2013 Tesla Model S

This is the car which swerved over a cliff and killed the driver. https://www.easyexport.us/vehicle-finder/lot-16405175/2013-tesla-tesla-non-repairable-ca-san-jose http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/3318773-181/pd-default-story-headline-xy?gallery=3314901&artslide=0 i have attached photographs that show not only that the steering knuckle has snapped but the tread is worn off the tire. this can only have happened while the car was driving on the road. this was almost certainly the cause of the crash. this same effect of snapped suspension with worn tire can be seen in many other tesla crashes.. since about 2015 tesla has redesigned the steering knuckle to a solid h-section instead of the hollow die-cast original. there should be a recall to replace all of the earlier fragile versions. many more images of snapped knuckles can be seen at https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157658490111523/. *tr

Here is a tesla model s in the salvage yard https://www.copart.com/lot/42150556/photos?resultindex=18&totalrecords=20&backto=%2flotsearchresults%2f%3ffree%3dtrue&query=tesla&query=tesla&displaystr=search%20results&viewedlot=42150556 there is zero damage to the bodywork and it does not appear to have been in a crash. the back suspension has simply fallen to bits. these are not isolated incidents, they are part of a pattern of failure caused by weakness in the supension components. please take urgent action to prevent further loss of life.

Here is a story about a tesla owner who claims the car saved his life. http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-gets-wrecked-owner-says-vehicle-saved-his-life-images-owner-testimonial/ look at the photographs. the front suspension has collapsed and the tread of the tire has been worn away. the collision with the hyundai was a secondary effect of the tesla suspension collapsing and causing loss of control. tesla spins these stories and makes the owners sign non disclosure agreements. this is no accident. it is a deliberate cover up.

This is a complaint about the issue of fires in the tesla model s. tesla claims that the fires in 2013 were caused by impact with road debris and the danger has been reduced by fitting a battery shield and raising the ride height. the ride height was returned to low after your investigations were completed. the photographs from the fires in 2013 show that the fires were caused by collapsed suspensions and not by any impact with road debris. i believe that the battery shield is no more than window dressing and that the low quality videos showing objects crushed by the battery shield are faked. https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-adds-titanium-underbody-shield-and-aluminum-deflector-plates-model-s it is impossible for a block of concrete or a car alternator to crumble like chalk (unless they are made from chalk!) teslas are still catching fire and occupants have been incinerated. there have been many more burned teslas than the company is admitting to. see attached photographs. please investigate.

Right front wheel's suspension ball joint of a arm separated while driving about 35 mph going straight ahead on smooth paved road. car was stopped safely and pulled off road. after stopping car, the front right wheel was still attached but was leaning in about 15 degrees from vertical. resulted in $3100 of damage to car's suspension components and tire.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=25626248&rownumber=65&loadrecent=true&isnext=true it has been completely burned out. the airbags have not been deployed. the front lh wheel is pushed back in the wheel well and that could have caused the fire by making the coolant leak out. if the battery pack is hot from recent charging or from hard driving it is highly likely to catch fire if coolant is lost. teslas seem to catch fire more often than any other electric vehicle. please investigate.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.salvagereseller.com/cars-for-sale/30827127-2013-tesla-model-s-jacksonville-fl it has not been in a crash. there is no collision damage and the air-bags have not deployed. the suspension has collapsed on both sides of the car causing the wheels to jam up in the wheel wells. this same failure is occurring repeatedly. it seems that the design is lacking a bump stop and that a simple air leak in the suspension can result in catastrophic failure. please investigate.

Cpsc: i own a tesla model s made in november 2013. all 4 door handles are broken or malfunctioning. after the first one went out, i took it to tesla and they said it was out of warranty and would cost $1,200.00 and require replacement. after talking to several other tesla owners owners and doing some research, i have discovered that it's more uncommon that they don't break than that they do. the actual cost to repair them would be much lower, but they don't offer that. the rear passenger door on my car in fact spontaneously opens itself. this usually occurs when pressing the button that engages the park break. it seems clear to me that the product is defective. *bf updated 07/19/2017*js

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://www.salvagereseller.com/cars-for-sale/make/tesla/page/25 it has not been in a crash, no airbags are deployed and there is no impact damage. the front lh suspension upper ball joint has simply popped apart causing the wheel the skew over and go totally whompy. this same failure has occurred repeatedly in these teslas. the ball joints seem to be undersized for a car of this weight and performance. please take immediate action to prevent innocent lives being lost. concerned citizen. (date of incident is an approximation)

Here is a tesla forum discussion regarding broken suspensions in the model s: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/model-s-axle-issues.92069/page-2#post-2142321 prompted by this discussion the owner of a 2013 model s has inspected his own suspension and has posted a photograph which is attached. the lower suspension arm bolt has snapped off. the rim of the wheel has been gouged. the suspension arm is rubbing against the tire and fragments of rubber are spread all over the suspension. this is obviously highly dangerous. just one such event should be justification for an immediate recall. you have dozens of similar failures on record. please investigate.

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=24305455&rownumber=18&loadrecent=true the front rh wheel is rammed back in the well and has pushed hard up against the hv controller. there does not appear to be any significant damage forward of the wheel that would have been the reason for the wheel being pushed back. the airbags have not deployed which suggests that there was collision. these repeated failures seem to be caused by weak suspension components that are unable to safely cope with the forces in this heavy and powerful vehicle. please investigate the reason for so many similar wrecks showing up in the junkyards. tesla owners are unlike the owners of mainstream cars. they are very likely to hold shares in tesla and are also passionate supporters of the tesla "vision". they are also very dependent upon maintaining friendly relations with the company since it holds a monopoly on service and spares.

In 2014 a tesla caught fire in a toronto garage. this case was included in the nhtsa investigation into the issue of fires in teslas. tesla has claimed that the battery of the car was not involved in the fire and that the fire was probably caused by faulty house wiring. http://www.autofocus.ca/news-events/news/tesla-investigates-cause-of-toronto-garage-fire snip: “in this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire,” said a tesla spokesperson. a video has now showed up in which the purchaser of that car shows the state of the interior. there is no doubt whatsoever that the battery did ignite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srmqbrb_lmm it appears t hat tesla has been telling lies and deliberately covering up the issue of fires. there have been many more fires since that that one. i have compiled a summary of some suspicious tesla fires: http://teslabears.club/t/great-balls-of-fire whilst that collection does contain some humorous posts i can assure you that i am entirely serious about this safety issue. i request that you reopen the fire investigation.

Here is another burned out tesla in the junkyard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=24762753&rownumber=10&loadrecent=true the suspension has collapsed on the lh side and the front wheel is jammed into the battery. the airbags have not deployed. the car does not appear to have been in a collision. the wheel jamming into the battery is the most likely cause of the fire. if the battery is hot from hard driving or from recent charging then any loss of coolant is likely to cause a fire. please conduct a test to see whether such a simple loss of coolant can cause a fire in those circumstances. the rate of fires in teslas is alarming and it is extremely hard to suppress a lithium battery fire. thank you. concerned citizen etc.

Electric door handles failure second time a door handle has failed

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/35967857/photos the car is completely undamaged apart from the lh rear wheel which is skewed over at a crazy angle. no air-bags have deployed. there is no impact damage. the tire and wheel are undamaged. this can not be the result of a collision. it is simply a case of whompy wheels due to weak and unsafe suspension. please recall these cars before more lives are lost. concerned citizen etc.

Here is a fresh report of a tesla suspension failure: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-upper-control-arm-cracked.96329/#post-2257474 snip:it all took place yesterday when my wife were driving to visit one of her colleague. while turning into a left turn at a relatively low speed she heard a loud bang. she did not think of much but immediately she notice that her brake were completely gone and the dash had malfunction warning all over the place. she had to struggle to pull the car to safety but was hitting many of the safety bump on the ground. within minutes the campus police pull up and ask her what happen. she got out of the car notice the our 2013 model s p85 was sitting on the ground with one of the wheel completely bend. it looks like as if the axle had gave away. *** to me it is obvious that this is not an wear and tear. it is an manufacturer part defect. and after reading on many form it seem that the suspension was a big problem on the early production tesla model s. i have been in mercedes for years and my previous s class were at 125,000 miles. i have not seen anything like this. currently they are still refusing to cover the repair. luckily enough my wife was driving locally not on the freeway. i can't imagine what a catastrophic accident it will be if she were travel at a high speed. *** if nhtsa continues to ignore these failures there will be consequences. please note: i am not a tesla owner. i am continuing to file these reports in the public interest because you can see by reading the thread that owners come under pressure from tesla supporters to keep these failures a secret. the pro-tesla forums frequently censor, delete, or bury such complaints. i have used a dummy us address to comply with website requirements. my genuine contact details have been supplied to nhtsa.

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. http://www.copart.com/us/lot/14649834?searchid=1942545060 it has been burned out. the suspension has collapsed and the car is propped up with pieces of wood. there does not seem to be any impact damage, the front bumper bar and the front wheels are not displaced. whilst is possible that the suspension has collapsed due to the fire it is also probable that this is another instance of suspension failure causing the battery pack to drag along the ground and ignite. please investigate the circumstance of this incident. i believe there is still an ongoing problem with teslas catching fire due to suspension failures and that the company is covering up this problem. gasoline fires can be extinguished relatively easily but a lithium battery fire is almost impossible to put out.

Here is a tesla for sale at a salvage auction. http://www.copart.com/us/lot/30119166?searchid=695877385 the air-bags have not been deployed and there is only minor damage to the front rh side. the car shows signs of collapsed suspension. the two rear wheels are skewed sideways in opposite directions. all wheels are jammed high up in the wheel wells. this would tend to make that car rather difficult to steer. there have been several reports of the air suspension failing and that since the car does not have limit stops on the suspension it can lead to dire consequences. please investigate this problem.

This is a telsla model s in the junkyard that is just one of many which have run into the back of another vehicle. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=22544553&rownumber=3&loadrecent=true there appears to be a disproportionate number of teslas appearing in salvage yards with heavy front end damage. it seems probable that the habit of "one pedal driving" that tesla owners brag about on the forums may be playing a part in this. not only do drivers fail to have the foot "covering the brake" as taught by driving schools but also the regenerative braking is reported to be highly erratic and depends upon the state of charge of the batteries and is also subject to alteration by each new release of software. relying on erratic regenerative braking is problematic but also it is likely to degrade the driver's muscle memory and braking reflex possibly leading to pedal confusion. the following two threads show how widespread the problem is. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/could-1-pedal-driving-lead-to-unintended-acceleration-incidents.83578/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/whats-wrong-with-the-tesla-regen-or-my-car-chart.87537/ please investigate this. thank you.

Suspension links in my tesla model s 2013 were advised to be replaced at 56,000 miles. if not replaced by service i was told the wheels could break off. no timeline was given. the car was moderately used on average condition roads in the state of connecticut. suspension links should be more reliable and not require a replacement after 56,000 of regular usage.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=24260079&rownumber=47&loadrecent=true the suspension has totally collapsed and it appears the only damage to the vehicle is that which was caused by the wheels jamming up in the wells. i am reporting these incidents as a concerned citizen and i request that you launch an urgent investigation into the suspension defects in this vehicle.

The driver of our car was parking our tesla model s p85+ and slowly moving into the parking spot nearing the final distance in to the spot, when the car suddenly lurched forward, hitting and knocking down a light pole. the driver did not cause this acceleration to occur and was quite surprised to have this happen. there were no injuries involved in the incident, but a light pole located 1.5 feet way from end of the parking spot was knocked down and we have minimal damage to the front of the vehicle.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/18905747/photos the suspension has collapsed. the front wheel is jammed up in the wheel well. the back wheel has gone all whompy. the air-bags have not deployed. the car does not appear to have been in a crash but the suspension has simply fallen to bits. please investigate.

I am filing this complaint to draw to the attention of nhtsa that there is pattern of failures in the tesla suspensions that is putting lives at risk. here is another tesla in the salvage yard. https://www.copart.com/lot/41350906/photos once again the air suspension has collapsed on all four wheels. the car does not appear to have been involved in a collision and the air-bags have not deployed. it would appear that all the damage caused to the car is a result of suspension collapse. please note that i am not the owner just a concerned citizen. date of incident is an approximation.

Yet another tesla with a collapsed suspension. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=24260079&rowid=53&pagesource=vehicleresults this same failure is happening to teslas repeatedly. please investigate.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=19172289&rowid=52&pagesource=vehicleresults# the rear lh suspension has been completely ripped off. the air-bags have not deployed and there is no impact damage that would have caused the suspension to have been ripped off. these suspension breakages are happening repeatedly. it is quite obvious that the alloy parts are too fragile for a car of this weight and power. please investigate this problem before more lives are lost. please note that i am not the owner but a concerned citizen. the date of the accident is an approximation.

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=23837634&rownumber=43&loadrecent=true the front end of the car is completely smashed up. the back rh wheel and suspension wheel has fallen off completely and there is no impact damage to that area of the car. bearing in mind the large number of incidents of suspension failures on teslas it would seem highly likely that the cause of this serious crash was that the back wheel fell off. in addition to photographic evidence you have published complaints from actual owners complaining of wheels going whompy or falling off completely. please investigate whether these crashes are being caused by suspensions that have design, manufacturing or maintenance problems. note that i am not the owner just a concerned citizen. date of crash is an approximation.

Driver's front side door handle failed to present and required repair. repaired with latest generation handles. this is not the first time a handle has had issues on my car (it is the 3rd time a handle has been replaced). this is concerning as it is difficult to get into the vehicle. i was without a working handle for about 2 weeks before i could get it fixed. if an accident were to occur during this time - and someone was trying to open the door and unable to due to this defect - this could easily cause a delay in extraction and potentially a loss of life.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated while driving approximately 35 mph, the vehicle stalled without warning. the vehicle was towed to los angeles-centinela (5840 w. centinela ave los angeles, ca 90045 310) 649-5463) to be diagnosed. the contact was informed that the failure was due to the drive shaft. the vehicle was not yet repaired. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the failure mileage was approximately 24,000.

Tesla is refusing to refund the out of pocket cost paid for the mcu touchscreen repair, described by the nhtsa recall number 21v035. please find attached tesla's automated system refusing to refund, plus my service receipt showing it was paid out of pocket.

Tesla is not replacing the emmc card that has been recalled in a timely manner as they are required to.

Replaced mcu for touchscreen at a cost of $1,359.50. car was on recall for this reason. nothing on tesla site for reimbursement.

The car is not getting its software updates because of a bad mcu. the dealer is quoting $1200 to replace.

The speedometer cluster is leaking and delaminating causing the glue to drip onto other components, possibly causing a fire hazard or unsafe environment. talking to other owners, this is a common issue on older tesla model s cars.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that coolant was leaking onto the battery. the battery warning light was illuminated and shortly afterwards, the battery was not charging properly. the vehicle was taken to local dealer tesla service center (8105 big lake rd, village of clarkston, mi 48346, (248) 241-9321) however, the mechanic was unable to duplicate the failure, and stated the issue would be at the residence electricity. the contact stated he continued to experience the failure. the vehicle was taken to another local dealer at tesla service center (6142 telegraph rd, toledo, oh 43612, (567) 420-6130) where it was diagnosed with needing the charging port to be replaced. the vehicle had been repaired, but continued to experience the failure. the vehicle was taken to another dealer and the media control unit was updated. the contact stated that the vehicle continued to experience the failure. the contact stated that he had the vehicle serviced on three different occasions. the manufacturer was informed of the failure. the failure mileage was approximately 179,000.

Power steering not working

I was notified by tesla that my car was included in the feb 2 2021 recall regarding touchscreen failures. i had previously reached out to tesla regarding such failures, but they said i had to give them specific dates & times of failures for them to take action, which i did not have. when notified of the feb 2021 recall. i contacted them with 3 dates/times of touchscreen failures. during these failures, the car could drive, but i could not use back-up cameras, or use most of the car's features included defoggers, etc. after contacting tesla on feb 2, 2021, they scheduled an appointment for me to come in to address the recall. i brought my car into tesla this week, and they kept it for 2 days. when i came to pick up the car, they said they did not do any repairs related to the recall (even though i had shown them dates and times of repeated touchscreen failures). they said that that their investigation into the memory issue indicated the problem was not severe enough to address (despite telling me previously this was all covered under the nhtsa recall and that it would be fixed). the invoice they gave me says the following: "performed mcu diagnosis, and results were not within concerning bounds. proactively inspected vehicles memory and found space still available, cleared out navigation files, map tiles, and media cache to free up additional space. due note to routinely clear trips as it also takes up memory space. no repairs recommended at this time." they also tried to charge me for diagnosing the problem remotely but i told them that was inappropriate as this was covered under the recall and that tesla's email specifically noted that cars under 8 years old (which my car is) would be addressed at no cost.

The steering rack motor failed causing the steering to become incredibly difficult. turning the wheels at no or low speed takes great force and turning the wheel at faster speeds takes moderate force. the motor died mid trip, causing a very dangerous situation for myself and other motorists. the motor worked perfectly fine while driving to my destination and failed, thankfully, while i was stopped.

My vehicle started making some loud creaking/squeaky noises when turning and going over bumps at any speed or parked. i had it inspected by a tesla service center and they said the left control arm is starting to fail and should be replaced. they also recommended replacing the fore link assembly to address some rattling noise that was going on also. i recently read that tesla had issued a recall in china for this problem for the model s and is currently investigating the issue in the us. i would like to add my vehicle to this investigation as it seems that i’m being affected by this problem.

My vehicle should be covered under the 8gb emmc recall reimbursement. the unit was replaced on june 4th 2019 out of my own pocket because of malfunctioning. tesla had set up a site for customer in that situation to get their reimbursement. however, because of their insufficient intentional or unintentional record keeping, they denied my claim. i tried to contact tesla again to try to rectify the problem, but their cs just reply, "if your claim was denied, the system has identified that the repair in question was not related to the 8gb emmc accumulated wear recall." i then replied by asking what was the reason that unit had to be replaced and they just ignore my further questioning.

Changed the suspension components before full failure occurred. car was brought in due to safety concerns, technicians noted the entire suspension system was on verge of collapse and not safe to drive. under their service bulletin they replaced the rear control arms as a good will gesture and charged for the front upper and lower control arms. there is a design flaw for this suspension system and the manufacturer is refusing to acknowledge their flaw, leaving users unaware and with the potential for severe loss of life.

I was backing out of my garage and the left rear end of my car hit a car parked behind me. my car immediately sped up in forward direction in an arc causing me to hit just inside garage on the left . i tried to brake and to put it into park and nothing was working. it finally went into neutral and quit hitting the garage. there was lots of smoke and i thought car was on fire. there was lots of burned rubber under my left rear tire causing the smoke. none under right side. there were workers at the house (car behind me) and they said it was the car doing it. i wasn't sure what was happening. i called tesla that day and a total of 5 times and was told i would be contacted by special team in about 6 weeks and that they would be able to download what happened from computer. i have not heard anything from tesla. my car was checked out at the tesla shop in council bluffs after body work done and they said they were unable to check computer as to what happened and that would be done by tesla engineers. my insurance company has not been able to get any information either. they asked me to report unexplained acceleration on this site. it did $23,000 in damages to my car and $25,000 to my house and knocked it off foundation in affected corner. if both tires had been spinning i don't think i would be here as i would have gone straight through garage and flying as it is a one story drop to the back. i want to know my car is safe before driving again and have not been able to find out why incident happened.

Problems with the chip of the computer. it takes a along time to start(wake) the car up even after replacing the whole screen to the new now. also the defogger does not work properly ? related to the chip. it takes time for the car to start when not using and has to wait for some time and sometimes need to reboot the system.

Vehicle touchscreen constantly freezes and needs to be restarted. i reported this issue to tesla due to their claimed extended warranty on mcu issues, however, they have refused replacement. i am concerned about my safety driving the vehicle as a significant amount of operations are controlled by the touchscreen.

Backing up mcu fail backup camera failed almost back on a kid ran behind my car while i was looking down at a disabled screen. driving to tesla service department main screen failed due to computer car crippled to minimal safety control. car now in service tesla require me to pay $1500 for new mcu2 instead of recalling and replace the defective mcu.

The main touch screen controlling backup camera, nav, air-con /heat and defrost systems goes dark. i have no control over those items making driving unsafe. the speedo and gear indicator on the driver side allows you to drive but it is not safe. i have video of the car driving to prove it operates without the controls.

1. driving screen failed. 2. during wet weather brakes will not slow down car for 3 seconds...very distrubing 3. 2013 model s with under 100k miles had font end parts fail. required a $3,000.00 repair. have never had an american car, even with twice the mileage have multiple front end parts fail.

Main processing unit for the car stops working and displays go black. turn signals do not audibly annunciate. climate control turns off. lighting, security and other safety controls cannot be changed. i have dates and times and symptoms for some of the failures. occurs typically weekly, but can have multiple episodes per day. tesla service has been requested and performed 4-5 times. the oem mpu was replaced approximately 4 months ago and yet problems persist. mpu has failed while parked, while driving, on city streets and highways. can occur at any time.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated while driving 20 mph, the media control unit and the dashboard lights flickered on and off before becoming inoperable. there was no warning light illuminated. the contact drove to the residence. the next day the contact drove the vehicle to tesla (811 s san fernando blvd, burbank, ca 91502) who diagnosed the failure to the media control unit. the failure mileage was 41,000.*dt the failure of the media control unit has occurred many times before the contact made this report. the above represents the latest occasion of incident. some of the media control unit failures occurred while driving on a highway at speeds of 65 miles per hour. when contact took his vehicle to tesla, the service center stated that the media control unit needed replacement, but wanted estimated $1,400.00 for the replacement. the media control unit was not replaced due to high cost. the media control unit failure occurred again in early january 2021, after this report was originally submitted.*dt*jb

· i don't recommend driving beyond the distance you can travel to and get back, i've seen a car that lost ability to charge to max, and actually limited to about 30% after mcu went black · drive after a 30 second timeout · no aeb (advanced emergency braking) · no controlling suspension height · no manual control of headlight lights · no blinker sounds · steering mode defaults to some setting (e.g. if i have it set to sport, during reboot of mcu is changes to standard or comfort, not sure but i can feel the steering wheel take less effort to turn than my normal sport mode) · no hvac (heat, cool, vent) · no defrosters · no seat heaters · no steering wheel heaters · no radio/streaming · no app connectivity to control the car · no ability to see the car charge status from app · trip a/b · profiles · user settings · homelink · bluetooth pairings · no rear view camera · metric areas may have speed shown in mph and not kph so be careful · do to a few strange reported charging issues, be careful driving beyond the ability to get home without charging, (range) since i have seen a car that continued to get less max available range in capacity i have almost been in several accidents due to no defrost. i feel very unsafe when driving.

Computer screen went dark several times and affects the turn signals for the vehicle making it unsafe to drive. the problem has happened at least 5 times in the last 60 days. the dark screen makes it impossible to adjust any of the heating, cooling, or use of hands free devices.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that the media control unit was inoperable. the vehicle was taken to tesla (7500 windrose ave b185, plano, tx 75024) and was diagnosed that the chip within the computer failed and needed to be replaced. the computer chip was replaced. the manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. the failure mileage was approximately was 140,000.

I have had multiple issues with my 2013 model s including but not limited to total failure of the mcu, total failure of the battery and partial failure of the tire pressure monitoring system. some problems that i have encountered during the mcu failure before and after the mcu was replaced include loss of ability to access the screen to turn on heat, radio, defrosters, bluetooth, or any other function of the screen that is available, loss of blinker sound, loss of parking chime sound, loss of sound from the stereo including no bluetooth or music. while driving from blaine, mn to st. paul, mn with my blinker on the majority of the time on the freeway with out my knowledge because the was no blinker sound. that was not only frightening but also dangerous. i have had a myriad of issues with this vehicle and i am really fearful of a total failure while i am driving. all of the issues noted above were during motion. one other problem i have noticed is my car takes an excessive amount of time to turn on.

Back and front suspension issues, tire blow while driving and caused unsafe operation.

In june 2019 i noticed the control screen of my 2013 tesla model s going blank randomly while the car was in motion and then re-activating after minutes, hours or until the car sat before being driven again. this continues and i am unable to access the screen to select the backup camera as the screen freezes and does not allow use of any features. periodically the side view mirrors will not extend while driving until we have driven for 5 to 30 minutes. i have reported the screen blanking issue and mirrors to tesla service in syosset ny and they told me that it is related to my model s being an older model with an older computer that has to “catch up” to what is being selected on the screen. the software it is running is really intended for newer models that have a faster computer. i was told that since the car was not under warranty, tesla would have to charge me to diagnose this problem and would probably reach the conclusion that tesla service told me. i recently read about tesla’s warranty adjustment program: touchscreen component – 8gb embedded multimediacard (emmc) in media control unit (mcu). it appears that what is described in this warranty adjustment is identical to the symptoms with my tesla as i am unable to access the safety features, rear camera and side view mirrors. my car has 113,500 miles and the program only covers cars with less than 100,000 miles. i feel that i was misled by tesla service as i reported this problem prior to the car going over 100,000 miles and was advised that this was not an issue covered under warranty. it seems that tesla is avoiding a known problem with older model s cars such as mine. i believe tesla should replace the mcu unit of my model s for no charge as they knew this problem existed and misled me to think that the issues with my backup camera and mirrors was not related to any issues with the model s.

Repeated emmc failure, reoccurring failures and reboots of the mcu , see investigation:ea 20-003. since there are over 100k miles, tesla suggests $2700 mcu replacement, not free emmc replacement as they are doing for models with under 100k miles

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://erepairables.com/salvage-cars-auction/tesla/model+s/vid-44567577 the air suspension has collapsed whilst the car was in motion causing the wheels to jam up in the wells and damage the liner and bodywork. failure of the air suspension is a common defect in teslas and many of these cases have been discussed in the tesla forums and have been reported to nhtsa. any normal car manufacturer would have fixed this problem by fitting limit stops on the suspension. but this company is run under the rule of lord elon musk who must never be questioned. there is no need to press the insane button. it comes as standard with every tesla. yours whompily. keef

Here is a terdsla in the junkyard:https://www.iaai.com/vehicledetails/38372462?rownumber=30 look closely and you will notice that the back wheel has gone whompy. if you would be so kind as to take these contraptions off the roads then i can shut up and let you get back to sleep. thanks a lot. keef

Floor mat got stuck under the brakes preventing the car from stopping. very unsafe conditions. i have included pics of the passenger side as will to show the problem. the floor mats do not stay inplace...updated 02/02/17 *bf

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/19512447/photos the air suspension has collapsed and all the wheels have gone whompy. i think this might make driving difficult. *tr

Here is another tesla in the junkyard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=23585793&rownumber=52&loadrecent=true the front rh suspension has collapsed and the wheel is skewed sideways. there is no impact damage to the wheel or to the front of the car that would have been likely to have caused the damage to the suspension. similar failures are occurring at an alarming rate. please investigate before more lives are lost.

My car went over a pothole on 101 s just short of woodside rd. exit. i heard a loud thud and my car went out of control and veered into the lanes next to me as i tried to control it. after several attempts to stop it, it finally came to a stop. the rear, right tire burst and the wheel impacted badly. rear suspension broken and the 'quarter and rocker panel' broken.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=23837634&rowid=31&pagesource=vehicleresults the back rh wheel assembly has torn off and exited through the rear of the car tearing off the back bumper. the car has then had a major collision. it is most unlikely that it is a mere coincidence the back wheel has fallen off. the alloy suspension components are much too fragile and have failed many times on these vehicles. please investigate. note: i am not the owner of the vehicle just a concerned citizen. date of accident and injury details are an approximation

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/44749556/photos?resultindex=12&totalrecords=21&backto=%2flotsearchresults%2f%3ffree%3dtrue&query=tesla&query=tesla&displaystr=search%20results&viewedlot=44749556 the suspension has collapsed on all 4 wheels and the wheels are jammed up in the wheel wells which has caused damage to the bodywork and presumably a very rapid deceleration of the car. there is no impact damage. there hav been many reports of similar incidents and reports that the car lacks any form of limit stops if should there be a leak in the air suspension system. the passenger side air bag has deployed but not the drivers side. it is reasonable to assume that there was a driver in the car at the time since this car predates the autopilot system! please note that i am not the owner and that this report is based entirely on my observations and analysis of the photographs of the damaged car. date of incident is an approximation.

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=23880040&rowid=38&pagesource=vehicleresults the front wheel is leaning outwards at an extreme angle. the tip of the steering knuckle has snapped off. the wheel and tire are undamaged and it is unlikely that the front of the car has had a hard enough impact that would account for the snapped knuckle. this cast aluminum knuckle has snapped in a similar way in many other incidents that have been reported to nhtsa. later model teslas have a redesigned knuckle that is more sturdy but even that one has had incidents in which the tip has broken off or the ball joint has popped apart. the cast aluminum parts of the suspension appear to be too weak to cope with the forces that may be applied during hard braking and cornering. please note that i am not the owner of the vehicle but that i am a concerned citizen trying to protect the lives of tesla owners and those who share the roads with them.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=23837634&rowid=30&pagesource=vehicleresults it has been in a major front end collision. almost certainly cause by the back wheel falling off! please investigate this. every tesla on the road is in danger of having a wheel snap-off at any instant. please note that injury report is just an estimate based on the severity of damage. date of crash is an approximation. *tr

I made an appointment with tesla through the app and they assigned me at a place in berkeley to get the bolts in the steering rack housing replaced (a recall) along with another recall. after dropping off the car they said service was complete. i also have been having an issue with the mcu and they said they ran a diagnostic but couldn’t find anything wrong. when they said service was complete i came to pick up my car. they gave it back but when i saw the invoice i noticed they hadn’t completed the steering bolt recall. i asked why and they stated that because there was an aftermarket stereo amplifier in the frunk they couldn’t access the bolts to replace them. if i hadn’t inquired or looked at the paperwork i would have assumed the repair was completed. i am there asking for paperwork from my service advisor “matt” who has been completely unhelpful in resolving the issue.

Replacement of touchscreen in jan 2020 due to fluid leakage and mcu replacement in aug 2020 for non-responsiveness.

The primary tesla screen regularly has intermittent screen failures. this leads to me having to reset the computer while driving a few times before operation resumes. this causes the rear cam, air conditioning, navigation, and other consistently to cease for a short period. recently the screen has developed air bubbles in the screen and leaks goo into the floor (the leaking fluid).

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated while driving at various speeds, the steering wheel was difficult to turn. the power steering assist system disabled message was displayed on the instrument panel. the vehicle was taken to tesla inc (9850 west broad st, glen allen, va 23060) to be diagnosed. the contact was informed that the steering gear and mounting bolts needed to be replaced. the vehicle was not repaired. the contact stated that the failure was like nhtsa campaign number: 18v204000 (steering) which was previously repaired under recall. the manufacturer was sent an email however, failed to respond. the failure mileage was 111,000.

Front suspension control arm disconnected, dropping body onto tire. this happened at low speed in a parking lot. tesla replaced the control arm.

Ball joint on front left upper control arm assembly failed prematurely at approximately 80,000 miles vehicle usage; specifically, it separated so as to cause the uca (upper control arm) to disconnect from from the steering knuckle during a low-speed parking lot maneuver (three point “y” turn) at approximately 5 mph or less, which caused the wheel to tip in words against the strut assembly. repaired suspension by replacing upper control arm with integral ball joint. approximately 40,000 miles later, the ball joint on the right hand upper control arm exhibited extreme looseness and clunking sounds forcing me to replace the rh uca / ball joint on that side as well. vehicle now has approximately 150,000 miles vehicle usage and the suspension is once again exhibiting abnormal clunking noise (from the lh front corner) over bumps at low speeds that makes me suspicious that additional or same ball joints are wearing prematurely. i am a professional mechanical engineer (with 27 years industry experience) responsible for propulsion systems on agricultural harvesting vehicles and can definitively state i have never abused this vehicle. the wear rates are excessive on the uca ball and socket connection which does/could cause ball joint separation and suspension function/control.

Failure of the touchscreen results in loss of rear camera image display when reverse gear is selected, resulting in reduced rear visibility when backing. screen also completely freezes and cannot control climate control elements, sound, etc. when back up camera finally does engage, backup camera screen is black with two white lines.

The touchscreen sometimes becomes unresponsive while trying to start the vehicle. the error message "touchscreen unresponsive: press scroll wheels on steering wheel until it restarts" will appear on the display behind the steering wheel. this seems like a safety issue since the vehicle will drive but without the touchscreen the backup camera and hvac controls are unavailable, and the turn signals do not appear to not work, or at least no sound is heard while the turn signals are active. the touchscreen requires several minutes to restart. this problem matched the description of the recent notice from tesla about the emmc (embedded multi-media-card memory) failures. tesla service was contacted about this in december 2020 with a request to diagnose if the emmc needs replaced. at the request of tesla service, several specific dates/times this occurred were provided (see attached images for examples). tesla service stated that a more "recent" occurrence was needed in order to even perform diagnostics, but did not define "recent".

We own a 2013 tesla model s 85, rear wheel drive, no autopilot. as vehicle aged, the steering was noticeably vague and the vehicle became "darty" on the highway, seemingly wanting to drive out of the current lane on its own. this dartiness became worse and worse over time, and also was worse when accelerating or decelerating. we first alerted the dealer of the problem in aug 2019, and they replaced few components in the front suspension (both upper control arms and the right forelink) and charged us $1571+tax for parts and labor. the steering seemed a little better for a while, but in jan 2020 we brought the car back in with concerns about vague steering and the dealer recommended a wheel alignment, which we paid for. the alignment yielded no improvement and the car became increasingly difficult to drive on the highway, requiring constant steering adjustments to keep in its lane. we brought the car back to the dealer in may 2020, and by this time the dealer verbally agreed that the car was not safe to drive in its current state. they replaced both rear lower control arm assemblies and charged us $1382+tax, but this still did not resolve the dartiness. we returned to the dealer later in may 2020, and they recommended replacing nearly every other suspension part, including both rear toe links, both rear upper links, both front aft links, the front fore link that wasn't previously replaced. the cost for this was a $1870+tax. fortunately, the steering issues did not result in any accidents. since this last repair, the car now drives relatively normally for a 7 1/2 year old car. we are reporting our experience after we learned that the nhtsa is investigating a series of other suspension-related concerns with tesla model s cars. we believe it is unreasonable for a car to become unsafe to drive in 7 years subjected only to normal personal use.

Screen failed which resulted in all systems being unable to operate. car was just out of warranty and tesla required the unit be completely replaced for

My 2013 tesla model s had the touchscreen fail. this resulted in me having to pay for a brand new screen. i understand there is an investigation into the touchscreen failures and i would like to be included in the investigative process and receive reimbursement

I own a 2013 tesla model s that has lost the mcu and will no longer charge. in addition, the mcu causes the touch screen to open very slowly. i have complained and tesla would not replace the mcu and not compensate me for the inability to charge the car. the original complaint was that the touchscreen would not come on at all. i could not see any information whatsoever, during tesla's attempt to fix the screen, i lost the ability to charge the vehicle.

The main/center screen blacks out on my tesla, which is where all the car controls and back-up camera is viewed. even when it doesn't completely black out, the back up camera doesn't function as it just stays frozen a lot of the time. outside of the backup camera issues, all other functions, like turning on or off headlights is also impacted. at other times it seems like it impacts charging the car, which can leave me dead if i cannot charge. other functions have also been impacted like turning air conditioning and navigation, however not necessarily safety issues. these issues have happened while sitting in my garage trying to leave, charging my car at a tesla charging station, driving down the freeway or streets. i estimate they have been happening since about 60k miles and have progressively gotten worse.

Center console freezes, unable to control lights, air-conditioner, navigation, and audio.the screen also turns off while driving and while charging.

The car can’t receive safety firmware updates because of a failure of the mcu. tesla wants customer to pay to replace.

I have been having issues with the infotainment screen. i told tesla that it needs to be replaced under warranty and the refuse to do so, saying that they run internal diagnostics and it says mine isn't affected. i have multiple videos and photos showing that they are wrong. they are trying to get out of a recall by doing a warranty replacement but are actually not doing any replacements. there are instances in which my screens ont boot for over an hour, or that it partially boots and has display issues. please force then1 to issue a recall, as they are not being fair and actually replacing any issues. i have asked the. multiple times and they do not agree with my assessment even though i send them videos and photos. they are skirting the law. please help. i have an additional video i can send you if you'd like.

My vehicle has the issue with the emmc chip being too small to handle all the logging tesla was doing and now it's starting to fail. when it completely fails i won't be able to defog the windshield, the heat and ac won't work, the turn signals won't work and i won't be able to charge the vehicle. i got an email from tesla saying my car doesn't qualify car the warranty adjustment program due to miles but it's within the years. this needs to be a recall regardless of miles. tesla doubling the amount of logging caused excessive wear on the emmc. the failure is a safety issue.

Nhtsa action #: pe20010 my tesla recently had the black screen following the system degredation that falls in line with me memory chip failure known in the model s 2013-2016. i am unable to use my blinkers, main screen for driving, my rearview camera for safety during reversing, or control many of the functions of the vehicle. thankfully, this occurred while i'm my driveway and not during a trip so i was not in danger of harming anyone. i have attached a photo of the error showing on my screen in relation to this.

Gel is leaking out of dash display. onto driver pedal area. creating a driving hazard.

I have 110,000 miles on my tesla, the screen blacks out sometimes. i hear that you might make them do a recall.

2013 tesla s p85 mcu will not boot up after over the air software update between october 2 t o october 9th while i was on a vacation. ota software version 2020.24.6.11

The main lcd display is sometimes non responsive or will not display the same information that is on my instrument panel display as well as the tesla app. examples are fan speed and charging mileage. when items are pressed they do not change, also some weird characters are displaying on the lcd screen.

Failure of emmc inside mcu (media control unit). most of the car's controls are only accessible using the touch screen and without heat, turn-signals and ability to charge, the vehicle is barely driveable.since i was out of town and it was winter, i had to go to a local tesla service center. although emmc is replaceable, i was charged for a rebuilt mcu (~$1200).

The media control unit (mcu) in my 2013 tesla model s stopped working when i rebooted the car while stationary (commonly needed to restore lost functionality), apparently due to a failure of the embedded multi-media card (emmc) memory. as part of this failure, the turn signals did not work when i later went to drive the car, the passenger airbag defaulted to 'off' (pic attached), and the hvac system (including the windshield defroster) defaulted to an unknown setting and could not be controlled (neither by the dead mcu nor the smartphone application), though the car was otherwise still driveable. apparently, the oem emmc had limited re-write capability and a relatively high re-write frequency; when it failed, it not only created driving safety hazards, but also cost more than $1,000 to repair what was probably an inexpensive part (under $10) for the oem.

Mcu completely died on my 2013 tesla model s. the reverse camera does not work. signals. hazards. gps. ac.

The center touch screen console died. doing some research, it looks like it might be the mcu. i am able to drive the car but the turn signals do not work. i feel like this is a safety issue.

Here is a tesla model s in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/44596360/photos/2013-tesla-model-s-ca-san-jose it has the traditional whompy wheel. sb-19-31-001 january 3, 2019 tesla, inc. service bulletin replace lower rear control arm assemblies on certain model s vehicles, either lower rear control arm might crack, causing excessive negative camber of the rear suspension." you can say that again mister garrison! tesla is not proactively fixing these problems. every tesla is a time bomb. please sort this out thank you keef

Vehicle makes squeak noise when driving low speed and drive over a bumper. took the car to service center and they said right upper control arm need replacement on oct 19 2019 and paid it and replaced. same thing happened on left upper control arm on may 08 2020 and paid and replaced. and they told me that play is present in both aft links. i am worried that my model is old one as 2013 and it failed a lot from the suspension part. thanks god this thing happened on high speed but i am really worried regarding the safety of the car.

After tesla sent a software update over the air to my car on 09/22/2020, the media control unit (mcu) of my car got stuck in a constant boot-up loop. the software was 100% downloaded but could not be installed possibly due to the failure of a highly stressed emmc memory. as a result, the mcu kept rebooting by itself every 2 minutes or so, which caused back-up camera, climate control etc. unaccessible and passenger airbag disabled. tesla suggested a hard reboot but the problem won't go away. i report this mcu problem as it could be caused by the manufacturer's design defect regarding over-logging on the cheap embedded multi-media-card memorye (emmc). i believe that tesla should do recalls to remove the sword of damocles for all model s produced before march, 2018.

Well i love my fist tesla but after the first time it had to go in to the austin service center for a problem with a clicking /thumping noise as when i back up i heard & feel. so after having my car a couple days found it would need to have the large drive unit replace that will be still covered under warranty, but say the rear subframe needs to be replace & i have to pay to get replaced due to “ wear & tear “ as service center say, on my subframe it’s never been in any accident etc.they say it’s not covered the 100% warranty!!

I have a 2013 tesla model s and both of my screen ore peeling from the inside and glue is leaking (see pics). this happened after a software update not sure if its a coincident but my car would control the temp inside the car not sure this is occurring anymore. anyway its absurd that screen glue starts melting inside of a car with glue residue leaking. i have no idea where the glue is going to the main screen which could drip down to the pedals. from the central screen glue is drippign as can be seen in the picture.

The main screen that controls everything has a massive issue. it controls all the functions in the car, like the rear back up camera, ability to control ac, etc. the screen is peeling from the inside, and many people have reported this on the tesla forums. tesla wants to charge me at least $2500 to fix the problem, and i know this is affecting many cars.

The main screen of the car atarted leaking glue all over the car after some bubbles atarted to appear while the gps stopper randomly working, the screen would pixelated and restart by itself in the middle of a trip. the worst part is that it took more than a month to get it replaced because they had the mcu and screen in backorder until i finally had to pay $1200 for something that every single car of this year had gone through the same problem, not only me

Mcu main computer failed, prevented me from using defrost couldn't see while driving almost caused an accident as my entire front window view got block. the mcu allows you to use the screen which lets you turn on defrost. very dangerous situation. this also controls your headlights.

Central touchscreen failed multiple times during road trip. failures happened while charging and stationary, and while driving. lose access to vehicle safety and other controls (headlights, hvac, navigation, sunroof, etc.). reported to tesla prior to warranty expiration and was told it is "normal" behavior. now that my warranty has expired, tesla has diagnosed failure of memory chip and is charging me out of warranty to replace computer daughterboard.

In early june 2019, the touchscreen in my 2013 model s p95+ started to malfunction. it was unresponsive, goes black etc. then one day, a gooey substance started to leak from inside and onto the center console of the vehicle. i took it to the dania beach, florida dealership. i was informed that the display adhesive was leaking due to heat. they replaced the entire mcu unit at a cost of $1,200. this is apparently a known issue related to the screen. less than a year later, this past 08/31/2020, the same thing started to happen to the main instrument panel. both of these issues are apparently known problems and render the car unsafe to drive.

I own a tesla model s and i reporting issues with my touch screen mcus. it has completely failed after 7,000 miles. presently i have absolutely no control of my heating,, air conditioning, fan, safety cameras, garage door opener, or electronic controls on any tough screen portions of the car. this is a huge public safety concern that impacts me and the public as well. i live in a mountainside area and we depend on the back up camera to avoid accidents as our garage backs up into a very narrow lane. and i can not see the children and animals that are in back of my car when i exit my garage. nor can i use any of the gps features for guidance as well. the touch screen has complete failure in the mcu unit. i contacted telsa re this issue and informed them that this is a liability to me and the brand based on the huge safety issues this presents. i told them i was glad that the call was being recorded as i did want this issue to be unreported. and i informed tesla that this problem is exigent as we live in southen california and the temperate is now over 120 degrees. this could cause heat stroke and also kill our animals as well. tesla replied that this my my problem and not theirs. some owners believe that it is a problem with the embedded multi-media-card memory (emmc) in the mcu and that it is being overwritten to the point of failure. ii know now that is a recognized defect known as the “emmc failure” problem. i understand that tesla now has introduced a new mcu in 2018 that doesn’t have the same problem, but owners of older vehicles are still experiencing the problem in having to replace the unit out of warranty, despite seeing tesla’s mistake as the source of the problem instead of a normal issue that occurs over time. i need resources and remedies to correct this manufacture induced malaise.

Over the last 6 months, my 2013 tesla model s began experiencing long boot times, frequent spontaneously rebooting, loss of mobile connection and problems with the navigation system. last saturday the car began to reboot constantly and was incapacitated on the road, requiring a flat bed truck ($250). tesla service tells me the only way to make the car functional again is to pay over $1300 on a new mcu. as a software developer, this feels something tesla caused through overuse of their memory storage system and/or a program bug associated with saved navigation locations.

The car was pending an over the air update which i was delaying because of the research i found online about the computer touchscreen chip going out. the update was forced to the car while it was in my garage and after the update the touchscreen was non functional. because of this most features were not usable like a/c and radio. the more important features that were not able to use were that the turn signal.

The main touch screen failed with likely emmc failure resulting in no navigation, no backup camera, no turn signals or sound, no air or defrosters and no way to control headlights or other safety features. failure occurred at highway speeds.

The 17" touchscreen monitor is black and refuses to boot up or reset, reboot. this does not allow major functions of the car su in as program my the driving features, communications, gps, climate control air-conditioning, rear view backing screen, turn signals or entertainment and other tesla features including safety features. this occurs at all times, from the time the car is turned on.

The display screen, which allows you to control the entire vehicle, fails over time. it is a big problem since the car has no buttons and everything must be done on the screen. the problem is this one, as many other tesla owners have had. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/model-s-black-horizontal-line-in-mcu-screen.193133/ this appeared all of a sudden, and eventually the screen will completely fail making the car not usable.

The mcu (main touchscreen computer) failed on my 2013 tesla model s around june 10th 2020, with ~45k miles. the mcu previously had some reboot issues but this time was different because the computer was constantly rebooting and wouldn’t stop. this was after the car was left in the garage and not driven for about a week. i had tesla replace the mcu on my car which cost ~$1700+.  when the tesla model s mcu goes out, the car can still be driven but this computer is central to operating most functions of the car. many vehicle functions no longer work with a failed mcu including the ac/heater; backup camera display; navigation instructions, gps, and maps; inside manual door locks and sunroof control; garage door opener; radio and all music play functionality; energy consumption displays; phone; vehicle charge settings and charge status display; selection of automatic personal positioning for steering wheel, seat, and mirror; many lighting controls; other vehicle settings; on-screen games; and more. there is a newer version of mcu that i pleaded with tesla to obtain and install in my car but they said they couldn’t get it. the mcu failures are apparently related to overused computer memory chips and the mcu replacement was actually a remanufactured computer and wasn’t new. the replacement did have a new touchscreen and upgraded let modem but later had new “low disk space” error messages and rebooted repeatedly within weeks of the mcu replacement.

Mcu died.

My tesla has the well know ‘black screen of death’ due to emmc failure. without this, most functions of the vehicle do not work. this includes suspension adjustments, ac/heat, backup camera, radio, navigation, etc. tesla has been a nightmare to get a live person on the phone, unless it’s for new car sales. they scheduled an appointment for us but it’s 3 weeks away and we cannot wait that long to have the car mobile again. i will likely take the emmc out myself, mail it to someone for replacement, and pay about 700.00.

While slowly backing car up in driveway, the left rear lower control arm unexpectedly failed and the suspension collapsed with the wheel cambered outward at 30 degrees or so. the wheel was trapped in the wheel well and unable to rotate, and related suspension parts including a brake line and the air spring module were damaged. if this had happened at speed the locked-up rear wheel would have caused loss of control with serious consequences. there is an existing tesla service bulletin, sb 19-31-001, which states: "on certain model s vehicles, either lower rear control arm might crack, causing excessive negative camber of the rear suspension." it states that the correction is: replace both lh and rh lower rear control arm assemblies with updated parts." this describes exactly what happened with my vehicle. the circular, cast aluminum part of the arm which contains a large bushing at the outboard end of the control arm cracked and failed so that the bushing was no longer held by the arm. under the vehicle two pieces of the cast aluminum part were found. these broken parts were the result of two cracks in the assembly. one crack has evidence of corrosion, suggesting that it occurred months before the unit failed; the other crack shows bare metal indicating that it just occurred. the tesla sb states that this defect is a "known non-safety-related condition." i cannot possibly see how this is a "non-safety-related" issue -- if this failure had occurred at speed it could have been catastrophic. tesla service has quoted almost $4000 for repair, but this does not include replacement of the control arm on the other side of the vehicle per the service bulletin -- in other words, they are ignoring the bulletin. others on the tesla forums are having exactly the same control arm failures. the situation is unnerving and discouraging.

Screen went completely black and had to pay to have it replaced. was told that there was no fix for it.

Umc failure which is the only way to control all in the car. no back up camera, no remote control, no performance controls. basically the only thing working on the car is the blinkers. i saw that other tesla cars are having the same issue. cost is 3,000 which is an acceptable since the car only has 70,000 miles. “emmc failure” problem.

Mcu-1 died, as in touch screen did not work, therefore most of the car does not work. it died overnight, got in the car the next morning and the car was off, could not turn it on

Mcu has been malfunctioning. without it i cannot control climate, backup camera, radio, turn signals, charging, navigation, and a number of other important features. this problem has been ongoing and intermittent, but recently has become more common.

I have the mcu1, the dash screen in the center. often the mcu is dead and the can’t be driven. sometimes it goes out while i’m driving making not safe to drive. the car is out of warranty, but the mcu is what controls everything in the car. had it replaced under warranty but still have the same problems. mcu controls the ac/heating, back up camera, lights, turn signals, navigation, music, suspension and vsc, sunroof, etc... this happens when driving on the highway, street or when parked

The main screen in our 2013 tesla model s started requiring regular reboots just to run. then it died completely, leaving us without access to hvac controls (they were stuck on the last setting which did not allow for defrost/defog for the windshield or rear window). we also did not have functioning turn signals, hazards or a backup camera, and charging was limited to a ridiculously slow rate (the car was in "limp mode" per our technician). we were forced to replace the main computer (mcu1). we were given a choice of another mcu1 (which we were told may have the same problem eventually) or an mcu2 which would not. we chose the mcu2.

Main screen malfunction. turned completely black. turn signals no longer work and car will not charge. backup camera not usable. car is undrivable due to safety issues. i’ve been waiting for a replacement unit over a month already.

The center display is blank and unavailable, which disables many vehicle features including the backup camera system, air suspension control, and hvac. the center display was working normally on august 1st, 2020. it seems to have failed overnight, because it has not worked since august 2nd.

Mcu chip failed. screen went blank. all functions of car were inaccessible. was unable to charge car. this happened while driving mutiple times. totally unsafe. currently passenger side door handle does not work. this is the 2nd time this has happened along with another door handle.

Center console (mcu) failed after updating software. black screen. unable to use, cannot charge. cannot control anything. this seems extremely dangerous , as all the vehicle controls are through the center console. had to get it towed to tesla service. tesla said it was infamous emmc failure and had to replace the mcu out of pocket, totaling $2,738.67. they replaced it with the same exact version, basically saying its a known issue and that this will fail again eventually. this also encourages people *not* to update their software anymore, as any writes to that emmc module is just one step closer to failure again.

Mcu 1 failed. display screen dead. no controls for climate, backup camera, audio system, navigation, etc

My electric door handles. which present upon approach or when activated, remain in the closed/locked position, which prevents me from being able to use the door. i have had 3 different handles on my vehicle replaced. two of them have been replaced twice. i have complained that this should not be an issue that a consumer should have to pay for as it seems to be a "lemon" issue, having occurred multiple times. the first time it occurred was within 6 months of purchase in 2013. the last time it occurred was may of 2020. and three times in between.

I have had numerous "blackouts" of the main screen whereby i am unable to control anything such as a/c, maps, charging, mph, etc. frequently i have no connectivity despite being in areas with strong cellular reception or even in my own garage with wifi. when this occurs, no monitoring system for the car is available. it typically occurs upon start up and the car will turn on but nothing shows up on the dash or screen. my car can sometimes take several minutes to start up - sometimes i have left my car behind and taken another mode of transportation due to the issue.

The mcu on these cars are a known issue for all tesla's with mcu version 1. the mcu is an integral part of operation, driving all necessary changes on the car such as: adjusting driving lights, adjusting traction control settings, accessing the safety & security features (required for safely jacking the car, etc) as well as placing the car in tow mode to safety tow the car. the mcu is also the main driving computer for the secondary display which shows driving speed. following an issue with my mcu, the car was not able to be properly driven and was not able to access the tesla network to receive software updates, the navigation and maps did not work and the radio was disabled. the climate control was also non-functional due to the failure.

On 8/6/2020 at approximately 3:50 pm [xxx], i [xxx] was parking my 2013 model s 85 tesla in my carport. i have lived at this address for 7 months and had parked my car there without incident numerous times. i was not distracted nor intoxicated in any way; i was simply parking my car. as i was about to push the park button on the tesla, suddenly the car unintentionally accelerated, out of control, the brake didn't work, and continued to leap forward at full speed, causing me to crash through the gate, and back of my carport, bouncing one trashcan off my shed door and pushing another one, as i veered around the shed corner knocking the carport supports out as i went. crashing through my neighbors back fence, i plowed over my neighbor's garden and back yard with my garbage can and car acting as a battering ram. the tesla eventually careened into neighbors back carport plowed over a gas main, power main panel, water main, and sewer drain line. basically, all the utilities which fed her house, and finally stopped after hitting the side of space# 46 house. i saw and smelled gas entering the car from the broken gas pipe. fortunately, the power to my house along with 40 of the surrounding houses had been shut off the previous day due to a totally unrelated incident. a power transformer which fed the community had been mis-wired and destroyed all the electrical appliances and electronics in the 40 houses the transformer fed. if the power had been on, there would have been sparks and an explosion under my tesla battery pack; which would have caused a secondary explosion. i would have been killed instantly according to the firemen and pge gas repair man who showed up after the incident. anyone present within the vicinity around my car would most likely have been killed too or injured. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

This is another complaint about the deadly weakness of tesla suspensions. please note that i have used a substitute vin since the vin of the affected car is unavailable. this should not matter as this is a systemic failure affecting every tesla on the roads. here is a thread on the official tesla motors forum which only allows posts by verified owners. https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/rear-lower-control-arm-failed the latest in a long string of failures is reported here : natecval | july 14, 2020 i had an nearly identical issue! rear passenger suspension failure. after normal drive home from work with nothing out of the ordinary happening. i put the car in reverse and began to back up towards my driveway and the wheel tire nearly fell off. very unnerving since i was on the freeway over the weekend traveling 85 mph, thank god this didn't happen then. i was able to pull up my dash cam footage and see the exact moment the part cam flying out from under my car. then drove back and found it on the road. with our other vehicle. https://youtu.be/ag022fhsz7m pictures- 2013 tesla s85 rear lower control arm catastrophic failure. https://imgur.com/a/0h47aym this is incontrovertible proof that tesla suspensions are breaking and putting lives at risk. i have copied the pictures referred to and they are attached to this complaint. contrary to the claims made by some commentators on that thread this is not the result of abuse or neglect. it is a crack that is the predictable result of poor quality casting, bad design and utter lack of quality control. i strongly urge you to investigate this issue immediately. i thank you keef

Mcu failure. one year ago, my mcu screen went black. it was rebooted and was told that if the mcu had needed replacement, it would cost 4,000.00. now one year later, it has failed completely and needs replacement. they tell me the cost will be $2,000.00. when i asked why the price difference, they informed me that they had been able to increase their orders so the price has come down. i have come to learn that numerous tesla owners are experiencing the mcu failure. my purpose of this is for you to investigate whether or not it is a design defect. the first time the screen went black, it was in motion on the freeway in motion. this most recent time, it was stationary in my garage.

My vehicle has been exhibiting the symptoms of mcu emmc failure known to be a problem with early model s production models. in particular i have noticed slow start up times of the center console media and occasional inability to use the touch screen display until it is manually restarted by pressing both control dials on the steering wheel. when the display is unresponsive i can also see that the cellular connectivity icon indicates no signal despite being in areas of full coverage. the above symptoms happen while stationary and in motion. on two occasions the center console remained black for so long that i was unable to use the vehicle. it ultimately restarted successfully but continued to have the above problems. i began to notice these problems around march of this year (2020) and they continue to the present.

Vehicle completely stationary. center console (mcu) unit failure due to the emmc storage filling due to excessive log data. well-known and documented issue with these cars. causes a/c control, media, media controls, navigation, lighting control, and audible turn signal functions to no longer work.

Hi i been having issues with the tesla main touch screen control , mcu . the screen was recently offline limiting the vehicle to drive not control and 12v it let and signals does not work i’ll take it to service center they were able to restore it . but if not i will need to pay from $1500 /2500 to get a replacement that’s not fair because that mcu was replace by warranty less then 3 years ago . previous screen haves memory issues and bubbles on screen . rebooting issues was happening when driving the car , one day park car on garage next day control screen does not power on not even posible to reboot with the instructions. it this can be a recall will help a lot of comsumers i hear lot people are dealing with this issue

While arked in my garage morning the center screen didnt turned on the media control unit know as mcu which is the center screen failed and the car wasnt able to charge, turn on a/c and many other functions of the car where disabled it is a very escencial part of the vehicle if it fails vehicle would not be drivable at all after battery is depleted

Vehicle was stationary for a few days in my garage. when i turned it on, the touchscreen was black and tesla has told me that the mcu units needs to be replaced. during my call with the technician, he explained that the new software that were sent caused some of the units to go bad. i think it's outrageous that they want me to pay $1,500 to fix something that was caused by an internal update.

My ecu has died. the main control screen does not work at all, does not come on and functionality is unusable. i have rebooted the system several times which does not work. happens during initial start up and while driving. i have now taken my car into the service center to have it replaced. my understanding is that it is a chronic problem but, of course, i am out of warranty and have been quoted $1500 to replace.

When trying to start my tesla, i noticed the large touch screen was unresponsive, and i couldn't enter my pin code to unblock changing my car gears, my car got stuck on the parking gear on my driveway. when speaking with tesla roadside assistance, i was instructed to perform a reset procedure, after which the large screen went dark. as requested by tesla roadside assistance, i towed my car to the nearest tesla service center, where after diagnosis i was told my car mcu had reached end of life, and i would have to replace the mcu at my expense ($1419.07), but no clear explanation on what caused the mcu to suddenly stop working. after insisting on getting an explanation and researching/showing an article about an ongoing nhtsa probe on some memory issues(https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-safety/u-s-probes-touchscreen-failures-in-tesla-model-s-cars-iduskbn23v1vg), tesla confirmed that the new unit would have a newer revision, but that i'd still have to pair for the service and parts.

Screen occasionally goes black either when stationary or driving. at the moment i can “reset” the car and get the instruments back, but research tells me that this will only get worse. this is a known problem (a memory chip fails through wear over time). when it does fail it is a safety issue as rear lights can fail and all indicators (including speed) disappear.

Mcu went dead during a recent ota update sent out by tesla. now no way to control rear view camera, climate control, suspension, sunroof, etc. the vehicle was stationary in the garage when the mcu froze and subsequently went dead.

Corrosion to the lower steering shaft with u-joint caused power steering to fail.

The mcu is freezing daily and sometimes the speedometer freezes. the mcu is not responsive until you reset the system.

While in either function of stationary at traffic light, parked at work or home, and while in motion driving on a road trip. the touchscreen blanks out, freezes and locks out the touch sensitive functions, then in turn eliminates climate control. gps mapping, back up camera, and the newest one is pixelating sections of the screen like a cable connection issue... i really don't know anymore. the local service center is resistant to address these issues.. but they were overly excited to pitch selling me the upgrades screen and computer for $2500 ..then boasted that it loads faster like your cell phone. they continued with saying i would have 4g or 4g lte ..when i upgrade. of course i replied.. how about tesla just making the system the car was built with just work properly. i dont like being stranded and with no ac operations until hard restart/rebooting the computers through the steering wheel scroll knobs as a last hope.

Same issue as other open complaints with emmc device failing causing black screen, no rear view camera, no ability to charge the car, turn signals inoperable, etc.. based on the known software bug in this system it is reasonable to conclude that all models with this version of mcu/emmc software will eventually fail. see current nhtsa action number : pe20010

Touchscreen that controls dozens of vehicle operating features including ac, heat, gps, lights, access to mobile application, sunroof, etc. went blank and would not reboot. can can be driven, but not safely. this happened in july 2020. this is the second time, first was oct 2020 and was replaced by tesla for no charge. this complaint is for july 2020 when it happened again. only 32,000 miles on vehicle. required to pay $87 diagnostic fee and $1,600 for a replacement. known issue to tesla due to a memory card failure as a result of writing log files to it beyond the known life of the card. seems they replaced the unit in 2017 with one that they knew would fail. they call issue "end of life" but it seems like it was completely preventable. took vehicle in on july 21, 2020. part not available until aug 10. no loaner offered, just an uber voucher which expired on july 26. have seen many other complaints similar to this being reported with teslas of my make and year.

The mcu1 infoscreen failed on june 4, 2020, while the car was stationary in my garage, it only has 43,750 miles.. it has now not been safely driveable for 5 weeks waiting for repair and tesla can't tell me when a replacement part will be available and the repair will be completed.

The mcu has now nearly completely failed resulting in the inability to use the backup camera (or the touchscreen entirely that controls other basic functions of the car. this has been a progressive issue. this appears to be a known issue. it can happen while stationery or moving and occurs in both instances requiring frequent reboots while driving until complete failure.

Our tesla model s  2013 was purchased in august of 2013, 7 years ago. the car was able to cover over 200 miles with a full charge.  starting june 2019, the brakes started to shake during braking and the traveled miles decreased drastically after sudden loss of range with 2019.16.x software update that throttles batteries. under the same conditions traveling the same route by the same person. now,  the full charge of car lasts approximately 100 miles traveled. total super charged battery miles do not go beyond 150 miles even after waiting more than 2 hrs. using 220 amp for 7 hrs, the full battery charge goes up to 160 miles  but even then the odometer travel covered is less the 110 miles under similar conditions of the original 200 miles traveled.  we have paid for unlimited use of supercharger but we are told by tesla not to use supercharger because it is bad for the battery. that is true.  we get a little better results by using our own 40 amp, 220 volt charger but the car battery lasts less than 60%  of the original battery under identical driving conditions with supercharger it covers less than 50%. we have taken the car to tesla service center in rocklin but the technicians have said: "we ran test and battery is normal". we need help under stand what "normal" means.  this car is not normal good for commuting to work now.  1) charging at much lower amps and avoiding superchargers. this took away the $2,500 purchase option and freedom of being able to travel without range anxiety. 2) replacement of the $2,500 mcu by tesla technicians did nothing but more money into tesla pockets. 3) begging to purchase a new battery, even though under warranty of 8 year extended from 125k to 150k mile warranty for prior to 2015 tesla model s vehicles is unable to be done. very similar to the apple iphone battery throttle lawsuit. *ln *tr

My mcu1 (center screen) has died once and has been replaced. it is starting to fail again as the navigation is starting to be nonresponsive, blue periodically works, and nonresponsive touch functions. there is a design failure where the center screen dies after a period of time. this controls your ac, radio, charging, navigation, turn signal audio, etc... it is a very common problem and affects all vehicles from 2012 to 2018. vehicle does not need to be in motion.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that the media control unit failed to function as designed. additionally, the vehicle failed to achieve the estimated 210 miles per charge instead only achieving 120 miles. the vehicle was taken to tesla (4361 granite drive, rocklin, ca 95677, 916-652-7740), where the media control unit was replaced however, the failure persisted. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was contacted and informed of the failure however, offered no assistance in replacing the battery. the failure mileage was 95,000. invalid vin. *ln*dt*as

Just had an mcu -1 failure causing my car to brick. is now undrivable. car was in motion in city streets when the screen failed.

While driving on a six lane highway, i received multiple alerts from the car saying that power was reduced, the vehicle was shutting down, service is required, pull over safely and vehicle may not restart. i pulled over into a parking lot to monitor the car, the alerts continued to come and go but the car remained on. i decided to drive the rest of the way home. i notified tesla service and received no response. the next day when i attempted to drive the car again, it would not start and there was a complete battery failure requiring battery replacement. there was no indication to me as the owner prior to this event that the battery was going to fail, however, access to my vehicle logs (which i cannot obtain from tesla) may have given me some indication. i was told battery failure was due to faulty seals on the rapid mate which allowed water intrusion and overcurrent within the battery.

Mcu failure consistent with other early model tesla model s. the main computer screen is dark/blank and most functions are not operable, such as navigation, lighting controls, directionals, audio and hands-free phone, sunroof, climate control, suspension controls, ... the failure occurs almost without warning. this is the 2nd failure and this event occurred while the vehicle was driving at highway speed

Mcu (center screen) failed in my 2013 model s. i returned to the car after it was parked all day in an outdoor parking lot at work and it would not turn on. rebooting, other troubleshooting did not remedy. as a result of mcu failure, turn signals did not work (exterior turn signals and audible indication of turn signals), air suspension could not be adjusted, climate control could not be adjusted, headlights could not be manually controlled, steering settings could not be adjusted, charge level could not be adjusted, media/entertainment could not be used, backup camera could not be viewed in addition to other functionality for the car. leading up to the complete failure of the unit, the mcu would occasionally reboot itself during driving causing loss of turn signals and change in steering dynamics.

Media control unit appears to be failing. the system is slow to boot, the media functionality is off-line, the vehicle does not respond to driver input with respect to input on the main touchscreen. the mcu controls several critical vehicle functions. *tr

The center control touch screen has been replaced 3 times since receiving the car in early 2013. there are no manual controls for most of the cars functions when this happens and losing control to a/c, defroster and sometimes turn signals is dangerous. the manufacturer needs to rectify this manufacturing defect that causes multiple failures. this failure happens as you start up the vehicle.

Touchscreen went out. according to their system this is still a “driveable” car and needs to be brought to them. the blinkers and headlights are controlled through this as are many other features.

Mcu failure, loss of all controls dependent on mcu functioning, no rear camera is a serious failure.

Computer display malfunctioning has to be turned off and on. this is dangerous while driving. i have video of screen but cannot upload that type of file. *tr

The mcu continues to fail and was now there are yellow lines around my screen and it keeps rebooting. *tr

Touch panel keeps going out and renders the controls unusable. it's been replaced once, but i'm having similar problems with the new one.

2013 tesla s p85 with manufacture quality control problems. my current concern is that my media control unit (mcu) touch screen in my model s manufacture in 2013 failures of the touch screen with bubbles on the lcd touch screen and sometime just lines on the lcd display when it is hot under the sun. the car takes a long time to start up after driver get into the driver seat- sometimes it can take up to 3 minutes to start up the car and, lines on lcd display, sticky glue leaking down under the dash area from the passenger side. this mcu and lcd touch screen is the only control that can be use as an information system for this vehicle. this is a safety issues while driving and can be very distracting and can cause an accident while driving. this is a manufactures defect and it should be recall for replacement or repair. it is a very serious safety concern.

Tesla in junkyard. back wheel fell off. suspension giblets all hanging out. very nasty. give my regards to elon yours whompily keef wivaneff

The emmc is failing and causing the computer systems to act odd. i’ve reported it for the failing main screen and it turning off for over 36 hours but yesterday the speedometer screen went blank and wouldn’t come on for a an extended period of time. the car wouldn’t start at first, and when it did, there was no speedometer (!), no odometer, no battery level read out, no gear indicator, no headlights, nor any other function of the instrument panel. the vehicle was stationary when it failed. it flashed on for a second, which allowed lights to come on and go in drive, but it immediately turned back off leaving the car without any speedometer or other items listed above. this was in a neighborhood.

Touchscreen stopped working multiple times over several weeks, when starting car or when driving, and had to be rebooted. then navigation function stopped working completely. i have seen reports from other owners indicating that the screens flash memory devices have failed over time. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that while operating the vehicle the media control unit (mcu) malfunctioned and was permanently disabled. due to the failure, the backup camera failed to display. the contact was unable to make any automotive adjustments due to the failure. the vehicle was not taken to be diagnosed nor repaired. dublin tesla located at 6701 amador plaza rd, dublin, ca 94568, was notified of the failure. the manufacturer was not contacted. the failure mileage was 115,000. the vin was not included.

Loss of rear view camera; screen started to leak conductive adhesive that required the screen and entire media control unit to be replaced.

Mcu failure due to emmc failure. emmc fails due to finite write endurance which occurs on all cars while either still in warranty or out of warranty. i personally have not been in a situation where this was a safety issue as of yet, however if it fails completely and results in the mcu being unable to boot, or looping. the car will not be able to "start" or be movable without a tow. this scenario could be dangerous to me or my family depending on where and when it happens. *tr

Touch screen fails/freezes daily sometime multiple times. rendering back up camera inoperable as well as other vital functions such as a/c connectivity is lost. *tr

Tesla main computer is designed to fail and disable the ability to turn on the headlights, turn signals, rear view camera, and so on. the main computer logs everything happening in the car excessively (they do this so press reviews can be refuted, it has happened many times) but that logging causes the chip to fail. the solution is to turn off logging but they refuse, so these computers fail predictably on schedule. all teslas are affected. *tr

The touchscreen controls are very slow. the touchscreen fails intermittently, sometimes rendering the back up camera inoperable when driving in reverse. frequent rebooting is required when it hangs up. a noticeable deterioration has occurred in the last six months. *tr

The electronic touchscreen that allows access to most of the cars functions stopped working. the car would not work to basic standards once this happened. car was in motion at the time on city streets. *tr

Mcu failed - leaving blinkers and other control items not working.

2013 model s 40. mcu failed due to memory card failure in december 2018. car would not drive. had to be towed. car lowered windows by itself and could not be closed. drained battery. car could not be opened. charged $2100 to replace mcu out of warranty. mcu also failed on my 2015 model s 70d [xxx] in 2019. replaced emmc chip. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

My main large screen, while moving in reverse, shows the image from the back up camera...it will suddenly and randomly shut off and almost like reset or something like that and i will have to slam on my brakes and wait to see whats happening

The touch screen for the electric vehicle (tesla) went black rendering the vehicle to unable to be charged and any entertainment, climate and other basic functions for the vehicle to be used. the vehicle was stationary and parked when this happened but there have been reports of the screen going out while driving for other owners.

The tesla screen abruptly freezes and shuts down. as a result, the rear view camera becomes unavailable and this is a safety hazard. i am requesting tesla recall this vehicle and offer a replacement. *tr

Vehicle was stationary, emmc failed. tesla took 13 months to "get the part" and vehicle is currently at tesla. car sat due to the inability to charge, change settings, etc. and this created additional failures (to include 12v battery, etc.) *tr

The media control unit (mcu) has failed on my vehicle over a month ago. i am still waiting for the tesla service center to notify they have a replacement for me. till then, the representative said the vehicle is still safe to drive. failure of the mcu means i am unable to control most of the vehicles functions. most notably, i cannot raise the vehicles suspension, turn on the air conditioning, or view the rear view camera. others things affected are opening the sunroof, listening the the radio or music at all, use gps, connect my phone to the vehicles bluetooth, connect to my phone via tesla app, the odometer reading isn't visible anymore, the walk-away lock feature is inoperative so if i forget to manually lock the vehicle it will stay unlocked, and there may be more features inoperative that i am unaware of. the failure of the mcu occurred after i was done charging at a supercharger station. i noticed the screen was glitching so i attempted to reset the screen. after a few seconds the screen should've came back on but it never did.

You have a current investigation regarding the touchscreen. i would like to add my complaint to your file. because of the touchscreen failure, i have had the car towed 3 times. "touchscreen unresponsive". without the touchscreen, you can do very little with the car. on or about 2015 i had complained to the service dept. that i thought i had a cracked screen. the cost of repair was not under warranty..ok, i thought i could live with a cosmetic problem but it was not cosmetic. over the past 2 weeks, when i place my hand in the small storage area below the screen, i found a very sticky liquid on my hand. it was fluid leaking from the screen which i was told not to touch because that liquid is considered a carcinogen. i am unable to use this car for fear i will be stuck far away from home and require another tow. i visited the service department in dedham, ma and they were unsure which screen matches my vehicle. the estimated cost for the screen and the mcu would be approx. $2600 incl labor. no one was available to offer me a definitive cost. i was told the warranty for the replacement would be 1 year. perhaps within 2 years i will again have to spend another 2600 for liquid leaking from the screen. please hold tesla accountable. i'm hoping that if the recall is successful, i will be reimbursed for the money spent. there should have been a recall for the headlights. taking any turns at night was a danger. they new it was a problem because later models didn't have this problem. because the touchscreen is not functioning, the picture i am able to provide may not be of much help. the pictures are from the left and right of the screen. screen not working may have to require the 4th tow. this car is dangerous. *tr

My screen and back-up camera both failed and had to be replaced. *tr

Sudden acceleration of the vehicle causing crash. vehicle was in parking lot. failure of the mcu causing blank screen. *tr

Tesla model s master control unit (mcu) had to be replaced 5/27/20. nhtsa is investigating this widespread issue. repair was $1600. vehicle was stationary. please add my dispute with the ongoing probe into this case. *tr

Touchscreen failure. the problem is with the 8gb emmc nand flash memory chip in the nvidia tegra 3 processor. tesla provided free loaner car. replacement media control unit on order for your vehicle. they currently are on a global back order but tesla said they are working with supply chain to prioritize vehicles on site. total for replacement is $1,516.32. *tr

Lost touchscreen entirely which meant i had no turn signals! required trip to tesla to fix. heard you were hearing issues about this. concerned screen will fail once out of warranty. not safe to drive without signals! *tr

Main touchscreen unresponsive or blacked out. no connectivity and error “touchscreen unresponsive”. reboot fixes for about an hour then fails again. happens consistently now every time the car is parked. *tr

Mcu1 with emmc is dead, which causes loss of center screen controls, thus you have no controls over interior defrosting or fogging to keep from having loss of visibility. in addition there is no backup camera. also the car will no longer charge past about 20% leaving you stranded. car was driving down the road when screen went out and would not come back. last august i had to get the screen replaced for 1100.00 now this repair will cost 1600.00 and it comes with another screen. they will not just fix the emmc, p/n that is ordered for the repair includes a new screen that i don't need. i declined to pay for the repair at this time to wait until mcu2 is available, then a few days later my car will no longer even charge. well it charges extremely slow to a maximum of 46 miles. they say the battery and drive unit is fine so guess what, no warranty for anything else for all this.

Touch screen does not work. tesla says mcu must be replaced. *tr

The center media touchscreen (mcu) in my vehicle stopped functioning and several functions ceased working. initially i received a "touchscreen unresponsive" message while driving so when i stopped at a stoplight i attempted to reboot the mcu using the steering wheel controls. the screen started the reboot process but everything that was on including hvac and radio turned off for the remainder of my drive and were inoperable until after the screen was replaced. the touchscreen never turned back on. many functions did not work when the mcu died with the oddest one of all being that i had no turn signal sounds which i think are created by the cars audio system and the mcu. with the loss of the mcu, i lost the use of my backup camera and my hvac which was stuck in an off state so i had to roll down my windows in order to have any airflow in the cabin. thankfully i did not need the forward or rear defroster between when my screen stopped working and it was replaced as both are controlled via the mcu and were unavailable. charging at home was extremely limited and maxed out at very low amperage and i was unable to change the charging amperage due to the inaccessible touchscreen. i did not try a dc fast charger. mobile app control was unavailable so i was not able to use it to adjust my hvac or charging settings. the controls for adjusting the active air suspension were also not available however the car appeared to set itself to a normal ride height. no steering wheel controls (hvac, radio, sunroof, voice commands) worked and my headlights were stuck in auto mode that was the second mcu in my car, previously being replaced about 14 months earlier due to the screen adhesive failing which caused air bubbles to form within the touchscreen. i think the cause of the mcu failure was emmc flash reaching its maximum write lifetime despite the prior replacement. *tr

Occasionally, the vehicle center display has various issues: bluetooth will disconnect, voice commands will stop working, the car won't start when i get in it (the center screen will remain black until i exit the vehicle then shut the door then re-enter it. it has happened twice for me, where i moved my car out of a parking spot, exited the vehicle to check something, then the car was totally unresponsive after getting back in. it took me upwards of 5 minutes to get the vehicle started and out of park and into drive. luckily, i was in a low-traffic parking lot, but if this was a busy area it could have caused a major issue. the center display has been replaced in this vehicle before as well. i am afraid that my car is approaching the inevitable emmc failure where the flash memory wears out after too many write operations. *tr

Mcu1 was yellowing on the outsides and replaced in 2018. car has only been drive 6,000 miles since and the mcu1 does not work and waiting months for it to be replaced. the car is 7 years old and out of warranty and tesla repair center says i have to pay the $2,400 for a replacement of the same mcu1. i am reading about this now that it is a common issue and want this resolved. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/21301676/tesla-nhtsa-touchscreen-failure-investigation-model-s. *tr

The main touchscreen on my 2012 tesla s has stopped working completely- totally blank, resulting in no rearward facing camera, lower charging rates, no control over suspension height or steering stiffness; no a/c, no heat, no sunroof controls, no wifi, no bluetooth and no cellular; no map, no gps. no radio. *tr

A known mcu failure, due to a manufacturing error on the part of the car company, requires multiple replacements of the main electrical control. the failure of this part renders the car inoperable. *tr

Re: nhtsa action number: pe20010 hello i saw that an investigation was opened for the mcu going completely dead. my car was affected (occured feb 21st, 2018 and mcu replaced around march 8th, 2018 at my expense). i would be willing to provide any information needed. thanks

The mcu went out while driving. lost any of the electronic control of the car including back up camera. *tr

Tesla is like a laptop with wheels. if the laptop's hard drive dies, the car won't work. that is what happened to my 2013 tesla model s p85+. the car's main computer had a combination of faulty design in hardware(small emmc memory chip) and software(high frequency logging to emmc memory) resulting the memory chip failed after 120,000 miles of driving. after the failure, the car will no longer drive for more than 23 miles or be charged beyond 23 miles of range. the air condition stopped working, the main control screen stay black. the car will receive no control. the original range is 245 miles. *tr

Vehicle mcu does not have enough storage capability this causing it to fail and need replacement multiple times through the life of the vehicle. this is a known defect in the vehicle and fails at random times making the vehicle inoperable.

The mcu is the main control for everything in this car. it’s not acting as it should, slow or blacks the screen some times and has to be rebooted again.

This is a complaint about a burned out model s in the junkyard. the vin is unavailable because the car is roasted so i have substituted the vin of a different wreck in order to promptly file this urgent complaint. here is the car i am complaining about. https://www.iaai.com/vehicledetails/36655532?rownumber=4 i have attached a close up photograph of the wreck which shows that the steering knuckle has snapped in half. the steering knuckle on these early teslas is made from hollow die cast monkey metal and it is very common for these to snap in half. tesla came out with a slightly improved knuckle in about 2014 but those ones also snapped easily. the current version is much stronger. owners have not been warned about these weak parts. no recall has been issued. more people will die if you do not take action. thank you. [xxx] information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

While moving or still interface/mcu that controls navigation, climate control, audio equipment, etc. runs very slow and sometimes resets itself while underway. this is distracting if it occurs while driving. most recently this occurred while merging onto i95 at night. also, car is now slow to "boot up" on most days to the point i'm sometimes concerned it won't start. finally, recently the car wouldn't accept charge from home charger. a soft reboot of the mcu allowed me to charge. concerned the problem may reoccur when on long trip leaving me stranded. *tr

The screen goes blank often. the computers reboot even while driving. touch screen not responsive. car didn't charge and now the internet connectivity is completely gone. the audio complete cuts out. the radio and also the blinker clicking when the blinkers turn on. tesla attempted to fix by deleting driving history. it boots faster and freeze less but did not solve any problems. the problem happens when the car is parked and needs to boot but also degrades while driving an can have the display go unresponsive during driving. *tr

My touchscreen media control unit (mcu) completely failed. this has resulted in no backup camera, no turn signals, no ability control ac, the seats do not move to previous positions, and worst of all, the car cannot be charged. i live about 350 miles away from the closest service center so i can't even attempt to drive there because it would require charging along the way. the car was perfectly fine aside from being very slow to turn on every day. yesterday morning on going to work 6/26/20 i found the mcu to be black and unable to be turned on with any reboots. i called tesla service, and they are sending a mobile ranger technician but they tell me the car will need to be loaded on a flatbed to be serviced in dallas. this appears to be another emmc memory failure on the early tesla nvidia mcu system. it makes the car unsafe to drive with no turn signals , ac, or rear backup camera. *tr

The center touchscreen on my car failed, and was told by tesla technician it was due to the memory being full. from further investigation it appears that memory became full due to software updates pushed by tesla and log files saved on hard drive by tesla software. when touchscreen failed i lost hvac, stereo, rear view camera, navigation and potentially turn signals (when turn signal stalk was hit the dash did not indicate turn signal was on, but when hazard button was pressed the dash showed the turn signal was on). the touchscreen failed while the car was parked and i was not in it. i got into car one morning and the touchscreen no longer worked. this same touchscreen also had another issue where the adhesive on the screen had melted and leaked under touchscreen. this melted adhesive caused what looked like a bubble around ~70% of the screen. tesla replaced the touchscreen with a remanufactured unit (this must occur at a high enough rate that reman units are available) which cost $1900 to replace. a new touchscreen would have cost me $2400. when i pushed the tesla service facility to cover this failure under warranty they would hear nothing of it, even though both failures were known issues. my car had ~74k miles at the time of failure. *tr

The middle console suddenly blacked out and would not reboot. this restricted drive functions including reverse camera, navigation, air conditioning on a hot summer day, no entertainment in the vehicle. the blackout occurred as i was at a stop sign in a residential neighborhood. i gravely feared the car would simply turn off in traffic as it felt like it was stalling / driving differently. i immediately took my car to a super charger to see if that would help. i was told by a remote tesla operator that the disruption was due to software attempting to update - which, was not prompted as it typically does. completely blindsided by this malfunction, the next day the car would not unlock in the typical fashion by key detection. it also wouldn’t connect to the app to unlock. i again called tesla and they attempted a remote unlock which was unsuccessful. they suggested having the car towed to tesla for a few. fortunately, i was able to unlock the car by double clicking the key fob - why didn’t the tesla agent make that suggestion rather than suggesting an expensive tow?? i ended up paying to replace the mcu. *tr

Touch screen leaking lcd fluid both main display and drivers display. seems like manufacturer defect it also known these touch screens will fail eventually disabling rear view camera. *tr

Screen stopped working. tesla says that the controller board for the screen failed. as a result, car was unable to charge, a/c disabled, no radio, no backup camera, etc. tesla had to replace the controller, at a cost to me of over $2500.

Media control unit failed while in the custody of the dealer after a drive unit failure. the unit began malfunctioning a few days before. the direction indicators and radio were working intermittently with the audio blanking off at 12 second intervals. this coincided with a drive unit failure. the car had to be taken to tesla by a flat bed. we were charged nearly $3000 for the repair. service invoice attached. *tr

Tesla released an update that throttled how fast my car dc charges and reduced my range. i used to be able to start dc charging at 99kw and now it starts at 72kw and taper from there. also i can't charge to 100% now. it stops around 97% and say "calculating remaining time" and after 30-40 minutes stops and says charging complete. my maximum rated range is now 167 miles down from 208 miles. that's a 20%, 40 mile loss of range. i had tesla look at it twice and they say nothing is wrong. last appt they sent me a text on feb 10th and cancelled my appt saying there's no issue. now in the winter i can't make it home to toledo oh from columbus oh a 132 mile trip. real world in the cold you lose 25% range to keeping the battery warm. with tesla capping my range with the update plus the range loss in winter i'm short 10 miles.

Twice my tesla lunged forward accelerating speed when trying to park resulting in accidents. i reported both issues to tesla. first time they denied that happening and the second time this past year they needed additional information. then when i provided the information my emails kept getting bounced back. first incident occurred when parking in a school parking spot with a cement block. as i was slowly driving into the spot the car suddenly accelerated so fast my car went completely over the block and i pulled the steering wheel left to avoid hitting the building in front of me. i remember i kept pumping the brakes and it kept going faster. i clipped the car parked next to me and my car we to into the dirt area and since i pulled the wheel left to avoid the building it continued off the dirt area back onto the parking lot and finally stopped. the entire bottom of my car was damaged from going over the cement block and my whole left side was damaged from scraping along the front bumper of car parked to the left of me. that occurred in spring of 2016. the 2nd occurrence was september 30, 2019. i had paralleled parked in between a golf cart and a car; my car was completely stopped i had my finger on my control to put it into park and once again it lunged forward and i jerked my wheel to the left in order not to hit the golf cart straight ahead. i ended up clipping the golf cart and my right front end got the brunt of it. i have photos if you want them but i need to get help loading them if you need them so contact me if you want them.

In the past year, my car has lost a significant amount of range, and has experienced slower charging speeds. after calling this to the attention of a tesla service center, i was told that there was nothing wrong with my battery and that the reports of a software update that lowered range were rumors. i experienced a 6% decrease in range in a few months. my car was 6 years old and only and 9% battery degredation over that period. in the past 6 months it has lost an additional 6% range now totaling 15%, and that additional range reduction seems to be linked to a software update from tesla. if there is a problem with the battery that may cause a fire, and that is the reason that tesla did indeed roll out a software update to increase safety, tesla should replace the batteries instead of reducing the rage . the most safe thing to do is replace the batteries. i love my car, and i am a big fan of tesla. tesla is very proud of safety in their cars, so they should do the right thing and replace these batteries.

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released ever. after installing a software update 2019.16.x i lost range and the ability to charge the battery at higher rates. before the update, i was charging at 100% to 255 miles on my 85kw battery pack. the original miles were 265 miles when the car was new. of course normal degradation is expected. i currently only get 239 miles on a full charge as appose to 255 miles.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that while attempting to park at approximately 2 mph, the vehicle spontaneously accelerated with the foot on the brake pedal. the contact struck the vehicle in front. the front passenger side of the vehicle was damaged. the police was not present. no injuries were reported. the vehicle was towed to the (tesla, 6692 auto center dr, buena park, ca 90621), where it was determined that it was vehicle operator error. the contact was informed that it may take approximately a week to get the results from the event data recorder. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the vehicle was not repaired. the approximate failure mileage was 30,000.

The lcd screen has bubbles. this is a defective part and hundreds of tesla owners have this issue and care complaining. it doesn't happen until about 5-7 years.

Front right, upper control arm failed on right turn on a flat road. traveling in neighbor streets at <30 mph. no previous accident occurred.

On november 1, 2019, i was slowly braking and start turning right into my driveway on the 2013 tesla model s. i felt a surge of the vehicle and 1 second later, the vehicle landed on top of the staircase of my house entrance and driveway. i did not press on the accelerator at all when i slowly turning into the driveway.the vehicle sped on its own for only a split second. i called tesla roadside assistance. the representative contacted me and direct me to a repair shop and he told me that he would have the vehicle's information to be sent to the engineers to find out what happened. i had my vehicle towed but to repair shop but tesla support team has been ignoring all my calls and email. my vehicle was considered to be total loss by my insurance company.

During normal highway driving the motor mount tabs attaching the electric motor of my 2013 tesla model s sheered off causing the motor to slam against the subframe. the vehicle has under 75,000mi on it now. tesla is calling this a wear and tear issue. a subframe should not be failing from normal wear and tear at under 75,000mi.

I purchased a certified pre-owned tesla model s p85+ with 100,000 miles or 2 years cpo (whichever comes first) and manufacturing warranty unlimited miles or 8 years motor and battery warranty. (this was the note when i placed order -- used cars which receive the remaining battery and drive warranty and a two year, 100,000 miles maximum odometer pre-owned limited warranty) until today i was never given my warranty documents by tesla, still waiting... the car continues to slow charge and lost 50 miles within a year of the purchase however degradation on both issues was done within 4 months of the purchase by manipulating the software without my knowledge/consent. my car charged super fast before at the supercharger (before - from 10 miles to 250 within 50 minutes or from 11 miles to 180 within 25 minutes )until tesla made changes to the car software, - but now it takes me 4+ hours to get from 11 miles to 205. the car won't even charge higher than 205 anymore and when i purchased the car tesla advertised 265 miles epa. i am told tesla service center will not give me the diagnostics report on my car, i will have to request it from "ncds" or get a lawyer... last i checked i paid for the car and i hold the right to know what diagnostics are they running on my car. this is from 1/27/2020 12:30 - 16:43, changing at the i-45 nw freeway sc supercharger. -started charging at 11 miles -finished at 205 miles (not 100%, stopped before) epa 265 - currently 54,299 miles. -under warranty (cpo & manufacturing) can't stay at the supercharging with a year old and a 3 years old toddler (crying, screaming, tantrums, the list goes on.. on a city to city trip and not including nationwide road trips ) to get at least 200 miles 4 hours. we can't even take road trips in tesla anymore, have to borrow a vehicle from parents or a family member to keep the cost down (humiliating)

Nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates. via software updates, tesla, suddenly, inexplicably, reduced maximum voltage of the main battery. the action resulted in instant loss of distance mileage of the car of 12 percent, from 237 miles to 208 miles. horsepower and general performance of the car was also reduced. tesla has implied that this action was taken, for selected tesla cars, out of an abundance of caution as a fire-safety update, but officially no safety recalls related to this unexplained action have been announced. no one associated with tesla has offered any further detailed explanation for this sudden action, which, in addition to reducing performance and distance mileage of the car, has also reduced, overnight, its intrinsic asset value. the results described here happened overnight, while the car was at rest---parked inside a garage.

Tire pressure monitoring system fault light and low tire pressure light on. tesla says the baolong system installed is faulty and failing, and a continental retrofit module is needed. many people have reported this issue. tesla charges over $700 for this fix. if so many people are having issues with this, why not recall it?! tesla says theres no way to reset the sensor. only option is to replace it.

Tesla model s door pops open when you select the doors to unlock. many times, it doesnt even show on the dash board, so you dont know its open unless you notice it or hear noise coming from outside. you go check and thats when you realize it is open. very unsafe. someone can just roll out of the car.

Due to a firmware upgrade that was performed by the dealer when replacing my mcu, my total battery range was reduced from 249 miles to 213 miles initially. through further updates the range increased to 220 miles and this is an acknowledged issue by tesla that should be addressed by battery replacement with a battery that has at least the actual range i had before the update (~250 miles) or better. if the model s 85 battery is a fire risk at the range customers were quoted, this should be a recall because through purchase of a vehicle, the range and safety of the vehicle should be guaranteed simultaneously and not through a firmware upgrade i didn't even request. see service record attached.

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates

On tuesday, december 10, my wife was slowly approaching our garage door waiting for the garage door to open when the car suddenly lurched forward speed such that the car went through the garage door destroying two garage doors, the load bearing column between the two doors. a lolly column inside the garage was broken in two pieces and our other car in the garage was damaged as were other items in the garage. the car eventually stopped when it hit the concrete wall of the garage but two marks on the garage floor indicate the rear drive wheels continued to spin even after hitting the concrete wall. we are the original owners of this car and have driven it for 6 1/2 years so we are very familiar with the car. thankfully, she was not injured.

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updated the battery for the 2013 model s 60kwh 2013 is not charging anywhere near the capacity. charging the battery takes hours to get to near 65% of what use to be full charge and is now considered a 100% charge. this is under warranty and needs to be replaced asap. this has severe impact to daily commute and ability to utilize the car. my understanding is starting with a software update in may 2019, tesla capped the max voltage the high voltage battery would charge to. they claim they did this "out of an abundance of caution" after several non-crash fires happened to these models. tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. this change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary. *dt *bf*jb *bf *tr

The battery for the 2013 model s 60kwh 2013 is not charging anywhere near the capacity. charging the battery takes hours to get to near 65% of what use to be full charge and is now considered a 100% charge. this is under warranty and needs to be replaced asap. this has severe impact to daily commute and ability to utilize the car. my understanding is starting with a software update in may 2019, tesla capped the max voltage the high voltage battery would charge to. they claim they did this "out of an abundance of caution" after several non-crash fires happened to these models. tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. this change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary.

Summary: vehicle tpms has been disabled due to a software revision. tesla released v10 software for model s vehicles. 2012-2014 cars have a legacy tpms system which the previous software allowed the user to reset the tpms, if an error occurred or a different wheel/tire combination was swapped for the season. once the reset button was pressed the system would learn the new sensors and the error would reset. the functionality of the reset button has been removed to accomodate newer cars with a newer, smarter tpms system from continental. this new system simply requires you to start driving, and it auto learns the new sensors. version 10 fails to address the needs of the older cars with the older tpms system. as it stands now, there is no way for the user to reset the tpms, thus owners are driving around with a disabled, federally mandated safety system. tesla has encouraged owners to upgrade older cars to the newer system at significant expense, when all we need is the original functionality of the reset button that was part of the vehicles original configuration.

Tl* the contact owned a 2013 tesla model s. while the contact's husband was making a right turn at an unknown speed, the vehicle failed to stop when the brakes were applied and crashed into a side ditch. the front driver's side air bag deployed with excessive force, causing multiple injuries to the driver. as a result, the driver was pronounced dead at the scene. a police report was filed. the vehicle was towed to an impound lot where it was deemed a total loss. the vehicle was not taken to a dealer for diagnostic testing. the manufacturer was notified and did not assist. the failure mileage was unknown. *dt*dt*dt*dt *tr*dt*dt*jb*dt*jb request for confidential treatment *jb*dt *js*dt

I have a 2013 tesla model s85. three days ago while driving on i 70 between columbus, ohio and indianapolis, in, the car lost power abruptly just 40 miles outside indianapolis. it was towed to the dealer and the problem was identified as a failed drive train. my wife was driving and she could pull off the road safely fortunately, although the regenerative braking in the car does not give you much time to pull over. now looking on line, i see that this is a common occurrence and some drivers have had to change drive trains on multiple occasions. this is a safety concern since it is not easy to pull off the road when the car has regenerative braking. has there been any accidents due to the power train failure? should this be a recall item?

11 days ago, the doors and windows stopped working on my tesla model s. the car was parked, and when i clicked on the "open" button to cause the door handles to extend, i discovered that the driver-side handle no longer opened. in fact, 3 of the 4 doors no longer opened. in addition, after crawling in through the passenger side door, i discovered that the windows no longer opened either. in addition to being a nuisance, this is a serious safety issue for several reasons. first, if the car is in an accident, emergency first responders will not be able to open the door. second, if a driver is approached by law enforcement or another person, he/she cannot open the window to communicate. in fact, earlier this year, a driver perished in a fiery tesla crash. the police were unable to rescue him, because they could not open his door. see https://www.autoblog.com/2019/02/25/fatal-tesla-model-s-crash-fire/. "according to reports, emergency responders and onlookers say they were unable to rescue the driver. the automatically deploying door handles on the outside don't appear to have deployed." apparently there are hundreds if not thousands of tesla cars with this problem. see https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/door-handle-not-functioning for a snapshot. for an example, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4j3beb5nog. i contacted at least 7 different people at tesla, but none of them seemed to view this as a safety hazard. they were more focused on charging me for what they call an "out-of-warranty" event, even though this problem with defective windows and doors has persisted since the very beginning. in fact, i have documented a long list of service failures with this tesla model s. i have over 100 emails outlining these problems, ranging from defective doors/windows to a battery malfunction to more. i can share these upon request.

During all electrical fault failures the vehicle was stationary. i've had 6 service visits related to electrical faults causing mechanical failures. the steering rack failure was the most recent problem. tesla replaced the entire steering rack. the tesla owner's forum and teslamotorsclub.com owners say they've replaced only the steering motor and that 1 part fixes the power steering fault. the electrical charging port failed because of electrical faults. the 12-volt battery has failed twice during the last year. 5 door regulators have been replaced in the front 2 seats due to electrical faults. 3 window regulators have been replaced due to electrical faults. the power steering failed due to an electrical fault. i've paid $6,500 for electrical faults during the last year. the tires i buy are rated to 55,000 miles, but they keep wearing out unevenly, and often blowing out, at less than 30,000 miles. the service center cannot tell me why the tires are continually blowing out and wearing out unevenly after minimal use. i went to a tesla service center for help resetting my touchscreen and installing a firmware update when i was thousands of miles from home. the service center forced me to get nearly $2,000 of new regulators. parts were incorrectly replaced that were not malfunctioning. parts that malfunctioned once or twice were replaced. parts that were replaced the previous month, and were covered under the tesla parts warranty, were replaced again. the battery pack that powers the vehicle instantly lost 50-miles of range, 16% of total available range after visiting a service center. during 5.6-years of ownership, i lost less than 7% of total available range. i paid a $10,000 upgrade for range. i'm concerned it's a fault or that my vehicle was damaged or the battery was replaced with a defective battery without my knowledge.

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates after most recent firmware update (exact date unknown -- sometime late this summer)-- supercharging speed appears to have been limited. it now takes 2-3x the amount of time to charge when traveling. i tested multiple superchargers for my trip which occurred on during the weekend of 9/2. i am fully aware of conditions that can slow the speed (stall sharing, high soc, low/high battery temp, etc). none of these conditions were present -- yet my charge speed was limited during all charging sessions and across multiple locations/dates/times during this trip. i've brought this concern up on 2 separate occasions: 1. 9/5/19 - was told "tested on supercharger and verified vehicle charging at expected rate, no further action required" 2. 10/3/19 - verbally - spoke to mobile service technician while performing service at my house. he did not confirm or deny my charge rate was limited. i am concerned that my battery charge rate is limited due to a fire risk, as the software update was released after cars caught on fire this year.

The driver's door handle (exterior) will not present, which makes it impossible to open the driver's door from the outside. the vehicle is 6 years old with less than 40k miles on it. the tesla customer service rep said this was a known defect, but they are still charging over $400 to fix it. this happened when the car was stationary. i pulled over on the side of the freeway to help someone, and when i tried to get back into my car, the handle would not present and i had to enter from the passenger side which was very dangerous with oncoming traffic. the handle has not worked since. many other tesla owners have reported this problem. door handles are a necessity for all vehicles, and should last a reasonable lifetime for a car. not being able to enter your car is a safety issue.

On or about june 24, 2019, my parked car's software was forcibly updated without my prior knowledge, without any prior notification and without my authorization. this forced software update reduced the nominal capacity of my battery by 16.02%. on june 23, 2019, my 100% state of charge (soc) would charge each cell in my battery pack to 4.2 volts, resulting in a rated range of 256 miles. upon entering my parked car on june 24, i discovered that tesla "capped" the battery such that each cell would only charge to approximately 4.09 volts, resulting in a rated range of 215 miles at a 100% soc, or a rated range loss of 41 miles. they also slowed the charging rate by over 50%. four tesla cars that were parked recently caught fire. after the fourth fire, tesla issued an over the air (ota) software update preventing the full charging (e.g., to 4.2 volts for each cell) of the battery pack, limited the amount of current that can be "pulled" from the battery pack at any one time, resulting in a loss of acceleration. tesla stated the update was "out of an abundance of caution" after the occurrence of several non-crash fires. tesla unilaterally took this action of issuing a "fire-safety update" without informing the car owners of the reason for the update, why said update should be installed and the effect on the car once the update was installed. in my case, the update was forced on my parked car via an ota update on june 23 (or 24) without prior notification to me nor requesting my approval nor informing me of the consequences of installing the update (reduced range, power, etc.), tesla said that they were releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. see, for example: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18627746/tesla-fire-battery-software-update-model-s-x https://jalopnik.com/tesla-is-updating-battery-software-after-a-model-s-catc-1834794877

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates i am an early model tesla owner. i stopped accepting ota updates to my car because i did not like the new features being rolled out. i have found a new story online on tesla that they released an ota update out of an abundance of caution after fires in early tesla models but they do not go into any specifics. after reading forums for other owners i see that there is something going on with our cars that tesla refuses to communicate with us. are we safe or not without the update? also ota updates are not mandatory so if they did do a software update for safety there are probably many others like myself that do not have the latest software update and are no longer safe. i am afraid that my vehicle might catch fire but tesla won't answer these questions and need your help. thanks

On june 27, 2019 i brought my car to a tesla service center for maintainance unrelated to the battery or drive unit. during the visit tesla downloaded a new software revision to my car that immediately limited range, power, charge rate and battery capacity. i noticed this and brought the car back to have the battery checked for damage, not knowing that tesla had purposefully throttled my battery. tesla told me that my car was limited via software because of age and offered no further explanation. i felt this was unacceptable and began to search for the reason tesla would limit my battery. this is when i found out that several tesla's in the age range of mine had spontaneously caught fire and many others had been limited via the same software update as mine. tesla needs to replace these faulty batteries, not limit the use. that is not the appropriate solution.

Starting with a software update in may 2019, tesla capped the max voltage the high voltage battery would charge to. they claim they did this "out of an abundance of caution" after several non-crash fires happened to these models. tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. this change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary. further, tesla has capped the rate of charge at their superchargers resulting in much longer charging times for this vehicle than has been observed before this update. thank you.

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates starting with a software update in may 2019, tesla capped the max voltage the high voltage battery would charge to. they claim they did this "out of an abundance of caution" after several non-crash fires happened to these models. tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap after claiming to be releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. this change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary.

On or about june 24, 2019, my parked car's software was forcibly updated without my prior knowledge, without any prior notification and without my authorization. this forced software update reduced the nominal capacity of my battery from 74 kwh to 68 kwh. on june 23, 2019, my 100% state of charge (soc) would charge each cell in my battery pack to 4.2 volts, resulting in a rated range of 257 miles. upon entering my parked car on june 24, i discovered that tesla "capped" the battery such that each cell would only charge to approximately 4.09 volts, resulting in a rated range of 226 miles at a 100% soc, or a rated range loss of 30-31 miles. four tesla cars that were parked recently caught fire. after the fourth fire, tesla issued an over the air (ota) software update preventing the full charging (e.g., to 4.2 volts for each cell) of the battery pack, limited the amount of current that can be "pulled" from the battery pack at any one time, resulting in a loss of acceleration. tesla stated the update was "out of an abundance of caution" after the occurrence of several non-crash fires. tesla unilaterally took this action of issuing a "fire-safety update" without informing the car owners of the reason for the update, why said update should be installed and the effect on the car once the update was installed. in my case, the update was forced on my parked car via an ota update on june 23 (or 24) without prior notification to me nor requesting my approval nor informing me of the consequences of installing the update (reduced range, power, etc.), tesla said that they were releasing a fire-safety update, but officially no safety update was released. see, for example: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/16/18627746/tesla-fire-battery-software-update-model-s-x https://jalopnik.com/tesla-is-updating-battery-software-after-a-model-s-catc-1834794877

This is in regards to nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates tesla pushed a software update to our cars in april/may of this year that substantially reduces range and power using a voltage cap that also removed about $30,000 worth of paid upgrades to range and horsepower (electric cars need volts for both range and power, so tesla's reduction took substantial value out of the cars affected). tesla claims they downgraded our cars "out of an abundance of caution" after a series of cars caught fire while parked (non-collision, non-physically damaged vehicles, that caught fire for apparently for no reason - some after being unused for several days). tesla initially claimed the update was removing features we paid for "out of an abundance of caution" but now tesla will not tell us whether or not the issue is safety related. this is a critical omission, because there was never any nhtsa recall notice posted, or service bulletin, or otherwise safety related official information. thousands of tesla owners are choosing to skip the update, because it can instantly reduce the value of our cars by half and make them unusable if people bought the range upgrades out of necessity. distances that were able to be driven before the update are impossible afterward. purchases were calculated on this and the range upgrades were made for the additional range the software update removes. please go forward with this investigation. i would like to know: 1) is there a safety issue? 2) does the update address a warranty problem? 3) is my hardware faulty? will it be repaired? why was it reduced? 4) are people that don't connect their car to wireless internet at risk from not being updated?

I experienced a sudden loss of range with 2019.16 software update that tesla release. i no longer have the range or charging speed before the update. this was a purposeful action from tesla due to the potential for the batteries catching fire. tesla took action to downgrade horsepower and range along with all other aspects of performance through a total voltage cap. this in effect has devalued the resell value of my car by removing functions, range and charging speed. this change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary.

On 9/5/19 my mcu (media control unit) (the main computer in my car) died. as a result, i was unable to: 1. manually power off the vehicle and place in tow mode 2. turn on parking lights, turn on/off headlights 3. trigger on/off child protection locks additionally, 1. all heating, cooling, defrost, and defogging was disabled i've read that this is a common issue with model s/x cars on multiple forums including https://teslamotorsclub.com/ & https://forums.tesla.com. i believe the reason is shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-7b1waoj9q. start at 8:40. this is quite worrisome, as it seems as though this failure will happen again in a few years. it was a hot day and not only was it unbearably inside my car, however, more importantly, many of the key safety functions (see above) were also disabled due to this failure.

Door handle problems the handle fails every 6months should be a recall drive train issues

Takata recall : i have my used 2013 tesla model s 85 since last year. and since last year i'm having a big issue with the vibration coming from the break pedal. everytime i use my break there is a abnormal vibrations and this issue was not fix. tesla dublin performed the first service the vibration from the break pedal issue. after a week from the service the vibration is still there. the issue is still on going problem until now. tesla dublin performed four service to fix the vibration from the break pedal issue. i have the invoice for those service. last month april 2019 i make an appointment the available date and time for me is may 17,2019 this month at 2pm. i went there to tell them that the vibration is still there. i spoke to their manager at tesla dublin she and their mechanic denied the vibration issue. they both said the vibration from the break pedal is normal because of the ages of my car. but i told them the last time i was there to do the service with the same issue was february 2019. i need help to get a fair answer from tesla. i want to thank you in advance. please see the picture attached below.

Intermittent loss of electric power steering assist, leaving the steering wheel almost immobile, and very hazardous driving under the wrong circumstances. the problem started after an over-the-air software update from tesla. car has 33k miles on it. tesla service says not their problem, please have it towed here (90 miles) and pay us to look at it. power steering rack itself failed one year ago and was replaced under recall.

The car door handle will malfunction and pop the door open when its not supposed to be. the auto present handles will present themselves and the door will pop open which it shouldnt. my door has actually opened im the middle of traffic before and its not safe. your belongings are supposed to be safe in a car and locked you never know when its going to be open and sometimes does it as youre walking away.

Tesla pushed a silent software update to the car. the update was unsuccessful. the main computer froze leading to the main display screen going black. resetting the computer via the two scroll wheel reset procedure was ineffective. the only other person i know with a 2013 model s experienced the exact same issue the previous day. scenario - when getting into the car to leave it was slow to start, received the message please wait while systems start up. after 20 seconds the car was drive-able and i pulled out. the streaming music service was not working so i switched to a usb device plugged into the car. i arrived at my destination and parked. after about an hour i returned to the car to return home. there was a small delay in the systems starting up but i was able to drive within 15 seconds. i turned on the ac and began heading home. while driving the main screen went blank - this means that i have no ability to control most of the cars functions. i stopped to get a coffee and hoped that letting it "rest" would allow the computer to reset at the next startup. when i returned to the car after approximately 15 minutes i immediately noticed that the car was cool. the ac never turned off while parked due to the computer being hung. i drove home with no system controls. i contacted tesla roadside support and spent half an hour trying to resolve the issue. they told me that there was an update pushed to my car that failed and that i would need to go to the service center to get "a jump" the believe being that there was problem with the 12v battery and the service center would be able to quickly resolve the issue. after waiting at the service center for 45 minutes i was given a loaner while they continued to investigate. 23 hours later i am being told that i need a new computer for $3,000. their update was not backward compatible and broke my computer

It was a 2hr45min drive into work on an icy blizzardy morning, driving my 2013 model s rwd p85 with 90,000mi. have owned this car for 4 yrs. made it to work safely and the last 6 feet in the parking garage, going about 3 mph pulling at a right angle into a parking stall. had brake pedal depressed, shifted my foot to tap on the accelerator to inch forward and next thing you know, car is accelerating full throttle into a cement wall. crashed head on and airbag didn't even deploy. sat for a moment to catch my breath and try to process what happened. sent "bug report" on to tesla central from the car. the dashboard had prnd lit up in red and the vehicle would not go into drive or reverse. accelerator pedal was completely limp. zero resistance. thankfully, no other car was around me. called tesla service and they told us to reboot the car. we did, but accelerator pedal remained completely unresponsive. had to push out of the 5 story garage and tow it to an autobody shop. filed police report. reported to local tesla service center immediately. a few days later, we heard back from the tesla rep that said that report showed no malfunction. according to tesla accelerator went from 0% to 88% suddenly, implying "driver error." yet they also said the brake was tapped and then released prior to impact. this does not jive, why we a person accelerate, tap the brake then release? skid marks from rear tires left on garage floor. tesla won't release data. we do not want to accept this report and this is not what happened during the crash. today the auto body shop informed us that they were curious why the car is not driveable. after being reset, they discovered the accelerator pedal is broken. experience during the crash, combined with very unusual car behavior, and a broken accelerator refute tesla's claim of operator error.

The doors open by themselves!! this can happen at a variety of times, but the most concerning to me is when i open the drivers door, right rear passenger door opens by itself. if i don't notice, i will be driving down the road w/ that door open, multiple times it has been literally swinging open as i go around a corner!!! my children ride in my car in the back and i am concerned that they will fall out of the car!! note, this issue has affected many many many of the tesla model s owners, which you can see by referencing the different forums. in fact, it appears that owners that haven't experience it are hugely in the minority.

Three days ago i parked my vehicle to p/u a dog from the vet thus pulled into a parking space with the tires close to the cement stop. no issue. came outside with the pet and loaded her into the rear seat. started the vehicle, put unit into reverse and backed perhaps 3" when unit stopped moving. pulled forward a few inches and tried again. same. pulled up vehicle info on the it screen to height of vehicle which has air suspension. height showed normal. hit button for max height, same issue. went back into screen and went through the same protocol. this time i could see the units front end rose a few inches. put unit into reverse and unit backed without problem. i kept the height adjustment at that level. yesterday, 2/20/19. i pulled into a parking space and drove vehicle into a parking space without any problem. picked up two order of chinese food weighing about 1 pound. put unit into reverse after seat belts secured. backed out very slowly when all of a sudden there was a loud noise. dismounted from vehicle to find the entire front portion of the unit was lying on the ground. a passerby saw what happened and said "you must have air suspension like i have in my tesla. the same thing happened to me"!! three of us worked 20 minutes or so to reattach the entire front end. had a pedestrian been walking to the vehicles parked next to me they would have been hurt. what is to prevent this from happening when driving? i had an aeronautical engineer with me when this event happened. they were shocked. tesla would not admit there is a safety problem and stated owners should not drive forward to the tire stop. so, we are to let the rear end of the unit hang out 2 to 3 feet in the drive area. there is damage to the fender, hood and front end. this should stop it is a software issue, not operator fault.

1. the liquid crystal display that is the window to the car's soul has started leaking the liquid crystal stuff. the display shows defects and i'm concerned it will fail rendering the car unsafe and unusable. 2. the a/c and the heater11/ quit working and bloggers say it's the dc-dc converter that is a systemic problem. if it fails further it may again render the car unsafe or unusable.

The front passenger door handle presents to open, but will not open the door when pulled. this is the second door for this malfunction.

Fob did not open and toddler is locked inside a hot car for 20 minutes. after several attempts to open the car, we broke the window open to open the door. the fob worked again shortly after. called tesla and they will inspect what happened. however, they will not replace the window.

Reportedly: 2013 tesla model s fatal crash on april 27 2018 about 7:30 pm. three survivors were hospitalized for their injuries. teenagers on their way to prom at a high rate of speed crashed. the now deceased 17-year-old passenger, was in the backseat apparently not wearing a seatbelt, and was ejected and she died 3 days later. butler county sheriffs office is an investigative agency. a search warrant was issued for the airbag module. the crash occurred at millikin road in liberty township, ohio. the teen driver has been charged with vehicular homicide. it seems the driver was at fault, if so needs to be held responsible. however there may be more to the story and others to blame. doesn't tesla have a seatbelt audio and visual warning system for all seats? safety philosophy and crash investigation should include the "swiss cheese model". the psychology of "human factors" needs to also be considered. a vehicle with overhyped safety, snob appeal and massive acceleration can be an elevated temptation to drive recklessly, carelessly, neglectfully and arrogantly. tesla overstating the safety of their vehicles is contributing to reckless driving. a false feeling of invincibility. if possible, please retrieve all data recordings and analyze.

When door handle presents itself, it extends too far so that the car thinks someone is trying to open the door and the car pops open the door by itself. this creates a safety hazard as well as a security issue because the doors do not lock when one is open. this issue occurs whenever the owner approaches the car (causing the handles to present themselves) and whenever the driver puts the car in park (also causing the handles to present themselves). online research shows that many. many owners of early tesla model s cars are experiencing this issue, which seems to relate to a design defect in the first generation of door handles. tesla should issue a recall for all first generation door handles. here is the youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5xain-k2pu&app=desktop

Here is a tesla in the junkyard:https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=28123114&rownumber=85&loadrecent=true the back wheel has fallen off for no good reason. see attached photograph. please note that in the latest fatal tesla crash the back wheel has also fallen off. https://www.journal-news.com/news/local/sheriff-office-outcome-would-have-been-different-prom-night-crash-with-seat-belt-use/v2tpimakdkciff5f4sbwvn/ will you please wake up to this problem. thank you. mightily peeved citizen. which is probably the reason that the car suddenly swerved off the road.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/29160998/photos it has been involved in a major accident and it is highly probable that the occupants have been seriously injured. the lh back wheel has gone extremely whompy . the suspension is quite obviously broken to cause the wheel to be skewed over at such an angle. it is a proven fact that the tesla wheels are quite fragile. it can be seen in the official crash test videos that the alloy wheels break apart which is supposedly because they should break apart rather than breaching the passenger safety cell. since these wheels are fragile it is most unlikely that the suspension broke because of a hard impact to the wheel in the crash event. it is far more likely that the suspension breakage was the cause of the accident rather than just the result of the crash impact. i believe that tesla is being given far too much benefit of the doubt and that these all to frequent crashes are often being caused by mechanical failure of absurdly fragile alloy suspension parts. please investigate. thank you. concerned citizen. date of crash is an approximation.

My steering failed at 27000 miles and 5 years. the failure occurred one week before tesla issued a recall for this issue. the service center says that the recall covers replacing the bolts that fail and not the broken steering rack that occurs because of the failed bolts, so they think that i should pay ~$3000 to repair a known defect and obvious safety hazard. i was lucky that the failure happened when the car was stationary.

Here is yet another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/28761918/photos the back wheel is whompy. how many more examples do you need before you agree with me that these cars are too dangerous to be allowed to remain on the roads? please take immediate action. thank you. endangered citizen.

Tl* the contact owned a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that while stationary with the brake pedal depressed, the vehicle independently accelerated rapidly without warning and crashed into a wall. the air bags deployed. a police report was filed. there were no injuries sustained by the contact. the vehicle was towed and deemed destroyed. a dealer was not contacted. the manufacturer was made aware of the failure. the failure mileage was 40,000.

Sudden unintended acceleration tesla. i drove my tesla from work, driving over 35miles during rush hour of the bay area. when i entered my subdivision, i was driving at 10 mph, pulled into my driveway made 90 degrees turn at 5 mph, applied the brakes. instead of stopping, car sped up at extremely high acceleration. it drove through the garage door, hit maserati parked in the garage, and a motorcycle parked next to it. the maserati trunk was pushed in approx 3 feet, it slid sideways, hit the pillar, smashing driver door and window, slid to the front and hit the motorbike parked next to it. it completely smashed the rear truck, front and side of the maserati. it smashed the front end of the motorcycle. there were fluids front tesla, maserati, and bike all over the garage. the battery in maserati exploded leaking acid all over the garage. we thought the fuel tank in maserati broke. we had to call 911, dozens of personnel showed up including several fire trucks, police cars, ambulance, hazmat among others. they spend over three hours controlling the situation. they had to cut the garage door to pull out the maserati and tesla. it was towed to a storage facility nearby. maserati was declared a total loss. i was completely shaken and have not been able to sleep at all for last three days. what if my kids had been playing in the driveway or in front of the house. after doing some research i found this is not a random instance. there are dozens if not hundreds of similar incidents wherein, when a driver makes a sharp turn into a driveway or garage and applies the brake, rather than slowing down car just decides to speed up like a bullet and goes through the walls or whatever comes its way. i have stopped driving for foreseeable future, i am not going to put my step in another tesla for my safety and safety of others. stay away from this unproven technology for your/others

Tesla.... junkyard... https://www.copart.com/lot/27986168 the usual - suspension fell to bits, wheel fell off. please investigate if you can spare the time. thank you. annoying citizen.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/48517337 the back wheel has fallen off for no good reason. tesla uses cast aluminum for the suspension parts. these parts have very little margin of safety even when brand new. after a few years and with the effects of fatigue and corrosion these parts become even more fragile. owners are under the mistaken belief that these cars are very safe and require very little maintenance. as the fleet of teslas ages the risk of failure becomes even greater than it is already. many countries in which the tesla is sold do not require safety inspections for the first few years. some countries require no annual safety inspections at all. this is a ticking time bomb. please investigate before more lives are lost. thank you. concerned citizen.

Tl the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s equipped with lionhart lh-five tires, size: 245/35/r21 (na). while driving various speeds, the vehicle pulled to the left. the vehicle was taken to an unknown tesla dealer in torrante, ca where it was diagnosed that the replacement tires were faulty. the tires were replaced. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the tire failure mileage varied. the vehicle failure mileage was approximately 107,000. the dot number and vin were not available.

I was backing the car out of my garage when i heard a strange scraping sound. when i looked to see what was up i found that the right rear suspension had collapsed. the car was moving straight back at very low speed in my driveway. i was told by the tow truck technician that the lower control arm had failed.

I was driving my tesla model s early in the morning in a quiet neighborhood when was slowly approaching to four-way stop sign intersection by gradually step on the brake. at the very beginning, i can feel the car decelerated, suddenly there was unintended acceleration that i felt. there was a jerking forward of the car, so i was not able to make a full stop at the stop sign. then the speed drops down significantly, almost to zero. i pressed the flashing light because there was a line of cars behind me and i was in the middle of the road. the car was in almost zero speed, so i tried to move the car to the side of the road and pressed the acceleration pedal a little. the car didn't accelerate, instead, it turned into a stop situation. i realized i lost driving power of this car. i pressed the "p" button, then all four mode letters "p", "n", "r", "d" turned red, blicking. the car stopped close to the curb but partially in the middle of the road. i was able to get out of the car and called tesla roadside assistance. they checked some log and responded with towing service to send the car to the service center. the overall situation could have turned very severe safety issue if ever this happened on the highway, or there was human being walking across the street while i was not able to fully stop the car, neither control it. i am waiting for official service report but the car is confirmed not in drivable condition. and i feel extremely unsafe to drive it now and even not comfortable to drive it after what just happened this morning. the entire drive unit was maintained and changed to a new one in 2015, so its life only about 3 years in this car. plus, i just had the car service at the tesla service center month ago. it is worrisome they can't even prevent such issue and detect it in an early stage, perhaps a design issue to address?

Torklift central sells an "ecohitch" for the tesla model s. unfortunately, they failed to account for the aluminum body--and their hitch is made of steel. galvanic corrosion is powerful and destroys the strength of the body. the post below shows the damage done by an ecohitch in under 3 years: https://forums.teslarati.com/threads/tesla-model-s-hitch-by-torklift-3-year-update-eaten-alive.5227/#post-11321 torklift central's later reply, dated dec 19, 2017, is a major problem. they acknowledge the problem, claim that other teslas have corrosion problems, and that this is, basically, not a big deal. worse, they also wrote this: "this week we will have a simple kit and installation instructions for insulation pads - similar to what you have installed on your tesla model s. we are going to include this kit in all tesla kits moving forward, as well as contact customers who have recently purchased." note the key words, "moving forward" and "recently." this is a gross violation of their obligation to initiate a full recall of every unit they have shipped, in addition to ensuring an inspection of every tesla body to which their ecohitch was attached. i request that your odi immediately contact the firm and advise them of their obligations under fmvss (and other regulations/laws) to both recall the product, and secure the inspections asap. tesla and collision repair associations should also be informed as they are likely to be in a position to both regularly see and inspect affected cars in a far more expedient manner than the manufacturer of the ecohitch. in closing, someone was recommending a similar hitch for a model x. my input is too lengthy to post here, but since many teslas have a 3rd row seating for children, this is a life critical recall. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tow-package-psych.108885/ thank you.

Driver stopped car while pulling into garage with rear wheels on driveway sloping down and away from garage and front wheels just inside garage. vehicle creep mode in off position. car at rest. brake released, and vehicle began rolling backward due to gravity. accelerator applied, and no initial response, car continued to accelerate backward roll speed, so pedal depressed further (tesla vehicle logs show 25-50% pedal travel at this point), at which time drive unit quickly engaged at 25-50% of full acceleration resulting in a sudden unintentional forward acceleration. driver caught by surprise and attempted braking. unfortunately, vehicle impacted freezer unit in garage destroying the freezer and causing significant vehicle structural damage. this set of operating parameters was reproducible and reliably resulted in a short, but notable, delay in pedal response when rolling backward, resulting in further pedal depression, then followed by a sudden acceleration forward, which was short, but, with the potential to be significant when collision hazards exist nearby. the vehicle operating manual contains no warning regarding this situation. tesla was made aware and would only comment that the vehicle did not malfunction. while that may be the case, the vehicle design sets up drivers for accidents that might result in injury and property damage when drivers are not warned of the vehicle's response in this unique operating circumstance. at the very least, it seems, tesla should include a warning to drivers about this situation so that drivers might be ready for sudden accelerations in such instances, or drivers might simply select creep mode on in such situations, which would prevent the sudden acceleration.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=26868872&rownumber=18&loadrecent=true the front and back wheels on the lh side have simply fallen off and the suspension parts have snapped. the suspension has collapsed on all sides of the car probably due to an air leak in the suspension lines or a glitch in the software. the rate at which wheels are falling of teslas is simply ridiculous. please demand a recall. thank you. concerned citizen.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/31421117/photos once again the back wheel and suspension has completely fallen off. no air-bags deployed. no sign of collision damage. suspension has simply snapped off for no good reason. there is a clear trend of defect in the tesla suspensions. if this car was being produced in the same volumes as mainstream car-makers then you would be seeing thousands of cars with wheels fallen off. it is scandalous that this danger is allowed to continue. please act now to protect the public. date of incident is an approximation.

Known defect in a tesla 2013 model s are sliding out door handles. they simply fail to slide out due to poor microchip wire harness install. i believe this is associated in older tesla model s models. it's significant safety issue, because in case of emergency first responders would not be able to open the door and pull someone out. tesla should reach out to all customers who have older models and replace the harness on all door handles.i observed the issue after the vehicle was stationary. after conducting extensive research on line i discovered every person had their door handles go bad, all of them sooner or later. please help motivate tesla to address this serious issue.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/42232387/photos it has been in a rollover. the suspension has collapsed on all four wheels and both back wheels have gone whompy. there is a strong likelihood that the whompy wheels caused the crash rather than being merely the result of it. please investigate the reason that tesla suspensions collapse so often. thank you. concerned citizen etc.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=26175292&rownumber=59&loadrecent=true the front suspension has totally collapsed and the wheels are jammed up in the wheel arches. the wheels are not pointing straight but are skewed in towards each other. no air-bags have deployed. there is no impact damage to the bodywork. this looks like another case of spontaneous collapsing suspension. please investigate. very concerned citizen etc. etc.

I made a left turn on kellogg drive.i ran over some safety dots on the floor. the safety dots was abnormal large in size. both my front and rear wheel ran over many large safety dots. the complete tesla brake function failed and i have no brake. by the time my car stops i was literally sitting on top of safety dots. once i come out of the car i saw that my left rear tire and rims look like is falling out of place. the police campus came and said it looks like your axel was broken. there was no damage to the outer appearance of my tesla only a upper suspension which was damage. i believe the parts was an integrity issue and tesla denies it.

The model s, especially the early ones (2012/2013) are prone to developing a problem where one of the doors will open automatically. this may be caused by moisture/water, since multiple of the reports associate it w/ water. here is just one of the forum threads where you can see multiple owners complaing about the problem: https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/door-opens-itself

My tesla has had multiple issues related to the airbag system. the first issue was that a seatbelt sensor tied into the airbag system failed due to a pinched wire in the seatbelt mechanism, causing the srs/airbag warning light to stay on. to fix this, tesla replaced the seatbelt latching mechanism and charged me for the replacement. shortly after, the warning light came back on. this time, a seat sensor tied into the system failed. tesla has told me that to fix this, the driver's seat must be replaced, and that i must pay for it, a $2500 bill. i was further informed that it would take 4 to 6 weeks to order the seat, during which time the airbag system would remain non-operational. at the moment i am refusing to pay for the seat, so i'm driving around with a disabled airbag system. i feel that tesla should be fixing such defects free of charge.

I have supplied nhtsa with details of many teslas with broken suspensions. this latest one that has just arrived in the wrecking yard is a prime example. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=21270046&itemid=22443933&rowid=7&pagesource=vehicleresults please look at the photographs and see if you agree that there is a real problem with the design and manufacture of these cars. two of the wheels and tires have been badly damaged whilst the car was in motion. it appears that the air suspension has failed causing all wheels to jam up into the wheel wells. owners have reported that the car does not have limit stops and this is why a simple air leak can result in disaster. https://forums.tesla.com/en_au/forum/forums/air-suspension-failure-very-unpleasant-results

Here is a forum post in which an owner of a tesla certified pre owned car reports that he had 4 seized brake caliper pistons. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/4-bent-wheels.75765/ cubldr97, thursday at 6:53 pm i purchased a cpo 2013 model s85 in feb of this year. love the car, but the car seemed to have a wheel out of balance or something that caused the car to vibrate and shudder a bit at 80mph... 19 inch wheels switched out the brand new tires for winter tires, seemed better but still shuddered. winter tires were on for about 4000 miles, had really uneven wear, then put the regular tires back on and had an alignment done, car still shudders, had wheels balanced again, no real improvement. finally got the car looked at today for the shudder, and squeaky suspension. here is what i got in an email... "the technicians are working on your car. the car is need of all 4 wheels. they are significantly bent and a couple of them in more than one spot on the same wheel. the technician also noticed all 4 caliper pistons are seized and the sway bar link has excessive play." this should have been picked up by tesla mechanics before the car was sold there are reports by owners on other threads reporting premature rusting of brake parts. example: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/ouch-first-huge-repair-bill.70396/ it is of concern that these faults are not being detected by tesla service and that in most jurisdictions the tesla fleet is still too young to require annual safety inspections. perhaps this is a factor causing the very large number of salvage teslas showing up that have heavy front end damage please investigate.

Here is a report of a tesla crash at an intersection. http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-gets-wrecked-owner-says-vehicle-saved-his-life-images-owner-testimonial/ the report blames the other driver and credits the tesla with saving the owner from injury. the claim that the hyundai hit the tesla and then rebounded and hit the tesla once more is quite unusual. the photographs are high resolution and if they are blown up and examined close up you can seethe that tip of the steering knuckle is broken off (close up photograph of the actual part -which was purchased by a rebuilder- here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/22799472895/in/album-72157658490111523/ i think it is possible that suspension failures are causing many crashes. the date of the incident is an estimate. the owner says that tesla have been very helpful. "?tesla called my home shortly afterwards saying that they received multiple alarms from the car and wanted to make sure i was ok. they picked up my car free of charge and transported it 50 miles to the nearest service center. they are also arranging a loaner model s. can i ask for more? please note that i am not the owner just a concerned citizen please include this crash in any inquiry into the tesla suspension issue. *tr

Here is a salvage car that has had a severe rear end impact. http://www.copart.com/us/lot/29148486?searchid=342174653 it appears that the drivers seat-back has collapsed. this is not good. "it is estimated that approximately 50,000 rear impact injuries occur per year in the us alone. eleven hundred of these are fatal. another 1,600 are life threatening injuries such as brain damage, burns and paralysis. the problem occurs when a vehicle is struck from the rear at moderate speeds, often between 25 and 32 kilometres per hour, causing the seat back to collapse in front bucket and split back seats. the result creates an avenue which may allow occupants to be ejected even though they are using seat belt restraints. when a seat back collapses, current seat belt systems are rendered virtually useless. this allows the occupant to slide rearward under the seat belt then they are either ejected from the vehicle or forced head first into the rear seat back, exposing them to possible head or spinal injury" can you please investigate whether there is a weakness in the seat-back which is placing drivers at risk of death or injury.

Here is an auction listing of a tesla that has caught fire. http://salvage-bid.com/result.php?vin=[xxx] the pjhotographs show that the lh top ball-joint has pulled out from the steering knuckle. this is not the result of the fire because those parts are solid metal and neither the steering knuckle nor the wishbone have melted. the suspension failure is consistent with the pattern of similar failures that appear to have been the cause of crashes. please investigate this recurring failure information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

Here is another crashed tesla in the junk-yard. http://www.copart.com/us/lot/26133286/photos?searchid=978872155 the front wheel has come off and it has the usual characteristics of a groove worn in the tread and the tire partly peeled off the rim. this is (imho) most likely to have occurred while the car was in motion and before the main impact. it is likely that this was the cause of the crash and not merely the result of the crash. there seem to be far too many similar cases of suspension failure. please investigate. please not that i am not the owner, just a concerned citizen. the reports of number of persons injured are only an estimate based on the severity of the crash.

Complete brake failure. error messages came up on my screen. i was driving inside of my companies parking lot at 5mph. when i tried to drive the car to the dealer to get checked out the car stopped it self. it required tesla to send an update to my car to have it be able to get to the dealer. this happened with 42k miles on the car.

At 45k miles my suspension failed. it required a new control arm and suspension alignment. tesla said "drove vehicle and confirmed noise from front of vehicle. upon inspection found left front upper control arm joint to have excessive freeplay." the individual at tesla said it was no big deal. i was driving the car and heard a crack noise while going down a street. from then on out my car made loud squeaking and cracking noises.

The ventilation in the 3rd row of 1st generation of model s is awful. kids dont like to sit simply because it's too hot and unacceptable even with full a/c on. tesla acknowledged this verbally but wont do anything to fix it.

Panoramic roof has crack on my first generation 2013 tesla model s, which tesla claims to be due to impact with something from outside and my car is safe in garage with nothing over it when this happened. i wondered how can this be possible on a car with 5-star safety rating that roof cracks and it's not covered part of the vehicle warranty program.

Here is a 2013 tesla freshly arrived in the salvage yard. http://www.copart.com/us/lot/24523446?searchid=1172082716 the back rh wheel and suspension is completely torn off the car. there is some impact damage but that is probably the result of the the suspension failure . there are so many examples of this kind of failure in the tesla that it points to there being a design/manufacturing defect. tesla has required some owners to sign non disclosure agreements posters on tesla forums are discouraging owners from reporting these problems and are even alleging that these complaints are fraudulent. my complaints are honest reports with verifiable data to support them. if you require samples of broken suspension parts then all you have to do is visit the salvage auction yards. please investigate the multiple failures of tesla suspensions to save lives.

Another tesla in the salvage yard https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=22102447&rowid=30&pagesource=vehicleresults front suspension completely torn off, no damage forward of the wheel that would account for the damage. the top ball-joint stem has pulled out of the top of the steering knuckle which has a fractured tip. there are far too many of these failures for the relatively small number of these cars that are on the roads please investigate.

Here is another model s for sale as a salvage wreck http://www.copart.com/us/en/lot/24419056?searchid=213897253 the front lh top ball joint has separated from the steering knuckle and there is no collision damage forward of the wheel that would have caused this failure. the car has then caught fire and burned out. this ball joint failure looks very similar to the other 2013 incident which has already been listed on your database. date complaint filed: 04/28/2016date of incident: 04/24/2016component(s): steering , suspensionnhtsa id number: 10862066consumer location: connellsville, pa all products associated with this complaint expand details close help 0 available documents crash:no fire:no number of injuries:0 number of deaths:0 manufacturer: tesla motors, inc. vehicle identification no. (vin): p09340... summary: my front wheel hub assembly came loose from the upper control arm causing a lose of steering. here is a youtube video of that badly worn ball-joint https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgdkzmlzqog there must be many teslas on the roads with these ball-joints ready to fall apart. no warning has been issued to owners. please investigate

I am filing this complaint in the hope that you will be able to see there is a clear pattern of failure in the tesla alloy suspension components. this car has the entire lh back suspension ripped out. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=22060456&rowid=30&pagesource=vehicleresults the only damage to the car is where the wheel has exited through the back bumper. please investigate to prevent loss of innocent lives.

Here is yet another tesla model s for sale as a salvage wreck. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=22060456&rowid=28&pagesource=vehicleresults# the lh rear wheel and suspension have torn outwards through the bodywork. the rh wheel is tilted over at an angle. there is no impact damage that would have caused this. there have been dozens of similar incidents. https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157658490111523/ owners are being asked to sign nda,s in exchange for goodwill payments. the wording of the nda can be interpreted to mean that they should not even report the incident to nhtsa please investigate this matter. *tr

This model s has just arrived at the wrecker's yard. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=22105984&rowid=32&pagesource=vehicleresults# once again the rear suspension has been wrenched off the car without any sign of collision damage that would have caused the failure. the motor has plenty of torque to wrench off the suspension. there is a clear pattern of failure. please investigate.

Here is another tesla with a collapsed front suspension. http://www.copart.com/us/en/lot/21054696?searchid=632075351 the car has not been involved in a collision, the front suspension has simply fallen apart. the front wheel is sliced nearly in half by a broken suspension component. this type of failure can be seen in many accidents involving teslas. please look at the pattern here. the alloy suspension links are weak. the steering-knuckle has been redesigned and made stronger from 2015 onwards but nothing has been done about the older model cars. even the new and stronger suspensions are still snapping off the cars. customers are being forced to sign non disclosure agreements in exchange for goodwill payments. please investigate.

My front wheel hub assembly came loose from the upper control arm causing a lose of steering.

You have a complaint listed for a snapped front suspension ( ref # 10862066) there is a discussion thread here https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/suspension-problem-on-model-s.69204/ which shows a top ball joint that has been corroded so badly that it has popped out of the socket. posters are saying that similar cases have happened in norway and other places that use salt on the roads. the design of the model s allows road dirt to be thrown on to the suspension parts. in the thread there are photographs of teslas with heavy corrosion. it is likely that galvanic corrosion is occurring. aluminium and steel components are in direct contact which will cause corrosion in wet and salty conditions. in northern usa,canada, norway and many other countries salt is used on the roads. this fault was not picked up until it actually fell apart and the service department found that ball joints on both sides of the car needed replacing. this is a danger to owners and to other road users. please investigate.

On 4/15 2016 my wife was driving the car on a one lane road and the "power plant" failed (per the tesla service invoice) and the car immediately lost all power. the care was towed to the service center in rocklin california. there test results states "confirmed rear drive unit will need replacement due to internal failure" a very dangerous situation for the drive when it happens at speed in traffic.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that the rear windows in the vehicle became inoperable. the vehicle was taken to a dealer where it was diagnosed that the window regulator failed and needed to be replaced. the vehicle was not repaired due to the parts not being sold. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the failure mileage was 18,000.

Slowly pulling into a parking spot at a strip mall, i released my foot off of the gas, lightly tapped brake and the car "unintentionally accelerated" into a palm tree in front of a brick pillar at a strip mall. i backed out to assess the damage. husband was witness in driver's seat. this is the 2nd time this happened to me, (last year at a grocery store parking lot) altho the first time no damage was done and no reports were filed. poor decision in hindsight! since no person was injured, the police dept would not take a report. insurance was called as well as tesla. tesla took 6 days to pull logs and assured us it was being taken seriously and escalated to management. we received a call yesterday from tosha at tesla, relaying that they determined that t was driver error and log reports show that as the car was pulling into the spot, it was on a 3 on a scale of 100 and then it accelerated 87% and the brake was applied. does not make logical sense that the car could accelerate 87% in a matter of 2 feet! i am 150% sure i did not hit the accelerator. i am 47, not a 90 yr old woman who may have pedal confusion. this has never happened with any of our other non-tesla cars nor in my 40+ years of driving cars or motorcycles. their response is suspect and we are quite frankly fearful to drive the car safely. this stip mall has lots of people that walk by, esp elderly and the fact that no one or the pillar was hit is a blessing. air bags did not deploy. i will be asking tesla for a written report of their findings but not confident it will be provided. we plan to seek counsel as well esp since this is considered an "at fault accident".

On july 16, 2015 while driving my 2013 model s 60, i made a right hand turn into a parking space in simi valley, california. as i pulled into the space, i took my foot off of the accelerator and applied the breaks. instead of stopping, the car lurched forward over a curb and a berm, stopping when it hit a fire hydrant, propelling it off of its bolts, generating a huge geyser of water. because of the tremendous amount of water gushing over my car, i had no visibility and elected to stay in the car while attempting to dial 911. moments later, a man who had been sitting in the car next to the space where i was attempting to park, opened the back door to ask about my condition. i then exited the car. i was not injured and thank goodness the car had not hit another person or another car. it took a tow truck about 15 minutes to arrive at the scene. all the while the torrential water surged around, under and over my car and now flooded the interior. according to tesla, either the car shorted-out causing all of the windows to roll down or there is a safety feature that causes the windows to roll down if the car perceives it is under water. the man who braved the flood of water from the fire hydrant to check on me saw the entire accident as he was sitting in his car. he said that my break lights were on as my car went over the berm. i have no idea what caused the car to accelerate by itself and i am certain that my foot was on the brake pedal. the next day, i heard from both my insurance company and the body shop that tesla wanted the car at their service center in van nuys. several weeks ago, the claims adjuster called to say that due to the heavy water damage, the car has been “totaled”. i am writing this complaint on the nhtsa's website because i believe there is something terribly wrong with this particular car. also, see nhtsa report of previous 2013 accident.

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that the vehicle suddenly accelerated without warning to its maximum acceleration rate and crashed into five parked vehicles. the driver side of the vehicle was damaged and the air bags did not deploy. there were no injuries. a police report was filed. the vehicle was towed away by aaa. the manufacturer was notified but was unable to advise the contact of the cause of the failure. the failure mileage was 9,021.

This accident report is a previous accident involving the same 2013 tesla model s 60 as reported in the nhtsa report filed on august 24, 2015. on on may 7, 2013 while driving my 2013 model s 60, i pulled into a parking space in thousand oaks, california making a left turn into the spot. as i pulled in, i let my foot off of the accelerator,and applied the break. the car lurched forward, jumping a parking block, then over a curb, and finally into a cement light post. the airbags deployed and i was stunned. i immediately called tesla who sent a qualified tesla tow truck. it took two hours to get the car onto a flat-bed truck because the car lost all power and shut down. it had to be dragged over two parking blocks, sustaining even more damage. tesla sent the car directly to the body shop. i insisted that they run a diagnostic test because i was (and still am) certain that the car accelerated on its own. the van nuys service center rep said that the car had to be repaired first before any diagnostic test could be run. after three weeks i received a letter from tesla. the engineers reported to me that the accelerator was depressed to 48%, seconds before the accident and 98.4% at the time of impact. i still believe that the car accelerated by itself. it is my sincere hope that by reporting this accident (and the subsequent accident on july 16, 2015) further investigations can be conducted before people are seriously injured or worse. my insurance company (farmers) does not intend to investigate. it is less expensive for them to pay for a replacement value than to determine the true cause of this incident. fortunately, you and your agency aspire to a higher purpose.

Timothy devine was killed after driving his vehicle off the road and down the canyon. the tesla started a brushfire that was so bad that 180 firefighters were called in and malibu canyon road was closed for over 9 hours. tang, a spokesman from the highway patrol said that timothy devine was so badly burned he wasn't recognizable as a person and that fire had melted the car down to nothing. was this suicide or driver error? was this known problems with steering, unintended acceleration, brake failure, etc. was this fatal crash, fire and explosions the the fault of the driver and or the fault of the vehicle?

I previously filed a complaint to nhtsa on 9/24/2013 with nhtsa id no. 10545230. i noticed similar issue was reported by 3 or 4 other tesla owners: (1) 9/26/2013 nhtsa id no. 10545488, (2) 9/29/2014 nhtsa no. 10639849, (3) 9/29/2014 nhtsa no. 10639935, and (4) 6/8/2015 nhtsa id no. 10723925. there was another similar case in camarillo ca as reported by ventura county star on 3/29/2013 but apparently was not reported to nhtsa. there were so many similar incidences happened with only a limited number of 2013 and 2014 tesla model s on the road, something is not right with the model s. tesla cannot keep blaming the drivers being at fault.

Left rear suspension integral link completely broke and the attached piece lodged in the inside of the tire rim causing major damage to the tire rim. *tr

Was replacing the left rear wheel and noted an odd "notch" in the left rear suspension aluminum upper control arm. closer inspection revealed that the upper control arm was partially severed with approximately 1/2 of the lower portion cross section, and 1/3 to 1/4 of the upper portion cross section, cut through by the lower shock absorber attachment bolt. it appears that the bolt was mounted backwards, with the sharp tip of the bolt facing forward instead of rearward, at either the factory, or when the powertrain was replaced by the tesla denver service center (as reported by the previous owner). extensive photographs are available and, frankly, they are essential to accurately depict the serious and potentially catastrophic nature of this suspension damage. it would appear that the upper control arm, a major suspension component whose failure would like result in a loss of vehicle control and possibly a rollover accident, was at or near the point of fracture due to the massive loss of cross sectional material from the frequent impacts (on suspension compression) by the much harder/stronger bolt tip. in other words, the bolt tip acted as a lathe, cutting into the suspension control arm with each suspension cycle. in the short term, i strongly recommend an immediate inspection of the tesla model s fleet, beginning with model s's that have had their powertrain lowered and reinstalled, to see how many other model s's have this impending catastrophic defect. while it could happen, i would be highly surprised if this vin was the one and only case of this bolt being installed backwards. in the longer term, i recommend this bolt be redesigned so as to prevent incorrect installation. please feel free to contact me for additional information and for the photographs. *tr

Needed to replace drive motor, 85kw battery in the last 6 months and currently have faulty onboard charger and not able to charge. these frequent charging problems have really annoyed me. tesla service has been really nice and responsive, however, i decided to report these because the issues are beyond what's expected from a new car, let alone a tesla. this is less than reliable for a 1+ yr old car. if it wasn't for the extension of tesla drive train and battery warranty (unlimited miles) these would have been really expensive repairs. *tr

Tesla owners are still reporting that tesla's universal mobile chargers are still a fire hazard. tesla owners are still reporting that new replacement grey faced adapters under the recall are still overheating, melting, failing and burning. tesla owners are still reporting that some of them have not received the new grey faced adapter under the recall. some tesla owners are still reporting overheating, melting, burning and failures with new & old adapters. some customers report they are still using the old adapters that have been recalled because they haven't received the updated new grey faced adapter. the grey faced adapter has not addressed all of the fire hazards with the tesla's umcs. tesla's umcs still are a fire hazard. *tr

The ventilation in the 3rd row is awful in the model s. there have been many people complaining of sick kids throwing up because it's too hot. tesla acknowledged it over a year ago and still hasn't fixed it. we have tried contacting them and have been unable to get a response. *tr

Tesla motors is dangerously misleading the public by falsely advertising it's batteries as "landfill safe" and "non-toxic". the false claims can have grave implications on public safety and the environment. putting batteries in landfills can be a fire hazard as well as a toxic hazard. when tesla batteries are compacted, opened, catch fire and/or explode; toxic materials can be released that are a public hazard and a hazard to the environment... in tesla's emergency response guide, it alludes to tesla batteries containing toxic materials. yet on tesla's blog to the public, they try to portray tesla batteries as non-toxic, green and landfill safe. tesla batteries have heavy metals like nickel and cobalt that can be toxic hazards.... in the tesla blog by [xxx] , he alludes to the batteries having heavy metals like cobalt and nickel. yet claims the batteries are non-toxic. elon musk and other tesla representatives have made similar misleading claims.... a quote from tesla's model s. emergency response guide: "high voltage battery - fire damage a burning or heating battery releases toxic vapors. these vapors include h2so4, oxides of carbon, nickel, aluminum, lithium, copper and cobalt. responders should wear full ppe, including scba and take appropriate measures to protect civilians downwind from the incident.".... by elon musk, co-founder & ceo of tesla motors: "batteries that are not toxic to the environment! i wouldn?t recommend them as a dessert topping, but the tesla motors lithium-ion cells are not classified as hazardous and are landfill safe.".... by [xxx] : "recycling our non-toxic battery packs above and beyond rohs, our lithium ion cells contain no heavy metals, nor any toxic materials.".... information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

Some tesla owners are alleging that there are tesla service bulletins for modifications on tesla's that are being kept secret. ie: some tesla owners are reporting occasional poor brake performance under some circumstances. many tesla owners have reported that brake discs and other brake parts easily become wet, then rust. rusted rotors can cause grabbing, and uneven braking (swerving on brake application). allegedly sometimes rusted parking brakes won't disengage. it seems sometimes brake parts become rusted, sticky and unreliable. when the brake pads become wet, there is poor brake performance with longer stopping distance. there are some tesla owners reporting that there are tesla service bulletins to prevent poor brake performance, by adding dust (splash) guards, replacing rotors and brake pads; yet doing internet searches i haven't been able to find any tesla model s. service bulletins on the brakes. tesla seems to be keeping safety problems like poor braking performance and the related service bulletins secret. allegedly some teslas have been sold without brakes dust shields (splash shields) thus making them more vulnerable to water. tesla's regen braking can be so efficient, that it seems some customer's friction brakes are not being used enough to squeegee away the water or generate enough heat to dry out the brakes. shouldn't service bulletins, especially ones regarding safety be readily available to the general public? automotive manufactures like tesla are dropping the ball. *tr

The umc software "fix" did not fix the problems. charge connectors have continued to overheat, melt and burn. allegedly some of the umc connector to wire welds are insufficient, and a fire hazard, indicating poor manufacturing and poor quality control. some customers claim to have had a dozen or more umcs fail. tesla (elon musk) claimed that new and revised adapters would be mailed out within two weeks, it was about two months before the revised adapters under the recall started to be shipped out. the recall has been slow. customers are alleging that tesla does not keep ownership addresses up to date, so many customers are not getting recall notices or the revised adapters under the recall. tesla (elon musk) claimed that the adapters would contain a thermal fuse to reduce the fire hazard, yet allegedly the revised adapters that have been sent out under the recall don't have thermal fuses. the connectors between the adapter and the module/brick seem to be insufficient and a fire hazard. some customers are reporting that new revised gray adapters issued by the recall are also overheating and melting; even with the software updates that tesla (elon musk) claimed would fix the problems. allegedly the revised gray adapters have higher temperature plastics and improved welds; yet some umcs are continuing to overheat and melt. some of the underlying problems still have not been resolved, that's why the umcs are still a fire hazard. *tr

A stolen tesla crashed in west hollywood, killing the driver. photos seem to suggest that the driver side air bag may not have deployed. allegedly light poles split the car in half. the light poles seem to be the breakaway type. suggesting there may be a structural weakness that allowed the tesla to break in half, fracturing the battery, catching pieces of battery on fire, and exploding battery cells, sending flaming shrapnel through the neighborhood. *tr

Before defective nema-1450 could be replaced, i had a melt-down of the device while charging the car. the reason for writing: letter received today (letter dated 6/27/14) from tesla says they had developed a soft-ware update to prevent this (as well as replacing the part). my incident happened after my software was updated (i'm now 5.11, update was 5.8.4). claims of software protection should be validated. *js

The first reported tesla crash in china, it appears that the drivers steering wheel airbag did not deploy. while china is not in the jurisdiction of nhtsa, the information can be used proactively for safety in the us, instead of being reactive. http://www.carnewschina.com/2014/07/11/first-tesla-crashes-in-china/......updated 07/15/14 *bf

Tesla model s. has problems that with little or no notice the car can quit, leaving the car and occupants stranded dangerously in heavy traffic, sometimes with no lights. allegedly the traction battery, drive unit, contactor, inverter, converter and/or 12 v accessory battery can suddenly fail causing the tesla to quit with little or no warning, then coasting to a stop. allegedly in some cases after the vehicle comes to a stop the 12 v battery and systems will quickly fail, preventing parking lights and hazard lights from being used and preventing the parking brake from being released and preventing the engagement of tow mode thus preventing the vehicle from being pushed or coasted out of dangerous traffic to a safer location. not being able to engage tow mode, it makes towing the vehicle more difficult, time-consuming and risky. *tr

Allegedly the tesla model s. "universal mobile charger" (umc) has an interrupt relay that is only rated 30 amps, on a circuit that carries 40 amps. allegedly some of the umc modules (aka controllers, bricks) have shown signs of overheating. there are concerns this could be a fire hazard. *tr

Some customers are reporting poor friction braking performance after rain, snow or car washes. allegedly there is at least one accident from reduced friction brake effectiveness in wet conditions. many allege that sometimes in wet conditions the friction brakes take several seconds to become effective. *tr

Despite the 14v006000 recall being issued about a month ago, customers are complaining that they have not received a recall notification, so they have been unaware of the fire hazards and only found out about it online after their charge connectors failed after the recall. allegedly on january 9, 2014 tesla ceo elon musk claimed that related recalled tesla model s. adapters would be mailed out within two weeks. yet a month later customers and allegedly even tesla service centers have not received the replacement adapters. the proposed recall as it stands seems to be insufficient because the only hardware that is replaced is the adapter. the connections between the adapter and the umc module are well documented to be the source of many overheating, melting and burning events. these connections should probably be replaced with connectors that are better capable of carrying the high current for long durations. despite tesla trying to portray a software update as a "fix", tesla charge connectors continue to overheat, melt and burn. despite tesla trying to scapegoat house wiring and wall outlets as the problem. there has been and continues to be occurrences of tesla charge connections overheating, melting and burning that house wiring and wall outlets are not the source. there is no doubt that house wiring and wall outlets have been and will be a cause and or factor in some cases, however that should not divert attention away from the faulty tesla charge connections that are a fire hazard. *tr

It is my opinion that, tesla is fraudulently misrepresenting statistics and the safety of its vehicles. it is my opinion, it is false advertising again. after the first tesla battery fire on october 1, 2013: on october 4, 2013 elon musk & tesla motors claimed "you are 5 times more likely to experience a fire in a conventional gasoline car than a tesla!" after the third tesla battery fire on november 19, 2013: on december 23, 2013 tesla motors claimed "tesla vehicle is over five times less likely to experience a fire than the average gasoline car" i think tesla motors is yet again using funky statistics to misrepresent and overstate the safety worthiness of its vehicles. after the third tesla battery fire, tesla was and is still using statistics that seemingly only figured on one tesla battery fire, rather than all three. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla s 985. the contact stated that he was experiencing several failures with the vehicle. there were various shifting issues when using reverse. in addition, unintended acceleration occurred only when driving in extremely cold temperatures. the vehicle was taken to an authorized dealer where the computer system was reprogrammed but the failures recurred. the vehicle was not repaired. the approximate failure mileage was 200. the vin was unavailable. ..updated 04-16-14 *bf updated 04/17/14*lj the consumer stated after the re-flash, he no longer was able to put the vehicle in reverse. updated 05/20/14

Many tesla owners have been alleged having problems with their tesla power plugs and or adapters for their chargers. here is another example. quote:"i plugged in the models today and the power ring turned red. looked at the universal wall connector and it was red. i tried unplugging it and replugging it in and no better. i then took the nema 14-50 adapter off from the cable and this is what i found". *tr

Many tesla owners have alleged having problems with their tesla power plugs and or adapters for their chargers. here is another example. quote: "had a very disturbing incident last night. my model s was charging in my garage when my smoke detector went off. i ran to the garage and saw plumes of smoke coming from the tesla nema 14-50 adapter. the car was still charging! i unplugged the charger from the car and yanked the charger adapter plug from the outlet. the nema 14-50 adapter fused to cord. the adapter had a hole on one side where it was melting. i called tesla and they sent out someone with a new mobile charger and nema 14-50 adapter. i am not sure how i feel about using this adapter again. the breaker never tripped nor did the car generate any error or shut off charging. i had the electrician come out and inspect the outlet. it showed no signs of charring and tested out fine for constant voltage within specs. not sure how i feel about tesla's response at this point. i plan on calling them in the morning." *tr

An individual claims that when he charges at a lower rate, that if the new software detects a problem it increases the charge rate rather than reducing it. if it is true, under some circumstances the update can increase the chance of an overload and fire. it seems in some cases that the tesla safety software update safety "fix" may be creating fire hazards. there may be a glitch, bad programming in the tesla software update. part of the nhtsa campaign number: 14v006000 recall, has a software update that by an allegation might increase current when the software detects a problem when it is charging at a lower charge rate. allegedly in some cases the tesla charger will charge faster than it is set. *tr

Allegedly: a tesla owner awoke to the smell of burning electrical. she called 911. a fire fighter was injured responding to the garage fire. fire investigators suspect that the origin of the fire was the wall socket or the tesla universal mobile connector from the tesla charging system plugged into the wall outlet. i've seen evidence of many of tesla's charging connections fail. even if the connection failed at the wall socket, i wouldn't rule out the tesla design as a cause or a contributing factor. the design of the typical tesla charging configuration puts undue stress on the wall socket, which could contribute to a failure of a wall socket. in my opinion some of the tesla charging connections are not robust enough for the potential currents involved. many of tesla's charge connections are known for producing excessive heat. *tr

Allegedly a tesla owner had a charge plug and adapter overheat and melt, that could have caused a full blown fire. i find this concerning, especially in light of a recent tesla garage fire, that the fire department ruled the tesla charging circuit as a possible source. melted charging adapter/cord last evening my wife and i noticed what smelled like melting plastic. after a thorough investigation we determined that the odor was coming from the charging plug and cordset. after burning my hands and arm removing the plug i pulled the adapter off the cordset and sure enough the innerds had melted down. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/25444-melted-charging-adapter-cord california fire department says tesla model s charging system may have started garage fire http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-garage-fire-2013-12. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that the charging cord became extremely hot and the contact was burned after making contact with the cord. the plastic part of the cord had also melted. the charging cord was disconnected and the manufacturer was made aware of the failure, who advised the contact to call the fire department. the fire department found the charging cord to be defective. the contact filed a complaint with the manufacturer. the failure mileage was 5,500.

I have had a 3 month old model s. there are hundreds of owners who have significant and excessive tire wear in their cars. i have 4,000 miles in my 4 door sedan, and was told by tesla service department to plan on replacing the tires in the next 1k miles, during a recent service appt to fix my moonroof leak. the car has never been raced or driven hard to cause early tire wear. when i asked them to see if their was something wrong with the car, they said to expect this and that it was normal for these cars. if you look at the edmunds long term evaluation of the model s, it also had the same issue at 10k miles, and tesla replaced the tires for free. i have attached their post about their car. http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-tire-wear-post-mortem.html the michelin tires are warranted to 20k miles(on my car) on the pilot ps2 tires. the continental tires in the edmunds car is warranted even longer. if you look at other forums/reviews, there are many people with the same issue. excessive early tire wear can be a hazard to people unsuspecting this. i never would have thought of even checking to see if i needed new tires at 4k miles. if i never checked, my tires will soon be on driving on the bare metal treads with a possible tire blowout. this can pose a serious danger to any unsuspecting driver. maybe with some prodding, tesla needs to look into why a four door passenger car, has such excessive and early tire wear, and fix this problem before people get into serious accidents. *tr

The car was going at about 5 mph going down a short residential driveway. brake was constantly applied. the car suddenly accelerated. it hit a curb and the middle portion of the car landed on a 4.5 ft high vertical retaining wall. the wall is one foot away from the curb. the front portion of the car was hanging up in the air. the car was at about 45 degree up and about 20 degree tilted toward the right side. an engineer from tesla said the record showed the accelerating pedal was stepped on and it accelerated from 18% to 100% in split second. he blamed my wife stepping on the accelerating pedal. but he also said there was a built-in safe-guard that the accelerator couldnot go beyond 92%. the statements are contradictory. if there is a safeguard that the accelerator cannot go beyound 92%, there would be no way that my wife could step on it 100%. there were some mechanical problem that caused the accelerator to accelerate on its own from 18% to 100% in split second. *ln updated 12/30/2013 *js

This is not so much a complaint as it is a question. i had thought about purchasing a tesla and i saw pictures of the recent accident that sparked, literally, a fire -- apparently a front end collision. the excuse from tesla was that a piece of metal pierced the batteries and that will, as i understand it according to tesla, cause a fire. i believe that when nhtsa crash tests these cars, it is into concrete. as most crashes are metal to metal, shouldn't you test, especially this car, by crashing it into another car? *tr

I was at a full stop waiting to turn left into the parking garage. when it was clear of oncoming traffic for me to make the left turn, i released my foot off the brake pedal and the car instantly surged forward very fast and hit another vehicle parked in the front of the garage. this all happened so quickly that i did not have time to avoid the impact. the time of occurrence was in broad daylight at about 6pm pst. i have driven this car for almost 10000 miles prior to the accident and know how to handle the car and understand the torque this car has. i have made thousands upon thousands of stops and starts with this vehicle and this is the first time this has ever happened. there is no other term to describe this other than sudden acceleration. the local police department dispatched an officer and no drugs or alcohol was involved. *js tesla instructed their staff to not communicate with me about this accident. *js

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that while driving various speeds, the steering wheel abnormally tightened as it exhibited an unusual cracking noise. the vehicle was taken to the dealer for diagnosis where it was stated to the contact that the sham and racking pinion nut needed to be replaced. the vehicle was not repaired and the manufacturer was notified. the vin was not available. the approximate failure mileage was 200.

I took delivery of my model s on monday, july 1, 2013. i took the car for a fast drive and i smelled something burning. it was coming through the vents. the smell made me dizzy along with my family members to a point where we had to stop and get out of the car for air and walk it off. why hasn't the government issued a recall on the tesla model s. i called tesla, i was told, do not worry about it, the smell will eventually go away. this is b.s. i paid over $100,000 for a car that i cannot drive for 2 to 3 weeks because of a burning smell that makes everyone in my car dizzy and all tesla does is say, open your windows? go check the tesla forum, everyone is complaining about the smell but tesla will do nothing about it. http://www-origin.teslamotors.com/de_at/forum/forums/burn-smell-new-tesla-s-when-heat i will not give my real contact information because i am afraid of tesla and the ceo coming after me for reporting the company. this is a dangerous problem and unhealthy. *tr

I removed the rear bumper cover from the car to install a trailer hitch. three of the four nuts were not tightened on the right side of the steel bumper cross member. the nuts were loosely started onto the studs. the nuts are located in an area that cannot be inspected without disassembling the rear of the car. i believe this is a serious safety issue as it affects crash crumple zone integrity and protection for the rear facing jump seats in this vehicle. there was no accident and i do no believe there is a design problem. however, there is an assembly quality control issue. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2013 tesla model s. the contact stated that at start-up the media control unit (mcu) malfunctioned. the failure caused the rear camera, heating and air conditioner, gps and web browser to become inoperable and for the battery to become drained. the contact stated no warning light was illuminated. the vehicle was taken to tesla located at 135 us-22, springfield township, nj 07081, to be diagnosed. the contact was informed that the media control unit needed to be replaced. the vehicle was repaired. the manufacturer was informed of failure. the failure mileage was approximately 110,000. *bf*jb

Was supercharging about 7 hours away from home, my screen turned off and would not reboot.. the dreaded mcu failure every tesla owner fears, and every service center pretends does not exist. my car would not power off, as we were at the beach my a/c was on full blast. my car was now driveable with no key, and the doors would not lock whatsoever. anyone with or without a key could just walk up touch the handle and get into my car. i had to stay close to superchargers as my a/c drained the battery heavily. tesla essentially told me they would have to have me take it to a service center which were closed for the next 2 days because a mobile tech would not be able to replace it on spot. so now i get to drive 7 hours home in the most stressful situation of my life. as we got away from the coast and the temperature rapidly dropped i had water pouring off my windshield and down the sides of my car and out of my air vents! it was almost impossible to see and incredibly dangerous. my fiancee had to keep a towel in her lap to wipe the windshield every few seconds. putting the lack of visibility aside and safety of a vehicle thats unable to lock. i had to manually find all tesla superchargers along the route i also had to guesstimate how much charge i would need to make it to the next station which was quite the task due to the high a/c drain. after our last charging stop we had maybe 120 miles to go and i charged to 170ish.. at least 50 more than necessary. there was one point on our trip where we had 16 miles remaining and 17 to go. somehow through a little help from the man above we made it home with a couple miles to spare. it completely astounds me that tesla could just brush off such a horrendous failure of a very well known and documented issue. it's not a chance of if it fails as to a matter of when. stock prices matter more than a customers safety.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

The subject vehicles (sv), model years 2012-2013 tesla model s, are emerging technology electric vehicles using a high voltage battery (hvb) to provide propulsion energy. the hvb uses lithium-ion cells combined in 60 or 85 kwh capacities, and a control system that monitors the hvb and its liquid cooling system. the hvb is positioned across the width of the vehicle between the front and rear wheels and lies above a flat aluminum pan that forms the bottom of the sv's chassis. about two thirds of the svs were manufactured with an air-assisted suspension system that actively controls ride height, including automatically lowering the vehicle at higher speeds.two separate incidents in 2013 resulted in significant fires involving the svs, one in washington (oct. 13) and one in tennessee (nov. 13). both incidents involved active suspension equipped vehicles operating at highway speeds and reduced ride height running over debris in the roadway. in both incidents, the struck objects penetrated the aluminum pan at the forward area of the battery, damaging the lithium ion cells of the hvb. the sv's information display notified the driver of decreased battery performance and ultimately instructed the driver to stop the vehicle. the svs were able to travel ~.8 and 1.8 miles after impact respectively. in both cases, smoke appeared shortly after the vehicle stopped and a fire developed in the hvb. thermal runaway occurred in the hvb cells. the fires destroyed the vehicles but did not result in injuries.in the tennessee incident, the object struck by the sv was determined to be a three-ball hitch that apparently fell from another vehicle. tesla performed a series of tests reconstructing this incident and determined that a similar shaped object contacting the forward edge of the hvb could be "tripped" and potentially penetrate the hvb case. as the object's opposite end digs into the pavement, vehicle momentum causes the object to impart upward force into the case, described by tesla as a "piking effect". tesla's testing reproduced damage similar to that seen in the tennessee incident, and also showed that a change in ride height strategy, which was implemented in nov. 2013 via a telematic software update to prevent the svs lowering at legal roadway speeds, mitigates the risk of battery compartment penetration when a three-ball hitch is struck.the object struck in the washington incident was not identified. more severe damage to the incident vehicle and the unknown shape of the object raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of raising the ride height for objects other than a three-ball hitch. in a mar. 10, 2014 meeting with odi, tesla stated it would conduct a free-of-charge service campaign to modify the svs by adding three new components to the vehicle's undercarriage to protect the hvb. a low-hanging transverse member and an additional underbody plate would be mounted forward of the hvb case and a third plate would overlap the leading edge of the case. testing conducted by tesla demonstrated that these modifications improved protection from debris impacts.odi was aware of two fires stemming from road debris impacts when the investigation began. according to tesla, the sv fleet had accumulated ~90m miles of service at the time it revised the ride height strategy. no further incidents have been identified, and tesla reports the model s fleet has traveled an additional ~90m miles. odi believes impacts with road debris are normal and foreseeable. in this case, tesla's revision of vehicle ride height and addition of increased underbody protection should reduce both the frequency of underbody strikes and the resultant fire risk. a defect trend has not been identified. accordingly, the investigation is closed. the closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that a safety-related defect does not exist, and the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by new circumstances.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On june 22, 2020, the office of defects investigations (odi) opened preliminary evaluation pe20-010 to investigate incidents of media control unit (mcu) failures resulting in loss of rearview camera in model year (my) 2012-2015 tesla model s vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device. emmc nand flash devices have a finite lifespan based upon the number of program/erase (p/e) cycles. the subject mcu allegedly fails prematurely due to memory wear-out of the emmc nand flash. tesla used the same mcu with the tegra 3 processor in approximately 159 thousand 2012-2018 model s and 2016-2018 model x vehicles built by tesla through early-2018. in response to odi's information request (ir) for pe20-010, tesla provided odi with 2,399 complaints and field reports, 7,777 warranty claims, and 4,746 non-warranty claims related to mcu replacements. the data show failure rates over 30 percent in certain build months and accelerating failure trends after 3 to 4 years-in-service.according to tesla, for subject vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device, the emmc nand cell hardware can fail when reaching lifetime wear, for which the emmc controller has no available blocks to recover. with this failure mode, the only recovery available is a replacement of the emmc device, achieved by physical part replacement of either the mcu assembly or visual control module subcomponent. tesla provided the effects of mcu failure on vehicle function which result in loss of rearview/backup camera, loss of hvac (defogging) setting controls (if the hvac status was off status prior to failure.) there is also an impact on the advanced driver assistance support (adas) autopilot system, and turn signal functionality due to the possible loss of audible chimes, driver sensing, and alerts associated with these vehicle functions. there are precedents for addressing defects that result in loss of either backup camera, defogging, or turn signal functions under safety recalls.tesla has implemented certain over-the-air or ota updates to subject vehicles to mitigate the effects of mcu failure. these updates include firmware changes to reduce memory usage of the subject memory card, improve emmc error correction and storage management strategies, changing the control logic for turn signal activation, and defaulting the hvac system to auto (71.6f) for drives after mcu failure to address windshield defogging. tesla indicated that the mcu failures are likely to continue to occur in subject vehicles as vehicles continue to operate and use available memory in the 8gb emmc nand flash memory until 100% of units have failed. this investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis (ea20-003). the voqs associated with the upgrade of this investigation are identified in the attachment to this resume.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On june 22, 2020, the office of defects investigations (odi) opened preliminary evaluation pe20-010 to investigate incidents of media control unit (mcu) failures resulting in loss of rearview camera in model year (my) 2012-2015 tesla model s vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device. emmc nand flash devices have a finite lifespan based upon the number of program/erase (p/e) cycles. the subject mcu allegedly fails prematurely due to memory wear-out of the emmc nand flash. tesla used the same mcu with the tegra 3 processor in approximately 159 thousand 2012-2018 model s and 2016-2018 model x vehicles built by tesla through early-2018. in response to odi's information request (ir) for pe20-010, tesla provided odi with 2,399 complaints and field reports, 7,777 warranty claims, and 4,746 non-warranty claims related to mcu replacements. the data show failure rates over 30 percent in certain build months and accelerating failure trends after 3 to 4 years-in-service.according to tesla, for subject vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device, the emmc nand cell hardware can fail when reaching lifetime wear, for which the emmc controller has no available blocks to recover. with this failure mode, the only recovery available is a replacement of the emmc device, achieved by physical part replacement of either the mcu assembly or visual control module subcomponent. tesla provided the effects of mcu failure on vehicle function which result in loss of rearview/backup camera, loss of hvac (defogging) setting controls (if the hvac status was off status prior to failure.) there is also an impact on the advanced driver assistance support (adas), autopilot system, and turn signal functionality due to the possible loss of audible chimes, driver sensing, and alerts associated with these vehicle functions. there are precedents for addressing defects that result in loss of either backup camera, defogging, or turn signal functions under safety recalls.tesla has implemented certain over-the-air or ota updates to subject vehicles to mitigate the effects of mcu failure. these updates include firmware changes to reduce memory usage of the subject memory card, improve emmc error correction and storage management strategies, changing the control logic for turn signal activation, and defaulting the hvac system to auto (71.6f) for drives after mcu failure to address windshield defogging. tesla indicated that the mcu failures are likely to continue to occur in subject vehicles as vehicles continue to operate and use available memory in the 8gb emmc nand flash memory until 100% of units have failed. an engineering analysis has been opened to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.the voqs associated with the opening of this investigation are in the attachment to this resume.

On june 22, 2020, the office of defects investigations (odi) opened preliminary evaluation pe20-010 to investigate incidents of media control unit (mcu) failures resulting in loss of rearview camera in model year (my) 2012-2015 tesla model s vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device. emmc nand flash devices have a finite lifespan based upon the number of program/erase (p/e) cycles. the subject mcu allegedly fails prematurely due to memory wear-out of the emmc nand flash. tesla used the same mcu with the tegra 3 processor in approximately 159 thousand 2012-2018 model s and 2016-2018 model x vehicles built by tesla through early-2018. in response to odi's information request (ir) for pe20-010, tesla provided odi with 2,399 complaints and field reports, 7,777 warranty claims, and 4,746 non-warranty claims related to mcu replacements. the data show failure rates over 30 percent in certain build months and accelerating failure trends after 3 to 4 years-in-service.according to tesla, for subject vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device, the emmc nand cell hardware can fail when reaching lifetime wear, for which the emmc controller has no available blocks to recover. with this failure mode, the only recovery available is a replacement of the emmc device, achieved by physical part replacement of either the mcu assembly or visual control module subcomponent. tesla provided the effects of mcu failure on vehicle function which result in loss of rearview/backup camera, loss of hvac (defogging) setting controls (if the hvac status was off status prior to failure.) there is also an impact on the advanced driver assistance support (adas), autopilot system, and turn signal functionality due to the possible loss of audible chimes, driver sensing, and alerts associated with these vehicle functions. there are precedents for addressing defects that result in loss of either backup camera, defogging, or turn signal functions under safety recalls.tesla has implemented certain over-the-air or ota updates to subject vehicles to mitigate the effects of mcu failure. these updates include firmware changes to reduce memory usage of the subject memory card, improve emmc error correction and storage management strategies, changing the control logic for turn signal activation, and defaulting the hvac system to auto (71.6f) for drives after mcu failure to address windshield defogging. tesla indicated that the mcu failures are likely to continue to occur in subject vehicles as vehicles continue to operate and use available memory in the 8gb emmc nand flash memory until 100% of units have failed. an engineering analysis has been opened to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.the voqs associated with the opening of this investigation are in the attachment to this resume.

On june 22, 2020, the office of defects investigations (odi) opened preliminary evaluation pe20-010 to investigate incidents of media control unit (mcu) failures resulting in loss of rearview camera in model year (my) 2012-2015 tesla model s vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device. emmc nand flash devices have a finite lifespan based upon the number of program/erase (p/e) cycles. the subject mcu allegedly fails prematurely due to memory wear-out of the emmc nand flash. tesla used the same mcu with the tegra 3 processor in approximately 159 thousand 2012-2018 model s and 2016-2018 model x vehicles built by tesla through early-2018. in response to odi's information request (ir) for pe20-010, tesla provided odi with 2,399 complaints and field reports, 7,777 warranty claims, and 4,746 non-warranty claims related to mcu replacements. the data show failure rates over 30 percent in certain build months and accelerating failure trends after 3 to 4 years-in-service.according to tesla, for subject vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device, the emmc nand cell hardware can fail when reaching lifetime wear, for which the emmc controller has no available blocks to recover. with this failure mode, the only recovery available is a replacement of the emmc device, achieved by physical part replacement of either the mcu assembly or visual control module subcomponent. tesla provided the effects of mcu failure on vehicle function which result in loss of rearview/backup camera, loss of hvac (defogging) setting controls (if the hvac status was off status prior to failure.) there is also an impact on the advanced driver assistance support (adas), autopilot system, and turn signal functionality due to the possible loss of audible chimes, driver sensing, and alerts associated with these vehicle functions. there are precedents for addressing defects that result in loss of either backup camera, defogging, or turn signal functions under safety recalls.tesla has implemented certain over-the-air or ota updates to subject vehicles to mitigate the effects of mcu failure. these updates include firmware changes to reduce memory usage of the subject memory card, improve emmc error correction and storage management strategies, changing the control logic for turn signal activation, and defaulting the hvac system to auto (71.6f) for drives after mcu failure to address windshield defogging. tesla indicated that the mcu failures are likely to continue to occur in subject vehicles as vehicles continue to operate and use available memory in the 8gb emmc nand flash memory until 100% of units have failed. an engineering analysis has been opened to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.the voqs associated with the opening of this investigation are in the attachment to this resume.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On june 22, 2020, the office of defects investigations (odi) opened preliminary evaluation pe20-010 to investigate incidents of media control unit (mcu) failures resulting in loss of rearview camera in model year (my) 2012-2015 tesla model s vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device. emmc nand flash devices have a finite lifespan based upon the number of program/erase (p/e) cycles. the subject mcu allegedly fails prematurely due to memory wear-out of the emmc nand flash. tesla used the same mcu with the tegra 3 processor in approximately 159 thousand 2012-2018 model s and 2016-2018 model x vehicles built by tesla through early-2018. in response to odi's information request (ir) for pe20-010, tesla provided odi with 2,399 complaints and field reports, 7,777 warranty claims, and 4,746 non-warranty claims related to mcu replacements. the data show failure rates over 30 percent in certain build months and accelerating failure trends after 3 to 4 years-in-service.according to tesla, for subject vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device, the emmc nand cell hardware can fail when reaching lifetime wear, for which the emmc controller has no available blocks to recover. with this failure mode, the only recovery available is a replacement of the emmc device, achieved by physical part replacement of either the mcu assembly or visual control module subcomponent. tesla provided the effects of mcu failure on vehicle function which result in loss of rearview/backup camera, loss of hvac (defogging) setting controls (if the hvac status was off status prior to failure.) there is also an impact on the advanced driver assistance support (adas), autopilot system, and turn signal functionality due to the possible loss of audible chimes, driver sensing, and alerts associated with these vehicle functions. there are precedents for addressing defects that result in loss of either backup camera, defogging, or turn signal functions under safety recalls.tesla has implemented certain over-the-air or ota updates to subject vehicles to mitigate the effects of mcu failure. these updates include firmware changes to reduce memory usage of the subject memory card, improve emmc error correction and storage management strategies, changing the control logic for turn signal activation, and defaulting the hvac system to auto (71.6f) for drives after mcu failure to address windshield defogging. tesla indicated that the mcu failures are likely to continue to occur in subject vehicles as vehicles continue to operate and use available memory in the 8gb emmc nand flash memory until 100% of units have failed. an engineering analysis has been opened to further assess the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequences of the alleged defect.the voqs associated with the opening of this investigation are in the attachment to this resume.

On june 22, 2020, the office of defects investigations (odi) opened preliminary evaluation pe20-010 to investigate incidents of media control unit (mcu) failures resulting in loss of rearview camera in model year (my) 2012-2015 tesla model s vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device. emmc nand flash devices have a finite lifespan based upon the number of program/erase (p/e) cycles. the subject mcu allegedly fails prematurely due to memory wear-out of the emmc nand flash. tesla used the same mcu with the tegra 3 processor in approximately 159 thousand 2012-2018 model s and 2016-2018 model x vehicles built by tesla through early-2018. in response to odi's information request (ir) for pe20-010, tesla provided odi with 2,399 complaints and field reports, 7,777 warranty claims, and 4,746 non-warranty claims related to mcu replacements. the data show failure rates over 30 percent in certain build months and accelerating failure trends after 3 to 4 years-in-service.according to tesla, for subject vehicles equipped with the nvidia tegra 3 processor with an integrated 8gb emmc nand flash memory device, the emmc nand cell hardware can fail when reaching lifetime wear, for which the emmc controller has no available blocks to recover. with this failure mode, the only recovery available is a replacement of the emmc device, achieved by physical part replacement of either the mcu assembly or visual control module subcomponent. tesla provided the effects of mcu failure on vehicle function which result in loss of rearview/backup camera, loss of hvac (defogging) setting controls (if the hvac status was off status prior to failure.) there is also an impact on the advanced driver assistance support (adas) autopilot system, and turn signal functionality due to the possible loss of audible chimes, driver sensing, and alerts associated with these vehicle functions. there are precedents for addressing defects that result in loss of either backup camera, defogging, or turn signal functions under safety recalls.tesla has implemented certain over-the-air or ota updates to subject vehicles to mitigate the effects of mcu failure. these updates include firmware changes to reduce memory usage of the subject memory card, improve emmc error correction and storage management strategies, changing the control logic for turn signal activation, and defaulting the hvac system to auto (71.6f) for drives after mcu failure to address windshield defogging. tesla indicated that the mcu failures are likely to continue to occur in subject vehicles as vehicles continue to operate and use available memory in the 8gb emmc nand flash memory until 100% of units have failed. this investigation has been upgraded to an engineering analysis (ea20-003). the voqs associated with the upgrade of this investigation are identified in the attachment to this resume.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On september 19, 2019, the office of defects investigation (odi) received a defect petition dated september 17, 2019, requesting that nhtsa initiate a defect investigation of certain tesla model s and model x vehicles that received revised battery management software in one or more over-the-air (ota) updates from tesla, beginning in may 2019. the petitioner alleges that the software updates were in response to a potential defect that could result in non-crash fires in the affected battery packs and that tesla should have notified nhtsa of the existence of this potential defect and conducted a safety recall. the petitioner also alleges that this software update reduces the driving range of the affected vehicles.a copy of the petition will be added to the public file for this defect petition and odi will evaluate the petitioner's allegations to determine if the petition should be granted or denied. the following voq numbers are associated with the issues discussed in this resume:11254112, 11246771, 11246770, 11243758.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into sua in the subject vehicles. in every instance in which event data was available for review by odi, the evidence shows that sua crashes in the complaints cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. there is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the cited incidents. there is no evidence of a design factor contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. the theory provided of a potential electronic cause of sua in the subject vehicles is based upon inaccurate assumptions about system design and log data.nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency’s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. §§ 30102(a)(9), 30118. since the information before the agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. the denial of this petition does not foreclose the agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.the reference numbers for the complaints to nhtsa cited by the petitioner can be found in the petition submission documents in the public file for dp20-001. those complaints and the 14 complaints odi added to its evaluation can be viewed at nhtsa.gov. the reference numbers for the complaints added by odi are: 11385350, 11383955, 11383233, 11383180, 11378492, 11378458, 11302076, 11299698, 11290006, 11190595, 11174504, 11115496, 11096644 and 11000097. the attached report, further detailing nhtsa’s reasons for denial of the petition, will be published in the federal register.

On december 19, 2019, nhtsa received a petition from mr. brian sparks requesting that the agency "recall all [tesla] model s, model x, and model 3 vehicles produced from 2013 to the present" due to sudden unintended acceleration (sua). in his petition and follow-up submissions, the petitioner identified a total of 232 non-duplicative complaints to nhtsa, including 203 reporting crashes. on january 13, 2020, nhtsa's office of defects investigation (odi) opened defect petition dp20-001 to evaluate the petitioner’s request. odi's evaluation included reviews of all complaints and supporting information referenced by the petitioner, as well as 14 additional complaints to nhtsa related to sua crash allegations that were either not selected by the petitioner or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission. the review also included analyses of available crash data (edr, tesla log data, and/or video data) the agency acquired as part of the evaluation.after reviewing the available data, odi has not identified evidence that would support opening a defect investigation into