Tesla Cybertruck, a paragon of reliability, recalled again The Tesla Cybertruck is closing in on an average of a recall every two months this year, as it notified the NHTSA last week of a sixth fix that can't be software patched away. Tesla has informed [PDF] the NHTSA of its sixth recall of the year on Musk's steel behemoth, this time due to faulty components in the vehicle's drive …
Or perhaps Musk's undoing was ignoring his electrical engineering staff and allowing users to pay extra to lift sensible performance limits even further?
I wonder how many of the affected customers were using "ludicrous mode" or whatever he calls it...
You can over-engineer something and have a few people pay extra to make use of it, or you could let them pay even more to er, reduce the reliability of the product they bought
In any case, Nelson Muntz icon required. Both for Musk and his cultists customers
"A car which didn't require recalls would obviously have been over-engineered, and that's just leaving money on the table."
There's a difference between over-engineering something and building it properly. There's also a place for installing some extra margin. If you shave a component to the absolute minimums and if it's something buried deep and difficult to service, that can consume the entire profit margin on the vehicle to fix under warranty. If that happens a lot due to trying to save a bit of money, that's an even bigger issue.
The "optics" are, the Cybertruck has a bizarre-looking, yet visually-striking exterior design. People feel compelled to look at it (if only to stare and ask, "WTF?!").
That is why people buy those things: they want the attention, actual usefulness, quality, reliability, and pricetag be damned.
...for those living in the USA, you can look forward to more of this bestest ever build quality as the import duties ramp up making everything more expensive, so even more corners will be cut in the name of revenue and growth.
Even better for you all, this fine example of quality control will no longer result in recalls, as all safety laws will be removed in the name of efficiency.
Sales don't go up or down based on stock price.
FWIW I bought $10K worth of May puts at 225 just after the market opened on Tuesday because I thought Tesla had become pretty overbought just on "Elon close to the White House" sentiment. I'm up a little bit as of this writing but I'm going to hold onto them until they are either up 100% (when I'll sell half to lock in a break even) or down 50% (where I'll sell the rest and eat the loss) If they go up and I sell half then I start the clock again and wait for it to double again and then sell another half or take the loss (but overall gain) if it drops 50% from that point.
I'm basing this "bet" mainly on Elon having way too big of an ego for Trump to tolerate being close enough to share in the limelight for too long. I have the over/under on their relationship fracturing as about 60 days.
Of course, I'm aware that the correlation is usually the other way round, but I think there are also a certain amount of "affinity customers" who buy stuff from people they admire; I think this bound to be the case for the Muskmobile, though this is also increased by some astute financial inducements. How else do you explain Cybertruck sales
And, it works in the other way as well: if a company's stock starts to tank, it can find itself losing customers, cf. Intel's recent developments.
"So then those unfixed because they weren't recalled Cybertrucks will break down and word will get out about how shit they are and sales will collapse."
Good thought. If they are going to do it anyway, Tesla should get on it straight away before the holidays and people are giving friends and family rides in their wankmobile. It would look bad to have to pull over and call a taxi to get everybody home again.
"Orange steel (rust)"
That's a thing. Weathering Steel. Designed to rust leaving a protective layer on the outer surface but not rust through.
There's a rather large example near where I live that has survived more or less maintenance free for the last 26 or so years. It's almost as attractive as a Cybertruck too.
what sort of electric motors Teslæ use? Prompted by the mention of an inverter (with dodgy power MOSFETs.)
I would have thought some type of brushless DC motor (with electronic commutation) which would I imagine would also require MOSFETs for switching (preferably the non dodgy sort.)
Turns out the Tesla motors are three phase (AC) induction motors hence the inverter.
Good old AC machine engineering. Regeneratively the motors presumably generate 3 phase AC which has to be rectified to charge the battery - presumably some switch mode affair.
And Linus Torvalds was spruiking how much simpler EVs were compared to ICEs. (He probably shouldn't give up his day job for auto mechanic or electrician. ;)
The go-faster pedal on a 1970s vehicle was pretty much a mechanical link to the carburettor and in the lower gears a few stabs of the pedal would normally result in a fairly decent imitation of a startled rabbit. The intelligent use of the accelerator can usually get you out of far more trouble than the instinctive application of the brake.
The complexity of internal combustion engine vehicles comes from trying to get the power from the central point where it's generated to the wheels. Add in steering and front wheel drive and you get a lot of mechanical complexity to manage the suspension and variation in velocity while the vehicle is moving.
EVs can put the motors in the wheels, which seems to remove the majority of this complexity.
I think this is where the idea that evs are more simple comes from. That and the fact that traditional cars still need the majority of the electrical systems that an EV has whereas an EV can remove all the internal combusion engine supporting bits.
So are you really saying that converting AC to DC is as complex as distributing rotation through a mechanical system? Can't you just plug the converter in? ;-P
But of course, when discussing simple engineering one always thinks of the Rolls Royce, which is the Volkswagen Beetle of simple cars.
I was hoping to actually get some sensible explaination of where the complexity comes from in EVs but never mind....
A basic ICE vehicle with all it's electrical, mechanical & vacuum connections plus gearbox of similar complexity requires a very involved manufacturing* process while the basic electric car setup of battery powered electric motor connected to an axle is so simple it’s included in lego kits for small children.
However, for EV vehicles several thousand batteries are wired together with multiple sensors for charge state, temperature & anything else that may be needed to prevent a multitude of fire risks plus a power delivery & recovery system that was the preserve of formula one only a decade ago so all this matches the complexity of any ICE vehicle for problem opportunities.
The equivalence of (utterly) basic build complexity can be seen prior to WW1 by manufacturers offering not only ICE but electric & also steam powered vehicles. It was the dramatic improvement** in ICE during WW1 for aero engines that killed electric as a viable option, without the mid century wars there's a reasonable chance battery technology may well have kept pace with much slower ICE improvements.
*Engine and gearbox building requires extreme accuracy for thousands of moving parts > expensive
**Power output for a given engine capacity & reliability - ICE cars going faster & further between the application of spanners.
"However, for EV vehicles several thousand batteries are wired together with multiple sensors for charge state, temperature & anything else that may be needed to prevent a multitude of fire risks plus a power delivery & recovery system that was the preserve of formula one only a decade ago so all this matches the complexity of any ICE vehicle for problem opportunities."
The T-Zero was thousands of laptop cells, but most non-tesla vehicles use hundreds of cells rather than thousands. The Cybertruck uses something around 1,300. A bit of redundancy is fine, but the complexity of wiring up heaps of cylindrical cells is a waste. While a cell going bad in a pack with fewer cells overall can mean a bigger hit, if the pack is designed to be serviced, it's not a bad approach. Fewer cells can mean fewer chances of one going bad. Cell manufacturers are way up on the learning curve now when it come to manufacture. LG had an issue with separators being folded a bit which caused some fires with the Chevy Bolt, but they did eventually figure out what was going on and have an inspection process that will find that in QC. It was frustratingly rare which made it really hard to pin down. I know I hate intermittent problems. I like things that are well and truly broken with maybe a soot mark to show which component has lost its magic smoke.
"Engine and gearbox building requires extreme accuracy for thousands of moving parts"
Not thousands. In fact, it's fewer than 150 for the motor+trans in my 'late '70 Ford, and the bulk of those of those are in the valve train.
The basic, common or garden V8 engine has about (1 crank)+(8 rods)+(8 pistons)+(1 cam)+(16 lifters) +(16 pushrods)+(16 rockers)+(16 valves)+(1 timing chain)+(2 timing gears)+(1 distributor drive shaft)+(1 oil pump drive)+(2 oil pump gears). That's under 90 moving parts.
Small other "moving" parts inside the engine include the oil pressure relief spring and ball, a couple of keys/keepers, etc., all of which can be done away with one way or another. I consider the ignition system and fuel delivery system as being external to the engine. (So can lubrication delivery, but that adds complexity, so ...). Crank and cam bearings are not moving parts (hopefully!), they are part of the block. Rod bearings are moving, but are fixed with respect to the rod so I consider them part of the rod; likewise piston rings, pins and any keepers. The timing chain has many, many parts in the links, but most people I consider it one part.
Gearboxes are less complex ... a typical Ford toploader has fewer than 60 moving parts.
"EVs can put the motors in the wheels, which seems to remove the majority of this complexity."
That leads to a lot of "unsprung mass" which affects a lot of things in the handling and wear. It's also more complex since mechanical brakes still need to be fitted, HV power distribution and more. For an electric bicycle, it's great. It's fun for a cart that runs on disused rail lines. For a much heavier passenger car it creates more problems than it solves. Most EV motors have a gear reduction so the motor spins at a higher RPM where it can be more efficient. That's more difficult to fit in a wheel motor x4.
"which would I imagine would also require MOSFETs for switching"
There's probably MOSFETs on every single PCB in the car. MOSFETs are usually reliable electronic components, so the question is, what dodgy Manufacturer did they buy there's from? Or is the real issue that there's a design fault and they're thermal stressing them.
"Or is the real issue that there's a design fault and they're thermal stressing them."
Way back in my early years Yamaha had a professional switching amplifier whose assembly line was stripping/crossthreading screws that mounted the power mosfets to the heat sinks. They were just a hair off of the Aluminum and would go bang. A shop I worked for had a contract with Yamaha and we repaired heaps of them. The problem was that I'd have to remove a load of screws and sort of expand the structure to get at the mosfets and the gate resistors which would also have to be replaced. There wasn't an easy way to just remove a piece or two of the chassis. It never took less than about 80 minutes to repair one due to the complexity.
Turns out the Tesla motors are three phase (AC) induction motors hence the inverter.Good old AC machine engineering
Imagine naming an electric car company "Tesla", whose hallmark feature are its AC motors - after an inventor famous for advancing the art of alternating current production, distribution and usage...
...loses the ability to apply torque, they will immediately receive a visual alert
Autopilot. The driver may be otherwise engaged and not looking at the road or the instrument panel.
... an instruction to safely pull over the vehicle to the side of the road
Presumably this will integrate into Autopilot. The driver occupant of the vehicle may be confused as to why it is suddenly safely pulling to the side of the road (or wake up with the truck standing on the side of the road already) (or wake up dead).
"Aluminium frame has failed in towing."
The Whislindiesel video was extreme, but it's not uncommon to bang the trailer hitch on the ground on a steep drive. I'm guessing that before he tried to drag the other truck, an upward impact on the hitch cracked the cast aluminum structure. Forged might have done better, but steel has a lot more give and that's what should have been the underpinning of the trailer hitch. I have to wonder if the engineers concentrated on stresses from a straight pull and tongue weight but didn't think to consider an upward impact.
"when the driver loses the ability to apply torque, they will immediately receive a visual alert on the user interface, with an instruction to safely pull over the vehicle to the side of the road"
Whether that's actually possible is of course outside the realm of the manufacturer's responsibility, but in the absence of torque (i.e. drive to the wheels) it seems unlikely.
Instead of "when the driver loses the ability to apply torque", read "When the motor dies".
Makes more sense.
Note that when the motor dies, the car will continue to coast for a fair distance. Hopefully the steering and brakes still work in such a situation.
Note that the last thing a driver should be doing if this happens is searching the display(s) for information on what to do ...
"Note that when the motor dies, the car will continue to coast for a fair distance. Hopefully the steering and brakes still work in such a situation."
If the mosfets fail shorted, will the vehicle coast?
I expect the steering to work, but braking will be strictly mechanical if the motor drive electronics are dead.
"The alternative is wheel lockup, which on a freeway at 80+ MPH would put many people behind the vehicle in extreme danger."
It might be a rather brief short at highway speeds with those mosfets being blown apart in the process, but yes, it would be scary since it could mean a momentary lock-up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
