Discussion: Tesla Energy / Auto Customer Service

[jimm01]

The couple say they have now faced 18 months of recurring, damaging leaks, a severe mold infestation that forced them out of their home for three months, and an ongoing dispute with Tesla over how much money Tesla will pay for repairs.

A couple says their Tesla Solar panels caused relentless leaks that led to mold 10 times the healthy limit, $115,000 in damages, and a long-running legal battle

A couple who blame Tesla's solar panels for roof leaks and a mold infestation are now locked in a legal battle about ending their contract.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[cali8484]

It looks like Tesla Energy is not much more than a rebranding of SolarCity which had lots of customer complaints. However, I doubt such story would get media coverage if Tesla and Musk were not involved as SolarCity had many similar customer complaints.

 

[MP3Mike]

I think there are some important details missing. For example:

• When was the system installed?
• Was the prior owner of the house informed of the poor condition of the roof and decided to put the solar system on without repairing the roof first?
• When they bought the house did their pre-purchase inspection note any damage in the attic or the poor condition of the roof?

The prior owner could have put solar on to make the house more attractive to buyers while covering up the fact that it really needed a new roof...

 

[jjrandorin]

I think there are some important details missing. For example:

• When was the system installed?
• Was the prior owner of the house informed of the poor condition of the roof and decided to put the solar system on without repairing the roof first?
• When they bought the house did their pre-purchase inspection note any damage in the attic or the poor condition of the roof?

The prior owner could have put solar on to make the house more attractive to buyers while covering up the fact that it really needed a new roof...

All could be valid (as well as quite a few other valid reasons for this to be in dispute, etc). The issue here is, even though many of us have had positive interactions with Tesla (both energy and vehicle), enough people have had negative interactions that, its very hard to give tesla "the benefit of the doubt" on stuff like this.

I didnt read the article (not really interested, TBH). The title of the piece tells me what its about. Unfortunately Tesla has "Earned" that "lack of ability to give them the benefit of the doubt", especially with tesla energy products and the solar roof fiasco.

 

[holeydonut]

All could be valid (as well as quite a few other valid reasons for this to be in dispute, etc). The issue here is, even though many of us have had positive interactions with Tesla (both energy and vehicle), enough people have had negative interactions that, its very hard to give tesla "the benefit of the doubt" on stuff like this.

I didnt read the article (not really interested, TBH). The title of the piece tells me what its about. Unfortunately Tesla has "Earned" that "lack of ability to give them the benefit of the doubt", especially with tesla energy products and the solar roof fiasco.

I read the article; it is what you expected it to be.

The root issue is that Tesla tries to have its cake and eat it too. Tesla wants fanbois and have some persona as a plucky startup trying to revolutionize things with the freshest tech. But at the same time, it is TSLA and behaves like any mega-corp would behave when its staffed with corporate workers.

So the root dilemma described in the article is that the unlucky homeowners are dealing with the negative outcome related to residential rooftop solar on an older home. However, Tesla (as they have demonstrated time and time again with recent narratives in this forum) has taken the strict constructionism approach to remedy. As the home continues to suffer a deterioration of events that are all related to water penetration and slow response times, Tesla is now relying heavily on literal interpretation of the contract and arbitration.

People can bicker to no end about "what the contract says." But the average consumer HATES the legal interpretation of things as a baseline. If something devolves into some BS involving arbiters, lawyers, and contracts, the situation is already off the rails.

Unfortunately, if a consumer wants to exist at the plane above this bottom-barrel-legal-BS, they should pick a local installer who values reputational damage. Tesla, just doesn't care about reputational damage anymore because they're no longer a startup. Tesla is now a Toyota, Monsanto, Nestle, Comcast, GE, etc. As such, it will behave with "the contract" as the least common denominator. Mega corps are sterile monoliths hellbent on maximum profits. Tesla is no different.

So this deal with a homeowner getting crapped on by a mega corp shouldn't even be news. But some people out there still think Tesla is a startup that maybe would behave differently like a smaller/local shop may behave.

The lesson to be learned from this article is that if you're a homeowner, do not wait for some counterparty to magically swoop in and "fix" your situation. Instead, work with your insurance company to go hire the firms you need to hire to stop the leaks. Even if it means you're spending out of pocket. From there, bicker with Tesla over who owes the money on the repair. Because waiting until there's massive damage like what these homeowners encountered is a fool's game. And no, don't expect Tesla or Monsanto to give two sh!ts about your wellbeing.

 

[cali8484]

I read the article; it is what you expected it to be.

The root issue is that Tesla tries to have its cake and eat it too. Tesla wants fanbois and have some persona as a plucky startup trying to revolutionize things with the freshest tech. But at the same time, it is TSLA and behaves like any mega-corp would behave when its staffed with corporate workers.

So the root dilemma described in the article is that the unlucky homeowners are dealing with the negative outcome related to residential rooftop solar on an older home. However, Tesla (as they have demonstrated time and time again with recent narratives in this forum) has taken the strict constructionism approach to remedy. As the home continues to suffer a deterioration of events that are all related to water penetration and slow response times, Tesla is now relying heavily on literal interpretation of the contract and arbitration.

People can bicker to no end about "what the contract says." But the average consumer HATES the legal interpretation of things as a baseline. If something devolves into some BS involving arbiters, lawyers, and contracts, the situation is already off the rails.

Unfortunately, if a consumer wants to exist at the plane above this bottom-barrel-legal-BS, they should pick a local installer who values reputational damage. Tesla, just doesn't care about reputational damage anymore because they're no longer a startup. Tesla is now a Toyota, Monsanto, Nestle, Comcast, GE, etc. As such, it will behave with "the contract" as the least common denominator. Mega corps are sterile monoliths hellbent on maximum profits. Tesla is no different.

So this deal with a homeowner getting crapped on by a mega corp shouldn't even be news. But some people out there still think Tesla is a startup that maybe would behave differently like a smaller/local shop may behave.

The lesson to be learned from this article is that if you're a homeowner, do not wait for some counterparty to magically swoop in and "fix" your situation. Instead, work with your insurance company to go hire the firms you need to hire to stop the leaks. Even if it means you're spending out of pocket. From there, bicker with Tesla over who owes the money on the repair. Because waiting until there's massive damage like what these homeowners encountered is a fool's game. And no, don't expect Tesla or Monsanto to give two sh!ts about your wellbeing.

I assume you are really talking about Tesla Energy and I would agree. However, people may get the impression that Tesla overall is bad with customers. To be sure, Tesla Auto is nowhere near perfect but I don't see nearly as many serious customer complaints proportionally. Tesla is certainly a big company now but it's not that big in the scheme of things. Tesla should take steps to make sure Tesla Energy doesn't harm Tesla's overall reputation especially with increasing competition from all the major car vendors coming out with EV's.

 

[jimm01]

It looks like Tesla Energy is not much more than a rebranding of SolarCity which had lots of customer complaints. However, I doubt such story would get media coverage if Tesla and Musk were not involved as SolarCity had many similar customer complaints.

I concur. Tesla has a mission with an emphasis on social responsibility. With Tesla Energy (nee Solar City) unable to yet achieve this aspiration. By rebranding Solar City and not fixing its corporate ethos Musk has cross-contaminated Tesla’s brand awareness with the good and the bad. I posit Tesla Energy’s and Tesla Automotive quality and service problems may seem similar but there are some significant difference. In any case this is a risk for all things branded Tesla.

Some years back after a Solar City salesperson visited me. Being unimpressed and a skeptical I began to inquire about what they were hawking door-to-door. The information I gathered was mostly neutral of the not for me variety, none were positive. However, there were a few that characterized Solar City sales model as similar to the movie Tin Men, (a film about door-to-door aluminum siding salesmen). At some point Solar City went from selling leased rooftop solar to selling leased rooftop solar and asphalt roofing on some sort of payment plan. Maybe it was the lack of information, in experience, or just unsophistication but I think this is where things went from bad to worse and now haunts Tesla Energy.

The door-to-door sales person that visited me was young and knew nothing about roofing—so I quickly dispatched him. Later I learned that when Solar City went into the roofing business they underestimated the business and their inexperience result in problems (sound familiar). This maybe what lead to the Tin Men analogy but I think the original sin is not engaging ‘qualified’ roofing contractors. There is a wide degree of quality in the roofing business and it maybe the case Solar City entered the market on the low end. So caveat emptor—you get what you don’t pay for? At least upfront a deal too good to be true usually is.

The ethos of developing products that have both a societal and economic benefit comes at a price and with risks. Solar City was more snake oil and boiler room than good corporate citizen. Musk even said Soar City’s business model was not part of the Tesla ethos and did away with it. The problem was rebranded Solar City as Tesla Energy didn’t change the organization culture enough. It appears Musk just painted over the rust. Underneath the shiny glass tiles is bad management and inexperience. And just like the new steal RoR panels a problem for the future. Solar or not a roof can only be so innovative—it must still function as a roof. As it seems with automobiles one can be, and may need to be, more innovative. Especially since the automotive industry and policymaker’s denial, intransigence, and lack of foresight hit a hard wall years ago.

 

[wwu123]

Drilling holes through the roof was my one big hesitation before getting solar 8 years ago. Mold, not to mention other physical water damage, from improperly sealed roof penetrations are one area where the property damage and health risks could be far, far greater than the cost and benefit of solar.

Had two different colleagues who got wealthy early from the Internet boom do remodels that were improperly done and caused black mold, leading to debilitating health issues for several years afterwards, not to mention the repair costs and lawsuits. I knew each in a different period in life, but their stories were so similar in timeline and severity that I wondered at one point if they were in fact married to each other (since I'd never met their spouses...)

More recently after I got solar, a friend rented a remodeled townhouse apartment, and their school-age daughter developed very mysterious but severe health and digestion issues for a year. Friend finally got mold testing kit, and poked a small hole in the ceiling to test the attic air, and the spore count was through the roof (no pun intended). The remodeled attic was either improperly vented or allowing water intrusion or both; they moved out and are suing the apartment owner. But while the daughter did recover, she's still sensitive to what she's able to eat years later.

 

[cali8484]

Drilling holes through the roof was my one big hesitation before getting solar 8 years ago. Mold, not to mention other physical water damage, from improperly sealed roof penetrations are one area where the property damage and health risks could be far, far greater than the cost and benefit of solar.

Had two different colleagues who got wealthy early from the Internet boom do remodels that were improperly done and caused black mold, leading to debilitating health issues for several years afterwards, not to mention the repair costs and lawsuits. I knew each in a different period in life, but their stories were so similar in timeline and severity that I wondered at one point if they were in fact married to each other (since I'd never met their spouses...)

More recently after I got solar, a friend rented a remodeled townhouse apartment, and their school-age daughter developed very mysterious but severe health and digestion issues for a year. Friend finally got mold testing kit, and poked a small hole in the ceiling to test the attic air, and the spore count was through the roof (no pun intended). The remodeled attic was either improperly vented or allowing water intrusion or both; they moved out and are suing the apartment owner. But while the daughter did recover, she's still sensitive to what she's able to eat years later.

Is this in California?

 

[holeydonut]

I assume you are really talking about Tesla Energy and I would agree. However, people may get the impression that Tesla overall is bad with customers. To be sure, Tesla Auto is nowhere near perfect but I don't see nearly as many serious customer complaints proportionally. Tesla is certainly a big company now but it's not that big in the scheme of things. Tesla should take steps to make sure Tesla Energy doesn't harm Tesla's overall reputation especially with increasing competition from all the major car vendors coming out with EV's.

I'm speaking both about Tesla Energy and Tesla Automotive. One thing you should consider is that the automotive industry is much more evolved than the PV+ESS industry. So while Tesla Energy is doing some less-than-stellar behaviors in this mostly emerging space, the stuff Tesla Auto is doing is also carefully constructed to be consumer-unfriendly (but of course with the guise it's actually new/better).

Naturally I do expect to get mega-downvoted by all the fanbois for this sentiment hah.


First let's talk about the lack of independently owned showrooms. This is a divisive topic, but my personal opinion is that Tesla is abusing the ever living hell out of the fact they don't have to franchise (except in Texas!) while every other major automaker has to conform with state franchise laws. When an automaker has independent showrooms, customers can go to the specific showroom of their choice that they believe provides the best service and experience. Customers can also form a relationship with the independent franchise for some concept of long-term loyalty. There is reputational risk if one franchise doesn't perform to the standards set by others, the competition necessitates that they all try to perform at a pretty high standard.

But Tesla showrooms are just... corporate channel arms. They are a sterile means to get hastily assembled inventory from the factory into the hands of a customer. Look at Tesla's incredibly difficult after-sales support, poor PD quality, dismissal of of the "no hassle return", and understaffed customer relations is proof that Tesla is abusing their direct-to-consumer approach today. If any other automaker treated their customers after the sale like Tesla does... they'd have hell to pay. But Tesla gets away with it because of Elon and the amazing tech of their vehicles.

Tesla experience can be completely trash or completely great but either way customers have no choices. And that is why long term it is bad for the customer. One customer can be quoted $16,000 to fix a dented battery, or get a car delivered with a flat tire. There is no market competitive drive for these customer facing arms to perform at a high level. Contrast that with a BMW of North America... if some dealership doesn't white-glove every customer, they could actually lose precious/valuable vehicle allocation. If an overworked Tesla rep does a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, nobody will give AF.


Next let's move to that magical flat pricing experience. While I know car buyers really like removing the sales/friction from a transaction, things aren't actually beneficial for the customer by Tesla having done this across most of their USA sales channel. Teslas trade at a hefty premium compared to other autos because their pricing is non-negotiable. To make the transaction affordable, Tesla relies on government subsidies and some other spiffs to make the equitation more attractive. But this margin manipulation goes straight into Tesla's pockets and lets Elon take trips to the moon.

If you asked the average car buyer what a hard-negotiation was worth in terms of $ in their pocket, most people would actually agree that saving $3,000 by having to go through a 3 hour negotiation is worth the few hours of pain. What people want in a perfect world is to get a $3,000 discount without the pain at all. But Tesla isn't offering this pain free low-price deal. Tesla is simply removing the negotiation from the equitation and asking the government to step in with rebates to close the gap.

For example, if you talk to car buyers living near Detroit, you'll learn lhat none of the auto dealers up there negotiate on pricing. This is because everyone up there knows someone in the biz, and typically they get access to the A-Plan, X-Plan, S-Plan, blah blah. And there are just amazing lease packages that are managed by the automaker's captive financing arms. These car sales still make the automaker money, make the dealership money. And I'm willing to go out on a limb and say people buying these cars had a great experience and got a good price on their vehicles. That is the experience people want; what they get with Tesla is a bastardized system that would have failed as a consumer-viable solution if not for government kickbacks incentives. Look at how many people gamed the "heavy truck" tax BS on the Model X.


Of course Tesla's tech is second to none, and justifies Tesla bending the rules and getting away with it. The other automakers are decades behind in terms of catching up with what Tesla offers. There aren't many good, competitive choices at this time. And Tesla should benefit from the competitive advantage because that's what companies do when they have the lead. I don't mean only in terms of the tech in the car or the UI, Tesla's supply chain is light years ahead of everyone else since Tesla basically owns their entire car end to end instead of other automakers that source from ZF, Getrag, Bosch, JCI, Harman, Visteon, blah blah blah. Tesla should be commended for beating dozens of entrenched and well capitalized automakers at their own game. That is beyond impressive.

Bottom line, Tesla has the best tech, but this should not distract that their business practices are unfriendly to consumers.

 

[jjrandorin]

@holeydonut

I had a fairly long response typed out here, but realized I would not be following my own "lets try to keep the thread on topic of this tesla roof issue as opposed to tesla" mantra, so got rid of it.

The one thing I will say, however, is, while I really enjoy the thought you put into your viewpoints, the minute someone starts throwing around either the term "Fanboi" OR "Short seller" in relationship to anything Tesla, they pretty much are losing my interest in what they are talking about. They are not banned words, but are charged with so much relative negativity, that I feel both those terms should be avoided.

 

[Tam]

If it was a bad roof, there should be leaks where there were no punctured marks from the solar system also.

Tesla might not be a long-time roofing expert and its technique for sealants might not be as long-lasting as from real roofers.

Tesla sealants might need to be inspected and resealed every now and then but who would pay for that inspection and maintenence?

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm speaking both about Tesla Energy and Tesla Automotive. One thing you should consider is that the automotive industry is much more evolved than the PV+ESS industry. So while Tesla Energy is doing some less-than-stellar behaviors in this mostly emerging space, the stuff Tesla Auto is doing is also carefully constructed to be consumer-unfriendly (but of course with the guise it's actually new/better).

Naturally I do expect to get mega-downvoted by all the fanbois for this sentiment hah.


First let's talk about the lack of independently owned showrooms. This is a divisive topic, but my personal opinion is that Tesla is abusing the ever living hell out of the fact they don't have to franchise (except in Texas!) while every other major automaker has to conform with state franchise laws. When an automaker has independent showrooms, customers can go to the specific showroom of their choice that they believe provides the best service and experience. Customers can also form a relationship with the independent franchise for some concept of long-term loyalty. There is reputational risk if one franchise doesn't perform to the standards set by others, the competition necessitates that they all try to perform at a pretty high standard.

But Tesla showrooms are just... corporate channel arms. They are a sterile means to get hastily assembled inventory from the factory into the hands of a customer. Look at Tesla's incredibly difficult after-sales support, poor PD quality, dismissal of of the "no hassle return", and understaffed customer relations is proof that Tesla is abusing their direct-to-consumer approach today. If any other automaker treated their customers after the sale like Tesla does... they'd have hell to pay. But Tesla gets away with it because of Elon and the amazing tech of their vehicles.

Tesla experience can be completely trash or completely great but either way customers have no choices. And that is why long term it is bad for the customer. One customer can be quoted $16,000 to fix a dented battery, or get a car delivered with a flat tire. There is no market competitive drive for these customer facing arms to perform at a high level. Contrast that with a BMW of North America... if some dealership doesn't white-glove every customer, they could actually lose precious/valuable vehicle allocation. If an overworked Tesla rep does a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, nobody will give AF.

A lot of people would disagree with this take. Just reducing some dealer allocations is a very weak stick vs direct control of the specific store. Every Tesla store is directly accountable to corporate, while that is not the case for dealers. And while there are some dealers you can build a good "relationship" with, by and large it seems people in general do not feel that to be the case with most dealers. This is why dealers push legislation that forces franchises (even for manufacturers that never had them in the first place). They know if given a free choice, many consumers would not choose a third party dealer.

Next let's move to that magical flat pricing experience. While I know car buyers really like removing the sales/friction from a transaction, things aren't actually beneficial for the customer by Tesla having done this across most of their USA sales channel. Teslas trade at a hefty premium compared to other autos because their pricing is non-negotiable. To make the transaction affordable, Tesla relies on government subsidies and some other spiffs to make the equitation more attractive. But this margin manipulation goes straight into Tesla's pockets and lets Elon take trips to the moon.

If you asked the average car buyer what a hard-negotiation was worth in terms of $ in their pocket, most people would actually agree that saving $3,000 by having to go through a 3 hour negotiation is worth the few hours of pain. What people want in a perfect world is to get a $3,000 discount without the pain at all. But Tesla isn't offering this pain free low-price deal. Tesla is simply removing the negotiation from the equitation and asking the government to step in with rebates to close the gap.

For example, if you talk to car buyers living near Detroit, you'll learn lhat none of the auto dealers up there negotiate on pricing. This is because everyone up there knows someone in the biz, and typically they get access to the A-Plan, X-Plan, S-Plan, blah blah. And there are just amazing lease packages that are managed by the automaker's captive financing arms. These car sales still make the automaker money, make the dealership money. And I'm willing to go out on a limb and say people buying these cars had a great experience and got a good price on their vehicles.

The whole price negotiation game is just a farce to make the consumer feel the hours they put in was worth it. The fact of the matter is dealers are running a business, and on top of the store/service operations costs they incur (which Tesla stores do also), the costs of maintaining a huge inventory and making a profit for the franchise owner means on average the consumer is still paying more money than a direct store. So while there might be a few customers that get a true "deal", most of them are paying more for the "privilege" of having a middle man in the transaction.

That is the experience people want; what they get with Tesla is a bastardized system that would have failed as a consumer-viable solution if not for government kickbacks incentives. Look at how many people gamed the "heavy truck" tax BS on the Model X.

Don't buy this argument at all. Tesla was the first to lose the federal incentive and is still winning in sales by far vs other EVs.

Of course Tesla's tech is second to none, and justifies Tesla bending the rules and getting away with it. The other automakers are decades behind in terms of catching up with what Tesla offers. There aren't many good, competitive choices at this time. And Tesla should benefit from the competitive advantage because that's what companies do when they have the lead. I don't mean only in terms of the tech in the car or the UI, Tesla's supply chain is light years ahead of everyone else since Tesla basically owns their entire car end to end instead of other automakers that source from ZF, Getrag, Bosch, JCI, Harman, Visteon, blah blah blah. Tesla should be commended for beating dozens of entrenched and well capitalized automakers at their own game. That is beyond impressive.

Bottom line, Tesla has the best tech, but this should not distract that their business practices are unfriendly to consumers.

 

[holeydonut]

A lot of people would disagree with this take. Just reducing some dealer allocations is a very weak stick vs direct control of the specific store. Every Tesla store is directly accountable to corporate, while that is not the case for dealers. And while there are some dealers you can build a good "relationship" with, by and large it seems people in general do not feel that to be the case with most dealers. This is why dealers push legislation that forces franchises (even for manufacturers that never had them in the first place). They know if given a free choice, many consumers would not choose a third party dealer.

The whole price negotiation game is just a farce to make the consumer feel the hours they put in was worth it. The fact of the matter is dealers are running a business, and on top of the store/service operations costs they incur (which Tesla stores do also), the costs of maintaining a huge inventory and making a profit for the franchise owner means on average the consumer is still paying more money than a direct store. So while there might be a few customers that get a true "deal", most of them are paying more for the "privilege" of having a middle man in the transaction.

Don't buy this argument at all. Tesla was the first to lose the federal incentive and is still winning in sales by far vs other EVs.

I think most people want DTC for sales, but they still want good post-sale service. Having the best of both worlds is hard to do with high-cost consumer goods sold at high volume. I believe getting rid of the franchises makes the sales funnel faster/better, but it completely blows up the after-sale service component.

I don't know a single Tesla owner who likes Tesla Auto's after sale support. Every one of my neighbors says Tesla SSSUUUCCCKKKS with 0-stars-out-of-5 stories. And can give me dozens of terrible experiences. But they keep buying the cars because there are no other EV options and having an EV is all cool and stuff (also gas cost me $4.86 / gallon yesterday). They all have to go to the same Tesla dealer (Dubliln, CA). Does Tesla care? hell to the no. TSLA keeps selling them cars and making all the money. Definitely not consumer friendly out here.

Trying to keep this thread on the topic of the particular homeowners getting jobbed by roof leaks... Tesla makes it really easy to get their product. But then the long-tail it takes to support those sales is not anywhere near the top of Tesla's priority list. I don't care if it's solar, batteries, or a car... the cost to establish a broad support network (independently owned or not) costs a ton.

When I worked in Detroit, we all wanted to get rid of the franchises. Every single automaker CEO dreamed of selling DTC. This wasn't to help the customer, it was to help the automaker and pad the bottom line. This would, to your point remove all middlemen, and allow the HQ to reap all the profits. You knew the moment HQ owned the showrooms, they would close over half of them (along with their service centers) because of synergies and cost savings and whatever.

I can go into a lot of detail around the psychological abuse inherent to traditional car-buying (and how automakers plan all of it for max profit). But jjrandorin will not like it

Providing bare bones service makes the company the most money. Tesla Auto and Tesla Energy do bare bones after-sales today, and they'll do it tomorrow unless something changes. For now, people will keep buying their products because it says Tesla.

 

[holeydonut]

If it was a bad roof, there should be leaks where there were no punctured marks from the solar system also.

Tesla might not be a long-time roofing expert and its technique for sealants might not be as long-lasting as from real roofers.

Tesla sealants might need to be inspected and resealed every now and then but who would pay for that inspection and maintenence?

Based on what the article said, that roof probably never should have had solar installed on it without the roof being re-done first. I think this is one of the grey areas of solar where people are super excited to put some panels on their roof, but their home may not be a good candidate for it (roof, main service panels, shading, etc)... but solar-sales-folks will push too hard on the sale. But then after the solar goes up there, a homeowner will need speedy fixes if problems arise. But I don't think large corporate installers commit enough resources for this long-tail. I mean car warranties are usually 3 to 5 years. Solar often goes 15 to 25. That's nuts.

 

[holeydonut]

@holeydonut

I had a fairly long response typed out here, but realized I would not be following my own "lets try to keep the thread on topic of this tesla roof issue as opposed to tesla" mantra, so got rid of it.

The one thing I will say, however, is, while I really enjoy the thought you put into your viewpoints, the minute someone starts throwing around either the term "Fanboi" OR "Short seller" in relationship to anything Tesla, they pretty much are losing my interest in what they are talking about. They are not banned words, but are charged with so much relative negativity, that I feel both those terms should be avoided.

I know the easiest way to avoid a post being read by you is to post "fanboi". If you don't read a post then it won't get moderate it for being off topic. Winnnnnnn

 

[jjrandorin]

I don't know a single Tesla owner who likes Tesla Auto's after sale support.

My after sales support on my model 3 has been great, actually. I realize that sounds like I am just saying that, but it really has been, similar to the experience I detailed recently with tesla energy support for an issue I recently had with my PV, in another thread. Both have been great for me. Saying that, i am not saying it has been great for everyone, but my own personal experiences have been great when I have been in person with someone.

 

[jjrandorin]

I know the easiest way to avoid a post being read by you is to post "fanboi". If you don't read a post then it won't get moderate it for being off topic. Winnnnnnn

Lmao... in your case, i am just like PGE, watching everything you are doing, waiting to roll another truck over there to require another disconnect (LMAO).

Kidding aside, I tend to like reading your posts, even if I dont agree with them, especially in the forums I moderate, so... that wont work in your case, lol.

 

[Tam]

...I mean car warranties are usually 3 to 5 years. Solar often goes 15 to 25. That's nuts...

Not nuts enough!

Tesla's new Solar Roof comes with a warranty that lasts forever

According to CEO Elon Musk, it's "infinity or when your house falls down."

www.businessinsider.com

Tesla used to post on its website:

"Infinite Tile Warranty
Made with tempered glass, Solar Roof tiles are more than three times stronger than standard roofing tiles. That's why we offer the best warranty in the industry - the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first. Watch our hail test video to see how we take durability to a whole new level."

 

[holeydonut]

Not nuts enough!

Tesla's new Solar Roof comes with a warranty that lasts forever

According to CEO Elon Musk, it's "infinity or when your house falls down."

www.businessinsider.com

Tesla used to post on its website:

"Infinite Tile Warranty
Made with tempered glass, Solar Roof tiles are more than three times stronger than standard roofing tiles. That's why we offer the best warranty in the industry - the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first. Watch our hail test video to see how we take durability to a whole new level."


View attachment 684274

It would be interesting to learn how Tesla does the warranty accounting/accrual for its solar roof with "infinite warrnaty". One cool thing (not that warranty accounting could ever be cool) is that Tesla has historically over-funded its warranty accrual on both the car side and solar side.

Solar & EV Warranty Report, 18 June 2020 (this article is about Energy not Auto)

So Tesla is setting aside a bunch of money and not really paying as much back since the warranty claims haven't been piling in. This is conservative accounting and means Tesla has the liability/dollars provisioned on its balance sheet to pay for claims. So why in the world would Tesla slow-roll the homeowners in the article and low-ball them on a recovery on all the mold/damage? I mean, if Tesla just used some of this excess accrual (both PV and Auto) to hire more sales/support people, maybe they'd actually get around to fixing things on a more timely manner hah.