3 ms·

Very interesting Tesla's response: 1. The car was not brand new and was actually driven, which is horrible. 2. NHTSA did not investigate anything, they just ask

by abpavel 10y ago

Very interesting Tesla's response: 1. The car was not brand new and was actually driven, which is horrible. 2. NHTSA did not investigate anything, they just asked us for the documents. 3. We don't ask customers to sign anything, just demand that they sign "the agreement". 4. We're the best. Customers are idiots. 5. We'll even publicly expose the identity of the customer for you to hate. Here is his name, address, and SSN. Have fun!

jdbernard 10y ago
You must have read a different article than I. 1. Every manufacturer will point out that extreme conditions affect the performance and life of a car. I don't remember Tesla marketing the Model S as an off-road vehicle. I think it is fair for then to point out how different the driving conditions where in this case. 2. Cooperating with federal regulators is what we want, right? NHTSA hasn't opened even a preliminary investigation. Surely the agency talks with car manufacturers on a regular basis. 3. "When [we discount or conduct the repair for free] we sometimes ask our customers to sign a “Goodwill Agreement.” The basic point is to ensure that Tesla doesn’t do a good deed, only to have that used against us in court for further gain. [...] this agreement never even comes close to mentioning NHTSA or the government and it has nothing to do with trying to stop someone from communicating with NHTSA or the government about our cars. We have absolutely no desire to do something like that." 4. What? How are you even pulling that from the article. The fourth point was about Tesla's record of addressing safety concerns before customers experience problems. 5. First, they never said he was the owner of the car, but maybe that's obvious of you read his blog. But if that is true, then Tesla didn't expose him, he already exposed himself. Second, I didn't see any addresses or SSNs in the article, so you are exaggerating to the point of lying at this point.
dingo_bat 10y ago
Though all other points in your comment are quite juvenile, I think the first one is valid. >the suspension ball joint experienced very abnormal rust. We haven’t seen this on any other car, suggesting a very unusual use case. The car had over 70,000 miles on it and its owner lives down such a long dirt road that it required two tow trucks to retrieve the car. (One to get the car to the highway and one to get it from the highway to the service center.) When we got the car, it was caked in dirt. So what, Tesla? Cars are meant to be caked in dirt, sand, water, whatever elements they may encounter in the course of use by people who buy them. Most people drive on roads but some do go off-road and the cars should be able to handle it. Just the information provided here does not indicate misuse. It may still turn out that way, but not right now. It is more likely, IMO, that your engineers failed to consider some particular scenarios and the suspensions in your cars are a bit less rust-resistant than they should be.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  If a car is frequently driven in abnormally severe conditions, perhaps by a bad driver, for many more miles than a routine service check would warrant, it may be useful to point out the irregularity of the circumstance.

by abpavel 10y ago

jdbernard 10y ago

You must have read a different article than I. 1. Every manufacturer will point out that extreme conditions affect the performance and life of a car. I don't remember Tesla marketing the Model S as an off-road vehicle. I think it is fair for then to point out how different the driving conditions where in this case. 2. Cooperating with federal regulators is what we want, right? NHTSA hasn't opened even a preliminary investigation. Surely the agency talks with car manufacturers on a regular basis. 3. "When [we discount or conduct the repair for free] we sometimes ask our customers to sign a “Goodwill Agreement.” The basic point is to ensure that Tesla doesn’t do a good deed, only to have that used against us in court for further gain. [...] this agreement never even comes close to mentioning NHTSA or the government and it has nothing to do with trying to stop someone from communicating with NHTSA or the government about our cars. We have absolutely no desire to do something like that." 4. What? How are you even pulling that from the article. The fourth point was about Tesla's record of addressing safety concerns before customers experience problems. 5. First, they never said he was the owner of the car, but maybe that's obvious of you read his blog. But if that is true, then Tesla didn't expose him, he already exposed himself. Second, I didn't see any addresses or SSNs in the article, so you are exaggerating to the point of lying at this point.

dingo_bat 10y ago

Though all other points in your comment are quite juvenile, I think the first one is valid. >the suspension ball joint experienced very abnormal rust. We haven’t seen this on any other car, suggesting a very unusual use case. The car had over 70,000 miles on it and its owner lives down such a long dirt road that it required two tow trucks to retrieve the car. (One to get the car to the highway and one to get it from the highway to the service center.) When we got the car, it was caked in dirt. So what, Tesla? Cars are meant to be caked in dirt, sand, water, whatever elements they may encounter in the course of use by people who buy them. Most people drive on roads but some do go off-road and the cars should be able to handle it. Just the information provided here does not indicate misuse. It may still turn out that way, but not right now. It is more likely, IMO, that your engineers failed to consider some particular scenarios and the suspensions in your cars are a bit less rust-resistant than they should be.

unethical_ban 10y ago
If a car is frequently driven in abnormally severe conditions, perhaps by a bad driver, for many more miles than a routine service check would warrant, it may be useful to point out the irregularity of the circumstance.