I should be hammered hundreds of dollars for service on because it impacts the ability of me to use my vehicle.
- MPSimmons 6y ago
  They should eat the cost on these cars, and re-engineer the part to be easily replaced on future vehicles so that it actually is a user-serviceable replaceable part.
  - amznthrwaway 6y ago
    TSLA never does the right thing by their customers. They’ve learned, over time, that you can sell a few horrible cars and be worth a fortune, so long as you create a cult-like following for your stock. So that’s the focus. Who gives a shit about building a good, useful, reliable car, if you can just throw 1.5 billion of BTC on your balance sheet, and add 15 billion to your equity value, because your investors are _that_ absurd?
  - soganess 6y ago
    I always think this type of bad first step is a "test the waters" move. If no one complains, sweet. If someone complains backpedal with one of those "We hear you! And while we haven't done anything wrong, we will do right by the customer just like we have always done" PR stunts. Most everyone forgets, and the people that do remember, well they remember you "making things right." Exploding batteries on your s21? Anyone?
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      The semi-annual Toyota frame recall is a great example. They start small and then begrudgingly widen it to some larger range of years and maybe add in the 4Runners if it looks like people are switching brands.
      - fabbari 6y ago
        I have seen this repeated in this thread several times - had to look it up, turns out it's BS. There has been one frame recall - in 2008, for cars made between 1994 and 2004 - including the Tacoma and the 4Runners and Toyota extended the warranty for rust perforation and bought back the damaged trucks. [0] In 2012 there has been a recall for Tacomas in a smaller set - produced between 2001 and 2004 - for rusting tire carrier. The last recall for rust in Toyotas includes cars made up to 2010 [1]. So - if by "semi-annual" - you mean nothing in the last ten years, then you are correct, else it's BS. [0][https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15360825/690000-toyota-tacomas-recalled-for-leaf-springs-that-could-snap-damage-fuel-tank-and-brake-line/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15360825/690000-toyota-ta...] [1][https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/ask-moneysense/toyota-truck-recall/ https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/ask-moneysense/toyota-truc...]
bdowling 6y ago
Tesla isn't blaming the user or pretending it knew all along, it's trying to avoid a mandatory recall. The letter here [0] is a response to a letter from the National Highway Transport Safety Administration, which has the power to force a mandatory recall of all affected Tesla vehicles. Tesla argues that a mandatory recall is unnecessary because the eMMC wearout is not a safety concern and is not the type of defect that should trigger a mandatory recall. Part of that argument is that eMMC is an expected wear item, that even without the over-the-air firmware updates already deployed the eMMC is expected to last 5-6 years, and that a failing eMMC does not cause dangerous conditions. Tesla has also promised to voluntarily recall and replace any affected hardware for free. Tesla argues that what it is doing makes a mandatory recall unnecessary. [0] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INRL-EA20003-82493P.pdf https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INRL-EA20003-82493P.pd...

FireBeyond 6y ago

It is. But its wear is almost exclusively for Tesla's benefit, not the customers. That's what's galling to me. Capturing extensive logging data so Tesla can do product improvement is NOT something I should be hammered hundreds of dollars for service on because it impacts the ability of me to use my vehicle.

MPSimmons 6y ago
They should eat the cost on these cars, and re-engineer the part to be easily replaced on future vehicles so that it actually is a user-serviceable replaceable part.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  TSLA never does the right thing by their customers. They’ve learned, over time, that you can sell a few horrible cars and be worth a fortune, so long as you create a cult-like following for your stock. So that’s the focus. Who gives a shit about building a good, useful, reliable car, if you can just throw 1.5 billion of BTC on your balance sheet, and add 15 billion to your equity value, because your investors are _that_ absurd?
- soganess 6y ago
  I always think this type of bad first step is a "test the waters" move. If no one complains, sweet. If someone complains backpedal with one of those "We hear you! And while we haven't done anything wrong, we will do right by the customer just like we have always done" PR stunts. Most everyone forgets, and the people that do remember, well they remember you "making things right." Exploding batteries on your s21? Anyone?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    The semi-annual Toyota frame recall is a great example. They start small and then begrudgingly widen it to some larger range of years and maybe add in the 4Runners if it looks like people are switching brands.
    - fabbari 6y ago
      I have seen this repeated in this thread several times - had to look it up, turns out it's BS. There has been one frame recall - in 2008, for cars made between 1994 and 2004 - including the Tacoma and the 4Runners and Toyota extended the warranty for rust perforation and bought back the damaged trucks. [0] In 2012 there has been a recall for Tacomas in a smaller set - produced between 2001 and 2004 - for rusting tire carrier. The last recall for rust in Toyotas includes cars made up to 2010 [1]. So - if by "semi-annual" - you mean nothing in the last ten years, then you are correct, else it's BS. [0][https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15360825/690000-toyota-tacomas-recalled-for-leaf-springs-that-could-snap-damage-fuel-tank-and-brake-line/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15360825/690000-toyota-ta...] [1][https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/ask-moneysense/toyota-truck-recall/ https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/ask-moneysense/toyota-truc...]

bdowling 6y ago

Tesla isn't blaming the user or pretending it knew all along, it's trying to avoid a mandatory recall. The letter here [0] is a response to a letter from the National Highway Transport Safety Administration, which has the power to force a mandatory recall of all affected Tesla vehicles. Tesla argues that a mandatory recall is unnecessary because the eMMC wearout is not a safety concern and is not the type of defect that should trigger a mandatory recall. Part of that argument is that eMMC is an expected wear item, that even without the over-the-air firmware updates already deployed the eMMC is expected to last 5-6 years, and that a failing eMMC does not cause dangerous conditions. Tesla has also promised to voluntarily recall and replace any affected hardware for free. Tesla argues that what it is doing makes a mandatory recall unnecessary. [0] https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INRL-EA20003-82493P.pdf https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2020/INRL-EA20003-82493P.pd...