Sep 16, 2014
Matias �The Tesla Model S drive unit warranty has been increased to match that of the battery pack. That means the 85 kWh Model S, our most popular model by far, now has an 8 year, infinite mile warranty on both the battery pack and drive unit.�
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/infinite-mile-warranty
Some might call this misleading advertising, and I believe it will back fire on the long run.�
Sep 16, 2014
Kevin Sharpe This has already been the subject of a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK and I have been told that other complaints are pending. IMO Tesla do not want to become a brand that people question in this way.
I have not been tracking the Model S closely but was genuinely surprised to discover the "Infinite Mile Warranty" excludes degradation. I was also disappointed to read the comments in the OP about the CPO Roadster warranty. Both of these suggest to me that Tesla are unwilling to stand behind their products.
Some background on the previous ASA complaint is on the Speak EV forum and I will try to provide updates if/when the other complaints are made public;
Teslas misleading battery warranty | Speak EV - Electric Car Forums�
Sep 16, 2014
J1mbo The response from the ASA is clear and fair.
IMO, complaining to the ASA about the theoretical possibility of this situation happening with a Model S is pointless unless taken in the wider context of this thread, i.e. let's cost Tesla some money and inconvenience for not jumping when they were told to jump.�
Sep 16, 2014
David_Cary Give me a break with "misleading" advertising. I think Tesla should provide a degradation warranty but I certainly don't think their current advertising is misleading.
Given that we have a 100k mile car, it seems they could come up with a good number. I think 80% at 100,000 miles and 8 years is fairly safe. Even if they have some warranty replacements, it would be far in the future and not a huge expense. The old batteries could be repurposed so their actual charge might be less than $5k and probably will be less than 2% of cars. Somehow to me 80% sounds a lot better than 70%. The press release can say they expect 90% and will warranty 80%. That sounds like a reasonable plan and most people will think 90% as an average is pretty fantastic�
Sep 16, 2014
wts13 Seems to me the biggest reason Tesla can't/won't do this is because they would be essentially admitting that the car has a major flaw. This would scare away unfamiliar buyers.
Most of us are familiar with the technology and understand that this is an inherent factor, but many don't. While I hope Tesla will improve their policy, I suspect they may not.�
Sep 16, 2014
rlang59 It seems like the ASA's response is pretty clear and there is no false advertising. Also isn't Teo the same guy that is worried about cyclists getting decapitated by the falcon wing doors on the Model X?�
Sep 16, 2014
JRP3 ASA shot that down. Teo seems to be a first order FUD stirrer.�
Sep 16, 2014
dsm363 Glad he has found a new home. He doesn't let up wether it's parking rules in Washington State or advertising practices in England. For someone who doesn't own a Tesla and has no plans he has an odd focus.�
Sep 16, 2014
dsm363 Same guy (username at least).�
Sep 16, 2014
dsm363 You were surprised? So a taxi driver buys a model S and drives 500 miles a day. You expect Tesla to give him a new pack every 200,000 miles or so because it goes below a number like 80%? I would hope you know better than this as someone who is in charge of a company debar installs EVSEs. Did you do any research on batteries or EVs before starting this company or buying an EV?
I think it makes sense for Tesla to wait on any kind of degradation warranty until the car has been out for a number of years and they have actual historical data.�
Sep 16, 2014
scaesare This just goes to show: No good deed goes unpunished.�
Sep 16, 2014
ecarfan I would be genuinely surprised if the warranty included degradation.
As has been repeatedly pointed out by multiple members on this forum, it is well known that lithium ion batteries degrade over time. Anyone who owns a cell phone is aware of that. Predicting the amount of degradation for a specific vehicle is very difficult to do accurately since each vehicle will have a unique pattern of charging and driving.
It is clear that Tesla makes the most sophisticated EV BMS available for the Model S. It is also clear that the Roadster BMS is not as effective since the Roadster was essentially a limited production proof-of-concept vehicle. It's good, but not as good as the S and the Roadster cells are likely not as durable as the S cells.
Maybe in a few years when Tesla has data on thousands of over 100K mile Model S vehicles they will be able to offer a warranty against a specific amount of battery degradation, but I don't expect that from them now, and I would never have expected it in the Roadster warranty since Tesla did not have enough long term data on a large number of Roadster batteries, and likely still doesn't because a large percentage of Roadster are driven very little. I have been following the Roadsters for sale for a year and the vast majority of them have less than 20K miles on them. Of course age is also a major influence in battery degradation but so is usage and number of charge cycles.�
Sep 16, 2014
dsm363 Exactly. Anyone who has owned an iPhone or any mobile phone really knows that after a year or two if doesn't seem to hold as much charge as it used to. Apparently a few people didn't notice that though.�
Sep 16, 2014
Matias Nissan, BMW, GM and KIA are able to offer battery degradation warranty.
Why they can offer degradation warranty, but Tesla can't?�
Sep 16, 2014
mknox Well, I think that it the crux of the issue. It is not actually a "flaw" but rather just the way these batteries work. The problem is the average new car buyer might not be aware of that and consider it a "flaw". I think that Tesla must have some sort of a line between what "normal" and "abnormal" degradation is, and it should be pretty simple (and harmless for Tesla) to include "abnormal" degradation in their battery warranty. It would serve to help educate consumers as well as allay fears. I would point out that I'm not being critical of Tesla here, nor am I particularly worried about it, but I just think it's an opportunity to make a problem go away.�
Sep 16, 2014
AEdennis My original point (when I forked this thread from the other one) is to have Tesla integrate a guideline that states that we can expect the batteries to last to X% in Y miles or Z years. It would be great if Tesla included a price to replace the battery. A lot of phones, the iPhones included have a cost to replace the battery. In some cases this is easy as there is a market to remove and replace the batteries in others it's a little more difficult (as is the case of an iPhone) as people have to jimmy open the phone (and void the warranty) and swap it out there.
It's not unreasonable to ask for this as I intend on keeping both the Roadster and Model S for many years. I've replaced transmissions and that sort of thing on ICE cars I've owned in the past, and though pricey, I made the determination to do it then because of what I expected to drive PAST that repair. I'm just asking for Tesla to provide the same sort of thing for the batteries of the Model S and Roadster (for my own selfish reasons) and the future vehicles for their own adoption.�
Sep 16, 2014
Chickenlittle Not every car is right choice for everyone. You seem so impressed with others that I think you should fet a leaf and move on. Btw with 50,000 cars on the road where are all the people with decreasing range in model s. There are cars with significantly more than 100k miles�
Sep 16, 2014
arg Partly because they are only dabbling with EVs and can afford to take a risk of having a lot of warranty claims.
It would be reasonable to offer a warranty that covers degratation significantly worse than typical. Unfortunately, nobody knows exactly what typical degradation will be, nor what the variance is likely to be.
We expect it (for Model S) to be quite good, but Tesla can't risk setting a hard number that is close to what they expect since there's always a chance that typical degradation will accelerate in later years or high mileages or some other factor that could affect a large number of users. So if Tesla did publish a hard figure, it would have to be very conservative - they can't afford to have 100% warranty claims because they've got the limit wrong by a percentage point or two. And if they do publish a very conservative figure, then on the one hand it hurts their marketing because people will treat the conservative warranty number as the expected number, and on the other hand it doesn't actually help the people who deserve help. For example, if the actual degradation at some milestone of use is typically 10% with a variation of only a few percentage points, then we'd probably agree that someone with 20% deserves help from the warranty - but Tesla would be unlikely to set the limit any better than 30% even if they actually forecast this scenario accurately.
As it is, we can hope that Tesla will treat cases of unusual degradation fairly under 'goodwill' - but they aren't obliged to with the current warranty, and it's tricky to devise a forward-looking warranty that they could be reasonably asked to give while still being useful. They could reasonably give some more clarity on their goodwill policy, and perhaps some retrospective rules (they could now set a hard number for 2-year old cars if they wanted to).�
Sep 16, 2014
omarsultan You must be quite pleased with yourself.�
Sep 16, 2014
AEdennis With over 100,000 Leafs sold, I wouldn't say that Nissan is "dabbling" necessarily. The fact that they sell the cars outside of California in quite a few markets around the world (I actually just saw a bunch at Hong Kong Airport) makes them a little bit more than "dabblers" in EVs.
Additionally, as previously mentioned Nissan also provides its customers with guidance as to battery degradation and what is covered (granted it's 37% (I think that's what I saw)). Now, it may have taken a lawsuit or a threat of a lawsuit to get there, but it IS the right thing. It was also mentioned that BMW i matches the Leaf degradation warranty. My question still holds, why doesn't Tesla? If they match the Nissan one, that's EVEN WORSE than the blog post in 2006 that people said discussed the Roadster at 30% in 50,000 miles [or or and] 5 year expectations.�
Sep 16, 2014
JRP3 I think it's almost entirely the difference between cell chemistry, construction, and quality. The Roadster used off the shelf LiCo cells, the S uses NCA cells designed by Tesla and built to their specifications. The better cells with more closely matched production tolerances need less management, and also have inherently longer cycle life because of the different chemistry and more advanced additives.�
Sep 16, 2014
Matias Nissan, BMW, GM and KIA offer battery degradation warranty.�
Sep 17, 2014
WarpedOne Please, quote the numbers.
70% Warranty is worse than useless.�
Sep 17, 2014
AEdennis At least it's a line in the sand... 70% of full charge is 210 Ideal Miles for a Model S... Drive at 55 and arrive, I say.
Granted, I would want a warranty better than that. I, for one, prefer 70% over the current situation. I'm not a lawyer, but a flat out exclusion means just that, theoretically if they can drive it a few feet, the battery "checks good,"
As for the future, hopefully they'll do better, but I bought both cars last year and would like a better warranty than what they sold the car with.
If I have to live with this binary situation (as it is right now), just tell us how much a battery will cost so that we can at least save UK for that replacement.�
Sep 17, 2014
Matias No degeneration warranty is better than 70% warranty?�
Sep 17, 2014
stopcrazypp For Tesla right now, yes. There's almost no benefit for Tesla to offer this at this point because they aren't lacking sales because of the battery warranty nor do they have much people doubting the longevity of their batteries.
For owners, it depends (not having a hard number more easily allows goodwill fixes; using Kevin's situation as an example, if it was 70% written in the warranty Tesla would not even bother to look into his battery at all until it's under 70%).
And the infinite mile thing probably won't hold anymore (for example someone with a long commute or using it as a taxi can run a lot of miles in 8 years).�
Sep 17, 2014
Matias I personally would rather take for instance 70% warranty for 8 years / 100 000 miles, whichever comes first, than no warranty. Concerning warranties, I believe, that if it is not written, it does not exist.�
Sep 17, 2014
ggr Here's how I see it. Tesla pretty much knows, now, that a non-defective battery simply won't degrade that much. They could end this debate, without changing the actual warranty, if they wanted to publish a table that says "At this age and this many miles, the battery should still have at least this percentage capacity. If it doesn't, it's de facto defective and we want it back to understand why." But, you know, this is exactly the current situation, except that they haven't published the table that you can bet your bottom dollar they already have at least the beginnings of.
--- edited ---
I guess I failed to state my conclusion: no warranty is necessary.�
Sep 17, 2014
mknox Exactly. Do this and the problem goes away.�
Sep 17, 2014
scaesare I keep seeing references to the "Infinite Mile Warranty" for the battery, along with comments about how misleading it is with degradation not being covered. I believe people are missing the point of that warranty.
I think it might be useful to provide some historical context here (in chronological order):
- The 85kWh battery pack always had an "8 yr /unlimited-mileage warranty" (as it was called initially, and still referred to on the site). This protected against outright pack failure, but not against degradation or damage (deliberate or accidental) or fire.
- In late 2013, there were two high-profile fires in Tesla vehicles: one due to pack puncture from road debris, and a second from high-speed accident
- Tesla addressed the fires in two blog posts. The second of which (on 11/18/2013) they amended the existing unlimited mileage waranty to "cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered." This coverage was free and retroactive to all existing customers.
- In March 2014 Tesla further added titanium and aluminum frontal pack armor to new cars going in to production. They also offered a retrofit to all existing customers, again free.
- Over the course of some time leading up to a call (investor?) in mid-2014, drive units had been replaced on a significant number of vehicles under warranty. Elon described the issues identified (bearing issues, vibration transfer, etc..), and their remedies.
- On 11/15/2014, Tesla (via blog post), stated "The Tesla Model S drive unit warranty has been increased to match that of the battery pack. That means the 85 kWh Model S, our most popular model by far, now has an 8 year, infinite mile warranty on both the battery pack and drive unit. There is also no limit on the number of owners during the warranty period. Moreover, the warranty extension will apply retroactively to all Model S vehicles ever produced. In hindsight, this should have been our policy from the beginning of the Model S program." Although this was referred to as the "infinite mile warranty" for the first time, it was not a new warranty, but rather the existing unlimited pack warranty extended to now cover the drivetrain as well. Again this was free and retroactive.
Now, during that entire course of events, degradation of the pack has never been covered. This was, and continues to be, in the warranty: "The Battery, like all lithium-ion batteries, will experience gradual energy or power loss with time and use. Loss of Battery energy or power over time or due to or resulting from Battery usage, is NOT covered under this Battery Limited Warranty. See your owner documentation for important information on how to maximize the life and capacity of the Battery".
It somehow seems disingenuous to see many posts referring to the "infinite mile warranty" as if it were something new should somehow address degradation, and ignore that it's original intent was to protect against pack failure, and was expanded in scope to cover accidental pack damage or fire as well as drivetrain failures.
I know many people would like to see degradation addressed as well (heck, I would too, why not?), but it feels that many are implying that Elon tried to pull a fast one by referring to an unlimited mileage warranty yet ignoring normal pack loss...�
Sep 17, 2014
dalalsid How about a solar panel like warranty? No more than x%/year or y%/10000 miles.�
Sep 17, 2014
bonnie ^ This. Nicely put.�
Sep 17, 2014
breser It's not disingenuous at all. When the drive train warranty change was made Tesla made their "Infinite Mile Warranty" front and center as part of their marketing. In fact the front page splash on teslamotors.com right now says "Infinite Mile Warranty. 8 year, infinite mile warranty on Model S 85 kWh battery and drive unit." with a link to the blog post expanding the warranty to the drive train. Nowhere in their marketing can you find any fine print whatsoever that says that degradation of the battery isn't covered.
When I talk with people about the Tesla the concern isn't that the battery will completely fail, but that the battery will degrade to the point where the car is no longer useful. Many people assume that battery warranty being advertised heavily in their current marketing information covers that situation. It does not.
If you read those materials no where does it explain this. The only way you know this is if you dig around and find the actual warranty and read it. I don't think that Tesla is trying to pull a fast one. I do think they're not fixing a misunderstanding of the consumer. A misunderstanding that is likely to hurt their reputation when people who purchase under these assumptions and then have battery degradation. So yes you're absolutely right about the history of the warranty. But none of that matters if the consumer has a misunderstanding of the warranty. I don't think anyone here has any misunderstanding of that history or even what the warranty covers. But we're not the overall market, we're a group of Tesla fans that are much better informed than the average consumer.�
Sep 17, 2014
brianman Breser makes a good point.
Tesla needs to be careful here from the standpoint of the EV mission. With the transition from gasoline to electric, the general public is used to thinking "if I buy a car in 2014 it will have roughly the same range -- if well maintained -- in 2022". That is generally not the case with EVs. As people are nudged towards the transition, being very clear about the expected experience with used EVs is important. It doesn't matter if people should mentally connect the degradation characteristic of every battery they've ever used with EVs. Assume people won't make the connection and be very clear about it up-front is a much better philosophy, IMO.�
Sep 17, 2014
Matias Poll
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/35942-70-degradation-warranty-or-no-warranty�
Sep 17, 2014
scaesare Firstly, you are attributing my words to somebody else in your quote.
Secondly, regarding this:
All warranties are like this. When I bought my truck with a "bumper-to-bumper warranty", it turns out it excluded things that not only were "within the bumpers", but didn't account for normal wear-and-tear at all.
Finally, my point in providing the above historical context is to point out what with the warranty that's been there all along, and that the "infinite" warranty is not anything but it has been (retroactively) expanded to include additional benefits for all owners... more than once.
Does that mean we should not also be interested in making sure folks are aware of the implications of battery degradation? Of course not... but at the same time responses such as below seem out of place when the warranty specifics are spelled out, but it appears folks don't want to read them:
�
Sep 17, 2014
mknox Well, to be fair, I think it comes down to the definition of "pack failure". We all know if you get the loud bang and you coast to the side of the road, that is covered. But what if after 6 months/6,000 miles your range is reduced by 50 % ? I know I'm being extreme, but wouldn't that also be a kind of "failure" ? There's got to be a line between "normal degradation" and "abnormal degradation".�
Sep 17, 2014
scaesare I've just convinced a buddy to buy a Model S. At this point he's NOT read the warranty, nor have I tipped him off to any battery degradation issues. Here's the conversation I had with him online:
Now that's a grand total of ONE? data point, but I thought it interesting nonetheless...�
Sep 17, 2014
WarpedOne Battery degradation warranty is exactly the same thing as mileage warranty on tires. Or paint damage, or seat wear or steering wheel wear. Battery is a consumable thing and as such there cannot be any reasonable warranty to how fast it will or will not be consumed.
Warranty put at 70% is no warranty at all, it just blatantly acknowledges this fact.�
Sep 17, 2014
VolkerP Issuing new warranty terms connects potential new buyers WITH the company and WITH the existing customers in multiple ways. Two examples:
It is in the interest of existing customers that warranty doesn't attract new buyers on terms that backfire financially. Point for lowballing warranty terms.
It is in the interest of existing customers that warranty doesn't leave them in the rain, should product malfunction. Point for highballing warranty terms.
Choose your side.�
Sep 17, 2014
Chickenlittle So I have done the ver 6.0 update and now have 10 more miles of range as compared to original range 20 months and 23000 miles later. Will I have to now pay for the extra range. I mean it would only be fair since I didn't pay for them originally. Should they be rated at the cost of the car or just the battery. Let me know what you all think so I can cut them a check. I hope you all will pay your shares as well�
Sep 17, 2014
breser Fixed not sure how I managed to do that.
Yes all warranties have exclusions and yes warranties exclude consumable parts. The term "bumper-to-bumper warranty" is misleading too. I don't think Tesla should get a pass from avoiding misleading consumers just because other manufacturers/dealers have done so in the past, I expect more of them. Their brand image implies they're trying to be better than traditional manufacturers in a lot of ways, this should be one of them. I'd also argue that, Tesla has more of a responsibility here than ICE manufacturers because the technology is unfamiliar to new consumers.
Every marketing material that talks about warranties I've ever seen before has had fine print with more details or a link to the actual text. Tesla's specifically promoting their warranty on the US front page without anything like this or on the blog it links to. To find the exact text you have to happen to find your way to the specs page and click on a PDF link. On the UK site I can't find the warranty text linked anywhere (though I haven't seen them promoting the warranty on that site either). I haven't bothered to look for other countries.
Take a look at Hyundai's page about their warranty, pay particular attention to the fact that they put an asterisk on the lifetime hybrid battery warranty and then explain it covers the replacement and recycling cost of a failed battery:
America's Best Warranty
Tesla needs to have a page like this. Make it clear, up front and have the top level billing that their warranty promotion have. That's good for consumers, they'll be more likely to be informed and it's good for Tesla because they're less likely to have angry consumers that misunderstood what was warrantied.�
Sep 17, 2014
brianman Fair warning: Keep an eye on your numbers. I "gained" (on 90% charge) 18 rated range for less than a day with 6.0 (it's now back to 221 from 239 another day later).�
Sep 17, 2014
kbeckley Not to be too repetitive but what problem is Tesla needing to solve? Without any sort of natural degradation warranty they are selling every car they produce. Cars are not sitting on their lots. Why would they do anything until they need to? When they do need to put a number down (because not having a number is a reason some people are not buying and they have unsold car sitting around getting dusty) they will be in a better place to put out most aggressive number they can while still being confident about future warranty claims.
Somewhere I read in this thread that it was felt the Model S had a major design flaw because of the degradation (at least that is how I read it). Pffft. Who has ever bought a car from Tesla that has never owned a cell phone or a laptop? I fully expect my battery to degrade. Frankly, given the record of the battery in every phone I have owned it is amazing that many buyers (with little knowledge of active cooling, different chemistries, etc) take the leap of faith at all.
Last point: My last ICE car was never warranted against decreased MPG performance (which every ICE experiences). Why? Because history told us it wasn't a big problem as the degradation was small. If Tesla gains a reputation with the Model S that the batteries last you might never see a degradation warranty.�
Sep 17, 2014
Chickenlittle No started as a pr campaign against tesla by a roadster owner who abused roadster battery and believes he can force tesla to give him a new battery by a campaign against tesla. Look under roaster and Kevin sharpe thread�
Sep 17, 2014
scaesare Again, I feel it's important to distinguish between that which meets or exceeds the status quo, versus that which is misleading or disingenuous.
Imploring Tesla to provide additional warranty coverage is something many feel would help defuse the issue in the minds of new buyers, and give them peace of mind. Several posters have pointed out that some other manufacturers provide such (i.e. 70% after XXX time/miles), thus Tesla doing likewise would meet the bar in their minds. Others have pointed out Tesla strives to "be better than" the existing industry, and by providing more disclosure and customer education they could raise the bar even higher.
Given that Tesla has set no expectation previously regarding a degradation warranty, should they decide to also offer such a warranty in the future, they would again be providing additional owner protection. I certainly would applaud that.
However... to state that they have misled potential buyers thus far is to ignore several things: There is no battery degradation coverage promised, and in fact is explicitly excluded. Battery degradation among electric "devices" is rather common knowledge, Tesla, nor other manufacturers attempt to hide this. Tesla has even blogged about battery life. All vehicles have "wear items" (brakes, clutches, etc...), as well as "degradation" issues (battery life, MPG, emissions output, etc..) that aren't warrantied.
The claim that because Tesla is touting what they DO warranty, but failing to prominently disclose degradation issues on "marketing" pages, is misleading people is at odds with many other similar efforts.
I just went to Toyota and there's no warranty info or disclosure I could see prominently on their page for a Prius. I had to click through the "build" process to get to warranty info, and here it is:
Nothing about degradation, and those two additional referenced documents are not links... I'd have to go dig for them.
Looking at Chevy's Volt web site pages, again there's nothing prominent about degradation as part of the "marketing" of the vehicle. If I scroll to the footer text, there's a link to the warranty page, where I again have to click again to get to the Volt/Hybrid specifics, however it's certainly more useful than Toyota's:
Neither of those two significant manufacturers of EV/Hybird vehicles are undertaking a customer education campaign on their "marketing" pages regarding battery degradation. Finding their coverage information is roughly on-par with finding Tesla's. Therefore I have to wonder why Tesla is being categorized as "misleading"?
If you want Tesla to more prominently disclose the issues surrounding battery degradation then fine.. let's recognize that doing so sets the bar even higher, and you are asking for even more of them. But to condemn them as being misleading today for not including in their marketing collateral the information that every potential buyer should o as part of their due diligence in purchasing ANY big ticket item or new technology seems a bit much.�
Sep 17, 2014
mknox FWIW, I've had ICE car lead acid batteries with a degradation warranty. If under test the cold cranking amps were below a specific value (even though the car may crank over albeit slowly) I would get a partial or full cost replacement, depending on it's age. These type of things are not unheard of.�
Sep 18, 2014
breser Absolutely nobody in this thread has ever argued that people don't understand that batteries degrade. In fact the crux of my argument depends on the assumption that the average consumer understands this. I don't think Tesla has to do very much to explain that to people. In fact the number one question I get is "How often do the batteries need to be replaced and what will it cost." None of these people are thinking that one day the battery will just completely fail.
Again just because other companies do a crummy job with informing consumers doesn't create an excuse for Tesla. Tesla should do a better job explaining this because it'll result in happier customers. Tesla depends on the success of EVs. Happier customers helps prove that an EV is a valid option and raises all boats with respect to EVs. Unhappy customers, even if they are unfairly unhappy doesn't.
On the Prius pages I don't see anything about a warranty at all (actually the word warranty doesn't appear at all). That's the point. Tesla is going out of their way to promote the fact that they have a good battery (and drive train) warranty. That marketing effort (started due to the drive train issues) is creating incorrect understanding in the market about what is warrantied. Toyota doesn't even talk about a warranty, which is shame on them. Given their behavior with their marketing and EVs I don't think I'd look to Toyota for an example of a company that's being well behaved on that front either.
I used Hyundai as an example because they are doing exactly what Tesla is doing, touting their warranty as a selling point. Specifically in their case referring to it as "America's Best Warranty."
Based on this sentence I'd say that Chevrolet is warrantying battery degredation:
They of course don't bother to tell you what those exact limits are but they say as little as 10% or as much as 30%.
Given that they're not trumpeting a battery warranty (the battery isn't mentioned at all in the warranty info on the Volt page) and they are actually covering degradation I don't really see why I would expect them to explain that they aren't doing that.
I'm not expecting Tesla to teach about battery degradation. Like I mentioned before I believe consumers are generally already aware of this. What I expect Tesla to do is to make their warranty information clear if they're going to tout the warranty so prominently.
Most peoples biggest concerns with their battery is range degradation exactly because of the point that many people have experience with batteries in laptops and cell phones. I've never had a battery just up and completely fail in on of those devices. I've certainly had the charge degrade to the point that I'm not happy with the performance.
I'm not saying that a buyer shouldn't do due diligence. If you buy a Tesla and end up with battery degradation and you're unhappy about it not being warrantied I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. But I also won't feel a lot of sympathy for Tesla if they end up with some unhappy customers about the range of their vehicles not being warrantied in a few years from now. Both sides have obligations to try and avoid misunderstanding. I hope that this thread helps encourage buyers to understand their warranty. I also hope this thread encourages Tesla to do a better job presenting that information to the buyers.
Yup. I actually had a battery I bought 2 years ago for my truck replaced because it came with a 3 year warranty and when I had the oil changed they told me the battery had a failed cell. The battery still worked but it wasn't hold as much of a charge as it should and the tech noticed the vehicle took longer to crank than it should have. Went to the place I got the battery they hooked it up to a test unit and it said the battery was bad. They replaced the battery at no cost to me.�
Sep 18, 2014
WarpedOne Yup, Tesla does the same with roadster and MS. On this forum alone there are numerous reports of replaced battery packs.
How can it be if they do not warrant degradation!?!?!?!?!'1111oneoneone ...�
Sep 18, 2014
Kevin Sharpe Nope, Tesla are no longer regularly replacing packs on the Roadster, and according to their 'warranty' are under no obligation whatsoever to replace packs regardless of the degradation.
For me the fundamental issue is that Tesla use the term "infinite mile warranty" knowing full well that it excludes battery degradation... IMO that is morally indefinable because we all know people will (and do) assume it includes battery degradation.
BMW and Nissan have already addressed this... Tesla must have the data and should implement a degradation warranty so that we have a line in the sand and can move on.�
Sep 18, 2014
WarpedOne No sir, you are wrong.
When degradation is excessive regarding age, cycles and other "usage factors", the battery is replaced. If one brick fails like in dead, it is replaced with a working brick/sheet.
Your battery is completely normal. Doubly normal regarding your abuse pattern.
Try demanding a warranty replacement on your brake pads, because they wore out.�
Sep 18, 2014
Kevin Sharpe My battery was faulty on the day it was delivered and despite a repair by Tesla has continued to degrade. It's a great example of why customers need a degradation warranty because relying on Tesla's good will is not enough for most people.
If I had purchased a BMW or Nissan then I would know today exactly when they will step in if the worst happens. With Tesla I'm left hoping my battery fails completely before the warranty runs out. As someone who believes in "Tesla as a concept, a brand, and a suite of products" how do you think it will "ultimately prevails and lasts" if they treat customers like this?�
Sep 18, 2014
WarpedOne Yes, we already know you strongly believe that. Strength of your belief does not change reality though. It is still wrong belief.
And that is a surprise to you?
Do you even understand what "battery degradation" means?
Are you so upset about your break pad wearing away? And why not?
Yes.
And it is a simple case why: if my car has 4% degradation while similarly "old" and "similarly used" other cars only got 1% degradation I am obliged to replacement.
With a warranty set at 90%, they MUST say Ef Of, you are still OK.�
Sep 18, 2014
Chickenlittle No your not left hoping. You are actively pursuing the behavior that put your Roadster battery in this shape. From your posts on the roadster site you are still range driving and trying to completely discharge your battery both things that the manual strongly discourages (not so for the model s with different batteries and pack). You are not left hoping you are actively ruining it. Like someone who did not do an oil change in an ICE car for 25000 miles continues behavior to get a new engine.
If you had purchased a Nissan you would not qualify for a replacement battery since you were at 19% and that warrantee kiks in above 30%. The warrantee does not promise a new battery only a replacement with one of at least 70% capacity�
Sep 18, 2014
Kevin Sharpe But that's exactly what I want as a customer... the knowledge that when the worst happens I will be ok... if I purchased a Nissan I would know that a 30% battery degradation would trigger a battery repair.
I don't think most Roadster owners expect a warranty to be applied retrospectively, but I do know that many Model S owners believe the "infinite mile warranty" covers battery degradation today.�
Sep 18, 2014
WarpedOne It does. It covers excessive battery degradation that normal usage cannot account for.
It does not cover degradation from you constantly driving the car to the max.
Try driving an ordinary ICE car on the racetrack and then demand warranty replacement because the engine overheated and failed.
You still haven't replied why you are not demanding brake pads replacement under warranty.�
Sep 18, 2014
Kevin Sharpe My Roadster brake pads were replaced under warranty... when I get a moment I'll look up the date.
- - - Updated - - -
Getting back OT I posed the following question on the Speak EV forum today;
"One thing I'd like to know is how many Model S owners purchased the car without knowing that battery degradation wasn't covered. The owners I know didn't realise this and I wonder if that will have an impact on sales as it gets better known in the future"
Here is a response from one Model S owner that confirms what we all know;
"Count me in on that one. I naively assumed the thermal control and advanced battery management would all but eliminate degradation, and didn't look into the fine print.
I just assumed, I'd be able to shift it for near 50% in 3 years time, especially with the remaining 5 years battery, and 1 years warranty.
I didn't go for Tesla's finance so I am worried about the future resales if battery degradation becomes a perceived problem"�
Sep 18, 2014
scaesare Please re-read what I wrote. I explicitly stated, "Battery degradation among electric "devices" is rather common knowledge", and was speaking to Tesla not being misleading when ""degradation" issues ... aren't warrantied. "
I already addressed this later in my post.
My point about Toyota was that they also don't provide links to specifics.. .and refer to some warranty items as described in documents that aren't direct hyperlinks.
Touting a selling point for what it is (not what it isn't) is not particularly uncommon in the marketing portion of a site. That having been said, I agree with you that a link directly to the warranty, or other disclaimer would be a good move.... I'm just pointing out that the lack of a hyperlink or asterisk there doesn't make it misleading IMO.. no more so than the aforementioned "bumper to bumper" warranties.
Agreed, they are. My point was that you have to dig for their warranty specifics as well.
Fair enough. I think it would be useful as well.
I'm simply trying to make the point that there's a difference between Tesla misleading people about their warranty coverage, as opposed to their providing extra clarity regarding that coverage.
To me, past action and intent mean something. The additional items that have been added to the warranty, and car upgrades that have been provided (both retroactively) that promote confidence and peace of mind for owners indicate a general willingness by Tesla to do the right thing.
I think that serves some benefit of the doubt in that they aren't attempting to be misleading... .and that there's such a thing as looking a gift horse in the mouth... if enough people gripe after giving them more, there's a tendency to stop. So, instead, I prefer proactively request additional positive change...�
Sep 18, 2014
Johan Here's something I noticed today relevant to this thread. Sorry if it's been posted before.
(Notice the wording "at beginning of life" after 60/85 kWh)�
Sep 18, 2014
yobigd20 Yea that's weird wording I've not seen before.�
Sep 18, 2014
Johan This is from the digital manual in the car BTW (FW 6.0, don't know how it read before).�
Sep 18, 2014
mknox It was the same before 6.0. I do not have 6 yet and I've noticed this too.�
Sep 19, 2014
AEdennis Yup, login to your account on teslamotors.com and check the car documentation, it's been there for a LONG while.�
Sep 19, 2014
Kevin Sharpe Does that appear in any other legal paperwork like the warranty?�
Sep 19, 2014
AEdennis The specific language that is in the manual does not appear on the Model S Warranty.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét