The problem with this statement is that nobody knows whether the tradeoff is slight, or massive. Nobody knows whether its a few grams, kilograms, or hundreds of kilograms of potential weight savings.
Our cars are 1st generations (maybe 1.5 if you want to count RWD as 1.0). Do you really think there's no opportunity for better optimization? I can't think of any 1st generation things that didn't get better with subsequent iterations.
I agree it's a tradeoff, and I am also glad my car is safer than less. But a Model 3 that can perform just as well on crash safety, with a slightly less overbuilt frame can benefit from improved range and handling from less mass. Or if you want to keep weight equal, you can build in a bigger battery pack which would still improve the car all around.
All this talk about Munro and his qualifications only distracts from the above. I've only watched the most recent Munro/Autoline video, and I thought he was very impressed with Tesla (and the Model 3) as a whole rather than not so his criticism of the frame didn't seem to me particularly out of line.
I would propose that the car is not overbuilt, and in fact is very well designed. It would be nice if a few kilograms could be saved, but all modern car makers do extensive weight reduction, including Tesla. They reduced weight to the point where it met their design goals.
One of Tesla's top design goals was safety. Another was efficiency/range. They were and are painfully aware of weight savings and likely spent much effort on it. I would say they met their key goals very well with Model 3.
None of a car's sheet metal parts would be economically changed since doing so would mean producing new stamping dies and tuning their fit with the other stamped parts together. All modern cars are extensively designed and tested in computers and part of the reason for the excellent crash performance of Model 3 is the excellent software used to design it. The results are then tested and tuned before going into production.
(In case anyone isn't aware, stamped steel parts in particular spring back when released from the stamping dies. They don't come out an exact match for the dies. And the tuning of the resulting parts is part science and part art. Software has gotten much better at predicting the behavior of the metal that comes out of the stamping dies, but usually some fine tuning is still needed. As with many things, it's actually the quality of the software and physical modelling contained in it, that is a key determinant. Same is true of internal unit body (chassis) panels and exterior panels.)
Sandy's responses have changed over time. He needs to be slightly political in order to sell his products and keep his customers happy. All of the (recent) praise he has for Tesla is in fairly uncontroversial and obvious areas such as (both electronic and mechanical) module integration, wiring, traction motor, and electronics quality. Any of the car other makers could also see that for themselves very easily.
(In case anyone is unaware, all car makers benchmark their competitors cars by disassembling and reverse engineering them, as Munro does also as an external third party. All of the car makers also do that internally with any new major competitive car. However their internal reports stay internal since the information obtained is competitive information. A reason to have third parties like Munro is for car makers to get an external "second opinion", or for non-car makers like investment banks to understand the parts costs and profits better. BMW, VW (Audi/Porsche/etc), Mercedes, etc., have already torn apart all Tesla models and come to their own judgements about cost, design quality, build quality, profitability, etc., independent of Munro or anyone else. It's totally normal for a GM, Toyota, Nissan, etc. to tear apart every weld on every competitive car to see how they're build. Same with engines, electronics, etc.)
While Munro has a lot of experience, the idea that they are smarter than Tesla may be wrong. That does not mean Tesla is perfect or could never improve, but it's pretty clear they've done a very good job designing Model 3.
I'm not trying to bash Munro or praise Tesla, but I believe Munro's conclusions about the Model 3 unit body are wrong and that Tesla designed it intentionally and purposefully to meet their safety and efficiency goals. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that the resulting crash performance of Model 3 is the best NHTSA has tested. That happened due to the design of the car.
