2014 Tesla Model S

Software updates from Tesla have throttled performance, decreased range/available usable battery capacity, and decreased charging speeds.

This is another complaint in regard to your investigations of tesla suspension breakages. i am filing this complaint on behalf of a tesla model s 2014 owner in norway who is unlikely to report this to authorities. i have used a vin of a random 2014 tesla to file the complaint. here is the thread in which the owner posts. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/another-front-suspension-control-arm-failure.114967/page-20. note that this is page 20 of a gigantic thread of breakage complaints. snip** quashera, today at 5:28 am im a proud member of this club as well now! [​img] heard a thump while driving down the road, thankfully i stopped to turn just a few hundred meters later and when i put in reverse another third snapped off. kind of awkward to block off the entire road. [​img] 2014 model s with ap the part seems to have broken off in 2 pieces, one part broke while driving normally, and the other broke when i stopped to turn. looking at the parts the middle breakage seems quite oxidized, so i think i have been driving for a while with a broken part before it failed completely. (look at the colour difference between the top (old) and bottom(fresh) surface. im so thankful this didn't happen while at speed.** the images are attached to this complaint. please take action. this failure has already killed people. thank you keef

This is another complaint about tesla suspension breakages which are the subject of an investigation by nhtsa. please note that i have used a substitute vin since the vin of the car in question is not decipherable due to crash damage. the car is in the copart salvage yard and is available for inspection https://www.copart.com/lot/60420790/photos/2014-tesla-model-s-ca-martinez this car has been in a severe crash and it is almost certain that occupants have been killed or injured. the back wheel and suspension has snapped off and is stashed in the frunk. the front suspension has also snapped off. given the large number of similar suspension breakages that have been reported by owners it is highly probable that broken suspension parts were the cause of this crash and not just damaged by the crash. please go and inspect this car and look into the circumstances of the crash. thank you. keef

Because the computer in the tesla model s from 2014 was broken, the car was very low in suspension. tesla knew about it in may 2020, but did not offer a repair even if i paid $2,500. eventually the frame of the car touched the rear passenger side and the tire exploded and the wheel was so low that is bent the frame and big pieces of the frame of the car as the base of the car was touching the street. the car was deemed a total and my compensation from aaa did not even allow me to buy a used model s. the car at the time was in motion on the 380 freeway and i had to drive several yards to get to safety running on the frame of the wheel with the base of the case touching the road.

We were driving down the highway, and the steering would stop working ( hitting uneven road or switching lanes). i did not have control of the car. meaning in certain areas of the road, there was absolutely no control. it was as if the power steering completely went out. in another area, it would work somewhat, and then we would hit another area and it would not work at all. when we informed the tesla service center they replaced the screen ( because it had been melting) but said the steering was a tire issue. i assure you it was not. please note that the screen has to be replaced because it had been melting goo and this good was dropping out on the center console. this goo had dripped in the airbags and made them non-operational. the only reason we were told of the inoperational airbags is that we had to purchase new ones. please make sure this defect does not happen to another person/family, as it could be fatal. four images attached:1. screen above, 2. leakage below the steering. 3. image of touchscreen. 4. image of touchscreen. you can see the leakage in all images.*dt

2014 tesla p85. consumer writes in regard to unintended acceleration. *ld the consumer stated the vehicle accelerated into the wall of the garage, while her foot was on the brake. the consumer stated the rear wall and the front wall of the garage were badly damaged. the consumer was injured. *js

Due to the recent recall of the 2014 tesla modal s computer screen. i have paid over $3,700 dollars to replace my screen and now tesla wrote an email says they will not reimburse me for the screen. my tesla modal s computer did not turn on and cannot control any function of the car.

My vehicle has had a problem with the mulitmediacard (emmc) for years. i have all the documentation from previous reports. i was notified finally by tesla that a recall is underway, but they have not scheduled the repair, and when i enter my vin number on tesla's vin recall search, i get this message error looking up vin. error code 91". there is no way to call tesla, as they require people to schedule in the app. but there is no way to schedule this service in the app at this time. my car spontaneously blacks out while i am driving and several of the intended functions do not work 100% of the time. i am becoming concerned about driving this car at all. can you please help?

2014 tesla model s. consumer writes regarding nhtsa safety recall 21v-035. *ld the consumer stated the vehicle had a failed chip rendering it unable to be driven. the vehicle had to be towed. the consumer was unable to reach a tesla representative. *js

21v035 recall id unit did not function correctly for 5y. was summarily dismissed by tesla service. finally failed, paid for repair . then recall. no reimbursement despite claim made months and months ago. was a major hazard from first year. very dangerous.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 21v035000 (back over prevention, visibility, exterior lighting) however, the part to do the recall repair was unavailable. the vehicle was taken to tesla (5544 okeechobee blvd, west palm beach, fl 33417) where it was confirmed that the part was not yet available. the contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. the manufacturer was not made aware of the issue. the contact had not experienced a failure. parts distribution disconnect.

We have owned this car for a couple of months. today, when i pulled into a parking spot at my office, the car accelerated quickly as soon as i made the turn to get into the parking spot. it jumped the curb and i barely missed hitting the office building. my feet were not on the gas pedal, the car did this on its own. none of the sensors went off to warn me of the curb like it normally does too. you can see from the skid marks how hard i had to slam on the brakes. car damaged on front, assuming the windshield wiper fluid line was also cut with the fluid on the ground. pictures attached.

I would experience multiple black outs on the technology system for the vehicle. they have not replaced the emmc which is under recall

On february 15, 2021, i was driving my tesla model s and turned onto a neighborhood road at a speed of approximately 10-15 mph. i just started to accelerate when an extremely loud noise came from the front end of the car, much like an explosion. the vehicle continued to drive, but was noticeably lower in the front. i pulled over and stopped. i was shaken by the noise and could have lost control. fortunately, i was not driving fast and there were no cars near my vehicle. there was no warning in terms of lights or altered performance prior to the noise just described. after inspecting the bottom of the car and seeing nothing dragging or impeding driving, i returned to my house about a block away. the car was taken to a tesla dealer and repaired. the "left front strut spring" had broken, according to the tesla mechanic. the mechanic claimed that this was not unusual due to "rusting" that occurred in the mid-atlantic climate. the car had 54,500 miles on the odometer. i have never heard of a catastrophic break of such equipment, with no warning, due to "rusting". i am reporting the part failure because if the break had occurred while turning onto a busy road, the problem could easily have led to the loss of control and an accident. this was not a threat to me because i was on a little-used city road with a low speed limit. after the repair was made, i requested the broken part from tesla, but was told it had been thrown away.

Tesla refuses to fix my emcc recall. told me that my car doesn't have an issue and will contact me someday.

The front passenger door handle has not extended for more than 90 days. the right rear door handle was replaced on 3/22/21 and has also failed. tesla apparently has a giant parts shortage and has thus been unable to replace this door handle for months. all four door handles have already been replaced at least once due to failures, some at least twice. this appears to be a chronic nationwide manufacturing defect. the result is that first responders and passengers are unable to open doors with broken handles. although a short-term failure of a single door handle may not be a significant problem, that problem multiplied by hundreds of thousands of non-functioning tesla door handles will almost certainly lead to serious injuries.

The front suspension on the drivers side just broke down. i was luckily at extremely low speed since i was reversing the car. previously the rear subframe on my car was also damaged. tesla repaired it and made me/insurance pay for those damages even though it was issues with the frame of the car.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated while the vehicle was parked a charging station was charging. when the contact came back to the vehicle the contact tried to open the exterior front door latch to open the door and it would not open. the contact had to go to the passenger side to open the interior latch on the door to open. they left the vehicle again and came back the front driver's side door swung open but was caught with the safety latch. the contact had to enter the vehicle from the passenger side to enter and closed the driver's door properly. when the vehicle stop charging the contact was driving and all of a sudden the front driver's side door just open on its own while the contact was driving the contact had to close the door from the internal latch to shut the door again, however, the failure persisted again. the contact took the vehicle local dealer to have the vehicle inspected but could not diagnose the failure. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. the failure mileage was approximately 70,101.

Recently my drive unit has begin to fail. this is the second drive unit in the vehicle, approaching the 3rd. then there is the issues with the doorhandles. the doorhandles when the sensor breaks or motor breaks can cause safety concerns related to doorhandles freely opening or inability to open. when the doorhandles motor defects the door handle cannot extend preventing access to any door in the car. when the door handles sensor fails, the doors will freely extend out words assuming someone is grabbing onto the handle. recently my dog escaped the vehicle due to just me unlocking the car upon entry. i have had 2 door handle replacements and i am sensing a fault in another one. this is a common issue on the generation 1 tesla model s door handles.

The vehicle was part of the emmc recall, we paid out of pocket, approved for reimbursement but tesla refuses to actually pay

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact noticed that there was acid leaking from the vehicle onto the contact’s foot causing the foot to burn. the vehicle was taken to the dealer where it was diagnosed that the screen seal failed which cause the screen to leak and both screens needed to be replaced. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 48,000.

The tpms system has failed and has been a known issue with telsa since 2014. the system will not reset and telsa has said it has to be upgraded for 1000. the warning light comes on randomly and goes away after the car drives for a while or gets parked.

This vehicle has a faulty parking break that will enable it to roll when placed in park. tesla previously recalled this issue on model s and x but wants us to pay $1486.66 to have this repaired.

When using autopilot / tac cruise control the vehicle sometimes applies the brakes for no reason.

On january 3, 2022, at approximately 7:30pm we plugged our car into a dedicated 240v outlet that was installed by a licensed electrician and permitted by the city of menlo park. at approximately 8:30pm the charge was interrupted and then started again (per tesla's records). we heard a couple of small noises and then a louder noise at 8:38pm. we opened the garage door and saw a large flame where the charging cord plugs into the outlet.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 21v035000 (back over prevention, visibility, exterior lighting) however, the part to the recall repair was unavailable. the contact took the vehicle to a local dealer and it was confirmed that the part was not yet available. the contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. the contact stated she was unable to start the vehicle and the battery was replaced. the manufacturer had not been made aware of the failure. parts distribution disconnect. the failure mileage was unknown.

Noticed very loud hvac fan noise when car trying to cool off battery during moderate to warm weather. taken to tesla service center found to have broken front vent louvers which were replaced.

Creaking noise when turning wheel. suspension jumpy when driving over bumps. taken to tesla service center found to have cracked aft left and right suspension links which were subsequently replaced.

The autopilot will apply the brakes in what is basically a panic stop any time you are decending from a hill and there is an overpass crossing the roadway. it happens to me on a particular stretch of the freeway almost every single time, and has happened multiple times. each and every time it occurs it is as the vehicle is decending from a rise and there is an overpass ahead. for some reason the vehicle detects the overpass as an obstruction and slams the brakes. this has happened at least half a dozen times. fortunately there was never a car following me very closely. i make it a point when i use the auto pilot to be ready to take over at a moment's notice whenever there is an overpass ahead. the vehicle did this with the old (original mcs) and the new one tesla just installed.

Front end suspension started making creaking noises, rattles when driving over bumps and holes, steering wheel makes popping sound when turning. had estimate from tesla for repair totaling almost $7,000. after doing some research myself this is a common issue with these vehicles from 2012-2018 and some have been repaired at no cost to keep consumers quiet about the issues.

The instrument cluster display screen on this model used defective adhesive causing "bubbling" and blurring of the information displayed, and may include the speed of the vehicle. this bubbling defect in the instrument cluster screen is a know defect by tesla who is currently charging customers approximately $1600 to repair. this defect in the screen can make it impossible to determine the speed of the vehicle, as this is the only place it is displayed. the attached photo is not of my car but it shows what happens as these instrument clusters break down and blur visibility.

Driver's door handle does not function. when car is unlocked, the door handle pops out but the door will not open. i had this same issue two years ago with the front passenger door handle and see that this is a recall item on my model (s) for vehicles starting in year 2016. don't know why the 2014 sedan is not included in this recall, as it should be. it is a safety concern.

While driving the car at regular freeway speeds (50-65 mph) on a sunny spring day, the vehicle displayed a warning message that "power steering was reduced." this made steering the vehicle more difficult and dangerous in curves or during unexpected lane adjustments to accommodate traffic changes. the car's warning message did not go away and continued to warn that "power steering was reduced." after bringing the vehicle to the tesla service center, the staff confirmed that the steering rack and the harnesses attached to the steering motor had corroded and needed to be replaced. this tesla model and year had another voluntary recall due to the bolts on the steering bolt corroding but the tesla service staff said this new issue was not related to the bolts but rather than steering rack and harnesses connected to the steering motor. when i asked what causes the steering rack and harnesses to fail, the technician said that exposure to the elements light water and snow causes corrosion. i asked if there was any way to prevent this from happening again and they said no. he mentioned that tesla's newer model s models now have a protective gear around the steering rack to prevent water corrosion but that the older model s models did not have this protection and thus caused them to corrode and eventually fail. this issue is not normal wear and tear. this steering rack and harness failure has to do with exposure to the elements, the same reason that led tesla to do a voluntary recall on the steering motor bolts. this steering rack issue is caused by the same issue affecting the steering motor bolts and therefore, tesla should do a recall and replace the rack and harnesses at no cost to the customer.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that the instrument cluster was delaminating and distorted. the contact was unable to see the messages and sensors. the contact stated that the liquid crystal fluid was leaking. the local dealer was not contacted. the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 95,000.

The door handles on my car get excessively hot in warmer weather. my 7 year old daughter burnt her hand attempting to open the door. i’m unsure of what material they are made out of, however it is impossible to open without using something to put over them first. i will be getting a temperature on them today. i’ve never had this be an issue with any other vehicle previously.

My 2014 tesla model s is an unsafe vehicle as my dash goes black constantly and i lose control of the car safety items included in the dash panel such as speed, back up camera, visibility and power train. i have complained many times but tesla does not respond with results that will make the car safe again.

Air bubbles and leaking glue on instrument cluster obscuring visibility of speedometer and other displays.

During my ownership of the car i have experienced very severe issues with the door handles. in total i have replaced 5 door handles in just my ownership. meaning that i have replaced the same door handle more than once. one particular instance i had an issue while i was on a job where both the door handles on the driver side failed at one time. one was a mechanical malfunction and the other was a software related problem. i ended having to climb across the car for 3 weeks before they could get me into my appointment. tesla has the ability to fix the problem. they have stated several times to me that it is just an outdated door handle with poor parts that they used on the first generation. if you have a child locked in the car it could be a serious issue.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model- s. the contact stated while driving at 60 mph another vehicle was merging into the left lane where she was driving, and she made an immediate turn into the right lane. the contact stated she felt the vehicle pulled strongly into the right lane and then pulled back strongly into the left lane, and it happen several times until the vehicle started to operate normally. the dealer was contacted and was not able to set an appointment. the failure mileage was 48,000.

Please note that this complaint is about a fatal crash involving a 2014 tesla model s but because i do not know the vin i have used the vin of a wrecked car in a junkyard. please also note that i have supplied my full name and contact details in this submission but i have used a dummy usa address to satisfy your website requirements. i have been informed that is ok for a non-tesla owner and a non-us resident to file a complaint particularly when it is regarding a defect that is a danger to the public. there has been a quadruple fatality crash today in which a tesla veered into the front of an oncoming semi. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/15/four-killed-when-tesla-and-big-rig-collide-near-hollister/ the 2014 tesla predates autopilot so it is almost certain that this sudden swerve into the truck was caused by a mechanical failure, teslas have been suddenly swerving since the tesla was first released. there is sufficient evidence from the actual owners complaints that are listed on nhtsa database. additionally my flickr album shows multiple examples of broken suspensions and also a report from an employee of a cast alloy suspension part supplier who reports that proper quality procedures were not followed. https://www.flickr.com/photos/136377865@n05/albums/72157658490111523

This is a follow up report on the issue of sudden swerves by teslas that have often proved fatal. please note that i have used a random vin since the vin of the car in the crash is unknown. also please not that as a non us resident i have had to use a dummy us address to enable the report. my true contact details are supplied. here is a video taken by dashcam showing a tesla ( actual year and model unknown) making a sudden violent swerve to the left and then back to the right and colliding with other vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtk_t4olbws sudden suspension breakages are happening to all years and models of telsas. the quality of parts is not good and tesla does not follow up on the causes of these failures. i beg of you to take action before more tragic crashes occur. they are crashes, not accidents. there is nothing accidental about weak suspensions snapping on the highway.

This is a follow up to my last two complaints of sudden swerves that are probably causd by suspension failure. it is in my opinion highly probable that the suspension is likely to snap when brakes are suddenly slammed on hard at speed. this is known as tesla "phantom braking" and you have hundreds of complaints about this on file. this situation is extremely dangerous. not only might a tesla that phantom brakes be run over by a following truck but if the suspension snaps it can cause the tesla to veer into the oncoming lane with fatal results. as a precautionary measure i believe you should immediately ban tesla adaptive cruise control and autopilot because these are the reason that phantom braking occurs. people are getting killed almost daily. please stop this deadly experiment. here is a near miss event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtk_t4olbws&lc=ugyil5xi31xvug7cg_f4aaabag

Have experienced phantom braking at high speeds which could cause a rear end collision involving the vehicle or vehicles behind me. the phantom braking occurs about once per 500 to 750 miles and always occurs while traveling on the freeway at 60 to 70 mph. approximately 80% of the time, it occurs at exactly the same place just before a large freeway sign. the occurrences are regardless of surrounding traffic. sometimes it occurs with many other cars (at safe distance from me), sometimes with a few cars around me and sometimes with no cars within 100 yards in any direction. this one location is located in mid-california, at the north end of ventura, on us 101 (freeway) northbound about 200 yards south of the highway 33 (ojai) cutoff.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that her husband had buckled their son in the rear passenger’s seat and closed the door; however, while her husband was attempting to open the driver’s side door, the vehicle locked independently. the contact’s husband attempted to unlock the vehicle with the key fob however, the vehicle would not unlock. the contact stated that her husband downloaded the tesla app to attempt to unlock the vehicle but the vehicle remained locked. the contact’s son also attempted to unlock the vehicle from the inside however, the vehicle failed to unlock or start-up. the contact’s husband was able to lower the rear passenger’s side window and remove the child from the vehicle. the contact stated that several hours later she was able to unlock and start the vehicle. the vehicle was taken to the tesla service center however, the mechanic found no failure with the vehicle. the mechanic stated that the vehicle might have rebooted itself. the manufacturer was not contacted. the failure mileage was unknown.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that both infotainment screens located inside the vehicle would display blank images which rendered several electrical safety features inoperable. the contact had taken the vehicle to a service center on three occasions where they informed him that they are aware of the failure but could not repair the vehicle. the manufacturer was also notified of the failure and he was given the same information as the service center. the vehicle had yet to be repaired. the failure mileage was approximately 63,000.

The vehicle went into "reduced power" (turtle mode) error. which reduced the power and the ability to accelerate out of an intersection and away from incoming traffic. i followed the recommendations of powering the vehicle off. it would correct itself then randomly does the same thing. this is safety issue and needs to be resolved before someone gets into a major accident which will result in great bodily injury or death.

On hwy 156, a farm country road near hollister, california, a motorist travelling immediately behind a white tesla reported that the tesla suddenly and inexplicably accelerated from 55 mph to 65 mph and crossed the double yellow lines. it made no apparent attempt to cross back into the original lane. in less than 3 seconds -- 170 feet by chp ground measurement -- the tesla collided head-on with a semi traveling in the opposite direction. all four occupants in the tesla were killed instantly. the truck driver was injured, but not seriously. the four deceased occupants were my daughter (53), my twin granddaughters (14), and my grandson (12). according to the chp report, all wore seat-belts. the airbag for the driver did not deploy, but the other three did. my grandson was ejected and dismembered but the other three were not. his seatbelt status is therefore questionable. her grief-stricken and angry ex-husband, father of the three children, accused the driver of deliberately committing suicide and took the lives of the three children with her. yet from the chp investigation, the four had just enjoyed a pleasant outing in their favorite restaurant and shops for several hours with no sign of anyone distraught. the restaurant receipt shows no alcohol was consumed. they had texted people and showed nothing out of the ordinary. forty minutes later, they all perished. her mother and step-father, her boyfriend, her best friend, and other close acquaintances, were all surprised by her sudden death. no suicide note was found anywhere, not in her journal and not in her media posts. no despondent communication of any kind was conveyed to anyone. her extreme devotion to the children would make her willfully taking their lives very uncharacteristic. if not suicide, what made the tesla behave so strangely and deliberately? nhtsa has been investigating tesla crashes involving sudden left turns into oncoming traffic. please use your expertise and resources to investigate this.

My car has severe phantom breaking due to adaptive cruise control. when i use my tesla's cruise control on the freeway, on a complete flat straight away that has no vehicle in front of me, no sign/bridge in front of me, and no items/object in front of me, my vehicle while randomly/violently slam on the break violently hurling me and all passengers in my vehicle forward. this is even more dangerous when there are vehicles being me in close proximity who could easily could have rear ended me all those times. i am forced to not use my cruise control due to these dangerous conditions.

Both the main lcd computer screen and the speed display have leaked the liquid crystal fluid out from the displays due to high cabin heat even with the cabin heat protection feature enabled. this has been brought to teslas attention and they are requesting i pay $1750 to upgrade the entertainment system which replaces both screens but i have not asked for an upgraded entertainment system. i am asking that the flat lcd panels do not leak from heat in the first place !

Tesla has, by design, altered a safety feature in existing cars (via a software update) that decreases safety when defogging is needed. when i purchased my 2014 tesla model s, the defog could be turned on or off with the press of a button that was always visible on the touchscreen. recently, tesla made a major change to the user interface (version 11), that cannot be reverted, which removed the defog button. it now takes about 4-7 steps to activate and then turn off the defog. the new system also requires viewing pop-up window(s) while driving. now, when you notice visibility is decreasing due to a fogged up windshield, you have to press the temperature (e.g. "70") twice, which brings up the full climate control window (if you press slightly high/low, a "climate popup" instead appears, with button located in different locations). you then have to scan for the defog button and press it. to turn it off, if it has been less than 10 seconds since you turned it on (often all you need), the window will still be there, and you can press the "climate off" button to turn it off. after 10 seconds, you have to repeat the same 2-3 steps used to turn it on. however, if the climate popup appears rather than the full window, you need to start over again to turn the climate control off (otherwise, a bug causes the climate control to stay on when you turn the defog off). a new version (not available for my car) reportedly has a workaround, but the defog button needs to have a permanent location on the screen like before, by default. my concern is that this software update will get people into (or has gotten people into) "distracted driving" accidents as they have to look at the screen about 4-7 times while driving, rather than the minimal 2 times that the old user interface allowed.

After updating vehicle to software version 11.0 (2022.8.10.6 d2b84545e244) my center screen which controls the majority of my functionality and safety features including my backup camera and my instrument cluster will intermittently go blank. this prevents me from being able to use my backup camera, see warnings about the car, as well as be able to tell how fast my car is going. in addition, my turn signals no longer have a consistent audible tone when engaged.

Instrument display is frozen at 0mph at 7:57am even while driving. uploaded photo was taken at 9:19am as indicated on time stamp and on larger display at center of vehicle.

Rear lower control arm broke, causing extreme twitch and near loss of vehicle control about 1/4 mile before getting on highway. there was a loud ping in a parking garage the day before while turning, but nothing seemed to be wrong with the car at that time and i assumed there must have been a water bottle cap or something that went under the tire (can't see ground well in a tight parking garage, which had some litter here and there). drove about 30 miles home without incident. i suspect that the control arm was only fractured at that point, but retained enough metal to hold the wheel in place (terrifying to think we were driving at highway speeds like that). the following morning, reversed out of garage and was approaching highway at neighborhood speeds when car veered very suddenly. immediately returned to garage and changed to my other car. found the control arm completely separated when inspecting it that evening. part was revised and cars built just prior to mine (same part number) were covered by a tsb. tesla refused to offer any tsb coverage and are the sole supplier of replacement parts ($350/each). this kind of part does wear out but should not catastrophically fail-- appears to be poor quality part, cast, or metallurgy. it was nearly a huge accident twice, and both times would have been at highway speeds. as unnerving as the sudden skew was, it was the best warning/outcome i could have since tesla did not recall this widely reported failure. i don't understand how production dates take precedence over part numbers when tsb/recalls are issued -- it makes no sense.

The rear sub-frame mounting point for the rear toe arm failed. likes like shire metal fatigue. it broke while going 70 mph on the high way and the car fishtailed almost causing me to crash into the cars next to me. i was able to slow down and pull over. but an in experienced driver would have lost control and crashed. basically rear drive tire just fell off. tesla service center has inspected it and found the broke metal mount point. noting a new sub-frame is needed. no warning lights, and i could probably drive it around all day with no lights or warning, as this was a suspension issue and nothing related to a computer. even autopilot1 continued to work just fine.

Traveling on the interstate, car shut down unexpectedly at 70 mph in the fast lane was barely able to clear right most (slow) lane before car cut off, not even safely clearing the shoulder. warning that brake and gas were both activated at same time which was not done by me. insufficient time from warning until total failure less than 5 minutes, almost hit by diesel traveling northbound on i-5 power reduced so no ability to use caution to warn surrounding drivers. currently 5 months pregnant and this failure could have caused bodily injury to myself, unborn baby and others on the road. tesla performed diagnosis and said that the internal rear drive unit failed and there were no symptoms, alert or prior indication besides unexpected power failure. there are quite a few complaints of drive unit failures with tesla

Car was parked in a lot for 15 minutes and suddenly accelerated, jumping the curb and hitting a structure. the car seemed possessed.

Car won’t shift gears just stuck on park. battery reduced.

In 2014, i ordered this model s p85d, received it on 12/20/2014, i also purchased a 4-year extended service plan. starting from march 2017, it started to encounter random yet serious problems. the car would randomly produce critical errors, displaying several types of error messages, while losing most of its driving power; the driver would have to perform emergency pullovers onto the road shoulder, if available, before the power rapidly reduce to zero. then the driver need to restart the main computer (sometimes several times), to reset the error messages. only after that, the car became drive-able again. i wrote an email to [email protected] on 03/23/2017 describing the problem, since then, this became a chronic issue; service centers in virginia, maryland, and san juan pr have performed numerous attempts on this problem, none of them was able to fix it. according to my records, for this issue, the car has been in the shop for more than 10 times, and more than a dozen components have been replaced. the total time it has been out of service is more than 380 days. i now consider it "unfixable" by tesla. this kind of problem have created many dangerous situations when it occurred on the road, especially when the driver doesn't know how to handle it, doesn't pull over on the shoulder quickly, or there's no safe place to pull over.

So this is actually a complaint about how an existing recall was processed - i’m not sure if this is the right place to submit, if not please let me know. my car is subject to emmc recall and i had the recall service done at the dealer a week ago. when i picked up the car the touchscreen had bubbles and was leaking; they were not there when i brought it in. they claim that the touchscreen problem is age and temperature related and just a coincidence that it happened while in their service center. the cost to repair the touchscreen (which was fine before recall service) is $800+. it feels to me as though they are trying to surreptitiously charge $800+ for a recall that is supposed to be free, by damaging something else and denying responsibility.

I was driving on i93 north in massachusetts when the front trunk (frunk) suddenly released. the secondary latch stopped it from coming all the way open. since then it has happened 6 other times! i have a service scheduled with tesla and thought i should report it as this could have been really bad.

Left rear control arm (tesla referred to it as upper rear suspension link and integral link) broke from the joint causing the wheel to fall off and damage the halfshaft, air spring and bushings. fortunately i was barely moving at the time of the accident. had this happened on the freeway i could have been killed. looking online and at other comments on here this does not appear to be an isolated incident.

As a concerned vehicle owner, i would like to draw your attention to the recent recall related to the front trunk hood of my vehicle. according to the national highway traffic safety administration, if the primary latch is inadvertently released and the secondary latch is not engaged, the hood could open unexpectedly, obstructing the driver's view and increasing the risk of a crash. this recall specifically impacts my vehicle, and i am deeply concerned about the safety risks it poses to me and other drivers on the road. while i understand that recalls are a common occurrence in the automotive industry, i believe that the responsible party should take full responsibility for addressing this issue and ensuring that all affected vehicles are repaired in a timely and effective manner. the safety of drivers and passengers should always be the top priority, and i strongly believe that the responsible party should bear the cost of repairing this potentially dangerous defect. i urge you to take immediate action to address this recall and ensure that my vehicle is repaired as soon as possible. i appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a prompt resolution that prioritizes the safety and well-being of all drivers on the road." my hood latch unexpectedly has opened during a drive on the freeway and street. i almost crashed and had to pull over multiple times to get it fixed. there is an active recall for this vehicle 2014 tesla model s front hood latch, but apparently my vehicle does not qualify. its a known issue and would like to speak to tesla to add this year and model to the recall and reimburse me for the charges.

The wheel came off the car while driving with no warning. it was just at service at the tesla in devon pa on may 12, 2023. this is a safety issue! tesla refused to cover the repair and charged a diagnostic fee on top of that!

Air conditioning was stopped working 2x.

This is for 2017 model s, with vin: 5yjsa7e1xhf190080, but your form didn't allow it. front lower right forward control arm, hairline crack in the portion that holds the ball joint to the hub. can only be visible when taken off car. when discovered early you only hear a small clicking sound in the car when steering in certain angle over a pothole or similar. when allowed to be continued used, crack is expanding in the aluminum control arm and the ball joint is coming loose, further driving fatigues the aluminum arm and breaks it.

The rear motor (drive unit) has gone out on this car twice in the last four years. i purchased it after it was last repaired. it most recently went out on 08/04/2023. when it went out two days ago it had less than 30,000 miles on it. this car has a motor on both the front and rear axles, so while the vehichle was still moving forward, if it slowed down at all that would engage the regenerative braking. once regenerative breaking was engaged, the rear drive unit would normal perform that function, but since it was out, it simply knocked the vehicle out of drive and made the transmission flash red. during this part, steering was affected in that the power steering was out, and the ability to move forward was diminished because the vehicle came out of gear. i was able to put my foot briefly on the brake and then tap the car back into drive, but anytime the car slowed down and engaged regenerative braking, this process would repeat. looking at the forums, this is a known problem. as already stated, this is the second time in less than four years that this motor has needed replacement. additionally, tesla is saying that this motor is did not have a warranty on it, despite the fact that it was replaced only a few years ago. in my opinion, this is a clear safety issue. reviewing the forums, it seems as though this issue is an endemic problem associated with the tesla model s from a range of years between 2012-2015. it is more probable than not that the company is aware of this deficit and has chosen to do nothing about it.

I ran out of wiper fluid. this is the 9th time i’ve had to pour a whole gallon of wiper fluid into this car in 289,309 miles. i’m starting to get really frustrated. also, my friend keeps telling me i have to get the blinker fluid checked.

My original emmc failed and tesla at first wanted to charge me to replace it. then, online, i found out my car had the 8gb emmc that tesla was supposed to “voluntarily” replace. i told tesla this and they agreed to replace it at no charge. the next day, my mcu failed. the car wouldn’t unlock, wake up, or connect to the tesla app. the next day it woke up and drove fine. the following day, it wouldn’t wake up again. i had the car jumped and taken to tesla. they now say the original mcu needs an “upgrade” and i have to pay about $3400 for it. from my understanding, the emmc is part of the mcu. it seems the replaced emmc won’t work with the original mcu. so-they voluntarily replaced a part that caused another part to fail. this seems like a scam rather than a fix.

My car developed a handling problem. i took it to tesla service and they told me it was a bent tie rod. the part was ordered and i took the car back in to have it installed around a month later. however, they then decided it wasn't a bent tie rod and instead was an alignment issue. they did an alignment and told me the car was fixed. the car was not fixed. i have taken the vehicle in several more times and test driven with multiple mechanics/technicians. they all agreed that there is a handling issue but it doesn't seem that bad and they've seen much worse from other teslas (implying it is an issue with other cars as well). at this point i am told there is nothing they can do to the car despite it being somewhat dangerous. the car pulls extremely hard to the left under acceleration and pulls to the right under deceleration. however, i have had an alignment done multiple times, i've put new factory spec tires and rims on the car and replaced all of the front suspension including bushings and control arms. at freeway speeds, if you accelerate to pass, the car will veer aggressively to the left towards possible oncoming traffic. imperfections in the road cause the car to jump around in an unpredictable manner. not only is my car dangerous but the technicians telling me they have seen this behavior in other cars is a huge cause for concern.

The air conditioning system is also the battery management system for keeping the car at optimal operating temperatures. if this system fails then the car will shut down to protect the integrity of the batteries. i have had my car air conditioning system serviced four times and the front louvers that direct air flow continually fail. the service center has decided there is nothing they can do because the problem doesn't have a dedicated error code for them to address. however, when i supercharge the car and the car gets hot the louvers aren't functioning properly and the car will not charge. once i let the car cool down and drive, if the louvers are still malfunctioning the car will reduce power to the point that i have to pull over on the freeway and allow the batteries to cool down. this has happened multiple times where i have to stop on the freeway because the car reduces power and won't drive. when i ask tesla to look at the problem they say because there is no dedicated error code for this malfunction, nothing is wrong with the car and i should keep driving it.

My car has the gen 1 master charger assembly which is the stock part. the part malfunctioned and is a well-known issue with this vehicle. luckily, i was not placed in harm's way when the part failed but there are many of those that have no been so lucky. this failure is not caused by the operator but is caused by the faulty factory part. this is a $3,000 repair for the owner of the vehicle alone not counting the potential risk of harm to the operator. the manufacturer must know that there is an issue with this part due to them replacing it with the gen 2 model.

Rearview camera goes out intermittently increasing risk of collision.

Tesla has a salvage vehicle policy - when a vehicle has been branded as salvaged, regardless of future repairs, they will remotely disable the vehicle's ability to dc fast charge and require a dc system inspection and dc fast charging inspection at a cost of $870 that can only be performed by tesla in order to service the vehicle and restore the dc fast charging feature. in my case telsa has refused to perform the emmc recall using the fact that i have not had the dc system inspection service performed as their basis for refusing to perform the recall. please seek an injunction against tesla to ban them from using any pre-conditions such as first requiring a dc system inspection in order to perform any recalls. thank you.

Three separate reports from car to tesla: traction control disabled stability control disabled automatic emergency braking disabled two hours later my car caught on fire while parked at my home. it was declared a total loss.

Loud whining noise coming from the rear of the vehicle. tesla says it needs a new rear drive unit. the noise has been going on for some time and gradually gotten worse.

Our right rear lower control arm broke off at the outer end. the wheel and hub dropped and cambered out away from the vehicle and the vehicle could not be driven. fortunately this occurred entering our driveway at low speed. the car was taken to tesla and we believe should have been repaired under service bulletin [xxx] detailing this exact issue. however, they are presenting a bill for about $7000. claiming our vin is not within this bulletin. we note that our car was purchased in january 2014 but also the bulletin says approximate. we also believe ntsha has been made aware of this issue but has failed to issue a recall. this is a serious safety issue! at freeway speeds this could have caused a total loss of control and a serious crash in our opinion. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6)

The original motor on tesla model s vehicles between 2012-2019 has a reputation of leaking coolant inside the drive train and therefore locking up the motor that stops all operations of the vehicle. this has already happened twice with an average life expectance of 40-60k miles. i was just informed that tesla has finally created a version of this motor that prevents coolant leaks on the latest revision of their motor (part# 1002633-00-u) and would like to see a recall with this long needed fix. i currently have a remanufactured motor that will end up locking up eventually and would like to get ahead of this if at all possible.

Our vehicle has just over 100k miles, and we have had the front control arms replaced twice. tesla says that we have to keep replacing because it's a safety issue, but refuses to take ownership of the fact that the control arms should not fail this frequently. in china, tesla is doing recalls for this part and there is a class action lawsuit in the us. however, tesla has told me that i need to keep replacing this parts because if they fail then the car could crash.

I had a hard braking event to avoid a collision with a vehicle that ran a red light in front of me and immediately lost power steering and was notified park assist was also unavailable. error codes epas_w001, epas_w002, and a gtw code i can’t remember. after leaving the vehicle on a charger overnight, the error codes disappeared and power steering returned.

Defective brake light seal went bad, brake light is filling with water and broke red leds right away, family is now not safe from rear colissions and tesla wants $1000. thank you

Can't open driver's side door from outside, safety issue for parents/first responders. online search shows this is a common defect that needs a safety recall, the wiring is defective and costly to repair. thank you

Front control arms left and right fr susp fore link assy , only the replacement is available for inspection upon request. the safety that was put at risk is unknown. it was repaired by tesla at my expense. there were no warning lamps, messages the only symptoms was noise, metal banging.

Premature wear on almost all front suspension parts relating to control arms and sway bar links. recently had to pay out of pocket to have two steering rack bolts tightened, they were not torqued properly from the factory apparently

The vehicles mcu storage files are 100% full, and unable to read or write new data.the caches and nodes to have been cleared several times to restore data storage and writing capabilities. 12v power resets have also been performed as well as factory reset to eliminate potentially corrupt data and free storage space.while at tesla they reformatted gateway sd card. the vehicle is still unable to take firmware update and unable to unlock vehicle gateway, therefore, a new key fob is not able to be programmed to vehicle. tesla tested vehicle app remote start capabilities and verified proper functionality. the tech had me uninstall then reinstall the tesla mobile app, then pair phone to vehicle. they then informed me that a new key fob will not be able to be paired to vehicle until infotainment upgrade is performed. no further repairs possible until info upgrade. to which that isn’t right and my car is inoperable for the second time because of this issue

On february 11, 2024, as i was entering my house garage at a very low speed, the car suddenly accelerated and hit the wall of my garage, causing damage to the garage and interior of my house. the car was insured by state fram. it was towed to a shop for repair at which time the insurance company notified me that the car could not be repaired. the car had been totaled. over the following several weeks, i repaired the damage to my house and bought another car.

While driving, my back wheel fell off. i had the car in for suspension work twice in q4 2023, and then on march 7, 2024 my back wheel fell off. when speaking with tesla, they said that this sometimes happens and they have seen this issue before. the also told me that they think it only happens at low speeds, but i have found articles where people were on the highway and their wheel fell off. china has made tesla do a recall for suspension and wheel issues, why haven't we? i now have had my vehicles suspension worked on at least 4 times, this is dangerous and scary.

Allows driving without speedometer, was just showing tesla branding in place.

My 2014 p85d model s electric rear motor failed. i heard a loud noise coming from it so i took it in to tesla and they agreed the motor was failing and needed to be replaced, cost $6,582.04. if i had driven the car and the motor seized up it while on the highway it would have been catastrophic. i would have lost control as the motor froze the rear wheel. tesla knows of this problem, has replaced many of them, unfortunately post warranty. they know the seals leak and coolant leaks into the motor and causes the motor to fail. they have made a number of design changes including the latest where they eliminate a cooling branch going through the motor. prior to this change none of the fixes have eliminated the problem.

My drivers door will randomly open while driving and or while making turns, yes it is available for inspection if need be. this is put my safety at risk because its very dangerous for a door to open while driving at any speed, and if it happens to a back door items in my back seat could fall out causing a very serious accident. when the problem first started i paid to have a new door handle put in but it did not fix the problem, even after the repair the door would sometimes not close stay closed properly and the tech said he wasn't sure because he never seen a door not close every time, after looking online many people have had the same issues, i again reported this to tesla and they set up an appointment with me to fix the door handle. i have been dealing with this issue for 6 months now. i would say the vehicle was inspected by my mobile tech, but he advised he never seen anything the issue with the door not closing or staying closed every time, said he would ask around and get back to me, i was told by another rep i had to pay for a new latch, but they couldn't confirm if this is the issue. there are only warning messages when the door opens while driving, also the door will open even if it shows its locked.

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that while the vehicle was in park(p), a person approached the driver’s side rear door, and the door unintendedly opened slightly. the contact stated that prior to entering the vehicle, the driver’s side rear door opened slightly, and while reversing, the door opened completely. the contact closed the door; however, the failure recurred. there were no alerts during the failure; however, afterwards the contact's door was opened, and the app showed a message that the door was opened. the contact stated that all the doors were not opening from inside or outside the vehicle unless the vehicle was in park. the contact stated that the driver's side door was not opening whether in park or drive. the contact added velcro to the door handle that was used to pull the door handle open. the vehicle was taken to the dealer. the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. the manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. the failure mileage was approximately 110,000.

I have put my car in the shop 11 times since i purchased it 3 years ago. now my suspension is having issues. i don't qualify for the lemon law due to the age of my car. i paid over 30,000 for a car that is not going to last till its paid off.

Lcd dashboard is bubbling and liquid seems to be leaking within the dashboard screen. in some online research, there are concerns that contaminants can infilitrate the cabin when this happens. the problem seems to be pervasive for cars made by tesla from 2012 to 2014. there were no warnings for when this problem ocurred. tesla is saying that the part needs to be replaced at a cost of $1900.

Vehicle failed to charge at a tesla charging point. 60 miles from home , raining, had to have vehicle towed to house. failed to charge at home charging point. cost to have tesla fix, too expensive. took 4 months to find another charge port for vehicle vehicle continues to have issues

The steering assist failed while driving. causing near collision and very difficult to drive.

Overnight while plugged in and after the battery showed it was fully charged, the battery suddenly lost charge, and the car sent repeated alerts to immediately pull over and stop driving. a notice on the car showed mileage was reduced and to immediately schedule a service call. after returning home, i downloaded to the car a recent software update that cleared the error. however, after the software upgrade, tesla messaged that they did removed tests and the high voltage battery must be replaced.

The rotor seal on the large drive units on tesla model s and x fail, causing coolant to leak into the drive unit, flooding it and damaging the inverter. this leads to a replacement cost from tesla for approximately $7 - $8,000. as this is a design failure this should be a recall and tesla should at least repair all units prior to their failure or replace them with an updated motor.

The drive unit was leaking coolant into the electrical inverter space. the issue was verified by a mechanic who then repaired the drive unit to prevent additional coolant intrusion.

Drivers door handle failed to operate, occupant was locked out of vehicle, safety of operator was compromised as elderly operator has to climb over passenger and center console to enter drivers area. problem is ongoing as door handle will not operate at all. vehicle has not been inspected yet. no symptoms, door handle failed and cannot be opened from the outside at all.

My instrument cluster goes off while driving making it impossible to know my current speed. it also will cut off when i put it in park and the car will not move until it completely reboots. sometimes it will just freeze and say the car is off and in park while the car is in drive moving. one time the cluster showed that the car was in reverse but when i hit the accelerator, car moved forward. cluster is constantly rebooting itself. 2014 tesla models s 85. i have an attached video where all warning signs are illuminated,no speedometer and shows its in park while im driving

The contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 23v838000 (electrical system); however, the ota update had not been received. the contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. the dealer was made aware of the issue and confirmed that the ota update was available. the manufacturer was notified of the failure, a case was opened, and it was confirmed that the ota update was available. later, the case was closed after the manufacturer confirmed the ota update had been pushed to the vehicle. the contact had not experienced a failure. parts distribution disconnect.

I was driving my car on the freeway on cruise control, when there was a sudden/automatic violent break of 65 mph to 0 mph. there was no car in front of me, and there was nothing above my car (no direction sign, no bridge, no fastrak billboard, nothing). this was a "phantom break" and it was violent and sudden. tesla needs to fix this!

Note: refiling this complaint as it was mistakenly filed against "evergreen tesla" here is yet another tesla in the junkyard with collapsed suspension. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=23632672&rowid=25&pagesource=vehicleresults there is hardly a scratch on the bodywork but both front and rear suspensions have completely snapped off. some of the broken parts can be seen stored on the back seat in photo 5. please take action before more lives are lost.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard. https://www.salvagereseller.com/cars-for-sale/25069826-2014-tesla-model-s-van-nuys-ca the front suspension has fallen apart in an interesting manner. the top ball-joint stem has simply pulled out of the clamped slot which is meant to hold it in place causing the entire suspension to fall outwards. i am a well trained engineer and in my opinion the design of this suspension that relies upon an undersized ball-joint held in place by clamping up a slotted hole in a brittle alloy steering knuckle is an accident waiting to happen. i have attached a photograph of a tesla steering knuckle from another car that failed without good cause. i can provide evidence of the incident that is associated with that failure. the knuckle has suffered brittle fracture which is to be expected with such a poor design. date of incident is an approximation. please take action. concerned citizen.

Stopped the car on a very quiet back road with no traffic to perform some launches. first i performed a "launch mode" launch where max battery was on and then initiated the sequence with hold brake, hold accelerator, release brake. this successfully launched the car. then performed a regular launch (without "launch mode") in which i stomp the accelerator pedal like i've done numerous times before. on this occasion the accelerator pedal broke off and the car came to a quick stop via regenerative braking as i pulled over onto the shoulder. luckily there was no traffic on this road; if this had happened on the highway or on a busy road it could have been dangerous as i had no real way to accelerate to get to the shoulder or avoid traffic.

Here is another tesla just arrived in the junkyard: https://www.salvagereseller.com/cars-for-sale/23213537-2014-tesla-model-s-west-palm-beach-fl the front rh wheel has snapped off. the steering knuckle is jammed into the tire. the front rh headlight is not even broken it is near impossible that the damage was the result of a collision. looks like another case of suspension failure. please investigate.

I was parking my car i heard and felt the car begin to accelerate. i put the car in park and step firmly on the brake peddle.then of it own volition it mounted the adjoining embankment and collided with the tree. this caused extensive front end damage.

Here is another model s in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=25560077&rownumber=32&loadrecent=true it can be seen that the front suspension has collapsed causing both wheels to be jammed up in the wheel wells. the front wheels have gone cross eyed. the left one is pointed straight, the right one is turned inwards and canted over. both back suspensions have been ripped off. the right hand wheel and suspension have snapped off without any real damage to the bodywork. the lh quarter panel is bashed in, most likely because the car became rather difficult to steer after the suspension collapsed. there have been many other similar cases of tesla suspension failures. please recall these cars before more lives are lost. thank you. please note i am not a tesla owner but simply a concerned citizen who is forced to share the roads with these dangerous vehicles. a dummy us address has been used to comply with your website requirements. genuine contact details are provided. i have been informed that i am fully within my rights to file these complaints and i confirm that the complaints i am making are truthful and not in anyway false or fraudulent. date of incident is an approximation based on date of arrival in junkyard.

Here is yet another report of a tesla suspension collapsing and sending the car veering across the road: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/urgent-spontaneous-suspension-failure-lack-of-tesla-support.97394/ snip - enumc, saturday at 10:22 pm hi everyone! does anyone have any experience with tesla repairs? we were driving on the freeway when our model s suddenly started swerving after an initial loud sound. there's nothing on the road, and we had to drive the vehicle off the freeway without hitting other vehicles. luckily, no one got hurt, but we rolled off the side of the freeway onto an exit ramp. the local repair shop that highway patrol tolled to informed us that this is a suspension failure. we were driving at around 60mph when this happened. we contacted tesla support, who said they will take a look at the issue, but they are still trying to evade talking to us about the exact issue after a month with no updates. they informed us they have "escalated" the issue over a week ago, but no updates at all. could we get some suggestions on what we should do from fellow tesla owners? i am completely lost at this point. the wheel seems to have caved in: ******* i am reporting this in the public interest as it is obvious from the discussion in that forum that the owner will not be reporting it himself. he is being pressured by the forum posters and also by tesla who want him to sign an agreement so that he takes over responsibility for the repair. a photograph of the tesla with a whompy wheel is attached.

Here is another tesla in the salvage yard. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=21631709&itemid=23004896&rowid=22&pagesource=vehicleresults# the front steering knuckle is snapped in half. the tread is completely worn off the tire. the wheel has been sliced almost in half. not the result of a crash, just another snapped suspension. please investigate.

Here is anothe tesla in the salvage yard. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=23004896&rowid=19&pagesource=vehicleresults front lh suspension has collapsed. tire is peeled off the rim and has the tread worn away tire is partially peeled off the rim and the wheel is damaged. these failures seem to be happening in a high percentage of the teslas. owners seem reluctant to file complaints. i am reporting the ones that i see in the interest of public safety. please investigate this pattern of suspension failures.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.salvagereseller.com/cars-for-sale/20632557-2014-tesla-model-s-van-nuys-ca the suspension has collapsed on all 4 wheels. the front wheel has been smashed to pieces. this is not a one off event. there is a clear pattern of failure. please investigate. concerned citizen, etc.

Lug nuts securing wheels to the car have a metal cover. this metal cover is distorting and coming loose. you have to use a socket that is one size larger in order to remove the lug nuts to service the wheel. the original size socket stated in the manual no longer fits because this metal cover over the lug nut is distorted.

Here is another tesla in the salvage yard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=24302646&rownumber=34&loadrecent=true it has not been in a crash. the air-bags have not deployed. the suspension has collapsed on all four wheels causing the wheels to jam up into the wheel wells and damaging the body of the car. if this had occurred at a high speed it would probably have caused death or injury. once again it seems that a simple air leak in the suspension can cause disaster because the tesla is not fitted with bump stops to limit suspension travel. please launch an investigation. the number of written off teslas in the junkyards is far too high for the small number of cars that are on the roads. note: i am not the owner, just a concerned citizen. date of incident is an approximation.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/25802716/photos the suspension has collapsed on all four wheels. the back wheel has fallen off. in my opinion this car is unsafe at any speed. please investigate the reason for so many of these cars having suspension failure. please note that i am not the owner just a concerned citizen.

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. https://www.salvagereseller.com/cars-for-sale/19708347-2015-tesla-model-s-85-ky-louisville the front suspension has fallen apart and the wheel and tire are badly damaged. it looks highly probable that the wheel was wrecked while the car was still moving forward. given the many other similar failures it was quite possibly the cause of the crash. please investigate

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=24320063&rownumber=33&loadrecent=true the suspension has collapsed on all four wheels. the back rh wheel and suspension has been completely torn off. there is no collision damage. the air-bags have not deployed. this is yet another example of tesla suspension failure. owners are driving around in these cars believing that they are in one of the safest cars in the world. the numbers of crashed teslas showing up in the junkyards suggest that it is simply unsafe at any speed. please issue a warning to the public and prevent further death and injury.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/19207737/photos it has not been involved in a collision but it is an insurance write off due to undercarriage damage. the suspension has collapsed on all four wheels and some body damage has been caused by the wheels jamming up inside the wheel wells. please investigate this problem.

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=24154272&rownumber=38&loadrecent=true the suspension has collapsed on all four wheels causing the wheels to jam up in the wheel wells. the front rh tire has been peeled off the wheel. it only requires an air leak in the suspension air lines to cause a disaster. this is the only car on the road that does not have limit stops to avoid this kind of catastrophic failure. please investigate.

2014 tesla p85. consumer writes in regard to unintended acceleration. *ld the consumer stated the vehicle accelerated into the wall of the garage, while her foot was on the brake. the consumer stated the rear wall and the front wall of the garage were badly damaged. the consumer was injured. *js

2014 tesla model s. consumer writes regarding nhtsa safety recall 21v-035. *ld the consumer stated the vehicle had a failed chip rendering it unable to be driven. the vehicle had to be towed. the consumer was unable to reach a tesla representative. *js

The power steering suddenly went out while driving.

My vehicle has had a problem with the mulitmediacard (emmc) for years. i have all the documentation from previous reports. i was notified finally by tesla that a recall is underway, but they have not scheduled the repair, and when i enter my vin number on tesla's vin recall search, i get this message error looking up vin. error code 91". there is no way to call tesla, as they require people to schedule in the app. but there is no way to schedule this service in the app at this time. my car spontaneously blacks out while i am driving and several of the intended functions do not work 100% of the time. i am becoming concerned about driving this car at all. can you please help?

Due to the recent recall of the 2014 tesla modal s computer screen. i have paid over $3,700 dollars to replace my screen and now tesla wrote an email says they will not reimburse me for the screen. my tesla modal s computer did not turn on and cannot control any function of the car.

21v035 recall id unit did not function correctly for 5y. was summarily dismissed by tesla service. finally failed, paid for repair . then recall. no reimbursement despite claim made months and months ago. was a major hazard from first year. very dangerous.

We were driving down the highway, and the steering would stop working ( hitting uneven road or switching lanes). i did not have control of the car. meaning in certain areas of the road, there was absolutely no control. it was as if the power steering completely went out. in another area, it would work somewhat, and then we would hit another area and it would not work at all. when we informed the tesla service center they replaced the screen ( because it had been melting) but said the steering was a tire issue. i assure you it was not. please note that the screen has to be replaced because it had been melting goo and this good was dropping out on the center console. this goo had dripped in the airbags and made them non-operational. the only reason we were told of the inoperational airbags is that we had to purchase new ones. please make sure this defect does not happen to another person/family, as it could be fatal. four images attached:1. screen above, 2. leakage below the steering. 3. image of touchscreen. 4. image of touchscreen. you can see the leakage in all images.*dt

Center screen computer would die without warning shutting off air flow, navigation, air suspension and other critical controls like turn signals. sometimes it would take out the instrument cluster so i had no idea what speed i was driving. this happened numerous times at highway speeds of 65-75mph. it would often blink out while stopped in traffic as well. the car also had a habit of making the ac system roar loudly while charging from a home 220v charger.

Mcu failed by going black and not rebooting, as happens when the emmc fails. turn indicators, climate controls, and other vital vehicle information all became inoperable. tesla claims failure was due to mcu flaw and not the emmc failure that they are currently covering in their recall, and refuses to pay for repair of this part. the mcu failure, however, is just as dangerous as the emmc failure they have been forced to cover, and has exactly the same symptoms, but they are refusing to address it in the recall. there are numerous other people on the tesla forums who have had this same failure and have had tesla refuse to cover their failures as well. tesla claims it was not due to the emm and thus they don't have to repair the flaw, but even if in fact this is true, the problem this failure causes results in the same outcome as the emm failure and is just as dangerous. the failure occurred when the car was only 5 years old and made the care more dangerous to operate, just as the emm failure does and creating the exact same symptoms. but tesla argues this is a different part and thus is not covered by recall even though the end result is the same dangerous condition. so in summary, tesla is either refusing to cover a repair they promised to cover, or there are additional flaws in the media control unit that cause the same dangerous conditions and that they should be covering and that should be investigated by your agency.

Because the computer in the tesla model s from 2014 was broken, the car was very low in suspension. tesla knew about it in may 2020, but did not offer a repair even if i paid $2,500. eventually the frame of the car touched the rear passenger side and the tire exploded and the wheel was so low that is bent the frame and big pieces of the frame of the car as the base of the car was touching the street. the car was deemed a total and my compensation from aaa did not even allow me to buy a used model s. the car at the time was in motion on the 380 freeway and i had to drive several yards to get to safety running on the frame of the wheel with the base of the case touching the road.

My drivetrain got water intrusion. this water intrusion rendered my drivetrain to fail. i was told it was not covered by manufacture warranty. warranty was for 8yrs & unlimited miles.

My 2014 model s tesla only has 61,000 miles on it. yet the mcu continually freezes and crashes. especially on long trips. tesla claims my 8gb emmc in the mcu is not malfunctioning due to accumulated wear. but they are not able to diagnose what is wrong. i read the jan 13th nhtsa recall with interest. although the symptoms are similar, excess "read/writes" of the emmc chip does not explain the problem in my mcu. there are other reasons that the mcu in my 2014 tesla s is malfunctioning and crashing. i have videos to show the problem but i cannot load videos on this site.

Our car was non functioning because of the mcu non functioning. the emmc chip was defective and tesla stated our only option was to replace the unit. we did, a recall was issued and now they state we are not eligible for a refund. tesla states that the chip should only be replaced and not the unit even though that was our only option given by the tesla service center.

The screen in the middle/computer is keep restarting and sometimes shut off for about 5 minutes, and from what heard it disable the turn signals and other functions in the car. it happens several times randomly and the last time was yesterday

The touchscreen of my tesla is leaking the glue that is between the glass touchscreen. the glue started as little air bubbles, then has grown to half the screen. it continually leaks onto the center consul. from a google search, it seems to be a common issue with older tesla’s.

This is another complaint about tesla suspension breakages which are the subject of an investigation by nhtsa. please note that i have used a substitute vin since the vin of the car in question is not decipherable due to crash damage. the car is in the copart salvage yard and is available for inspection https://www.copart.com/lot/60420790/photos/2014-tesla-model-s-ca-martinez this car has been in a severe crash and it is almost certain that occupants have been killed or injured. the back wheel and suspension has snapped off and is stashed in the frunk. the front suspension has also snapped off. given the large number of similar suspension breakages that have been reported by owners it is highly probable that broken suspension parts were the cause of this crash and not just damaged by the crash. please go and inspect this car and look into the circumstances of the crash. thank you. keef

This is another complaint in regard to your investigations of tesla suspension breakages. i am filing this complaint on behalf of a tesla model s 2014 owner in norway who is unlikely to report this to authorities. i have used a vin of a random 2014 tesla to file the complaint. here is the thread in which the owner posts. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/another-front-suspension-control-arm-failure.114967/page-20. note that this is page 20 of a gigantic thread of breakage complaints. snip** quashera, today at 5:28 am im a proud member of this club as well now! [​img] heard a thump while driving down the road, thankfully i stopped to turn just a few hundred meters later and when i put in reverse another third snapped off. kind of awkward to block off the entire road. [​img] 2014 model s with ap the part seems to have broken off in 2 pieces, one part broke while driving normally, and the other broke when i stopped to turn. looking at the parts the middle breakage seems quite oxidized, so i think i have been driving for a while with a broken part before it failed completely. (look at the colour difference between the top (old) and bottom(fresh) surface. im so thankful this didn't happen while at speed.** the images are attached to this complaint. please take action. this failure has already killed people. thank you keef

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated while driving 60 mph, while depressing the brake pedal the vehicle began to move to the right independently. the contact stated no warning light was illuminated. the contact was able to drive to her residence. the vehicle was towed to the local dealer tesla (14010 perry hwy, wexford, pa 15090, (878) 332-6091) where it was diagnosed with needing the suspension to be replaced. the vehicle had been repaired. the manufacturer had been informed of the failure. the failure mileage was approximately 38,000.

The car was parked in my garage, and out of the blue it began to spontaneously combust. immediately the garage was filled with electrical smoke.

Two problems: my car is giving off warnings about the suspension. and so far tesla refuses to fix it even though the car is under warranty. 2) the center control unit is slowing down and some of the functions aren't working. so for example, my backup camera would not come on today. again tesla is refusing to fix this and suggesting that i wait firmware fix. and this has been going on for the better part of a year.

 the vehicle's center display is malfunctioning in which we experience a persistent blank center display that does not recover after restarting the touchscreen, loss of certain functionalities occurs. i took it into the manufacturer they said that the "code" issue was fixed, but the problem persists.

I have had repeated failures related to the main display (mcu) on my tesla model s, included failure to start when the car was powered up, "crashing" during driving, "locking" or "freezing" of entertainment screens onto the display that remain even while driving, and slow response to instructions. it was initially replaced under warranty with a remanufactured mcu1 unit in february 2020. the car continued to have problems and i scheduled service two more times during 2020 and tesla refused to replace the hardware each time. they said they "cleared the memory" and "reset the firmware". this solved the immediate problems but the problems returned, sometimes within days. i have heard anecdotally that tesla reduced data logging to try and preserve the life of these units; ironically, i believe, this results in tesla saying there was nothing logged and thus refusing to replace the hardware. in january of 2021, out of concern for the safety of my car, i paid $2500 to upgrade from mcu1 to mcu2 based on staff saying that would solve my problems. it has not. in the 10 days since the upgrade, it has "crashed" 2 more times while driving and "froze" part of the display another time while driving. i have lost unexpectedly : navigation in the middle of a complicated interchange, the rear camera needed to reverse safely, many controls including lights, heating, ac, and charging. with the mcu2 crash, i also lost the dashboard display (e.g. speed). finally, the implementation of the display of the rear camera in mcu2 (the rear camera is the same) is bad - at night the display is so dark it is almost useless. this is a step backwards. i have been repeatedly told an impending firmware update will fix the problems. i have received several updates, but none fixed the problems. the attached photo is the most recent crash of the new mcu2.

My daughter was driving the car. the touch screen suddenly frozen during driving around 12:35 p.m. dec. 28 2020. (the exact date could not remembered, but i have file with tesla on the day it happened). the wind shield got frog up very fast. i could not turn on defrost and almost have a collision due to poor visibility. i had to use paper to clean the moister of the wind shield and so the visibility was good enough for my daughter to drive the car back home safely.

The center info screen goes black and you lose the backup camera , hvac controls, radio, and all other functions to the car. happens randomly. creates a safety issue and is known problem with this tesla model

The touch screen freezes, blacks out, and becomes unresponsive. this is due to a well known issue with the mcu. tesla has issued an extended warranty to 100,000 miles but my car has 106,000 miles so is ineligible and the repair is thousand of dollars. this issue started before the car had 100,000 miles but tesla didn't offer the repair until november, 2020 by which time the vehicle exceeded 100,000 miles. without the touch screen most vehicle controls cannot be accessed which is a major safety issue. issue started on 5/10/2019 and continue to occur almost daily.

In 2019 my main computer screen went blank.and didn't come back on. i was able to drive but had no defogger or other safety features. tesla replaced an mcu computer module. it happened again in 2020. i brought it back january 14 2021 and instead of replacing the unit with a 64 gb unit (the original was a 6 gb unit) they emptied out some information to make more room. i see this as a temporary fix.i am not confident this won't happen again. my car is still under an extended warranty.

The entire screen went black and it started showing the backup camera. i couldn't fix it even by restarting it. notifications included- center display unavailable, it also affected the turn signal while driving and cruise control. other safety features of the vehicle were also unavailable.

Manufactures known defective mcu 1 defective memory housed in daughterboard and screens leaking adhesive in the driver's instrument cluster and 17" screen on mcu, adhesive dripping down onto cabin area .

My touchscreen went out (all black) a year ago. the replacement was a refurbished one. it took two weeks. when i asked if it was improved, i was told it's the same but has a new two-year warrantee. now a year later, it is starting to "act up" like the first. add to that, the last three road trips with it each had something break on it or needed attention. air conditioning compressor 800 miles from home in august 2019. driver's door handle extending gear. and 12v battery, only to learn weeks later that it was "fixed" with a software upgrade. what good is an extended warrantee, if you breakdown on a trip? the car is unreliable. i'm going to get rid of it. just add my complaint to the list of unhappy owners.

Rear end of the car swayed from side to side on sudden acceleration or deceleration. tesla verified the problem and replaced replaced rear tow links and front aft links. they said these parts were worn. they charged $3,098 for the repair. the car only has 38,692 miles on it. i know that tesla cars with similar suspension issues have been recalled in china. it is also clear from various blogs that the problem is quite common. my car is out of warranty but i think the issue is a problem with original design. is there any plan to recall these cars for this issue?

Total loss of display in the middle console keeps going black, total loss of turn signals, suspension control, heater controls, de fog and de ice, no rear camera, no cruise control, high low beams,no ability to use fog lamps. plus many more things too numerous to list. i took it to service dept and they did a temp fix for $150 but told me it will go out again and it did the very next morning. something to do what's called the mcu memory failing. its gone dark on several occasions many different dates. there is no way to know when it will do it again. makes the vehicle in my estimation more likely to get into a crash

1. replaced mcu, at my cost. several weeks later a lesser expensive fix was announced. several weeks after that announcement tesla notified me that i may fall under an extended warranty for the replacement. it turns out that because my vehicle was over 100,000 miles at the time of replacement (114,000) it does not qualify for the extended warranty. i purchase the car as certified pre-owned from tesla with 22,000 miles. my ownership miles was under 100,000 miles at the time of the replacement. considering the failures of the mcu in older model vehicles, and a known problem, i would think i would be covered. 2. door handles - all 4 door handles have been replaced at least twice since ownership. again, a known issue in the design. all but one replacement were completed at no charge. the last replacement was done after 14 months from the previous replacement. tesla only warranties for 1 year since replacement. i don't understand why something that is a known failure would be my responsiblity. 3. tpms sensors - again, a known issue that the original sensors were a bad design. tesla will only replace with the upgraded version, at my cost of around $1,000! i am forced to find a non-tesla repair facility to replace the sensors, at a lower cost. again, where is the accountability on tesla to stand behind known issues.

The instrument control screen is failing as the glass is separating from the glass and unable to view icons on the panel. telsa is not going to replace unless 1500 is paid for replacement with updated screen that does not separate from the glass. some people are reporting it as bubbling or impression of water marks behind the glass but it is the glue failing. this is a known issue. for the wheel issue, the tpms system is failing and telsa will not replace unless 1k is paid to "upgrade" the system.

When driving at low speed and turning the car over slightly uneven surfaces like a driveway or car parks the front suspension makes a clunking and clicking sound. vibration and thuds can be felt through the steering wheel and footwells of the car. i brought to tesla and they said this is wear and tear and charged me $2,700 to fix even though my car is under warranty. many similar issues have been recorded of other teslas with worse cases of parts breaking during slow or highway speeds. tesla service center stated that if i do not want to pay for the repair the car is still safe to drive! even though there are cases of parts breaking while the car is moving. very negligent of tesla staff to state this. car details model s85 61,000ks (38,000miles) year 2014 see attached image of parts repaired.

While driving with my son on local roads, with no unusual bumps or potholes, i experienced an alarming loss of stability. i slowed my speed down and made it home. once the car was in the driveway, i saw that the rear wheel was cantilevered about 15 degrees from vertical. once i was able to hoist the car and look underneath, it became clear that the cause of the problem was a broken lower control arm (see photo). to be clear, there was no accident or incident which caused this and it could have resulted in a dangerous/fatal accident if i'd been driving on a highway or busy road. this appears to be a known issue covered by the service bulletin sb-19-31-001. i had the rear control arms replaced by a local tesla service center at my expense. this issue is a real safety risk though and affected cars should be recalled to prevent accidents and fatalities.

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. https://www.copart.com/lot/19207737 it has not been involved in a collision. the suspension has collapsed on all four corners and the front rh suspension ball joint has popped out causing the wheel to slew sideways and peel off the tire and damage the wheel rim. the is the most clear cut evidence yet found that shows the teslas have defective suspension. please do not allow this defect to be covered up but launch a full investigation. please note, i am not the owner, just reporting in the public interest. date of incident is an approximation.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=24154272&rowid=37&pagesource=vehicleresults the suspension has collapsed on all four wheels. the front rh tire is gouged and completely peeled off the rim. it is near impossiblr for this to have occurred post collision. there have been so many similar incidents that it points to a design/construction weakness. please start an urgent investigation. these cars are large heavy and high powered and present a danger to all road users. please note that i am not the owner, the date of incident and other details are based on my analysis of the photographs. you have the opportunity to inspect the car and investigate the circumstances of the crash.

Here is a model s in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/38489036/?resultindex=14&totalrecords=19&backto=%2flotsearchresults%2f%3ffree%3dtrue&query=tesla&query=tesla&displaystr=search%20results&viewedlot=38489036 the front lh wheel has been torn off but the wheel and tire are shredded. this is similar to the many other cases where the suspension has failed and caused a crash. it is almost impossible that the wheel and tire would have rotated enough times after a crash to have caused such damage. the suspension components are much too fragile for a car of this weight and power. please investigate. note that date of crash and milage are only approximations. biohazard sticker suggests that persons were injured. further information should be available from crash reports.

The car was stopped in stop and go traffic on las vegas boulevard with auto-pilot engaged (both acceleration/de-acceleration/breaking and steering). when the car in front began to move, the tesla began to accelerate. i was not paying attention and another car tried to merge into my lane. the auto-pilot failed to recognize the other car and collided at approximately 10mph, causing minor external damage to both vehicles. damage for tesla came to $600. vehicle was a rental from turo

I was backing out of a parking space and the control arm completely sheered off of my front, driver side suspension. my wheel went into the wheel well. i was so worried that it could have happened while i was on the highway.

I would like to provide information regarding 2 preliminary evaluations in 2020 that nhtsa has opened for a tesla vehicle. 1.the expanded probe june over touchscreen failures. 2.2015-2017 model s and 2016-2017 model x vehicles regarding failure of left or right front suspension fore links. i would like to point out that although nhtsa is used to dealing with "model year" vehicles, it is well known that tesla does not follow the calendar year models like over manufacturers. they introduce new features, fixes, modifications in real-time. i wanted to let you know this as your evaluations maybe should not be cut to the calendar year and possibly gain information on the time when tesla implemented a change to the production. i am including two invoices that i have had to pay this year and here are some concerns. 1. april2020 - mcu replacement. my replaced mcu is still exhibiting the same issues where i can have no rear camera, no blinking sound, extreme delays in the touchscreen, random reboots. i am currently providing evidence to tesla in order for them to fix under warranty. the onis is on me however it seems. tesla's own recall for this issue has a limit of 8 years or 100,000 miles. this is not covering the fact that it is older vehicles that exhibit this issue. this is a defect which has been proven by independent post-tesla service personnel which i can provide you direction to review that info. my point here is please do not let them get away with providing a half-solved solution. the mcu in question is using non-commercial grade emm memory. 2. november2020 - failure of the left or right front suspension fore links. after a visit to a local service station, they mentioned there is a problem. attached is the invoice from tesla replacing the fore links mentioned here. in summary, my car was made in the u.s. i hope you will hold tesla accountable.

Broken front coil springs occurred while vehicle was sitting in the driveway. it appears the driver and passenger side failed at the same time. tire came in contact with wheel liner. no previous indication of a problem before failure steering universal joint went over time where the steering wheel would have to be turned with force when coming out of a turn.

My suspension is constantly making sounds and after taking to tesla it was 3rd time it has been determined that the fore link, control arm and bushings have gone out. i repaired it and now seems the problem is back

My front suspension failed, causing a wheel misalignment and uneven tire wear. the control arms and the suspension ball joints failed, causing the driver's side wheel to be loose. i have kept the parts and the expensive repair bill. it appears that the rubber gaskets failed and water entered the joints causing premature wear. with the lane keep (autopilot function) on highway 40 between lawrence and topeka, the car steers itself either toward the ditch or toward oncoming traffic when approaching the top of a hill. it is very dangerous. 10

My 2014 tesla only 11k miles. when the mileage was around 5k, i have to bring the car back to tesla for service the suspension system was at fault that car could not be raised at some speed bump, as a result the bottom of the car hit the speed bump. i consider it is a safety issue because the battery is installed underneath the car which could cause fire if the battery hot hit and raptured.

My vehicle has less than 60k miles on it. after an unrelated service incident, tesla informed me that i need to replace my front suspension due to "wear and tear" and that it is not covered under standard warranty, even though it is a safety issue. no issues with my rear suspension. this issue was found when i was pulling out of the parking spot at less than 5mph at the tesla service center. multiple experts have confirmed that 60k is too soon for a suspension to fail and that this is the sign of a manufacturer issue. there are many similar cases logged online by other model s owners, where tesla summarily ruled that the failed suspensions were because of normal wear and tear. tesla is charging $2,143.30 for this repair, although my vehicle is fully under warranty.

Suspect mmc chip is failing. having intermittent black screen and rebooting with loss of rear camera function also loss of climate control. contacted tesla who stated my symptoms do not warrant replacement or repair. the black screen and rebooting occurs when stationary and also while driving. also losing bluetooth connectivity, and map function very slow to load. navigation sometimes will not calculate route.

My main screen went black, and i can no longer use the back up camera, temperature control, charging levels, and the 12 v battery is now stating a fault. this is similar to other multiple complaints under action number pe20010.

17 inch screen is leaking liquid crystal which is real sticky and must be wiped off every day, car was at home and parked inside. i have some notes from tesla and a quote of $805.00 to repair it. they also said i am not the first person that this has happened to!!!

Front sway bar link faulty, rattling noise

Right front upper control arm of suspension found to be faulty, during inspection for rattling noise. same car recalled in china for this issue

Here is a 2014 tesla model s in the junkyard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicledetails/34094495?rownumber=64 it has done nearly 100,000 miles and the owner probably thought that nothing could possibly go wro.... but it did. the front wheel is jammed back in the well and rubbing against the bodywork. this is a sure sign of a busted lower forelink. any of you folks at nhtsa interested in this? should i report it to the vehicle safety authorities in china instead? have a nice relaxing day. your friend keef

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact's wife was driving on the highway when the media control unit display went blank. the vehicle was pulled over to side of the roadway. the contact went to the scene, retrieved the vehicle, and drove to the residence. the display screen independently returned to normal operation. the contact called tesla (135 us highway 22, springfield, nj 07081, (973) 921-0925) and the vehicle taken to the dealer to be diagnosed. after a week of testing, the contact was informed that the media control unit needed to be replaced at a cost of $3,500. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the failure mileage was 115,000.

Tesla cpu failure is causing car to have issues. bluetooth will not connect, car will not unlock, lights do not work- either are stuck on or off, blinkers do not work, back up camera does not work, air conditioning is stuck on which drains battery, cannot charge the car when it is not responding as charging port will not unlock. car has essentially turned into a brick with <60,000 miles. very disappointed in tesla. these happen both when vehicle is moving and stationary.

Touch screen interface to many controls does not power up for past 3 months since early june 2020. turn signal does not operate, air conditioning controls not available, car charge rate is defaulted to 8 amps only - think this prevents road trips as charging would take full day to charge, waiting for repair.from tesla for 3 months and finally have scheduled repair after multiple attempts to push this.

Tesla ota software update 2019.16.x capped battery capacity to 72.8 kwh, previously 85 kwh, vehicle was stationary.

Large screen stopped responding, turn signals stopped working. had to pull over and reboot. next day screen showed a lot of artifacts and i had to reboot again to remedy.

The center screen turned off, and the climate control system, traction control, steering control, and most others systems could no longer be changed from what appears to be random settings. i believe this is referred to as either the emmc or mcu failure. tesla’s roadside assistance would not tow the car and told me to drive it to the service center. the service center says the repair is not covered by the 8 year unlimited mile warranty because the drive train is not affected however you cannot control the drive train or suspension system without the center screen. tesla wants $1400 to replace the mcu with one they admit will eventually fail.

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that the monitor for the back-up camera was inoperable. the contact took the vehicle the dealer tesla (28721 canwood street, bldg-a, agoura hills, ca 91301, 816-540-4729 and was informed that the mcuv1 module was defective. the hardware was used to update the system but was inoperable. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. the failure mileage was 70,000.

Failure of touchscreen. dashboard display at -5 brightness, could not see the information. no turn signals and no reverse camera. loss of control to air/heating, sunroof, music, garage door control. tesla remote diagnostics team determined the mcu had an internal fault and would need to be replaced.

Repeat failures of the center console screen and complete replacement of the instrument panel. center console screen has had issues since purchase with going to black screen and rebooting. now the screen will not reboot and all safety and convienience features are disabled. no rear view camera, side and back detection cameras, ac, stereo, headlight, braking function controls, i have a call into tesla, but no response so far. i am afraid that i will not be able to charge the car, this has happened to many owners. this is a known issue and tesla refuses to recall. i will probably need to replace the mcu at a cost of $2500.00, this on top of replacing a defective instrument panel (it delaminated) at a cost of $750.00 (it was $1500.00, tesla reduced to $750.00 and demanded that i say that i was fully satisfied with the repair prior to the work or they would not reduce the fee). my vehicle is out of warranty by less than 7k miles. the insturument panel was at less than 500 miles out of warranty. the rebooting of the center console screen happens when driving and has been occuring since purchase. tesla stated it was a need to reset because the car was processing too much data. they would tell me to erase all navigation data, clear allt he internet history and set the internet to www.google.com. annoying, dangerous and ineffective. please do something about this!!! i know you have received extensive complaints over the course of years. i have attached a photo of the instument panel that was replaced. delamination is a bubble pattern that spreads across the screen making it difficult or impossible to read.. i have literally replaced almost every moving part on this car (drive train, windshield wiper motor, door handles, trunk fittings, head and tail lights due to condensation, continuous rattles. some of these were covered under warranty, some not. ugh!

The battery took a huge 10% drop which seemed to be across all similar models to prevent fires from occurring. i believe this should have been a recall instead of limiting the battery and the last time this car was in for service, tesla was not able to update the firmware further for any additional limitations that might be preventing fires.

Touchscreen failed entirely. touchscreen had been not operating well for 5y or more, but company would not take responsibility. company reported it was due to firmware or software, but clear the mcu or touchscreen gradually lost more and more functionality. was a safety issue with rear camera not engaging and voice commands for traffic or gps not working, climate control also intermittent. all functions worsened until final failure. extended warrtanty was not offered. communication was weak and intermittent, and its own safety issues. now, required to pay entire replacement cost and working well.

Retractable door handles stop working, this is a small piece broken that needs to replaced. i have gotten it replaced twice. it appears to be a manufacture defect

The touchscreen would become less responsive, the power-up time becomes longer, the screen would freeze and would have to be rebooted, or even total failure of the mcu unit and one day complete blackout of screen. this happens when its stationary and driving both

Mcu touchscreen failed. vehicle was stationary. turn signals and other functions quit working.

Total main computer failure (mcu) - many safety features were unaccessible and not available including but not limited to turn signals and hazard lights stop working, the settings for autopilot and driving are gone, the suspension settings, the ability to turn on headlights manually, ability to manually lock and unlock the vehicle, navigation, a/c, sunroof controls, etc.

There is a known issue with tesla media control unit (mcu) dead or won't turn on due to poor design of the emmc memories. the unit eventually dies once the memories are full and the unit won't turn on anymore. since this mcu is the heart of the tesla vehicle, all the safety features will be disable like collision sensors, hazard alert/notification, unlock the door/windows from the inside, most of the gauges on the dashboard are disable, even the lane turn signals are disable and the backup camera. my unit went out since may 2020, tesla will not cover the defected unit, it they will charge me over $1700 to replaced a refurbished one. this is the 3rd time they reschedule my repair since they claim they don't have all the parts in stock. i've been driving the car with a dead mcu for almost 3 months. it is very unsafe when i drive the disable car on the road.

Ms1 broken, needed to replace

The mcu screen has bubbles in it and every so often just goes black.

My automobile has become unresponsive. when i attempt to start it, the message "systems are powering up" appears but nothing happens. this has happened on several occasions and now 2 days in a row and am unable to drive the car as it does not allow me to. i have waited over 15 minutes with still no response. it had remained parked for 3 days before trying to operate it. i am unable to reset the power on the car since the media control screen stays black. the tesla app will not connect to the car. the windows, lights, door locks still operate, but i am unable to shift the car into drive to get to a service center. i am told it will be $195 to diagnose. i have 102,132 miles. the issues started occurring approximately 50k miles after i purchased it. in february of this year, i replaced the 12v battery after a warning indication appeared and told me i needed to. at this time, there are no indications.

My infotainment (center lcd panel) shut off without warning and could not be restarted while driving. this sudden failure took my attention away from the road and repeatedly attempting to restart the screen was also a hazard forcing me to pull to the side of the road but was still unable to restart the infotainment center. with the infotainment system down, the majority of the features in the vehicle are cut off from me. i later read that this is a common problem affecting teslas built between 2013 and 2018.

Tesla mcu failing. no rear view camera. no turn signals and all display items on the center screen unavailable including climate control, when the mcu - media control unit freezes or goes black. i was having symptoms of imminent failure and i had the emmc chip replaced by a 3d party to insure i wouldn’t get stuck.

Media control unit mcu failure. 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

I was driving on the highway, and suddenly the main screen goes black, and the turn signals stop working and i had to use hand signals ( most of the ppl didn't understand them) and the ac system turned off ( i was driving with the kids in the car and until got home they were dehydrated, as it was over 100 degrees outside)

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated the while operating the vehicle the center touch screen display was inoperable and would not illuminate. due to the display failure the rear view camera, turn signal lights and high beam lights would not activate. also while charging, the battery would over heat and the odor of burning plastic was present. the vehicle was taken to the local tesla service center located at 210 andover st. peabody ma.who reprogrammed the system but the failures continued to occur. the contact was informed that the display system needed to be replaced but the parts were not available. the failure mileage was 160,000.

Media control unit(mcu) failed due to design flaw of memory being overwritten until it hits a limit. once the limit is hit, the mcu no longer works. the mcu controls the back up camera and turn signals. both no longer work and i am not able to view the back up camera or signal lane changes or turns while driving.

Mcu failure - emmc failed, resulting in loss of hvac, charging notifications, turn signal clicks, headlight controls, loss of rear view camera etc.

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that the media control unit was defective and inoperable. the contact also stated that while the vehicle was in park, water started to leak from the vehicle. the battery warning light illuminated stating that the 12 volt battery should be replaced soon. the contact called tesla (50 edwards ct, burlingame, ca 94010, (650) 342-1176) where the technician scheduled appointment to have the vehicle diagnosed. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. the failure mileage was approximately 54,000. *ln consumer stated touchscreen does not work, the car door doesn't lock and ac runs while parked. noise of the car is loud and battery runs out fast while parked. consumer cannot see the telsa app and therefore cannot adjust charging and unable to open ac and more.*jb*dt consumer stated media control unit/touchscreen was replaced.*jb

Mcu 1 failure in an older model s. tesla recognized the issue and is now installing a better mcu. however, warranty repairs are being done with refurbished mcu 1 components.

Sometime in 2015/16 my computer system (infotainment/mcu) stopped working correctly. it moved very slow, screen would load slowly, gps loaded even slower, car stopped recognizing the key was in the car and web connection stopped connecting or connected very slowly. i asked the service center to look at this during several routine or repair visits and i was always told it was a firmware issue. after they update the firmware, the problem continued. i complained about this during every visit to the service center and only recently realized that they never noted it as a 'customer complaint' in my service records. they simply listed that they looked at it as part of their routine courtesy check. this is misleading since i definitely complained and asked them to fix it. in recent years, the screen has started randomly going black and often (while driving or idle), the gps only occasionally works, the web never works (hasn't worked for more than 2 years). now tesla says my mcu is faulty and i have to pay $2500 for an upgrade. in the meantime, the computer system has indicated the 12v battery was bad (i paid to replace it but believe this was an mcu error now that my system rarely works correctly). i've reported this issue with the computer more than 6 or 7 times and no one was ever able to determine the cause or repair it. only on a recent visit in 2019 was i told that the mcu will have to be replaced at my expense.

The media control unit (touch screen system in tesla used to control many components of the car is leaking a liquid, and has made it very difficult to make changes as the touch sensitivity was impacted). the media control unit is used to control the locking/unlocking of doors and trunk, the air conditioner, the vehicle’s charging port, etc.

Drove out of town and parked the vehicle in driveway for about 5 hours, when i retuned to drive it back (10 pm) center touch screen was blank. i noticed that there was loss of function of nearly everything in the vehicle. i could still drive it but with ability to use turn signal lights, or headlights (very dangerous drive at night). steering wheel buttons, ac, audio, phone bluetooth, and all controls of the vehicle were completely lost. it was 90 degrees outside that night and had to drive without ac, i could not make or receive phone calls due to black screen, sun roof could not be opened. basically the vehicle became a bare basic vehicle without any of the safety features or even the basic feature such as signal lights. i am not sure if there was an emergency if airbags would have responded either! the car felt just too scary to drive!! odometer would not count the miles too, odometer is lost and app shows the mileage from yesterday (even though i drove 50 miles on it to get home), i even notice battery started draining faster while i was driving it back home.. performed soft and hard reset per tesla website recommendations without ability to restore any of the functions or make the center screen display anything. i attempted connecting through the tesla app, and although i was able to connect to the vehicle, the car would not respond to app for any of the controls, climate etc. contacted tesla next morning and they stated that since vehicle is out of warranty that i will have to bring it to service center or tow it if unsafe to drive and pay for repair to restore its functions. the small dash screen still was working, but continues to display a message to "wait while vehicle systems power up". it is completely an unsafe car at this time on every level

The accident took place on 7/9/20 around 9:15 am. police report # 20-1291-ac i drove my car into the parking lot of 4519 post road (facing post road) and turned into the doctor's parking spot. the car had just about stopped and my foot was not yet off the brake when i suddenly felt the car accelerating. it went right through the hedge in front (about 1 foot away) then went smashing through the office marquee, over the stone wall and on to the street. my foot on the brake, i was trying frantically to stop. the car stopped. relieved, i thought i should quickly get out of the car. to my horror, it started accelerating again. in the next few seconds, it felt as though i was in a james bond movie car chase. the next thing i knew my car was tearing through the white fence of a house and then i remember trying to get out of the car. which fortunately i was able to by opening the driver-side door. didn’t know hit a tree inside breaking it into two. found out later the yard was 4-6 feet below the street. police report is pending at this time

When starting my vehicle, the vehicle's center console screen did not power on. the instrument cluster (behind steering wheel) did power on, but the vehicle was very slow (about 2 minutes) before it could be put into "drive" (the instrument cluster said that vehicle was powering up). i then attempted to restart the center console screen (mcu) manually (by pressing both buttons on steering wheel for 20 seconds), but nothing happened. i began driving, and noticed several functions were not working: when indicating turn signals, there was no sound, and using a large glass window to verify, the exterior turn signals were not lighting up. the rear view camera and parking sensors would not activate when car was in "reverse" gear. headlights would turn on automatically when it was dark, but i had no daytime running lights (also verified with glass window). i could also not manually turn headlights / day time running lights on or off. the climate was off, and could not be controlled. charging was limited, the vehicle would charge but a much slower rate than usual (the instrument cluster said it was charging at only 8 / 40 amps 240v). i continued to drive the vehicle for a week, for short distances, and the vehicle remained in the same state. several months prior, i brought my vehicle to tesla for service, because of constant restarts of mcu every time vehicle was started, after a software update. i was told to update to next available version, which did resolve the issue. after further research, i discovered this is the first symptom of mcu failure, and i would experience frequent restarts of mcu while driving afterwards (which i did) until the unit would fail entirely (which it also did). i am surprised tesla did not warn me of any of these things when i brought the vehicle in for service, instead waiting until vehicle became unsafe to drive.

The media control unit (mcu) failed - this control unit should not be a consumable or wear part - when it fails the turn signals do not operate, the windshield defogger cannot be operated, and many other critical safety systems impacted - the mcu has been acting up and not normal for past 9 -12 months then finally failed completely 07/27/20

My mcu (control screen) failed, went black and didn't come back. the car was stationary in a parking lot. i did a reboot and it failed to reboot. contacted tesla and took to service center where they said it needed to be replaced.

My tesla s has yet another defective mcu console ruined by excessive data communication by tesla.. it is dangerous to drive because the car speed is extremely faint in the instrument window, and there is no sound when the turn signal is activated, no radio, no map, and no hvac control. i have to pay tesla $1553.to replace it with a remanufactured unit - some other owner's ex-mcu? tesla promotes this as a "smart car." without the mcu console, it s a dumb car.

The video scrren (mcu) goes blank while driving and navigating and backing up. while backing into my garage tge screen went blank causing dangerous situation not seeing what was behind me. while navigating the screen went blank causing me to miss an exit on the freeway.

May be related tp pe 20-010 in my car sometimes ac is off immediately alos in combination with rearview mirror is set to reverse driving position. sometimes it happens together even whilst driving forward. depending on weather conditions visibility is reduced immediately try to pull over to emergency lane is dangerous as mirror only shows surface of tarmac. sometimes this happens in correlation to stuck or sputtered music or a mcu reset out of the blue.

Screen blacked out and i lost signals and control

My tesla p85d year 2014 had the center console that controls all the navigation, heating, a/c, seat adjustments, music, charging, has gone bad and a lot of the blogs i read state this is due to a faulty flash memory with the multimedia control unit (mcu). the car is driveable but too many features that you depend on to drive are not operable due to the media console not being usable. the media console is just black and not able to be turned on.

The control touchscreen in my 2014 tesla model s kept rebooting itself for no apparent reasons. sometimes, it did that while i was driving and i didn't know what happened. the screen went dark (blank) for several minutes and i lost access control to the car. those control features can only be accessed through the touchscreen. it happened quite a few times while my wife was driving and she was extremely scared to continue driving. both she and i had to safely pull to the side of the road/highway and waited until the screen came back. we're afraid that one of these days, we will lose full control of the car which may in turn cause an accident. *tr

On may 19th, i attempted to start the car but found that the main central touchscreen would not turn on. multiple attempts to start, including all available reboot options as instructed by tesla tech support via phone failed to restart the screen. because service had to be performed at the dealership in atlanta, i was forced to drive the vehicle without the touchscreen. while basic functions were available, the loss of the touchscreen created a significant safety issue. i had to drive roughly 75 miles on the interstate during a heavy rainstorm. the loss of touchscreen meant i had no climate control--no a/c or defrost functions--so visibility was greatly impaired and i was reduced to periodically (and dangerously) wiping the windshield with a towel to maintain visibility. there were multiple other impacts, including loss of all audio and bluetooth, navigation, and i would worry that some of the electronic safety systems like collision avoidance might have been affected. if this had happened in winter during a snowstorm, the impact could have been even more dangerous. the problem turns out to be well known by tesla. it was a defective media control unit. this unit uses a flash memory chip, hard-soldered to the circuit board and thus not replaceable without replacing the entire board. the memory chip has a limited number of read-write cycles, and due to the tesla's programming, data are constantly written to the chip daily (and this is not a user-defeatable option). replacement was done by the dealer, for a cost totaling 1868.07, not covered by any type of warranty.

See nhtsa action # 20010. media control unit failed 7/8/2020 @ 5:04 pm when returning to the car after a brief stop, in a parking lot. car took several minutes to "reboot" to drivability, but center screen is still down. backup camera and blinkers (inside or outside, confirmed) are not working. additional items down include defrosters, auto tilt mirrors for reversing, seat heaters are stuck on (from when i had last used them), sunroof won't open (it ignores steering wheel controls). brake lights are still functional, so i drove it home. called tesla and was told that the replacement module is out of stock and is not expected for many weeks. in the meantime, the car is undrivable.

My mcu just went black and never came back on. it has been like this for 5 days. i am unable to charge the car, and no climate controls, and also no rear view camera. i have a service appointment in 2 weeks, and they refuse to upgraded the mcu1 to an mcu2 which will have less change of having this failure in the future.

The front trunk is opening on its own while driving. tesla replaced the media control unit in june 2020 and this problem has started since then. additionally the rear trunk opens on its own too. the front and rear trunk open on their frequently while parked and the front trunk opened today, while driving, on a city street. tesla has been noticed of the issue.

Media control unit that controls the car stopped functioning altogether. car was not operational.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard. https://www.iaai.com/vehicledetails/35884294?rownumber=4 the back wheel has gone whompy. the tread on that tire is completely gouged away. this means that the owner drove for some distance unaware that the suspension had collapsed ( possibly caused by a failing mcu which controls the suspension height among other things). finally the wheel went whompy and things turned bad. real bad.. please recall these deadly defective juggernauts. thank you [xxx] information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

The mcu (large touch screen control panel) has been rebooting randomly for years while driving renderimg some car functions non functional including turn signal. today it turned off completely leaving the car drivable but handicapped and i am unsure if it safe to drive. i understand tesla knows about the emmc failure that can cause this issue yet they don't warn customers about this potential issue especially when under warranty and when it could cause dangerous driving conditions. the least tesla could do is tell customers about what dangers may be present and that some legal based functions of the vehicle like the turn signals will be inoperable. it's upsetting that tesla knows about these issues and is not informing customers.

Main screen turns off. the 17" center screen freezes and then turns off not letting use rest camera, door unlock, and hvac.

The battery range on the car was limited by 10% in order to prevent a fire from happening.

The mcu unit - media control unit - is failing. signal light indicator does not make a sound, the warning sounds for being too close to an object are gone. other warning beeps, chimes, bells, etc. are gone. some indicators on the display screen are inoperable. the touch screen does not respond to touch for some features/controls. all of the car's controls are on the touch screen. my car is only 6 years old. it is solid state circuitry. how can it fail ? my warranty had just expired. of course. this is an electronics problem of a key component of the vehicle. i don't know if it is due to poor design or defective components but it is a serious enough problem that i felt i should report it.

The media control unit (mcu) failed on my tesla in january 2020. the mcu controls safety features such as front and rear defrost, hazard lights, headlights, turn signals and charging for the main battery. the emmc chip failed when the vehicle was parked. the failure caused the vehicle to be inoperable.

Mcu unit has a design fly where it will be inoperable causing a safety issue. *tr

The main screen on my 2014 tesla s recently went out and some research online shows that many others experienced the same issues. tesla sent a technician and said it is the mcu (media control unit) chip that went bad and a replacement will cost $1,500+ the tesla technician said the car is drivable but the blinkers do not work, along with the back up camera and parking sensors. he stated those things are integrated with the main mcu unit and when the mcu goes out, those things will not function. i am concerned about driving my vehicle without the function of the blinkers as it could present a hazard. there has been reports similar to mine where tesla added a finite memory chip to the mcu system that deteriorate and will fail after a length of time and because tesla update the software in the car very frequently, the wear on the memory chip deteriorate at an accelerated rate. the tesla technician said that the new chip should have 4x the capacity and should last much longer, but will cost $1,500 to replace since my vehicle is out of warranty. with the safety issues mentioned, i am weary about driving my car, especially on the highway - not being able to use the turn signals. if this is a manufacture defect, i do not wish to be responsible for payment to have it fixed. thank you *tr

While stationary, just after getting into the car which in this car is how it turns on, mcu is failing due to excessive logging issue. main screen goes black randomly. lose control of major functions of car, including ac.

The mcu, which is the large display and control screen started to fail. the heating and ventilation controls didn't work properly, and the bluetooth would not present call history, preventing safe vehicle use. about 6 weeks ago, the mcu failed completely, which prevented turning on the headlights manually. i had previosuly had set them to automatic, so they turned on at night, but i live in off a highway where it is mandatoryfor daytime headlight use, and i was unable to control them the failure in the mcu was determined to be the emmc which is the solid state hard drive in the mcu. it has a limited lifespan and they typically fail when they exceed their expect number of writes to the drive. tesla informed me that they have changed the software so it doesn't write as much routine data to the ssd. i had the mcu replaced at a tesla service center on june 12, 2020, at a cost of $2180.06, since my standard and extended warranty had expired. my tesla has more than 191,000 miles on it. most manual controls are inoperative, including the backup camera. configuring the car is also not possible.. *tr

Touchscreen was unresponsive and needed to be repaired. vehicle was stationary. *tr

Mcu failed and i was not able to drive my car. if i was to drive no turn signals were active and your unable to charge.tesla charged me 1500 dollars for a replacement. *tr

Mcu 17" black screen. caused issue where car would not charge above .5kw additionally backup camera no longer worked. i had a 3rd party repair the failed emmc which resolved the problem. this however is a much larger issue. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/consolidated-emmc-thread-mcu-repair-black-center-screen.181124/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/feds-investigate-failing-mcus.197384/. *tr

The tesla mcu1 is known to fail as highlighted by many respectable news agencies. there are even shops around the country specializing in this crazy repair that involves hacking the car. the mcu in my car is beginning to fail and will black out/freeze randomly. basically the ideal use for it, is not to use it so it doesn't crash. when it does, i experience loss of audible and visual touchscreen features, such as infotainment, navigation, and web browsing, and loss of the rear-camera image display when in reverse gear. after several reboots, it does boot up, often wifi does not work, 3g connection does not work, maps take a long time to load as i am driving and navigating any of the options causes the unit to freeze. it takes additional reboots to resolve these issues. this is a big issue considering all lights, suspension features, ac and pretty much all aspects of the car are controlled from here. even though the car is in warranty, tesla's solution is to reset the car and wear the emmc more. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that while driving over a dip in his driveway at 5 mph, the driver’s side rear wheel started to shake without warning. the vehicle was towed to tesla (881 boston post rd, milford, ct 06460) where the vehicle was diagnosed with an upper control arm failure. the vehicle was repaired. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the failure mileage was 78,127.*jb

Center display went black. car was stationary. no ac, no back up camera,no blinkers etc.

Mcu -touchscreen failing. the screen is literally melting/separating. tesla service has told me that this is the first step toward screen failure but they can not tell me when it will fail. cost to repair is approximately $2,500.00. with a long trip in the next month, i will need to replace or risk a potential safety issue. *tr

Due to recent news this week of nhtsa investigating the tesla model s from 2012 to 2015 regarding the faulty screen, i wanted to report that i had a similar problem. the large screen called mcu or media controlled unit on my model s would have problems of blacking out while driving or when trying to start from a parked position. ultimately, it shut down altogether. i had reported the problem to tesla when the screen blackout problems were happening in 2018 and 2019 by calling customer service. tesla's customer service told me to reboot the system by holding down the two scroll buttons. after multiple reboots over a period of 6+ months, the screen blacked out permanently, and the reboot solution no longer worked. i had to get the problem fixed at a cost of $2,614.50. *tr

Model s in junkyard. https://erepairables.com/salvage-cars-auction/tesla/model+s/vid-42872637 back wheel gone whompy. but i don't suppose you'd be interested. regards [xxx] information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

Vehicle’s mcu goes black and reboots when in flight. loss of ability to control key vehicle features.

I went to turn on my car in the morning and the mcu was showing a checker pattern of errors. as i drove the gps did not update my location. when i got back in the car the mcu was completely dead black. the car has already had the mcu replaced once in 2017, 3 years after delivery from tesla. 3 years later it died again and i’m having to replace it out of warranty from tesla. the bill is expected to be $2000 and the car is supposed to be in the service center for over a week. *tr

Tesla model s onboard memory has failed leading to no use of main interior screen. out indicator lights and high beams do not work making it very unsafe to operate. this happens to many tesla's with the mcu v1. the chip they use becomes corrupted and can cause all sorts of damage. *tr

My emmc chip failed in mcu when vehicle was five years old with less than sixty thousands miles. no rear view camera, no accessories are working, no ac, touch screen went black. with “pin to drive” activated car becomes a brick: you can’t enter pin because screen doesn’t work - can’t start/drive. replacement with remanufactured unit (not even new) cost $2000!!! *tr

Vehicles mcu (middle control unit) stopped working. blinkers would not work, so i was unable to signal while driving. the rearview camera stopped working as well and the ac system was stuck on. *tr

Mcu the main display is slow to respond and internet access does not work as it should. screen blinks/turns off randomly. *tr

The mcu stopped working, i'm lead to believe based on forums i've read on, this is due to the emmc failing due to tesla having a design flaw and also having excessive amount of unnecessary logging to the chip. *tr

My car experienced the issues described in nhtsa action number pe20010 with a premature mcu failure due to the emmc card failing. this emmc card has been found to fail too quickly due to tesla allowing debug logging to the emmc card that is not needed for normal vehicle users. this excess logging was confirmed by elon musk on october 12 2019 https://twitter.com/wk057/status/1211704973970550785. this expensive fix after failure had to be repaired out of warranty for a large cost. this failure causes the rear view camera to fail to work, the climate control to fail to work meaning that defrosting does not work causing potential vehicle issues, and potential slow charging of the car. the car also takes about 30 seconds to a minute to get out of park while the vehicle subsystems "fail" the mcu also causing a safety issue if the driver needs to get out of a troubling situation quickly. *tr

The touch screen went blank in late april or early may, and i could not rejuvenate it with a reboot or other techniques. the backup camera and other critical features and controls were not functional as a result. i took the car to tesla and they replaced the media control unit (mcu). i am attaching the estimate which indicates the repair and cost for that repair. at this point, the mcu replacement seems to have solved the issue. *tr

Screens go blank at times and in the middle of driving. screen in picture is delaminating. this happens multiple times, not just a single occurrence.

Exactly as described in your open investigation, nhtsa action number: pe20010. the touchscreen display went black on 02/23/20, no touchscreen-related functions worked (including camera displays, navigation, charging, etc). tesla service station replaced the mcu (3/10/20-3/20/20), at my expense, even though this flash device fails because of tesla's own extremely high number of program-erase cycles -- and that massive data transfer benefits only tesla, not the car owner. they install mcus that fail due to the high demands placed on them by the company, for the company. then they charge the consumer for a replacement, and this will happen again and again. *tr

All four handle on my car have been replaced within 3 years of usage. the door handle were stuck in close position and the door can not be open from outside. it seems like a safety issue if the door handle can not be open from outside in the event of emergency. *tr

The door handle sometimes does not extend and stuck in position. if the door handle stuck in close position, during an fatal accident, the first responder will not able to open the door and save life. *tr

Touchscreen failure due to emmc chip. this rendered many of the vehicle functions useless, such as ac, turn signals, high-beams, radio, navigation, back up camera, proximity sensors, garage door opener, infotainment info, and charging. i was told by a tesla service center rep that if battery fail do to not being able to charge it would be on me. even though that function was rendered useless due to the screen failure. the car was parked in the garage while charging when this happened, i woke up to a black screen the next morning. *tr

Issue is failing mcu frequently will turn off and stay off. taking 10 minutes to come back on. this keeps everything from hazards to rear view camera from working.

While parked with the sunroof open, when i went to re-enter the vehicle, the main screen (mcu) remained blank and never came back to life. while driving home, i was unable to use turn signals, adjust basically any driving items including suspension, drive mode, steering controls, hvac, lights, or close the sunroof. the car was technically able to be driven, but i also had no light control, no back up camera, and it could only charge at a basically unusable speed. tesla's only fix was to replace the entire mcu unit.

When i went to start the car the central touchscreen failed. could not control the lights, a/c, heating, could not recharge the car. tesla charged me out of warranty over $2000 to replace the touchscreen with a refurbished one. they refused to give the old part to me even though this was replaced in nevada where the law states that they have to give the old parts back to the owner. i had to pay them another $1000 to get the part back as it contained so much private information. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that at start-up, the display failed to illuminate. the vehicle was taken to tesla (5544 okeechobee blvd, west palm beach, fl 33417) to be diagnosed however, the mechanic was unable to duplicate the failure. the contact stated that as a courtesy, the vehicle was repaired. the manufacturer was not reachable. the failure mileage was approximately 1,300.

Tl the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that the vehicle was taken to an unknow dealer to have the passenger frontal air bag replaced under recall 18v031000 (air bags) however, the dealer was unable to perform the recall repair. the contact was informed that the cmu software needed to be update out of pocket prior to the air bag replacement. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 13,900.

Here is a blood splattered model s in the salvage yard. https://www.copart.com/lot/61373949/photos it has had an off-road adventure after the back wheel went whompy. it should be obvious to even a semiskilled shopping trolly mechanic that the suspension of a car should be stronger than the fragile alloy wheels. even if this car had hit a bump whilst off-roading the suspension should not have snapped and left the wheel and tire undamaged. now that tesla factory and service centers are closed down there will be no maintenance and repair. not even the largely ignored tsb concerning weak suspension links https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2019/mc-10153421-9999.pdf what is your problem dudes? get these things off the roads before more people get maimed and killed. regards keef wivaneff the unhinged.

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates a software update in may 2019 is when this began, tesla has capped the max voltage the high voltage battery would charge to, should be 4.2 volts and now its 4.08 volts. tesla claims this was done "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. there has been no official safety update to date. this change happened while the car was parked in my garage and stationary.

The tesla model s has a bad mcu unit (media control unit) every car made suffers from a programming overload that ruins the tegra 3 emmc flash memory. once the memory corrupts, the media control unit shuts off permanently. a driver can end up stranded because the car will also stop charging or limit the charge to 21%. the safety systems attached to the media control unit are all off and no longer function. safety backup cameras, audible alerts and perimeter alarms that would tell you if a person/object is in proximity to the car, all no longer function. the inability to know and react to these safety systems presents a life/safety issue. a child could be behind the car and the car will not alert the driver and the driver cannot see because the camera is also off. the cars media control unit also shuts off mid-drive. the unit turning off without warning, presents a life safety issue.

Dear sir, i bought a tesla car from usa auction and imported it from usa to my home country jordan. i contacted tesla usa to change the ownership of the car to my account and it is done. i'm driving my car for +2 years now. tesla usa sent me an email and mail letter stating that my car has recalls. when i visited tesla jordan to repair the recall; they refused to repair the recalls; claiming that my car is not supported due to old accident history (while the car was in usa);;; even though the accident history is repaired by tesla usa. now, i'm under the risk of the airbag and steering faulty, which might danger me and my family; god forbid. regards,

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates - vehicle had sudden loss of battery capacity and charging velocity after software update in may 2019. this has continued with a roughly 15% reduction in the kwh rating of the battery (published rating 85.0, actual 71.65). i am disappointed with the reduction in the performance and usability of the car, but more concerned with the potential of an undisclosed defect or risk that i am am not aware of.

Door handles breaking and not releasing. the door handle jammed and would not open . this is a major safety issue , esp in case of emergency exits of passengers in an accident . this has been an issue very common with tesla cars.

Tesla has limited charging speed after a 2019.16.x software update to almost 3x slower, following reports of fires with cars while just sitting there. the car has additionally began deteriorate quickly as distance available to drive after the 2019.16.x update has gone down as well. this is now known on the internet as "batterygate" and "chargegate". due to lack of communication from tesla on this issue and fires surrounding cars with similar batteries, i am not confident the issue has been resolved with just software and the car is completely safe to operate with the battery it was sold with. i am not even sure it is safe to sleep under the same roof as where it is being parked.

From a coasting position in an underground garage, i turned right to round a 90 degree corner. after completing the turn my car began to speed up rapidly. when i first noticed the acceleration beginning, i stepped on the brake, which had no effect. the car continued to accelerate over a distance of about 50 feet and collided head-on with a concrete wall. front airbags on the driver's side deployed and my body struck them: face, chest, and lower legs. i have injuries from the incident.

Subframe broke after 80,000 miles or normal driving. no accidents or damage to car affecting this area. just driving on the highway and all of sudden started to hear a thumping sound when accelerating or decelerating or backing up.

My tesla did an uncommanded acceleration, jumped the curb and hit a chick-fil-a restaurant on 9/04/2019: 1) first and most importantly, i am 100% certain that i did not touch the accelerator or in any way cause the uncommanded and unintentional acceleration of the vehicle. i have driven cars and trucks well over a million miles and never once accidentally pressed an accelerator or jumped a curb when parking. 2) i have been driving my tesla daily for four months and i am very familiar with the vehicle and it's systems and controls. i am also very familiar with the specific parking space where the accident occurred. i have parked there many times in the past, and mostly in the tesla during the last four months. 3) the details of what took place immediately preceding the accident are as follows: the weather was clear and sunny. while going slowly down a slight slope approaching the intended parking area, i removed my right foot from the accelerator and allowed regenerative braking* to slow the car even more while i positioned my right foot very lightly on the brake pedal while creep mode* kept the car slowly moving forward. with about two feet to go, i modulated the brake pedal pressure to slow the car more and make sure that the front splitter didn't bump the curb..... suddenly there was a hard impact, a loud bang, and the front right corner** of my car was in the brick wall, all in a very small fraction of a second. it felt like i had been rear-ended, but there was no other vehicle involved. * creep mode & regenerative braking -- see online owner's manual ** hit on "front corner" because parking space is at an angle to the building.

In december 2016 the car accelerated spontaneously while i was in my driveway. tesla maintained i pushed on the excelerator instead of the brake going from 2 to 92 miles an hour in just a few seconds. the car was repaired and on january 12,2020 the car once again self accelerated. both times substantial damage was done to the front of the car and to my home. i was not injured however a passenger was in the car in 2016 and maintained she had hip injuries as a result. the insurance company did settle with her. both accidents were not the result of my inadvertently depressing the excelerator. there definitely is a substantial danger to the public. the car is currently at raintree auto body in scottsdale arizona. i have not called tesla az yet as i do not particularly want them to get the black box. i do have a photo of the car impacting the courtyard wall of my house however it is on my iphone and i do not know how to send it to you.

Here is a model s in the salvage yard. somebody ran into the back of it. most likely because the front wheel and suspension fell off causing it to slow down unexpectedly. https://www.copart.com/lot/58905699/photos even the headlights are intact. the air-bags have not deployed. so why did the suspension fall to bits? i think we know the answer to that. the suspension parts are as fragile as a sparrows leg. teslas are stuck in ludicrous/insane mode. please investigate. thank you. keef

Rear subframe failed at 78k miles. tesla response was i did harsh acceleration and street potholes were the issues. i was driving 20 mph when i suddenly heard knocking noise. i came to complete stop. looked around and underneath my car for any foreign obstacles. everything was clear so i put my car in reverse. heard loud knocking sounds from rear left tire. took it to tesla service, where i was told that this is not drive unit( part that’s under warranty, which is hold by the failed subframe and was replaced twice prior, but the subframe itself) and its a safety issue. speaking of safety issue i had to go to the nearest tesla service, when i occurred this issue and advisor told me, they don’t have time to resolve my issue right now , so i had to drive it 30 miles away to a different one, where i was told that this is safety issue.

Please note that i have used the vin of another wrecked tesla to make this complaint since i do not have access to the correct vin of the car involved. here is an auction listing of a tesla in australia. https://www.pickles.com.au/damaged-salvage/item/-/details/no-c-p--tesla--model-s--hatchback--5-doors/2003433925 the car has not been in a crash, the only damage is a detached rear wheel and suspension with slight bodywork damage where the wheel exited the vehicle. since i am an australian citizen i feel that these cars pose a risk to my own safety as well as to other road users and that i am perfectly entitled to make such complaints. i am hoping that by the sheer volume of incidences of tesla suspension failures reported nhtsa will at least concede that there may be a problem and will launch a proper investigation. thank you for publishing all of my complaints. just need that investigation to commence. have a great day. keef

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updates the battery range on my vehicle has been capped via a software update by tesla without my consent. i was not notified that tesla would cap my battery's maximum charge, which in turn reduced the range and power of my vehicle via an over the air software update. the car was advertised as a 85 kwh battery, but now, with the battery cap, the battery is much less than 85 kwh. if there was a safety issue with the battery, tesla should have notified me. also, the battery should be replaced instead of having the safety issue still there and decreasing the performance.

Sudden loss of range with 2019.16.x software update. my vehicle was one of the many vehicles that was effected by software update by tesla. i have lost about 30 miles in range and the supercharging speed is significantly decreased compare to prior to the software update.

Vehicles media control unit (mcu) has a known and well-publicized defect caused by over-logging on the emmc chip. this defect causes the mcu to glitch, reboot and fail eliminating the ability to control both safety and convenience features including climate control, defroster, gps, audible safety warnings and other systems. vehicle can also stop charging. this is a well-documented design flaw that tesla is well aware of (simply google tesla mcu failure) but refuses to cover out of warranty. the most recent "fix" via an over the air update simply delays the issue until vehicle is out of warranty but based on current evidence this defect will effect 100% of cars, both model s and x, made between 2012 and early 2018.

The driver of the tesla (vin entered) reported that the tesla was operated in autopilot when it struck our parked car. our car was parked on a residential street with a 25mph speed limit. both cars sustained significant damage rendering them un-drivable. see the attached photos of our damaged parked car and the tesla.

"takata recall" and bolts that attach the power steering motor to the power steering gear. subject: recall code: 19v-002 / recall code: 18v-204 / recall code: 19v-002. replacement of front airbags and power steering engine bolts. hon. gentlemen, my advance and respectful regards. as agent of the hon. mr. (xxxx), i come to expose and request as follows: please inform my constituent member that i have received a letter from you. realizing the need to replace your tesla brand air bag. this need, according to your information, is related to a defect detected in certain models produced between 2014 and 2016. more inform you. failure to remedy the anomaly may result in the explosion of the aforementioned air bag, and as a consequence passengers may be hit with sharp metal fragments, resulting in serious injury or even death (as document attached). i have also learned from you that due to exposure to corrosive environments certain bolts may break and result in the loss of power steering, which may result in accidents (see attached document). in the light of the foregoing, my constituent immediately went to tesla's premises in lisbon, av. antÓnio augusto de aguiar 31, 1069-413, in order that your representative should carry out the interventions indicated by your services. successes that regrettably, tesla in lisbon refuses to make the necessary replacement, and for this reason the vehicle in question remains a serious danger to those who drive it. now, in the light of all the above, and since the life of my constituent and his family is at present in danger, i use this letter in order to ask you to tell me where to go to solve it. the reported anomalies. without another matter at the moment, awaiting your dear news, i subscribe myself with high consideration. annex: your calling actions, vehicle registration. the lawyer redacted to protect personally identifiable information pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6).

Beginning in june, the subject vehicle suffered from a severe and sudden decrease in the amount of range available as a direct result of software updates issued by tesla without disclosure to owners. prior to the updates, the subject vehicle had approximately 255 rated miles available. following updates 2019.16.1 and 2019.16.2, the subject vehicle suffered immediately from a range drop to 225 available miles. the subject vehicle has also been unable to charge fully and now suffers from decreased charging speeds. the owner of the subject vehicle went to ncds arbitration, seeking a manufacturer replacement of the battery under warranty, but the arbitrator decided that there was no proof of defect. tesla claims that this is normal degradation. however, the negative effects were caused solely by tesla's software updates, for which it has yet to disclose whether there are cars affected and potentially at higher risk of catching on fire. tesla has failed to communicate anything with regards to the safety of the affected vehicles and has continued to make adjustments to the software without providing owners with any notice or information that their vehicle may be affected. the owner of this vehicle was denied a warranty replacement after having the claims arbitrated with national center for dispute settlement, where the arbitrator found that there was no manufacturing defect. the subject vehicle continues to suffer from a high rate of battery loss when the car is parked and not in operation. the car has not regained any mileage as a result of tesla's most recent updates that have attempted to remedy the situation. the subject vehicle suffers form reduced charging speeds and is not capable of reaching the same number of miles as it did before.

On may 20th, 2019, the subject vehicle was updated with tesla's software updates and lost over 20 miles overnight. the vehicle has suffered from a throttling of performance, charging speeds, and a lowered maximum battery voltage capacity which has led to a significant decrease in the number of rated miles available. tesla has denied a battery warranty replacement by claiming that there is no defect. tesla claims that the updates were issued to improve battery longevity and health. however, they are doing so to avoid replacing these under warranty and/or compensating owners for the loss in range. this appears to be in response to the growing number of battery fires that have occurred with tesla vehicles that are parked and not in operation. tesla has failed to communicate anything with regards to the safety of the affected vehicles and has continued to make adjustments to the software without providing owners with any notice or information that their vehicle may be affected. the owner of this vehicle was denied a warranty replacement after having the claims arbitrated with national center for dispute settlement, where the arbitrator found that there was no manufacturing defect. the subject vehicle continues to suffer from a high rate of battery loss when the car is parked and not in operation. the car has not regained any mileage as a result of tesla's most recent updates that have attempted to remedy the situation. the subject vehicle suffers form reduced charging speeds and is not capable of reaching the same number of miles as it did before.

Software updates by tesla have limited range usage by lowering the available voltage max capacity for charging. *tt “parts of this document have been redacted to protect personally identifiable information pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6).”*jb

My li-ion battery has been degraded recently by an over-the-air software update. i believe that this update is related to the recent battery fires (4 in ladt 4 months, including one in san francisco). only a few (100 to a few thousand i believe) of the teslas have been affected as mine has been. i am now concerned about the safety of my vehicle. will my battery catch on fire in my garage? i would like nhtsa to review the changes made by tesla and approve that these changes will be effective for the safety of my battery. or, does this point to a defective battery and should be recalled for safety reasons?

The bearing in the drive shaft is damaged and constantly whines during acceleration. i brought the car to the dealer in chicago two months ago. they said the drive shaft had to be replaced. they ordered the drive shaft and said it would be delivered in 7 days. i have contacted them numerous times and get no response.

In may 2019 our tesla model s p85d battery charging capacity reduced from about a maximum charge of 248 miles to about 218 miles. tesla did not notify us that this would happen and after several phone calls and letters there has not explanation or information as to why it occurred.

Tl* the contact owned a 2014 tesla model s. while the vehicle was parked in the garage charging, it caught fire and burned at the contact's residence. the fire department extinguished the fire and police and fire reports were filed. there were no injuries. the vehicle was towed to a research center, but was not diagnosed because it was destroyed. the vehicle was not taken to a local dealer. the manufacturer was made aware of the failure and sent an investigator to inspect the vehicle. the vin was not available. the failure mileage was 17,000.

I have a p85d and since recent software updates my range has dropped significantly.. my supercharger sessions have also become extremely slow resulting in almost an an extra hour to charge the car compared to before updates. these updates seem to be a makeshift cover for defective batteries due to high fire and explosion risk, which have occurred on other tesla cars. so instead of fixing batteries tesla reduced their capabilities across the board.

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that one of the headlights would not function without warning. the contact stated that the failure occurred intermittently and, at times, both headlights would not illuminate. the contact took the vehicle to tesla (470 lancaster ave, devon, pa 19333, 610-407-7030) and was informed that there was a prior complaint related to the same failure; however, the only solution would be to replace both headlights. the contact was provided an estimate for the cost to replace both headlights. the vehicle was not repaired. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the failure mileage was unknown.*dt*jb

My vehicle hv battery failed twice in 2 months. tesla changed it, lost use of vehicle during 9 weeks. on the 2nd battery swap, i now lost range by 25 to 35 miles.

Nhtsa action number: dp19005 – investigation subject: battery management software updates i am concerned about the safety of my family being in and around my car. on may 29, 2019 i received software 2019.16.2 73d3f3c. although not known at the time, when installed, it reduced battery capacity by about 8kwh, and performance by about than 40kw. there was no notification from tesla this was being done. on 14 february 2017, (before software 2019.16.2 73d3f3c), at 100% and 76.6kwh of 76.4kwh remaining capacity, module voltages were about 4.19v. this is expected and typical for a fully charged li ion battery. after the software change the battery charges to 390v, and a max cell voltage of about 4.07v. it is well understood the li ion batteries degrade with use. however, limiting the cell voltages at 100% soc is not “normal degradation”, but this is clearly now being done, based on the data above, and the lack of regen while driving the car at these reduced cell voltages. this appears to be a deliberate action on the part of tesla. it may be the result of some now-detectable defect, which through deception, tesla is attempting to cover up. tesla claims to have done this “out of an abundance of caution” after several non-crash fires. i believe that this may be a safety issue. if my battery is “normal" then it shouldn't need protecting via a software update, the conditions would have been known to tesla for the last five years. if tesla decides to suddenly, and without any owner notification, to "protect" something five years after it was manufactured, i suspect it's because something is very, very wrong. there are also indications this was deliberately done in such a way as to make it less noticeable to owners. please provide an independent assessment of the safety of my car and battery pack.

The car has lost a large amount of charging speed. tesla has informed me multiple times there is nothing wrong when i know for a fact the charge speed has dropped an average of 10kw from when i first bought it. my main marker was at 5p% the car would be at 72kw and now after a random ota update a few months ago at 5p% i'm am usually around 55kw. this drop in charge rate has caused me to be late, and it makes every charge stop take about 15 minutes longer than it would previously

Re: nhtsa action number: dp19005 - investigation subject : battery management software updatesstarting with a software update in may 2019, tesla reduced battery capacity from 73kwh to 62kwh. 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. there is a fire safety issue here that is not made public by tesla.

After software update supercharging slowed by more than 50% and range on full charge dropped

Shortly after updating the vehicle with tesla's software updates 2019.16.1 and 2019.16.2, it was discovered for the first time that the vehicle had suffered from a sudden and immediate loss of approximately 26 miles of range as a result of the pair of software updates. the updates in question also severely decreased the supercharging speeds for the vehicle. in addition, the software updates issued by tesla did not disclose anything with regards to the range loss or decreased charging speeds. tesla has released updates since initial range-reducing and charge-speed limiting updates which were supposed to and purportedly were issued to correct the problems, however, there is no significant change or increase in range or charging for the vehicle to date. note - this complaint has been submitted by legal counsel who currently represents the affected owner for this specific vehicle. legal counsel here also serves as counsel to the putative class members and named class plaintiff in the litigation currently pending in the u.s. district court, northern district of ca, case no. 5:19-cv-01422-vkd.

My electric car battery overheats so much and lost more than 25% of the range with the latest computer upgrade. this is cheating. tesla remotely lowered my battery range without my approval

Touch screen control panel has been deteriorating over the past 2 years. since the screen is an integral part of the vehicle control system functionality of the vehicle control is beginning to be impacted. tesla has had a known problem, but has not been willing to repair or replace. i believe this is a safety concern that nhtsa should investigate and that tesla should be held accountable.

Tesla. gone whompy. very whompy indeed. https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=33592193&rownumber=5&loadrecent=true

I had some steering issues, sometimes the steering gets very very hard to steer, i can see manufacturer recall numbersb1832002 nhtsa recall number18v-204, and i have wrote to tesla about issues, but no answers.

Tl* takata recall. the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact stated that the vehicle was included in nhtsa campaign numbers: 18v204000 (steering) and 19v002000 (air bags). the contact reached out to tesla (100 south lake destiny rd, edenville, fl), but the parts were not available. the manufacturer was notified and did not assist. the contact had not experienced a failure. parts distribution disconnect.

When door unlocks via fob proximity or unlock command, the door itself also opens. this happened when stationary in the car and approaching the car. i did not attempt to do this when the car was in motion. the door must always be manually closed when this happens.

Condensation in the left rear tail light. there are many reports of this since 2013 on the teslamotorsclub.com website under model s forum and exterior. search water in tail lights and you get many posts and photos.

Previous tesla software allowed rear view camera to mitigate the model s's blindspots. current software update (version 9) has limited the ability to use the rear view camera as a blind spot monitor thus making the vehicle less safe.

Tl* the contact was loaned a 2014 tesla model s. while attempting to park the vehicle in the driveway, it spontaneously accelerated and crashed into another vehicle parked in the driveway. the air bags deployed. there were no injuries. after approximately one hour, the vehicle doors automatically locked and could not be unlocked with the key fob. a police report was not filed. the vehicle was not taken to the dealer for diagnostic testing. the manufacturer was not notified of the failure. the failure mileage and vin were unknown. *dt

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/31148767/photos back wheel has fallen off. this does not look as though it is caused by another vehicle running into the back of it. it is much more likely to be yet another case of the weak suspension parts causing self inflicted injury. the attached photograph shows that the suspension links have been stretched outward until they snapped. this was not caused by an impact to the rear of the tesla. please investigate. thank you. persistent citizen.

Tesla s and x batteries are a design flaw. tesla's panasonic cells are made with thin metal casings so that the heat from one burning cell causes the neighboring cells to burst especially when exposed to air in an accident. these fires emit toxins such as florine gas. these cars should be recalled and the batteries replaced with a safer design. the recent accident in florida shows the need for this recall.

Reportedly: on 5-8-18 about 7 pm in fort lauderdale florida along the 1300 block of seabreeze boulevard; two teenagers were trapped and burned to death after crashing a tesla model s. a third teenager was ejected and seriously injured. it was a single car accident. excessive speed is thought to be a factor. friends of the victims were following the tesla in another vehicle, and said the vehicle was engulfed in flames preventing would be rescuers from pulling the trapped teenagers from the vehicle. onlookers watched their victims struggle as they burned to death. there is video of the trapped victims burning to death. did all the airbags deploy? why did the battery catch fire and possibly explode? was crash avoidance active, if so did it fail? were all the victims wearing seatbelts? did the car have safety features to detect people not wearing seatbelts and warning system?

I have experienced many times that i press the brake pedal and the gas (acceleration pedal on the tesla) pedal at the same when i try to use the brake. i have own 4 different cars and i never experienced that i am pressing the brake and the gas pedal at the same time. so i pay a bit attention on how the gas pedal and the brake pedal design. i notice the gas pedal is bigger in size and the clearance between the brake and gas pedal is less than all the cars i own (two lexus and one mercedes bens) or another word, the brake pedal and the acceleration pedal is too close. also the brake pedal seems a bit higher. anyway, such design layout seems to cause the driver pressing the brake and the gas pedal at the same time and hinder the action to stop the car. i even experienced that the car accelerate forward when i try to brake the car. i saw the news today that there is a car crash involving a tesla. i hope the above may be something interesting for you to look into and see if it is related to what i have experienced. any question, please feel free to contact me. [xxx] information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6).” *pm

This is a complaint about the fragile tesla suspension components. i believe that it is the public interest that i should be allowed to file these complaints because the owners are being pressured to remain silent. just today an owner has added a fresh report of a broken suspension and supplied photographic evidence. https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-upper-control-arm-cracked.96329/ **georgecm, yesterday at 2:37 am last edited: yesterday at 3:08 am my wife was driving us home this saturday. she hit a really small pothole when the car became hard to control. for a short time we went on the other side of the road, then she managed to get back on our side while reducing speed to a complete stop. the wheel was in an incorrect position. we managed to slowly drive the car in a position safe for other drivers, in a parking place nearby. the upper control arm was broken. i also observed interior side tires abnormal wear on both rear wheels. the car was driving with these tires less than 3000 miles! this looks to me like a catastrophic failure of that control arm, does anybody has knowledge if tesla has a newer, reinforced version of this part ? i am looking to replace them on both sides. anybody who has a reliable source for new parts, preferably in europe please send me a message. the nearest tesla service from me is 2000 km away.** this thread has been running for more than 12 months. many owners have reported broken suspensions. posters are attacking the complainants and urging them not to report these failures. i have been advised that non-owners should not file complaints. if that is true then i would like to know how you expect to gain knowledge about this issue. dummy us address used to comply with website requirements. my correct contact details are supplied with this submission.

This a complaint about the fatal tesla crash in fort lauderdale. even though the ntsb is investigating this crash the inquiry is likely to take more than a year. i am certain that this crash was caused by yet another suspension failure. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/05/10/ntsb-to-investigate-fiery-crash-of-tesla-in-ft-lauderdale/ crash scene photographs show that the rh back wheel and suspension have fallen off the car. the road is relatively straight at the crash site. there is just a single skid mark where the car suddenly went sideways. there is no indication of the car spinning out of control due to taking a curve too fast. the skid mark shows a very sudden swerve to the wrong side of the road and into the wall. the video shows what appears to be a detached wheel and tire lying in the roadway. it is also very concerning that teslas burst into flames so easily and that the electric door handles become inoperative preventing occupants or rescuers from opening them. once again the early stage of these fires seems to be fuelled by the 7 gallons of ethylene glycol. the stored energy in the batteries can easily boil off the water content of the coolant causing it to become highly flammable. the fire does not yet appear to have ignited the actual batteries since these burn with a white heat and the individual cells explode like firecrackers. this situation is extremely dangerous. please act immediately before more lives are lost.

Tl* takata recall. the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact received an unknown recall notice regarding the air bags. the contact stated that the manufacturer exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. tesla (6801 washington ave s, #110, minneapolis, mn 55439, (952) 944-1373) was contacted and confirmed that the parts were not available for the recall remedy. the manufacturer was made aware of the issue and was not able to confirm when the parts would be available. the contact stated that the vehicle was salvaged, which could be an issue going forward with the manufacturer performing the recall repairs. the contact had not experienced a failure. vin tool confirms parts not available.

Takata recall 3 years in to this recall, i have received at least 3 notifications of this issue from tesla. i have repeatedly requested service to address the recall and have been told "there are no parts" and "it's not your car's turn in line yet." i feel that 3 years is too long a time period to be considered "reasonable" for addressing this problem. this is potentially a safety-of-life issue in a daily-driver car!

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact received a recall notice for nhtsa campaign number: 19v002000 (air bags), which indicated that the parts needed to repair the defect were not available. the manufacturer and dealer were not notified. the contact had not experienced a failure. parts distribution disconnect.

It's about 8:18 on saturday, march 2nd, drizzle. i was driving from freeway 56 west to south highway 5. after merge to 5 freeway, i felt the tires slip, then the car suddenly unintended accelerated and steering wheel failed, car whirled at high speed bump into the left side of freeway guard wall, continued to be accelerated spin crossed four lanes hit on to the right guard wall, spin another half circle then stop on emergency lane. luckily, no other car was involved, i was not hurt at all, except that the car could not drive. by that time the car show “stability control disabled” see picture. sitting in my car and calling tesla report about the accident. they told me the reason was the weather. about ten minutes later, the police came and looked at the scene of the accident. as no other car was involved, no one was injured, no public equipment was damaged, the police did not issue tickets and reports.

Car had been rented in november 2016 from a turo member for four days in las vegas. the car had been in stop and go traffic with the autopilot on. the car sensed traffic moving causing the tesla's autopilot to move at 10mph. then the car's autopilot malfunctioned and crashed into another car that was attempting to merge lanes. damages totaled $3100 for the tesla and unknown for the other vehicle. car had been advertised as being able to drive itself

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/38280127 it has been completely destroyed by fire. despite the extreme fire damage it is clear from the attached photograph that the suspension links on the rh back wheel are cleanly snapped off. this is not because they have melted in the fire because there are two clear fractures and the wheel has gone whompy. another case of fragile alloy suspension parts causing a crash followed by a fire most likely to to leaking hot glycol followed by ignition of the battery pack. these cars are worse than the old pinto and corvair. they are unsafe at any voltage. please investigate. seething citizen etc. etc. date of incident is an approximation.

Tl* takata recall. the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 18v031000 (air bags). the vehicle was taken to tesla motors (457 pleasant st, watertown, ma 02472) where the contact was informed that due to the vehicle previously being in a crash, the contact would need to pay for diagnostic fees prior to the recall repair. the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. the manufacturer was notified and informed the contact that he would need to follow the dealer's instructions. no further assistance was provided. the contact felt that he should not have to pay diagnostic fees in order to have the recall repaired. the contact had not experienced a failure.

Here is a mangled tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=27142707&rownumber=62&loadrecent=true judging by the condition of the wreck and the bio-hazard stickers on it there can be little doubt that this was a fatal crash. the front suspension is broken which may or may not be the result of the crash. the back rh wheel and suspension is completely missing but there is no damage to the bodywork at that section of the car. given the know weakness and repeated failure of tesla suspensions it is a near certainty that the back wheel fell off and caused this crash. the number of smashed teslas in the junkyards is astonishing considering that these are near new cars and quite rare on the roads. they are mostly bought by wealthy and mature age drivers. no other luxury passenger car crashes at such a high rate as teslas. please do something about this. thank you. concerned citizen. (name and contact details provided) date of crash an approximation.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/23955718/photos it has been in a major crash, has bio-hazard stickers and it is near certain that occupants have been killed or injured. obviously the car is badly damaged and has been in a rollover. both lh wheels and suspensions have snapped off completely. rh wheels are both whompy. it seems highly probable that detached or whompy wheels were the cause of the crash. please investigate. than you. concerned citizen. (date of crash and deaths/injuries are approximations based on the photographs of the wreck.)

Here is a tesla model s freshly arrived in the junkyard. https://www.copart.com/lot/23369768 the rh back wheel and suspension has broken off. close up photograph shows that the suspension giblets have been ripped out. the wheel and tire are undamaged. it is highly unlikely that the wheel could have been struck a hard enough blow to snap the suspension without any damage being caused to the wheel itself. the alloy wheels are known to be quite fragile as can be seen in the crash test videos where the wheel is easily smashed in a collision. there are so many cases of failed tesla suspensions being reported by owners that it is blindingly obvious there is a problem. do you actually have any engineers at nhtsa? are your computer geeks waiting for the " oh crap there is a problem" algorithm threshold to be triggered? how many "get out of jail free" cards does tesla have left. please get out of the office and go and inspect some of these broken teslas. thank you. concerned citizen. date of incident is an approximation.

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. the contact received notification of nhtsa campaign number: 18v204000 (steering). the contact stated that the manufacturer exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. edon prairie tesla (6801 washington ave s, #110, minneapolis, mn 55439, (952) 944-1373) was contacted and confirmed that the parts were not available for the recall remedy. the manufacturer was made aware of the issue and was not able to confirm when the parts were to become available. the contact had not experienced a failure. parts distribution disconnect.

I bouht the car in may, 2018. and now i have some problems with steering. i feel that steering not working like it should. it getting hard to steer time to time.

The left front fore link ball joint snapped like glass during normal driving. luckily i was going at relatively low speed on a side street. this allowed the suspension to allow the wheel to slam into the firewall and it locked up causing the right side of the vehicle to hit a curb. as an engineer this scares the daylights out of me, as if it would have happened on a high speed highway turn, the results could have been deadly. even without an understanding of advanced metallurgy, it's clear that a hardened steel ball joint should be stronger then the surrounding aluminum alloy parts on either side that it attaches to. it looks like a glass rod hit with a hammer. this same thing happened to another 2014 in our family about a year ago, and i chalked it up to random failure. but now 2 failures? i have the original failed part if needed for analysis. the replacement part i obtained through tesla has been re-engineered, and appears to be from a different supplier. i went ahead and replaced both sides, and i still have the non-failed part on the left side. i attempted to contact tesla about this, and they have not responded to me.

We have had the car (purchased used with 24k miles) for 7 months and have now had to have a second door handle replaced. when broken, the door handles will present but not open. this can be dangerous when in bad weather or neighborhoods. because these are electric self presenting handles, they cost $800 when not covered by warranty (ours still are). apparently this is a very common problem with other tesla owners having to replace multiple door handles. their is clearly a flaw in the design of these door handles that tesla has not rectified. forcing customers to pay $800 for out of warranty defective door handles seems unreasonable.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=27142707&rownumber=46&loadrecent=true it has been in a massive collision. it has bio-hazard stickers and judging by the condition of the wreck it is almost certain that people have been killed. the front end is completely smashed up but the back rh wheel and suspension has completely fallen off even though there is zero impact damage to that part of the car. given the large number of reports that have been submitted to nhtsa showing strong evidence that teslas have frequent suspension failures it should be considered that this crash may have actually been caused by the failure of the rear suspension. i understand that it is the role of nhtsa to look for such patterns of failure and to investigate the reasons. please do just that. thank you. very concerned citizen. (date of crash is an approximation. details of injuries/deaths also an estimation based on severity of wreck)

Door handle extension. the car has experienced multiple door handle defects, wherein the handle will not extend to open the door. without extension the door cannot be opened. this issue happened when the car was new and all four handles were replaced, and again at 62,000 miles, when the driver's door malfunctioned. this is a significant safety issue, as it is impossible to open the door to render assistance if the driver were trapped or incapacitated. also, it makes it impossible to enter the car without crawling across the interior and opening from the inside.

Power steering electrical drive motor separated from steering rack. luckily this happened while in drive way.

Here is a tesla discussion thread in which a tesla owner reports that his power steering has fallen apart: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/power-steering-falling-apart.100951/ **snip - yesterday, all of a sudden, my steering started making some bad noises - clunks and screeches. today i removed the tub and found 2 of the 3 bolts that mount the electric steering assist to the rack had sheared off. another 2 bolts, along with those 3, hold two parts of the rack together. one of those is also broken. it can't escape because it's too long to come out all the way where it's situated. oddly enough, there are 3 more threaded holes (exactly adjacent to the 3 used in assembly) in the electric assist; so i didn't have to drill the broken ones out. i filed them down to flush and put 3 new bolts in. (the last one was bent.) i'm pretty sure the originals are aluminum, but being sunday i just went to the local hardware store and bought what they had. btw they are 8mm x 1.25, 65mm long.** i am certain that bosch the maker of the steering rack would have had those bolts securely locked to prevent them from falling out. tesla motors have an unusual habit of using felt tip "witness marks" to monitor movement of many bolts on the cars. green marks on some bolts can be seen on the photograph of the steering box. this suggests that they are not confident the bolts are securely fastened. other car manufacturers ensure that all of their technicians are properly trained in the importance of securing fasteners correctly so that they will not loosen under vibration. this loose steering assembly could easily have caused a fatal crash. it is even more dangerous in the case of cars fitted with so called autopilot. please investigate. concerned citizen.

Here is a tesla in the junkyard: https://www.copart.com/lot/39926687/photos it has been totally destroyed by fire. there was an investigation into tesla fires back in 2014 and it was claimed that fires were caused by road debris puncturing the battery pack and this problem was solved by fitting a battery shield. teslas are still catching fire at an alarming rate. i believe that the cause of many of these fires is not that the lithium battery catches fire first but that the ethylene glycol leaks out and catches fire. the attache photograph of a 2013 fire clearly shows the coolant blazing beneath the car. a google image search for "tesla fire" shows many of these glycol fires. the lithium batteries may well ignite as well but in most cases it seems that the primary cause of fire is the glycol. advice to first responders should be modified because using water is not the best way to extinguish a flammable liquid fire. please investigate. concerned citizen.

Another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=26239435&rownumber=49&loadrecent=true suspension collapsed and back wheel is just hanging on by a thread. this is the same kind of failure that caused a fatal crash in hawaii. how many more incidents of suspension failure do you need before you issue a recall? please investigate. concerned citizen etc.

Here is another wrecked tesla with suspension fallen to pieces: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=26166552&rownumber=38&loadrecent=true once again the steering knuckle has snapped in half. tesla changed to a redesigned steering knuckle in 2015 but have not warned owners of earlier model cars of the danger. please take action now. thank you. concerned citizen.

Another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=26176753&rownumber=61&loadrecent=true the front suspension has fallen to bits. several of the alloy suspension parts have snapped. the wheel and tire appear undamaged even though the tesla wheels are reportedly built fragile so they do not intrude into the passenger compartment during a crash. there are so many of these failures occurring that it is blindingly obvious that there is a weakness in design and construction. please be so kind as to investigate. thank you. concerned citizen.

I have owned this vehicle since dec 2014. i have replaced 2 windshields and had 2 other rock-chips filled. i have seen numerous things on tesla blogs regarding multiple windshield cracks & chips from other owners. i just had one today due to a small rock where i was 2 car lengths back on the interstate. i recall only 2 other windshield repair/replacements on my cars since 2001.

Here is a tesla in the wrecking yard https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=22737590&rowid=16&pagesource=vehicleresults# it has been in a heavy front end collision but the rear end of the car has not been hit. the entire lh back suspension has snapped off and is lying on the ground. the broken suspension linkages can clearly be seen. the wheel and tire are undamaged this is just one of the large number of teslas that have had similar failures of the front or rear suspensions. the alloy components are obviously not strong enough for the weight and power of this vehicle. please take action over this problem. (please note that the injuries reported are an estimate based on the severity of the damage to the car)

Here is a tesla in the salvage yard. there has not been a collision, there is no body damage and the airbags have not deployed. the lh back wheel is skewed sideways which means that the suspension links have broken. it is obvious from the images of the lower suspension wishbone that the parts have insufficient strength to allow a margin of safety. http://www.ebay.com/itm/tesla-s-oem-right-rear-lower-control-arm-rear-upper-control-arm-spindle-oem-/282117965566?hash=item41af8a86fe:g:ilwaaoswa81xr3ru&vxp=mtr please investigate whether these failures are causing crashes.

This is a complaint made in the public interest. i believe that tesla has a culture of covering up dangerous defects and crashes by concocting cover stories. here is one example. http://www.carshowtv.com/2015/07/21/tesla-insanity-mode-creates-insane-crash/ fact is that the back wheel is skewed for no good reason. the alleged collision with a man-hole cover is ridiculous. a google street view of the location shows the absurdity of the story. here is another one: http://insideevs.com/tesla-reveals-details-last-years-fiery-model-s-wreck-mexico/ the back wheel is skewed for no good reason. google street view of the accident scene shows that it would be impossible for the car to be travelling at the speed claimed. the driver was alleged to be drunk and yet tesla expedited his replacement car. here is one of the tesla fires that is supposed to have been caused by running over a tow-hitch. http://insideevs.com/third-tesla-model-s-fire-in-past-5-weeks-breaks-out-after-accident/ problem is - the photographs show that the tesla suspension has collapsed and the wheel is jammed back into the battery. here are videos of the "titanium shield" (which weighs about 8 ounces) http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/03/elon-musk-maybe-these-gifs-of-titanium-shields-plates-will-shut-tesla-critics-up/359777/ those videos are beyond ridiculous. the block and alternator seem to be made out of plaster of paris. additionally the suspension height was raised to improve safety and then quietly dropped back to the regular low position only a few months later. i am entirely serious about these issues. i believe that there has been a deliberate cover up of defects that are putting lives in danger.

I was driving on the freeway going approximately 60mph when i suddenly lost control on a slight turn to transfer freeways. i swiped into the right freeway wall and spun out doing a complete 180 and ended up on the left freeway wall. i didn't understand how i lost control when i was not going that fast, and the turn was not at all abrupt nor severe in angle. the side airbags were deployed, and when i exited the vehicle, the rear right tire and axle was completely dislodged. i never seen anything like it, and i couldn't understand how that would happen.

I am filing this complaint in the public interest. i am not the vehicle owner. i am not a us resident and have used a made up address to satisfy your website requirements. i have supplied my genuine contact details on the submitted form. this car is for sale as a salvage wreck. http://www.copart.com/us/lot/40663765?searchid=261226908 there is overall damage to the entire car and the air-bags have deployed but the rh rear wheel assembly has been totally wrenched off despite there being no collision damage in that area of the car. the photographs show that all of the alloy suspension components have been torn clean away. it is most probable that this failure was the cause of the crash and not the result of impact damage. there are so many similar incidents involving the tesla that it is obvious that the components are not strong enough and constitute a danger to all road users.

I was stopped at a red light at an intersection the evening of march 2, 2016, without any notice, the car abruptly accelerated and hit the car in front of me. my foot was only on the brake, so there was no reason for the car to move forward, there was damage to my car, the car in front of me and a third car. i experience this acceleration problem occurred with this car before, but no hazardous event occurred. is there a problem with the computer overriding the control of this car?

I am a concerned citizen from outside usa. fictitious us addres supplied to satisfy your website. i have supplied you my real name and contact details. here is another tesla in which suspension components have failed and caused the entire wheel assembly to fall off the car. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=21395630&rowid=16&pagesource=vehicleresults the wheel has been ripped outwards through the wheel arch. the wheel has been sliced in half by a broken suspension component whilst the wheel was still rotating. there is no damage to any other part of the car. air-bags not deployed. this is almost certainly not the result of a crash but is just one more example of the dozens of cases where suspension components have snapped off. please investigate this before lives are lost.

Driver purchased a 2014 tesla model s car in june 2015 from the hangzhou china dealership. this car was driven moderately in the following months. in september 14, 2015, the car was being driven within a small, enclosed housing compound. the car was going very slow as the driver was turning to exit the compound through a gated entrance. the car suddenly accelerated without the driver’s assistance and drove through the traffic gate before the driver was able to quickly break and bring the car to a stop. electronic records accessed on september 15, 2015 revealed the following information: the car was originally being driven at 4.7 km/hr with the acceleration pedal depressed at 2.8%. within one second, the acceleration pedal went from being depressed 2.8% to 84.8% and the car increased to 10.75 km/hr. during the following second, the car’s records show the acceleration pedal to continue to be compressed at 84% with the speed increasing to 18.35 km/hr, but with the break pedal also being simultaneously compressed. in the subsequent second, the anti-lock brakes initiated, and the car was brought to a stop a second later. we reject the dealership’s decision that this was driver’s error. in such a narrow environment as the housing compound, and during a slow and controlled turn, there the driver had no reason to put significant pressure on the acceleration pedal as the records show – whether intentional or unintentional. we also feel that it would have been difficult for the driver to push both the accelerator and break pedal to such a degree simultaneously. therefore, we believe that the car experienced an unintended acceleration, which was not of the driver’s causing. there have been many similar reports of tesla model s unintended acceleration crashes in china. we feel that this is a serious safety hazard which needs to be further investigated.

Please note i am a concerned (non-us) citizen. i am reporting an accident that occured in china and have used the vin from another wrecked tesla and a fictitious us address to comply with your website requirements. there has been a spate of incidents in which the suspension on tesla model s has collapsed. i now have photographic evidence of a snapped suspension ball joint which is attached to this post. here is the thread which discusses the failure. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/61899-universal-joint-suddenly-sheered-when-parking for further evidence of just how many teslas have had suspension components snap prior to a crash please look at all these photographs on flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/136377865@n05/

I have submitted many examples of tesla suspension components snapping off. this tesla is for sale as a salvage wreck. http://www.salvagereseller.com/vehicles/details/14406666-2014-tesla-model-s-ma-mendon# whilst it is possible that the wheel was ripped off in the crash it is remarkable that so many of these cars are failing in a similar fashion. the damage to the bodywork does not look consistent with a severe enough impact to tear the suspension off the car. the tip of the steering knuckle aka king-pin is once again snapped off in the same fashion as many similar failures. it is possible that under the high torque applied during emergency braking this tip snaps off with catastrophic consequences. this is a large heavy car with high performance brakes but those brakes are very rarely used hard. drivers prefer to use regenerative braking to reduce battery drain in this electric car. i have supplied a fictitious address to comply with your website requirements. i am not a us resident.....just a concerned citizen

Here is a fresh example of a tesla model s in which the suspension has failed causing the wheel to be completely sliced in half while the vehicle was still rolling forward. http://www.salvagereseller.com/vehicles/details/38358495-2014-tesla-model-s-tx-houston# there is no accident to the car which could account for this. i have collected many other images of teslas with the same kind of damage. these can be viewed on flickr album https://www.flickr.com/photos/136377865@n05/22456780543 most importantly the same sliced wheel effect can be seen on many serious crash events including the fatal one in hollywood. the wheel must have been sliced in half by a broken suspension component before the crash and while the wheels were still rotating. https://www.flickr.com/photos/136377865@n05/albums/72157661343139261 please investigate this urgently. i am not a tesla owner but i am forced to share the roads with these dangerous cars. *tr

Hazardous feature -- do not use -- notify tesla immediately -- incident 1) i tested the recently downloaded "autopilot" feature on a freeway with solid lines at both edges and a dashed line between the two lanes. speed was 70mph, wind light, visibility good in daylight, traveling in the right lane. when the vehicle encountered an off-ramp (on the right) where the right edge white line followed the ramp's right edge, all hell broke loose. the car tried to follow the line for the ramp. i braked and steered left, winding up in the triangular no-mans-land defined by the right lane of the freeway, the ramp, and the various barriers and landscaping at the top of the triangle. i accelerated out of the triangle, wondering why this feature was released by tesla. incident 2) a few miles later, not having learned anything i guess, i reactivated "autopilot." another few miles later a small bird flew in front of the car. hell broke loose again as the car braked and swerved out of the slow lane into the fast lane. fortunately there was no traffic nearby. i recovered my track and deactivated the "autopilot." this feature is just kids' stuff, not ready for the real world. recommendations: 1) instruct tesla to delete this feature from their cars immediately; lives could be saved if they do so. 2) other manufacturer's cars with an "autopilot" kind of feature must be tested for hazardous behaviors. good luck. this stuff is dangerous. i will also be notifying tesla of these incidents.

This car is for sale as a salvage wreck. the suspension has failed both front and rear. http://www.copart.com/us/lot/29535665/photos?searchid=311640899 there is no damage visible to the vehicle that would account for both wheels coming off like that. the wheels and tires are undamaged so it can not be explained away as being the result of a collision. the air-bags have not been deployed. the front damage seems to have been caused only by the failure of the suspension components and the wheel is completely detached. the rear of the car is undamaged and yet the wheel is skewed badly. there is a pattern of similar failures please investigate this problem before people get killed. *tr

There have been many accidents caused by model s rear suspension coming loose. i have archived the auction details and photographs of this particular example. the car does not seem to have been involved in a crash but the photographs shor the rear wheel and axle has torn loose an is jammed in the wheel arch at 90 degrees. the fractured suspension arms are clearly visible. you can find the advert in google cache salvage reseller damaged 2014 tesla model s .0l lot # 23807485 you can find the close up photograph on my facebook album [xxx] --- facebook there are several more teslas with the same failure currently up for sale on the copart website. here is a classic one... 4000 miles, not even due its first service and the wheel fell off copart auto auctions damaged 2015 tesla model s .0l lot # 30043205 there has been a deliberate cover up by tesla of this lethal defect. i can supply plenty more examples. thank you [xxx] please note: i have supplied a fictitious usa address because otherwise your system will not accept my complaint. i am not a us resident or a tesla owner. i am a concerned citizen trying to prevent further accidents being caused by this defect. information redacted pursuant to the freedom of information act (foia), 5 u.s.c. 552(b)(6). *tr

Tesla model s do not conform to lighting standard 108. the model s do not have a yellow reflex reflector located on the front of the vehicle visible from the side. nat’l highway traffic safety admin., dot § 571.108, nt.table i–a—required lamps and reflective devices page 476. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/cfr-2011-title49-vol6/pdf/cfr-2011-title49-vol6-sec571-108.pdf they need to add the reflector to make the vehicle legal for street use.

I left my girlfriend in the car while i went into a courthouse for about an hour. i took the key (proximity sensor) with me, because she said she didn't need the air conditioner or radio. while i was gone, she discovered she was locked in. she couldn't open the door or windows. this situation is a death trap. fortunately, i think this can be fixed by a software update, which tesla does remotely and routinely. when i called the company, i spoke to a salesman, who referred me to tech support, who dropped my call after about 10 minutes on hold. this would have killed her if i had been detained longer. jdl

This car is up for sale as a total write off salvage. https://www.easyexport.us/vehicle-finder/lot-14402615/2014-tesla-tesla-certificate-of-destruction-fl-west-palm-beach from the photographs it appears that the cause of the damage is that the rear suspension has sheared off the vehicle. this is the defect same as has been reported on several threads eg http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-pulls-left-please-read there are other reports of accidents in which the rear suspension has become detached from the model s. http://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-totalled-in-violent-new-york-crash-1444083171 this was not a crash, the vehicle fell to the roadway after the suspension fell off. tesla has a culture of denial and cover up. considering the very small number of cars produced the number of accidents is extremely alarmin.

Seeing the vehicles a considerable distance ahead of me stopped for a traffic light i took my foot off the accelerator and allowed the regenerative brakes to slow my tesla down. when i put my foot on the brakes to stop the car it accelerated very fast and i hit the pickup truck in front of me which hit the car in front of it. the airbags failed to inflate. although there were no injuries the pickup driver is suing geico for neck injury. this was a very frightening situation. my car sustained severe damage and had to be towed to repair. it will take at least 30 days to repair. the pickup also sustained considerable damage. the car it hit had very little damage.

Three times in two weeks, i have almost been hit as pedestrian by an ev. they make no noise at low speeds and you'd be surprised how much you rely on hearing in a parking lot for of other wise parked (and silent) cars to determine which cars to look out for.

Some universal mobile chargers are still overheating. infrared analysis yet again indicates that the universal mobile charger is the source of the overheating. orange county fire investigators determined that a tesla universal mobile charger was a possible source a garage fire in irving california on 11-15-2013. instead of taking safety seriously, tesla has dragged its feet and played blame games. when tesla finally did issue a recall, the recall was a fiasco and insufficient. there seems to be less problems now, but tesla's universal mobile chargers are still the source of overheating and potential fire risks. *tr

Tesla's recent over the air software updates has changed the steering performance at highway speeds. now the steering is less responsive. it is harder to steer to compensate for wind and road conditions. it's harder to control and stay in a lane in less-than-perfect conditions. *tr

My 2 day old p85d suddenly died in the middle of an intersection: tesla built these p85d cars with faulty electrical contactors that it was secretly recalling through its forums. the faulty contactors caused some newly released p85d cars to lose all power within first 100 miles. tesla should issue a public recall to replace the faulty contactors. tesla shipped the p85d cars with old seats , even when it charged customers for next generation seats. tesla needs to improve its processes and make sure it releases cars only when safe for public roads. i shouldn't be paying over $100k to go through these pains and dangers. more here: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/40527-my-2-day-old-p85d-suddenly-died-in-the-middle-of-an-intersection my 2 day old p85d suddenly died in the middle of an intersection:- well ... my short range brand new p85d with 191km (120mi) died suddenly in the middle of an intersection (completely stopped moving) on -12c weather. even the heater stopped working. my 10 year old son and i had to get out and push it to the side. called my ds who called roadside assistance who put him on hold for 30 minutes and then told me that it will be an hour before a tow truck arrives. my son and i were freezing with no heater so i made my 80 year old dad come and pick us up. needless to say ... i am not impressed. i knew i was buy bleeding edge but a complete breakdown 2 days and 140km after leaving the showroom? really?

P85d lost power on road, "pull over safely". with tesla's latest firmware updat e0.167 pushed otu untested to all p85d cars, the car loses all power suddenly when driving. it leaves the drivers stranded in the middle of roads dangerously. tesla is not issuing a recall, and is trying to suppress this and many many other quality and safety issues by limiting the information to its forums only, and sometimes removing those information to support its high quality image, and sustain its bubble stock valuation. more details here in this thread. hope they don't remove the entire thread. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/43075-p85d-lost-power-on-road-pull-over-safely -- was heading down a 45 mph road at about 57. had the cruise set. no cars in front. was taking a very slight curve in the road and the cruise disengaged by itself. no errors or anything, just as if i had tapped the brake or something. hmm... so i resumed it and it went back to work. less than half a mile later i disengaged cruise to regen to a stop to make a left at a light. a couple of seconds into that and i got this dreaded message: "car needs service; pull over safely". *js

The default setting on a tesla model s is to lock the car if you leave your keys in it for even a short period of time. this is dangerous and resulted in my two young daughters being locked in the car along with my keys. on 1/28 i arrived home with my daughters. i left my purse with my keys in it on the passenger seat while i went to unstrap the girls from their car seats. it was cold, so i closed my driver's door. i plugged the car in and walked around to the back passenger side door. i was walking slower than usual because of the ice, but i was not walking slowly or lingering. by the time i got to the back passenger side door and put my hand on the handle, the handles retracted with my hand on it and all the car doors locked. i was in my driveway and happened to have my phone in my coat pocket and had the tesla app installed and had cell service. i was able to unlock the door from my phone. if any one of those elements had not been present, i could not have gotten my daughters out. it terrifies me to think what would have happened if this occurred in a remote location or somewhere where i would be forced to leave my daughters locked in the car in order to get help. this shouldn't happen at all and it most certainly shouldn't be the default setting. we called the service center thinking it was a bug and was told that tesla was aware and the only way to fix it was to disable the autolock feature entirely. we can do that, but i worry about other parents learning the hard way. i emailed tesla's feedback line and was told they would make a request for a new "feature" for the car to not autolock with the keys inside. that's not a "feature," that should be basic. this autolocking with the keys inside has been discussed on tesla's own message boards for a couple of years so it is not something of which they are unaware. *tr

Reportedly several tesla model s' have had antilock and power assist failures with the braking system. *tr

I pulled slowly in to a parking spot & my car was at a stop position just ready to push park button. within a split of a second, my car (tesla) jumped the curb and traveled 5' of sidewalk breaking a glass wall & traveling through a restaurant breaking tables & chairs within couple of seconds w/o me accelerating the pedal. brake pedal was applied by me half way through the restaurant before the car stopped. no serious injuries to anyone. tesla was notified & this is the log file data word by word from them. ?at the time of the incident that resulted in damage to your vehicle, you increased the accelerator pedal position from 1% to 50% in less than one second without depressing the brake pedal. one second later, you increased the accelerator pedal to 100% without depressing the brake pedal. one second later, you continued depressing the accelerator pedal at 100% without depressing the pedal; however, the vehicle's traction control engaged & therefore limited the vehicle's torque despite the fact you were depressing the accelerator pedal at 100% until you depressed the brake pedal in the following second.? insufficient information provided by tesla. how much was the accelerator pedal depressed? speed of the car? distance travel? how does this prove that this is not sudden acceleration? the log does prove that i was at a stop. my car will be totaled but is still sitting at storage with insurance company for a short period of time. many accidents with tesla has occurred, even just like mine in to a restaurant( http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-crashes-through-restaurant-driver-blames-it-on-unintended-acceleration/) (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1087171_tesla-model-s-unintended-acceleration-complaint-filed-with-nhtsa.) they can't all be drivers fault. nhtsa needs to investigate the box in the car before fatal injuries occur. public safety should be the priority. *tr

Tl* the contact owns a 2014 tesla model s. while pulling into a parking space, the vehicle surged forward, jumped the curb, and crashed into a building. a police report was filed. there were no injuries. the vehicle was towed to an impound lot. the manufacturer was notified of the failure. the approximate failure mileage was 1,200.

I was driving on the 15n freeway about 1 mile south of the hw 78 on feb 10 2020 at aprox 07:30am. i had autopilot engaged and i was driving in a straight line (not changing lanes) at normal freeway speeds, suddenly i was spinning out and hit the right side wall of the freeway totaling my car. unfortunately i don't have a clear memory of how the event started, i just remember running in autopilot on my way to work then spinning out and hitting the wall. once the event started it was unrecoverable, and was over in a few seconds.

This is another example of a tesla with a rear wheel assembly that has fallen completely off the car. https://m.iaai.com/vehicledetenc.aspx?auctionid=0&itemid=21617174&rowid=10&pagesource=vehicleresults# the car has suffered heavy front end damage but there is no sign of damage at the rear left that could explain why the wheel has fallen off. the front lh suspension has also broken but it is unclear if that was the cause or the result of the collision. please investigate this. there are far too many similar cases of snapped off wheels for this to be merely a freak accident.

Here is another tesla in the junkyard: https://www.iaai.com/vehicle?itemid=24813111&rownumber=12&loadrecent=true the front rh steering knuckle has snapped. the airbags have not deployed which implies that either the suspension snapped without good cause or that the airbag system is defective. please investigate the reason for so many teslas showing up in the salvage yards with snapped suspensions. thank you.

The car gave a failure message and then lost all power. it shut down completely as i navigated through traffic in neutral onto the shoulder. i called tesla and was told this is a known software release bug. they said to turn off range mode and the issue will not recur. meanwhile they are working on a software fix. i believe that this is a life and death issue. it is being reported by many other model s p85 d owners on the tesla forum. i believe that tesla should immediately contact all owners as this issue is extremely dangerous and may cause serious accidents. please understand this - the error causes the car to shut down while driving and has affected many teslas already. it almost caused an accident in my case and will certainly cause a more serious event if not addressed. *tr

The office of defects investigation (odi) is opening a recall query to assess the remedy adequacy of recall 23v838. on december 12, 2023, tesla filed a defect information report (recall 23v838) applicable to all tesla models produced and equipped with any version of its autopilot system, which tesla described as an sae level 2 (l2) advanced driver assistance system (adas). autopilot is the simultaneous engagement of tesla’s traffic-aware cruise control (tacc) and autosteer. in describing the safety defect, tesla’s defect information report (dir) explained that “the prominence and scope of the system’s controls may be insufficient to prevent driver misuse,” and tesla committed to the deployment of a multipart remedy aimed at improving system and engagement controls and reducing mode confusion. ea22002 (upgraded from pe21020) was opened to investigate whether tesla’s autopilot contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and involved extensive crash analysis, human factors analysis, vehicle evaluations, and assessment of vehicle control authority and driver engagement technologies. the work conducted in these investigations aligns with tesla’s conclusion in its 23v838 recall filing. during ea22002, odi identified at least 13 crashes involving one or more fatalities and many more involving serious injuries in which foreseeable driver misuse of the system played an apparent role. tesla filed recall 23v838 to address concerns regarding the autopilot system investigated in ea22002. following deployment of the remedy in recall 23v838, odi identified concerns due to post-remedy crash events and results from preliminary nhtsa tests of remedied vehicles. also, tesla has stated that a portion of the remedy both requires the owner to opt in and allows a driver to readily reverse it. tesla has also deployed non-remedy updates to address issues that appear related to odi’s concerns under ea22002. this investigation will consider why these updates were not a part of the recall or otherwise determined to remedy a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk. odi is therefore opening this recall query investigation to further evaluate the adequacy of the remedy for recall 23v838.

On august 13, 2021, nhtsa?s office of defects investigation (odi) opened a preliminary evaluation (pe21-020) to assess the performance of tesla?s autopilot system (a system characterized by tesla as an sae level 2 driving automation system designed to support and assist the driver in performing the driving task) available in tesla vehicles. the investigation opening was motivated by an accumulation of crashes in which tesla vehicles, operating with autopilot engaged, struck stationary in-road or roadside first responder vehicles tending to pre-existing collision scenes. upon opening the investigation, nhtsa indicated that the pe would also evaluate additional similar circumstance crashes of tesla vehicles operating with autopilot engaged, as well as assess the technologies and methods used to monitor, assist, and enforce the driver?s engagement with the dynamic driving task during autopilot operation.pe21-020 is upgraded to an engineering analysis (ea) to extend the existing crash analysis, evaluate additional data sets, perform vehicle evaluations, and to explore the degree to which autopilot and associated tesla systems may exacerbate human factors or behavioral safety risks by undermining the effectiveness of the driver?s supervision. in doing so, nhtsa plans to continue its assessment of vehicle control authority, driver engagement technologies, and related human factors considerations.the attached detailed summary further describes nhtsa?s review to date and the basis for upgrade to an ea.

The office of defects investigation (odi) opened this preliminary evaluation based on forty-three complaints alleging failure of the left or right front suspension fore links in tesla model year (my) 2015 through 2017 model s and my 2016 through 2017 model x vehicles. the investigation has identified 426 instances of failure on part number 1041570-00-a or 1041575-00-a fore links.none of the instances resulted in any loss of vehicle control. one minor crash with no injuries is associated with the 426 instances fore link failures.a majority of the failures occurred between one to fifteen mph while parking in driveways or parking lots.in the eight instances where the vehicle was traveling more than 40 mph and the fore link failed, the vehicle remained controllable with no associated crash or injuries as a result. tesla issued a consumer satisfaction bulletin (sb-17-31-001) on 10 february 2017, to replace the subject component on a sub-population of vehicles originally equipped with the subject fore links and built between 19 january 2016 and 25 may 2016.this sub population does not cover 75% instances of failures identified in this investigation. additional damage to other vehicle components will occur if the vehicle is driven with this failed fore link.however no instance has shown that a failure of the fore link in this manner prevented the controllability of the vehicle in testing and reported failures. based on this analysis,odi is closing the investigation. odi recommends that tesla expand the terms of bulletin sb-17-31-001 to cover all vehicles equipped with 1041570-00-a or 1041575-00-a fore links. this does not constitute a finding by the agency that a safety-related defect is not present; the agency will take further action if warranted by additional information received. to review the odi reports cited in the closing resume odi report identification number document, go to nhtsa.gov.

The office of defects investigation (odi) opened this preliminary evaluation based on forty-three complaints alleging failure of the left or right front suspension fore links in tesla model year (my) 2015 through 2017 model s and my 2016 through 2017 model x vehicles. the investigation has identified 426 instances of failure on part number 1041570-00-a or 1041575-00-a fore links.none of the instances resulted in any loss of vehicle control. one minor crash with no injuries is associated with the 426 instances fore link failures.a majority of the failures occurred between one to fifteen mph while parking in driveways or parking lots.in the eight instances where the vehicle was traveling more than 40 mph and the fore link failed, the vehicle remained controllable with no associated crash or injuries as a result. tesla issued a consumer satisfaction bulletin (sb-17-31-001) on 10 february 2017, to replace the subject component on a sub-population of vehicles originally equipped with the subject fore links and built between 19 january 2016 and 25 may 2016.this sub population does not cover 75% instances of failures identified in this investigation. additional damage to other vehicle components will occur if the vehicle is driven with this failed fore link.however no instance has shown that a failure of the fore link in this manner prevented the controllability of the vehicle in testing and reported failures. based on this analysis,odi is closing the investigation. odi recommends that tesla expand the terms of bulletin sb-17-31-001 to cover all vehicles equipped with 1041570-00-a or 1041575-00-a fore links. this does not constitute a finding by the agency that a safety-related defect is not present; the agency will take further action if warranted by additional information received. to review the odi reports cited in the closing resume odi report identification number document, go to nhtsa.gov.

The office of defects investigation (odi) upgraded pe21020 to ea22002 on june 8, 2022, to extend work and deepen the pe21020 crash analysis, to supplement that analysis with additional data, and to perform vehicle evaluations to understand how tesla’s autopilot system may exacerbate human factors or behavioral safety risks by undermining the effectiveness of the driver’s supervision. to support this work, odi collected additional crash information and assessed vehicle control authority, driver engagement technologies, and related human factors considerations associated with partial automation via analysis of peer vehicle data and hands-on vehicle evaluation, assessments from nhtsa human factors subject matter experts, and reviews of related publications dedicated to partial driving automation. autopilot is the simultaneous use of the features that tesla calls traffic-aware cruise control (tacc) and autosteer. tacc is a type of adaptive cruise control that, like traditional cruise control, maintains a set speed but also slows or accelerates as necessary to maintain the vehicle’s following distance from a vehicle in front. as designed, autosteer detects lane markings and the presence of other nearby vehicles and objects to keep the vehicle in its driving lane. autopilot is characterized by tesla as an sae level 2 (“l2 system”) partial driving automation system that provides driver assistance through steering, propulsion, and braking within a specified driving environment under direct supervision of the driver. l2 systems should be designed to support the driver’s need to monitor the system in response to the constantly changing driving environment and, if necessary, take over the dynamic driving task. to ensure sufficient driver engagement, vehicles with l2 systems should employ driver engagement systems and usage controls that are appropriate and sufficient for the l2 system design and driver expectations. odi completed an analysis of 956 crashes reported up to august 30, 2023. in approximately half (489) of those crashes, odi found: 1.) that there was insufficient data to make an assessment; 2.) the other vehicle was at fault; 3.) autopilot was found to not be in use; or 4.) the crash was otherwise unrelated to ea22002. of the remaining 467 crashes, odi identified trends resulting in three categories: collisions in which the frontal plane of the tesla struck another vehicle or obstacle with adequate time for an attentive driver to respond to avoid or mitigate the crash (211), roadway departures where autosteerwas inadvertently disengaged by the driver’s inputs (111), and roadway departures in low traction conditions such as wet roadways (145). odi observed this pattern across all tesla models and hardware versions. crash and human factors assessment showed that autopilot controls did not sufficiently ensure driver attention and appropriate use. at the same time, peer analysis and vehicle evaluations established that autopilot invited greater driver confidence via its higher control authority and ease of engagement. this mismatch of weak usage controls and high control authority was evident in these crash categories, which included indications of driver disengagement from the driving task. this mismatch was also evident in roadway departures when the system was engaged in low traction conditions outside of tesla’s recommendations.additional information regarding nhtsa’s crash analysis is available in the ea22002 file. odi reviewed these findings with tesla during several conversations in quarter 4 of 2023. on december 12, 2023, tesla filed a defect information report (dir) (recall 23v838) applicable to all tesla models produced and equipped with any version of its autopilot system. tesla’s dir described the functionality of this system, stated that the prominence and scope of the system’s controls may be insufficient to prevent driver misuse, and described a remedy to improve the effectiveness of driver warnings and to reduce m

From 2000 through 2017, takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("psan") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004l. after prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. the rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. see 2016 blomquist report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in us vehicles are under recall. these "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.in some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004l that does contain a desiccant. none of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. certain subsets of desiccated psan inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. all takata inflators produced with propellant 2004l contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004l are under recall for a degradation concern. there have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated psan inflators.it is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. this means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. while no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.three entities -- takata (now known as tk global), the independent testing coalition, and exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of takata desiccated psan inflators using propellant 2004l (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. the research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. to date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004l is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. however, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004l.the office of defects investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated psan frontal inflators manufactured by takata. this investigation will require extensive information on takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated psan inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaid=ea21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). this investigation does not supersede ea15-001, which remains open.

From 2000 through 2017, takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("psan") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004l. after prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. the rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. see 2016 blomquist report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in us vehicles are under recall. these "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.in some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004l that does contain a desiccant. none of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. certain subsets of desiccated psan inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. all takata inflators produced with propellant 2004l contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004l are under recall for a degradation concern. there have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated psan inflators.it is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. this means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. while no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.three entities -- takata (now known as tk global), the independent testing coalition, and exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of takata desiccated psan inflators using propellant 2004l (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. the research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. to date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004l is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. however, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004l.the office of defects investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated psan frontal inflators manufactured by takata. this investigation will require extensive information on takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated psan inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaid=ea21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). this investigation does not supersede ea15-001, which remains open.

The office of defects investigation (odi) received a petition requesting that odi reevaluate its decision to deny dp20-001 on the basis that intermittent high electrical current demands on the vehicles' 12vdc systems may have caused some or all of the incidents examined by odi in dp20-001. the petitioner bases this information on a review of open-source research and the dp20-001 denial. the petition and related materials can be reviewed at nhtsa.gov under the following odi number: 11528471.

On march 27, 2023, the office of defects investigation (odi) received a defect petition that requested a recall of all tesla vehicles model year (my) 2013 to present to add an interlock that requires a brake application by the driver in order to shift from drive to reverse to reduce the number of sudden unintended acceleration events. along with his request, the petitioner provided a technical paper regarding the claims in the petition. odi will evaluate the petitioner's allegations and assess potentially related field data to determine if the petition should be granted or denied. if the petition is granted, odi will open a defect investigation. if the petition is denied, odi will publish a denial notice in the federal register. the petition and its supporting paper can be reviewed at nhtsa.gov under the following odi number: 11515119.

Nhtsa received a petition on or about july 18, 2022, requesting that federal motor vehicle safety standard (fmvss) 141 be applied to all electric and hybrid vehicles operating in the united states. the petition can be reviewed at nhtsa.gov under odi number 11486072. fmvss 141 establishes performance requirements for pedestrian alert sounds for motor vehicles. the standard applies to hybrid and electric vehicles that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less or are defined as low-speed vehicles. the standard became fully applicable to all such vehicles manufactured on or after march 1, 2021.on january 27, 2023, nhtsa opened defect petition (dp) 22-005 to evaluate the subject matter described in the petition. on june 24, 2023 and as supplemented on june 25, 2023, the petitioner notified nhtsa he was withdrawing his petition. the petitioner indicated that, based on his review of data, there is no justification for asserting potential benefits that could be derived from actions sought by my petition. based on the petitioner's withdrawal, dp22-005 is closed. closure of this dp does not represent a determination by nhtsa regarding the subject matter of the petition.

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.

In a letter dated september 17, 2019, mr. edward chen petitioned the nhtsa to 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 bases his request on vehicle fires that took place worldwide and ota software updates tesla made to the battery management system (bms) of certain tesla vehicles that resulted in loss of available vehicle mileage range and increased charging durations.on october 1, 2019, the office of defects investigation (odi) opened dp19-005 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. information provided by tesla in response to odi's information request letter for dp19-005 indicated that a firmware update that may limit maximum voltage was installed in certain my 2012 through 2016 model s vehicles (subject vehicles). the voltage limiting firmware is a dynamic algorithm that is enabled in vehicles with high supercharging use histories, which contributes to high usage stress to the high-voltage (hv) battery. tesla sold approximately 61,781 subject vehicles in the united states and, through august 2021, the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in approximately 2,062 vehicles. through december 2020, odi identified 59 complaints from consumers alleging reductions in battery capacity (52) or charging speed (7) in the subject vehicles. log data from these vehicles showed that the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in about 58 percent (30 of 52) of the complaints alleging range loss. subsequent updates have restored some or all of the battery capacity to vehicles affected by the voltage limiting firmware coupled with updates enhancing bms battery brick monitoring algorithms. none of the complaint vehicles have reported any thermal incidents or other safety hazards related to the hv battery.the five non-crash fires referenced in the petition include two fires that occurred in china in early 2019 involving vehicles that: 1) had recently completed supercharging sessions; 2) were at a high state-of-charge (soc) of the hv battery; 3) were parked with the battery cooling system shutoff; and 4) had histories of high-stress usage for the hv batteries. the three fires that occurred outside china did not involve the same fact patterns regarding vehicle state and charging history. the two fires that occurred in the united states include one involving a vehicle with no supercharging history that was driving when the fire occurred and another in which the origin of the fire was external to the hv battery. the fifth fire, which also originated external to the hv battery, involved a vehicle in germany that had been parked at a low soc for an extended period. to date, incidents of fires involving parked vehicles with recent supercharging and histories of high-stress use have only been observed in china, where high-stress use factors appear to be more common. nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency?s investigation shows a defect in the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. given the absence of any incidents in the united states related to fast charging, and the absence of any such incidents globally since may 2019, it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued due to any investigation opened as a result of granting this petition. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition, and the potential risks to safety, th

In a letter dated september 17, 2019, mr. edward chen petitioned the nhtsa to 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 bases his request on vehicle fires that took place worldwide and ota software updates tesla made to the battery management system (bms) of certain tesla vehicles that resulted in loss of available vehicle mileage range and increased charging durations.on october 1, 2019, the office of defects investigation (odi) opened dp19-005 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. information provided by tesla in response to odi's information request letter for dp19-005 indicated that a firmware update that may limit maximum voltage was installed in certain my 2012 through 2016 model s vehicles (subject vehicles). the voltage limiting firmware is a dynamic algorithm that is enabled in vehicles with high supercharging use histories, which contributes to high usage stress to the high-voltage (hv) battery. tesla sold approximately 61,781 subject vehicles in the united states and, through august 2021, the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in approximately 2,062 vehicles. through december 2020, odi identified 59 complaints from consumers alleging reductions in battery capacity (52) or charging speed (7) in the subject vehicles. log data from these vehicles showed that the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in about 58 percent (30 of 52) of the complaints alleging range loss. subsequent updates have restored some or all of the battery capacity to vehicles affected by the voltage limiting firmware coupled with updates enhancing bms battery brick monitoring algorithms. none of the complaint vehicles have reported any thermal incidents or other safety hazards related to the hv battery.the five non-crash fires referenced in the petition include two fires that occurred in china in early 2019 involving vehicles that: 1) had recently completed supercharging sessions; 2) were at a high state-of-charge (soc) of the hv battery; 3) were parked with the battery cooling system shutoff; and 4) had histories of high-stress usage for the hv batteries. the three fires that occurred outside china did not involve the same fact patterns regarding vehicle state and charging history. the two fires that occurred in the united states include one involving a vehicle with no supercharging history that was driving when the fire occurred and another in which the origin of the fire was external to the hv battery. the fifth fire, which also originated external to the hv battery, involved a vehicle in germany that had been parked at a low soc for an extended period. to date, incidents of fires involving parked vehicles with recent supercharging and histories of high-stress use have only been observed in china, where high-stress use factors appear to be more common. nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency?s investigation shows a defect in the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. given the absence of any incidents in the united states related to fast charging, and the absence of any such incidents globally since may 2019, it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued due to any investigation opened as a result of granting this petition. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition, and the potential risks to safety, th

In a letter dated september 17, 2019, mr. edward chen petitioned the nhtsa to 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 bases his request on vehicle fires that took place worldwide and ota software updates tesla made to the battery management system (bms) of certain tesla vehicles that resulted in loss of available vehicle mileage range and increased charging durations.on october 1, 2019, the office of defects investigation (odi) opened dp19-005 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. information provided by tesla in response to odi's information request letter for dp19-005 indicated that a firmware update that may limit maximum voltage was installed in certain my 2012 through 2016 model s vehicles (subject vehicles). the voltage limiting firmware is a dynamic algorithm that is enabled in vehicles with high supercharging use histories, which contributes to high usage stress to the high-voltage (hv) battery. tesla sold approximately 61,781 subject vehicles in the united states and, through august 2021, the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in approximately 2,062 vehicles. through december 2020, odi identified 59 complaints from consumers alleging reductions in battery capacity (52) or charging speed (7) in the subject vehicles. log data from these vehicles showed that the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in about 58 percent (30 of 52) of the complaints alleging range loss. subsequent updates have restored some or all of the battery capacity to vehicles affected by the voltage limiting firmware coupled with updates enhancing bms battery brick monitoring algorithms. none of the complaint vehicles have reported any thermal incidents or other safety hazards related to the hv battery.the five non-crash fires referenced in the petition include two fires that occurred in china in early 2019 involving vehicles that: 1) had recently completed supercharging sessions; 2) were at a high state-of-charge (soc) of the hv battery; 3) were parked with the battery cooling system shutoff; and 4) had histories of high-stress usage for the hv batteries. the three fires that occurred outside china did not involve the same fact patterns regarding vehicle state and charging history. the two fires that occurred in the united states include one involving a vehicle with no supercharging history that was driving when the fire occurred and another in which the origin of the fire was external to the hv battery. the fifth fire, which also originated external to the hv battery, involved a vehicle in germany that had been parked at a low soc for an extended period. to date, incidents of fires involving parked vehicles with recent supercharging and histories of high-stress use have only been observed in china, where high-stress use factors appear to be more common. nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency?s investigation shows a defect in the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. given the absence of any incidents in the united states related to fast charging, and the absence of any such incidents globally since may 2019, it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued due to any investigation opened as a result of granting this petition. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition, and the potential risks to safety, th

In a letter dated september 17, 2019, mr. edward chen petitioned the nhtsa to 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 bases his request on vehicle fires that took place worldwide and ota software updates tesla made to the battery management system (bms) of certain tesla vehicles that resulted in loss of available vehicle mileage range and increased charging durations.on october 1, 2019, the office of defects investigation (odi) opened dp19-005 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. information provided by tesla in response to odi's information request letter for dp19-005 indicated that a firmware update that may limit maximum voltage was installed in certain my 2012 through 2016 model s vehicles (subject vehicles). the voltage limiting firmware is a dynamic algorithm that is enabled in vehicles with high supercharging use histories, which contributes to high usage stress to the high-voltage (hv) battery. tesla sold approximately 61,781 subject vehicles in the united states and, through august 2021, the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in approximately 2,062 vehicles. through december 2020, odi identified 59 complaints from consumers alleging reductions in battery capacity (52) or charging speed (7) in the subject vehicles. log data from these vehicles showed that the voltage limiting firmware had been enabled in about 58 percent (30 of 52) of the complaints alleging range loss. subsequent updates have restored some or all of the battery capacity to vehicles affected by the voltage limiting firmware coupled with updates enhancing bms battery brick monitoring algorithms. none of the complaint vehicles have reported any thermal incidents or other safety hazards related to the hv battery.the five non-crash fires referenced in the petition include two fires that occurred in china in early 2019 involving vehicles that: 1) had recently completed supercharging sessions; 2) were at a high state-of-charge (soc) of the hv battery; 3) were parked with the battery cooling system shutoff; and 4) had histories of high-stress usage for the hv batteries. the three fires that occurred outside china did not involve the same fact patterns regarding vehicle state and charging history. the two fires that occurred in the united states include one involving a vehicle with no supercharging history that was driving when the fire occurred and another in which the origin of the fire was external to the hv battery. the fifth fire, which also originated external to the hv battery, involved a vehicle in germany that had been parked at a low soc for an extended period. to date, incidents of fires involving parked vehicles with recent supercharging and histories of high-stress use have only been observed in china, where high-stress use factors appear to be more common. nhtsa is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the agency?s investigation shows a defect in the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 u.s.c. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. given the absence of any incidents in the united states related to fast charging, and the absence of any such incidents globally since may 2019, it is unlikely that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued due to any investigation opened as a result of granting this petition. therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition, and the potential risks to safety, th

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 may 7, 2016, a 2015 tesla model s collided with a tractor trailer crossing an uncontrolled intersection on a highway west of williston, florida, resulting in fatal injuries to the tesla driver.data obtained from the model s indicated that:1) the tesla was being operated in autopilot mode at the time of the collision; 2) the automatic emergency braking (aeb) system did not provide any warning or automated braking for the collision event; and 3) the driver took no braking, steering or other actions to avoid the collision.on june 28, 2016, nhtsa opened pe16-007 to “examine the design and performance of any automated driving systems in use at the time of the crash.”the office of defects investigation (odi) analyzed the following subjects as part of nhtsa’s examination of the design and performance of tesla’s autopilot system:1) automatic emergency braking (aeb) system design and performance in the subject tesla and peer vehicles; 2) human-machine interface issues related to autopilot operating mode; 3) data from crash incidents related to tesla’s autopilot and aeb systems; and 4) changes tesla has implemented in the autopilot and aeb systems.nhtsa’s examination did not identify any defects in the design or performance of the aeb or autopilotsystems of the subject vehicles nor any incidents in which the systems did not perform as designed.aeb systems used in the automotive industry through my 2016 are rear-end collision avoidance technologies that are not designed to reliably perform in all crash modes, including crossing path collisions.the autopilot system is an advanced driver assistance system (adas) that requires the continual and full attention of the driver to monitor the traffic environment and be prepared to take action to avoid crashes.tesla's design included a hands-on the steering wheel system for monitoring driver engagement.that system has been updated to further reinforce the need for driver engagement through a "strike out" strategy.drivers that do not respond to visual cues in the driver monitoring system alerts may "strike out" and lose autopilot function for the remainder of the drive cycle.a safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that no safety-related defect exists.the agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.for more information about the analysis, see the attached report.

On may 7, 2016, a 2015 tesla model s collided with a tractor trailer crossing an uncontrolled intersection on a highway west of williston, florida, resulting in fatal injuries to the tesla driver.data obtained from the model s indicated that:1) the tesla was being operated in autopilot mode at the time of the collision; 2) the automatic emergency braking (aeb) system did not provide any warning or automated braking for the collision event; and 3) the driver took no braking, steering or other actions to avoid the collision.on june 28, 2016, nhtsa opened pe16-007 to “examine the design and performance of any automated driving systems in use at the time of the crash.”the office of defects investigation (odi) analyzed the following subjects as part of nhtsa’s examination of the design and performance of tesla’s autopilot system:1) automatic emergency braking (aeb) system design and performance in the subject tesla and peer vehicles; 2) human-machine interface issues related to autopilot operating mode; 3) data from crash incidents related to tesla’s autopilot and aeb systems; and 4) changes tesla has implemented in the autopilot and aeb systems.nhtsa’s examination did not identify any defects in the design or performance of the aeb or autopilotsystems of the subject vehicles nor any incidents in which the systems did not perform as designed.aeb systems used in the automotive industry through my 2016 are rear-end collision avoidance technologies that are not designed to reliably perform in all crash modes, including crossing path collisions.the autopilot system is an advanced driver assistance system (adas) that requires the continual and full attention of the driver to monitor the traffic environment and be prepared to take action to avoid crashes.tesla's design included a hands-on the steering wheel system for monitoring driver engagement.that system has been updated to further reinforce the need for driver engagement through a "strike out" strategy.drivers that do not respond to visual cues in the driver monitoring system alerts may "strike out" and lose autopilot function for the remainder of the drive cycle.a safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that no safety-related defect exists.the agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.for more information about the analysis, see the attached report.

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 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 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 may 7, 2016, a 2015 tesla model s collided with a tractor trailer crossing an uncontrolled intersection on a highway west of williston, florida, resulting in fatal injuries to the tesla driver.data obtained from the model s indicated that:1) the tesla was being operated in autopilot mode at the time of the collision; 2) the automatic emergency braking (aeb) system did not provide any warning or automated braking for the collision event; and 3) the driver took no braking, steering or other actions to avoid the collision.on june 28, 2016, nhtsa opened pe16-007 to “examine the design and performance of any automated driving systems in use at the time of the crash.”the office of defects investigation (odi) analyzed the following subjects as part of nhtsa’s examination of the design and performance of tesla’s autopilot system:1) automatic emergency braking (aeb) system design and performance in the subject tesla and peer vehicles; 2) human-machine interface issues related to autopilot operating mode; 3) data from crash incidents related to tesla’s autopilot and aeb systems; and 4) changes tesla has implemented in the autopilot and aeb systems.nhtsa’s examination did not identify any defects in the design or performance of the aeb or autopilotsystems of the subject vehicles nor any incidents in which the systems did not perform as designed.aeb systems used in the automotive industry through my 2016 are rear-end collision avoidance technologies that are not designed to reliably perform in all crash modes, including crossing path collisions.the autopilot system is an advanced driver assistance system (adas) that requires the continual and full attention of the driver to monitor the traffic environment and be prepared to take action to avoid crashes.tesla's design included a hands-on the steering wheel system for monitoring driver engagement.that system has been updated to further reinforce the need for driver engagement through a "strike out" strategy.drivers that do not respond to visual cues in the driver monitoring system alerts may "strike out" and lose autopilot function for the remainder of the drive cycle.a safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that no safety-related defect exists.the agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.for more information about the analysis, see the attached report.

On may 7, 2016, a 2015 tesla model s collided with a tractor trailer crossing an uncontrolled intersection on a highway west of williston, florida, resulting in fatal injuries to the tesla driver.data obtained from the model s indicated that:1) the tesla was being operated in autopilot mode at the time of the collision; 2) the automatic emergency braking (aeb) system did not provide any warning or automated braking for the collision event; and 3) the driver took no braking, steering or other actions to avoid the collision.on june 28, 2016, nhtsa opened pe16-007 to “examine the design and performance of any automated driving systems in use at the time of the crash.”the office of defects investigation (odi) analyzed the following subjects as part of nhtsa’s examination of the design and performance of tesla’s autopilot system:1) automatic emergency braking (aeb) system design and performance in the subject tesla and peer vehicles; 2) human-machine interface issues related to autopilot operating mode; 3) data from crash incidents related to tesla’s autopilot and aeb systems; and 4) changes tesla has implemented in the autopilot and aeb systems.nhtsa’s examination did not identify any defects in the design or performance of the aeb or autopilotsystems of the subject vehicles nor any incidents in which the systems did not perform as designed.aeb systems used in the automotive industry through my 2016 are rear-end collision avoidance technologies that are not designed to reliably perform in all crash modes, including crossing path collisions.the autopilot system is an advanced driver assistance system (adas) that requires the continual and full attention of the driver to monitor the traffic environment and be prepared to take action to avoid crashes.tesla's design included a hands-on the steering wheel system for monitoring driver engagement.that system has been updated to further reinforce the need for driver engagement through a "strike out" strategy.drivers that do not respond to visual cues in the driver monitoring system alerts may "strike out" and lose autopilot function for the remainder of the drive cycle.a safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that no safety-related defect exists.the agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.for more information about the analysis, see the attached report.

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 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 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 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 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 may 7, 2016, a 2015 tesla model s collided with a tractor trailer crossing an uncontrolled intersection on a highway west of williston, florida, resulting in fatal injuries to the tesla driver.data obtained from the model s indicated that:1) the tesla was being operated in autopilot mode at the time of the collision; 2) the automatic emergency braking (aeb) system did not provide any warning or automated braking for the collision event; and 3) the driver took no braking, steering or other actions to avoid the collision.on june 28, 2016, nhtsa opened pe16-007 to “examine the design and performance of any automated driving systems in use at the time of the crash.”the office of defects investigation (odi) analyzed the following subjects as part of nhtsa’s examination of the design and performance of tesla’s autopilot system:1) automatic emergency braking (aeb) system design and performance in the subject tesla and peer vehicles; 2) human-machine interface issues related to autopilot operating mode; 3) data from crash incidents related to tesla’s autopilot and aeb systems; and 4) changes tesla has implemented in the autopilot and aeb systems.nhtsa’s examination did not identify any defects in the design or performance of the aeb or autopilotsystems of the subject vehicles nor any incidents in which the systems did not perform as designed.aeb systems used in the automotive industry through my 2016 are rear-end collision avoidance technologies that are not designed to reliably perform in all crash modes, including crossing path collisions.the autopilot system is an advanced driver assistance system (adas) that requires the continual and full attention of the driver to monitor the traffic environment and be prepared to take action to avoid crashes.tesla's design included a hands-on the steering wheel system for monitoring driver engagement.that system has been updated to further reinforce the need for driver engagement through a "strike out" strategy.drivers that do not respond to visual cues in the driver monitoring system alerts may "strike out" and lose autopilot function for the remainder of the drive cycle.a safety-related defect trend has not been identified at this time and further examination of this issue does not appear to be warranted.accordingly, this investigation is closed.the closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by nhtsa that no safety-related defect exists.the agency will monitor the issue and reserves the right to take future action if warranted by the circumstances.for more information about the analysis, see the attached report.