The numbers included seem to contradict the story. They are alleging that the suspension is defective, but the numbers included don't seem to back it up. They

The numbers included seem to contradict the story. They are alleging that the suspension is defective, but the numbers included don't seem to back it up. They show that the cost of repairs under warranty for suspension components is $3.9 million per year. This actually seems quite low for a company with millions of cars on the road. There is also this: > In other cases, the automaker charged customers with out-of-warranty cars to replace parts that Tesla engineers internally called flawed or that they knew had high failure rates. Engineers ordered repeated redesigns for several parts and discussed seeking money back from suppliers because of the defects. Do car companies ever not charge customers for repairs that are out-of-warranty? And I don't find the fact that the engineers called these parts flawed very significant. Everybody knows that certain makes and models tend to have trouble with their <car part>. I am not surprised that the engineers who made the car can figure these things out too. The anecdotal evidence of the single case of the wheel falling off I don't find particularly damning. First of all the analysis by the engineer does not rule out collision, like the article implies. The direct quote from the engineer is "No convincing evidence to prove a direct impact is the cause of the fracture." This is an indeterminate result. Assuming that this was in fact a defect, when you have a N of millions of cars, you are going to be able to find some catastrophic defects. It's inevitable, and it's the reason why anecdotal evidence is weak. I have a very high bar for accusations, and an even higher bar for accusations against Tesla given the high volume of them, and the low percentage of them actually going anywhere. And I remain unconvinced by this article.