Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Our Thermally-Fused NEMA 14-50 Adaptor Has Finally Arrived - 2013 Tesla Model S Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 5,833
edited June 5 in Tesla
imageOur Thermally-Fused NEMA 14-50 Adaptor Has Finally Arrived - 2013 Tesla Model S Long-Term Road Test

We finally received a new thermally-fused NEMA 14-50 charge cord adaptor for our 2013 Tesla Model S sedan.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • rock2155rock2155 Posts: 20

    Actually the new adaptor does NOT have a thermal fuse inside and its why it took more time for them to have them shipped to owners. Quote: "During final validation testing of the new design, the NEMA 14-50 adapter with internal thermal fuse was not any more robust than the original NEMA 14-50 adapter it was intended to replace. Accordingly, Tesla turned to an alternate replacement NEMA 14-50 adapter".

    See: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM454956/RCDNN-14V006-7510.pdf

  • rock2155rock2155 Posts: 20

    Btw, thanks for the now daily updates !

  • jabbauerjabbauer Posts: 1

    I haven't heard anything about the alignment in awhile, no more excessive tire wear? Is that all sorted out?

  • actualsizeactualsize Santa Ana, CaliforniaPosts: 253
    edited June 6

    Thanks Rock. I didn't get that letter. Nothing of the sort was in the box. First I've seen it. Still, we got our new adaptor and the old one is gone.

    But I wonder if that Feb 24 letter was the last word. I suspect it wasn't because ours has no green dot. And in the letter Tesla is basically telling NHTSA they decided not to do the promised thermal fuse after all. Instead they decided to make the 14-50 adaptor bulletproof. This letter reads like they retreated to an earlier position that relied on the software upgrade alone. Did that ultimately sit well? Sounds like I need to inquire.

    Twitter: @Edmunds_Test

  • actualsizeactualsize Santa Ana, CaliforniaPosts: 253
    edited June 6

    As for the alignment, I was going to respond in the "Laundry List" thread but commenting got locked on that one when we changed the Tesla over to this new format a couple posts later. The feathering (Tesla technician's word) is light heel-toe stuff. The wear they indicated has more to do with cornering than misalignment.

    I was going to post about the current state of the marks I put on the toe links way back when, but my photos are terrible. I'll take new ones. But we are not seeing a repeat of the problem, things are holding station and the tires are wearing more-or-less evenly.

    Twitter: @Edmunds_Test

  • throwbackthrowback Posts: 220

    Some cars just eat tires, The original Nsx comes to mind as well as 911 Turbos. The Model S is a tire eater, just something else to factor in when buying your maintenance free Tesla.

  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,163

    Dan, thanks for the update. So, This car has the asymetrical tires, staggered fitment - right? So you're only going to rotate side-to-side. Have you done that?

    The car now has just over 23k miles on it, and the rear tires have just under 14k miles on them, and the fronts are the originals, right?

    Can you tell us what you are projecting in terms of wear for all tires on the car? The opinion on tire wear from cornering...I'm aware this is a high-performance car, but it doesn't strike me as a canyon carver, nor has it seen a track day. Is all that correct?

    Thanks.

  • rock2155rock2155 Posts: 20
    edited June 6

    @fordson1 said: Dan, thanks for the update. So, This car has the asymetrical tires, staggered fitment - right? So you're only going to rotate side-to-side. Have you done that?

    The car now has just over 23k miles on it, and the rear tires have just under 14k miles on them, and the fronts are the originals, right?

    Can you tell us what you are projecting in terms of wear for all tires on the car? The opinion on tire wear from cornering...I'm aware this is a high-performance car, but it doesn't strike me as a canyon carver, nor has it seen a track day. Is all that correct?

    Thanks.

    The alignment (aggressive rear camber) might be one thing but surely the 443 lb-ft or torque at the rear wheels has something to do. This plus the fact that this "long term road test" car is being passed from people to people at Edmunds and most probably want to see how hard it accelerate. I don't see the tire usage as an issue... Its just tire consumption controlled by the right foot. ;)

  • duck87duck87 Posts: 647
    edited June 6

    @rock2155 said: The alignment (aggressive rear camber) might be one thing but surely the 443 lb-ft or torque at the rear wheels has something to do. This plus the fact that this "long term road test" car is being passed from people to people at Edmunds and most probably want to see how hard it accelerate. I don't see the tire usage as an issue... Its just tire consumption controlled by the right foot. ;)

    Unless you're standing on the gas pedal, you don't typically summon 443 lb. ft. of torque at once- that's why there's a motor controller. All of the tires that Edmunds replaced due to wear were wearing heavily at the edges, so it's definitely not down to an enthusiastic foot...

  • duck87duck87 Posts: 647
    edited June 6

    @throwback said: Some cars just eat tires, The original Nsx comes to mind as well as 911 Turbos. The Model S is a tire eater, just something else to factor in when buying your maintenance free Tesla.

    With a $600+ yearly maintenance fee as well as Edmund's laundry list of warranty items to fix, is the Model S truly maintenance free? Slippy's Leaf is maintenance free, the Model S is not.

    And "tire eater" or not, needing tire replacements every 10K miles is pretty unacceptable. More concerning is HOW they are wearing- it's not the face of the tires going bald that's the issue, it's that there are obviously some geometry and suspension alignment design issues that are causing the tires to wear unevenly. Dan seems to indicate that this issue is fixed or hasn't recurred recently, however.

  • rock2155rock2155 Posts: 20

    @duck87 said: Unless you're standing on the gas pedal, you don't typically summon 443 lb. ft. of torque at once- that's why there's a motor controller. All of the tires that Edmunds replaced due to wear were wearing heavily at the edges, so it's definitely not down to an enthusiastic foot...

    Well... Actually yes, all that available torque at 0 rpm is one if the fun thing about driving electric. I personally do press that "electron" pedal to the metal a lot more now, and specially where it matter the most, from a dead stop... That traction control system is working overtime (when I don't simply disable it).

    I'm pretty sure my wife would get much better tire wear. Passing this car from car enthusiast to another is certainly not helping. In the end, there is a reason there is sports cars and normal cars. Why in hell someone would need all that torque ? "Because race car!"

  • duck87duck87 Posts: 647
    edited June 6

    @rock2155 said: I'm pretty sure my wife would get much better tire wear. Passing this car from car enthusiast to another is certainly not helping. In the end, there is a reason there is sports cars and normal cars. Why in hell someone would need all that torque ? "Because race car!"

    No... you have the "capability" of getting all that torque from 0 RPM. But the reality is that this doesn't happen because you would light up the rear tires instead of gently moving forward. You have a motor controller linked to your throttle pedal that controls the amount of torque output from the engine, and your torque output X motor rpm determines the amount of power the car is making. Therefore, if you aren't standing on the gas pedal, you aren't putting that much torque to the ground.

  • rock2155rock2155 Posts: 20

    @duck87 said: No... you have the "capability" of getting all that torque from 0 RPM. But the reality is that this doesn't happen because you would light up the rear tires instead of gently moving forward. You have a motor controller linked to your throttle pedal that controls the amount of torque output from the engine, and your torque output X motor rpm determines the amount of power the car is making. Therefore, if you aren't standing on the gas pedal, you aren't putting that much torque to the ground.

    Great, I don't want to determine at what lb-ft the tires break loose from a dead stop. Who cares, traction control works overtime when its on and tires spins when traction control is off. Point is, you can't expect long tire life with that power available in a car enthusiast hands, which is probably what defines most of the Edmunds team. I assume it would be, more or less, the worst case scenario of tire usage you can get because of the way the car is driven on a daily basis.

    In my case, I don't even worry about that and will replace my tires when they are due, which is probably not far away.

  • mayhemmmayhemm Posts: 6

    The 5.8.4 update (with power reduction capability) was great in theory. However, the initial few releases were far too sensitive to the natural voltage fluctuations in power systems and would trip unnecessarily. Not a big problem unless you were traveling and were suddenly looking at a 25% longer charge time. I believe they have finessed this problem out of later updates since I don't hear about false reductions nearly as often.

Sign In or Register to comment.