Wow, I guess I touched a nerve :-) Have you ridden in an early model S? Tried to repair a Roadster? I am a big fan of Tesla and impressed at what they pulled off, but I don't forget that when they started they cut all the corners.
It is common, perhaps even expected, in startups when an engineer says, "Well this won't last more than 5 or 6 years" to be told by upper management, "Well if we're still around in 5 or 6 years, we'll do something about it."
Given that Tesla is not a startup these days, and is on the other side of that chasm, I was surprised that their response here was "oh we'll replace the board with another board with the same issue."
Perhaps there is not a good understanding about the differences in the legal ramifications of a vehicle failing and resulting in property damage or loss of life from the failure of something considered a 'wear' item versus something that is not classified as a wear item.
I am not a lawyer, one of my friends who does consumer product safety litigation and is a Tesla owner, immediately responded to this news that this was just Tesla trying to avoid criminal liability when a failing EMMC chip kills someone. Sure, they see everything in terms of liability :-)
> Perhaps there is not a good understanding about the differences in the legal ramifications of a vehicle failing and resulting in property damage or loss of life from the failure of something considered a 'wear' item versus something that is not classified as a wear item.
This was my first thought as well. It feels like they were trying to avoid some implication beyond mere replacement of storage modules. Perhaps they are aware of some other component that will also fail at a high rate before the useful life of the vehicle?
It is common, perhaps even expected, in startups when an engineer says, "Well this won't last more than 5 or 6 years" to be told by upper management, "Well if we're still around in 5 or 6 years, we'll do something about it."
Given that Tesla is not a startup these days, and is on the other side of that chasm, I was surprised that their response here was "oh we'll replace the board with another board with the same issue."
Perhaps there is not a good understanding about the differences in the legal ramifications of a vehicle failing and resulting in property damage or loss of life from the failure of something considered a 'wear' item versus something that is not classified as a wear item.
I am not a lawyer, one of my friends who does consumer product safety litigation and is a Tesla owner, immediately responded to this news that this was just Tesla trying to avoid criminal liability when a failing EMMC chip kills someone. Sure, they see everything in terms of liability :-)