From Ideal's "upgrade" to Tesla's "dumping," why is it so hard to admit fault?

While people are still debating whether Ideal's fix for the broken axle is a "hardware optimization upgrade," another recent recall has triggered a war of words that has given the masses a new topic of discussion.

This time, it was Xinhua News Agency itself, which on Nov. 3 used a commentary titled "Tesla's Malicious Dumping is Unreasonable Arrogance Toward Chinese Consumers," to criticize Tesla by name for not recognizing its products in the U.S. after they were recalled in China, and for unreasonably and arrogantly dumping the issue on Chinese users' habits and the pressure of regulators.

Similar product problems, similar cover-up, in contrast, the ideal "upgrade" may just be a play on words, while Tesla's "dumping" reflects a deeper procrastination of the problem and irresponsibility to the user.

■? Tesla: recall nearly 30,000 cars, only because the Chinese owners "drive too wild"?

The reason Xinhua blasted Tesla originated in late October when Tesla launched its largest recall to date in China. A Tesla statement said it plans to recall ***counting 29,834 Model?S and Model?X imported into the country between September 2013 and January 2018 because of safety hazards in the front and rear suspensions of the vehicles.

The reason for the recall is that when these vehicles are subjected to large external impacts, the front suspension rear linkage ball head bolts can develop an initial crack, which can extend and lead to a ball head bolt when the vehicle continues to be used. When the vehicle continues to be used, the crack may extend and cause the ball stud to fracture. In extreme cases, the ball tapered seat may disengage from the steering knuckle, affecting vehicle handling and increasing the risk of an accident, posing a safety hazard.

A more concise summary is that the axle is prone to break in a crash.

At the time, there was some praise for Tesla, even comparing it to Ideal, which has yet to come up with an "upgrade" program, as being more responsible.

But a massive recall in China would obviously attract the attention of regulators back home in the US. In a letter to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Tesla denied that its vehicle suspensions were defective, arguing that the root cause was improper driving by some Chinese owners -- severe curb and pothole crashes that can cause suspension problems, which are "particularly serious in China. "are particularly serious in China."

Tesla also claimed that it had "decided to recall the products in question despite disagreeing with China's State Administration for Market Supervision and Administration, which would otherwise carry a heavy administrative burden."

The fact that Tesla is "shrugging off" the driving habits of Chinese car owners while saying that it has been pressured by the regulator to recall the products is clearly hurting the feelings of Chinese car owners and questioning the authority of the regulator. After the news was reprinted by Chinese media, public opinion continued to ferment, and eventually drew criticism from Xinhua News Agency, which named the car: "The car has been recalled in China, but it is not recognized overseas, and it is not allowed to dump the habit of Chinese users and pressure from the regulator, which is the kind of 'Tesla's arrogance' that can not be habituated. "

■? Ideal: "redefine" vehicle recall

Coincidentally, just two days before the Xinhua News Agency criticized Tesla, Ideal Motors also put forward a solution to the broken axle problem of the previous product at a communication meeting: it will be for the production of more than 10,000 units of Ideal ONE on June 1, 2020 and before the free upgrade to take off the force of a more The front suspension lower arm ball pins will be upgraded for free for more than 10,000 Ideal ONEs produced on or before June 2020 with higher pull-out force.

It is obviously a commendable attitude to take the initiative to offer a solution to the broken axle problem, but the statement that the solution to the quality defect is categorized as "hardware optimization and upgrading" has once again triggered controversy in the public opinion.

According to Ideal's official data, as of Oct. 31, 2020, Ideal ONE had 97 front suspension crashes, 10 of which involved the ball end of the lower suspension arm coming out. Meanwhile, Ideal admits that this rate is indeed higher than that of comparable vehicles.

But when asked if this hardware upgrade is a disguised admission of a product design flaw, or a recall in disguise, Ideal's answer was less forthright: "The upgrade is definitely because there was a defect, but this defect is not the same as other broken axles in normal driving. Ideal ONE is the probability of breaking in the event of a collision is more than the average of normal cars, if you do not crash is not a problem."

The statement "if you don't crash, you won't have a problem" inevitably brings to mind the premise of Tesla's recall statement that "some of the vehicles have been subjected to large impacts". Therefore, there are many voices questioned, even Tesla recalled, but the ideal is said to be "hardware upgrades", this is not a kind of sophistry?

Of course, Ideal's supporters say that given the way the company faced the accident and its positive attitude, Ideal's "upgrade" is more sincere than Tesla's "improper use by the owner" claim.

And while the debate rages on, Xinhua's criticism has drawn attention back to the Tesla that broke its axle.

■? Tesla: not necessarily arrogant, but definitely delaying

In fact, regardless of whether it is really arrogant, Tesla has indeed been delaying and reacting passively in dealing with the broken axle issue.

Tesla recalled products are from 2013 to early 2018 part of the import of domestic Model?S and?Model?X, and these years, come about Tesla broken axle incident has long happened many times.

As early as 2017, there have been a lot of discussions about broken axles in the Tesla owners' forum. And until last year, there were still related accidents being exposed from time to time.

However, Tesla, as the "electric net red", obviously has too many more powerful news to attract public attention. The broken axle is a "slightly routine" problem that hasn't been able to generate as much public attention as it would have liked. Tesla was also apparently happy to take a more cost-effective approach of "one case at a time," and some owners even reported a four-month tug-of-war with the manufacturer over their rights.

It wasn't until the problem was repeatedly complained about by users, and the State Administration for Market Supervision and Administration of the People's Republic of China (AMSC) eventually launched a defect investigation, that Tesla accepted the need for a recall. Recall product sales of the long time span, but also very rare to reach nearly five years long, visible Tesla in the problem has been passive processing, and even delayed the solution, rather than take the initiative to take measures to solve the problem.

■? Why is it so hard to admit fault

There is also an interesting quote from Xinhua's comments: "In China, the recall was recognized, and the strange thing of hard-mouthed dumping in the United States is still the first time I've seen it. In earlier years, due to the lack of recall regulations in China, there have been cases where manufacturers have recalled in foreign countries and not in China." This paragraph can be said to point out the root of the problem, bearing in mind that at the end of 2017 Tesla Model?3 has just been put into mass production, Model?S/X is still Tesla's most voluminous model, with cumulative sales of nearly 287,000 units worldwide, of which about 56% were sold in the U.S. market.

This means that if a similar recall program were to be initiated in the US, Tesla would need to invest far more in costs than a recall in China. So whether or not it's really arrogant, Tesla is bound to use all sorts of reasons to avoid the results of a massive recall when faced with questions from U.S. regulators. In this way, Tesla has not only hurt the feelings of Chinese car owners, but also continued its delaying and perfunctory attitude toward American car owners.

Tesla is unwilling to admit its mistakes in the U.S. in order to save the cost of recall, and the ideal of optimizing and upgrading the hardware in China is not to maintain the brand image and the smoothness of the stock price. Li, who started his career as an Internet company, obviously knows what kind of blow a negative online public opinion storm in China will bring to the company and its brand once it is formed. With "upgrade" instead of "recall" word game, even if it will cause controversy, but at least in the expression of more customer care on the meaning.

■?

In fact, Tesla and Ideal's active and passive attitudes toward the recall issue also conceal the deeper reasons for the complexity of the decision-making process caused by the differences in the size of the two companies:

Ideal is obviously still in the stage of a startup company's "boat is small and good to adjust the head", and it can communicate promptly with the whole company when dealing with a crisis. Ideal is clearly still in the "small boat" stage of a startup, where the whole organization is able to communicate and solve problems in a timely manner when dealing with crisis.

But Tesla, as a multinational company, has a huge organization and poor communication, which will inevitably lead to the problem being delayed again and again.

This has undoubtedly been a wake-up call for all the new car-making forces, such as Ideal and Azalea, who claim to be revolutionizing the traditional car business model and becoming user-oriented enterprises - how to mitigate the disease of "big companies" and really do what they say they will do as they continue to grow.

The new car maker forces are sounding the alarm - how to reduce the "big company" disease and really do what they say they will do while the company continues to grow, and how to provide timely and considerate services in a user-centered manner, which deserves the long-term thinking of every young electric enterprise.

As Xinhua News Agency said in its commentary, the new energy vehicle backwaters, in order to develop a more long-term, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of car owners is always the most important thing.

This article comes from the author of the automobile home car, does not represent the views of the automobile home position.