Musk Says the Tesla Model S Suspension Controversy is Over

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

Elon Musk is declaring the controversy that erupted over reports of Tesla Model S suspension failures to be over, done, finished, finito.

The Tesla founder and CEO fired off a string of tweets late Friday, saying that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration was done looking into the matter, and added that the majority of complaints were found to be fraudulent.

Yesterday, TTAC examined the details of the case that sparked accusations of a serious Model S safety issue and a cover-up on the part of the automaker. The firestorm of controversy, ignited by a Daily Kanban blog post by ex-TTAC editor Edward Neidermeyer, centered on a Pennsylvania man whose 2013 Model S experienced an unusual upper ball joint failure.

A non-disclosure clause in the “goodwill agreement” handed to the owner during the vehicle’s repair process raised even more questions. The NHTSA, which had been contacted by Tesla owners and other individuals, examined the language in the document and announced it was looking into the suspension issue.

While this was going on, Tesla fired back at critics with a lengthy and unusually harsh blog post of its own, denying there was a safety issue and singling out Neidermeyer for his post.

It now looks like Musk wants the final say on the matter. Taking to Twitter last night, he announced, “NHTSA confirmed today that they found no safety concern with the Model S suspension and have no further need for data from us on this matter.”

He then added, “Of greater concern: 37 of 40 suspension complaints to NHTSA were fraudulent, i.e. false location or vehicle identification numbers were used.” Musk then questioned the intentions of those who made false complaints.

Looking into the issue, TTAC’s Mark Stevenson and Bozi Tatarevic found that the non-disclosure agreement, while unusual, was likely unenforceable. The automaker would have a potentially ruinous PR disaster on its hands if it tried to silence consumer complaints.

The suspension failure that led to the controversy looked to be the result of a damaged rubber ball joint boot that allowed water and road salt to enter the ball joint, ultimately leading to its premature failure. The damaged boot remains a mystery — it could have been compromised when it left the factory or damaged when the owner drove his Model S down rutted Pennsylvania roads.

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
5 of 58 comments
  • TrailerTrash TrailerTrash on Jun 11, 2016

    OK...Musk, ol buddy...so what was the disclosure in the repair for? It sounds like it implied a legal battle if reported. Enforceable or not...it seems mean spirited. What is the intent of the warning or disclosure?

    • Vulpine Vulpine on Jun 11, 2016

      My reading of the NDC is, "We fix, you no sue." No more. No less.

  • Sirwired Sirwired on Jun 13, 2016

    Very nice of Elon to tell us all that the controversy is over. Because those NDA's his company was asking people to sign still have not, apparently, changed, and it sure looks like it purports to prohibit customers from talking to the press to me. The fact that it does not, in fact, actually work, doesn't really mean that Tesla doesn't wish it would.

    • See 1 previous
    • Sirwired Sirwired on Jun 13, 2016

      @Vulpine It ALSO says: "If We Pay For Your Repair, Thou Shalt Not Discuss The Claim With Anybody". (It does not exempt the NHTSA from the definition of "anybody", despite Elon's hand-waving.)

  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh A prelude is a bad idea. There is already Acura with all the weird sport trims. This will not make back it's R&D money.
  • Analoggrotto I don't see a red car here, how blazing stupid are you people?
  • Redapple2 Love the wheels
  • Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
  • Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Next