In my opinion, the kid hit the accelerator too hard and rammed into the corner of the wall. If you're going too quickly, you won't have enough time to react to the park distance chimes.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
TFL Thrifty 3
- Thread starter Dirtcarver
- Start date
In my opinion, the kid hit the accelerator too hard and rammed into the corner of the wall. If you're going too quickly, you won't have enough time to react to the park distance chimes.
Leafdriver333
Somewhat Active Member
Yea.. he looks clumsy also.
I believe it was not a set up.
The classical 5 stages of grief gets really drawn out because the repair takes so long...
1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; 5. Acceptance.
I think TFL folks are still stuck in the second stage.
The thing that bugs me the most is their insistence that this is a routine fender-bender (really a bumper buster). They hit it in just the right spot that it completely missed the structural bumper beam and crumpled the side body panel of the car of the car. If he had hit it just two inches closer to the center of the car, it would have been nothing more than a bumper cover, maybe a bumper beam and maybe a trunk lid.
Regardless, this isn't the usual bump in traffic that they make it out to be and it's unreasonable to expect the repair times to be similar.
Regardless, this isn't the usual bump in traffic that they make it out to be and it's unreasonable to expect the repair times to be similar.
Having watched the video, it seems to me that most of the problems were the result of the shop, not of Tesla.
I also note that the shop says that Tesla sent the wrong part. The video producer doesn’t show any evidence that the shop ordered the correct part. So it may be correct that Tesla shipped “the wrong part” because the shop ordered the wrong part. (I know that I have sometimes received a wrong part because I ordered the wrong part.)
Note as well at the very end of the video that the on-screen person acknowledges that he is “pissed” and that the video in not unbiased.
Some people who post a review or commentary that they acknowledge as being unbiased would remove the biased review.
The Model 3 is a pretty recent car. It is in very high demand. It is from a very small car manufacturer.
Parts being produced now are being used to meet the demand for car sales. Would customers prefer to have longer delays for deliveries of new vehicles so that shops that break customers’ windows can get replacement parts quickly? I don’t think so.
I also note that the shop says that Tesla sent the wrong part. The video producer doesn’t show any evidence that the shop ordered the correct part. So it may be correct that Tesla shipped “the wrong part” because the shop ordered the wrong part. (I know that I have sometimes received a wrong part because I ordered the wrong part.)
Note as well at the very end of the video that the on-screen person acknowledges that he is “pissed” and that the video in not unbiased.
Some people who post a review or commentary that they acknowledge as being unbiased would remove the biased review.
The Model 3 is a pretty recent car. It is in very high demand. It is from a very small car manufacturer.
Parts being produced now are being used to meet the demand for car sales. Would customers prefer to have longer delays for deliveries of new vehicles so that shops that break customers’ windows can get replacement parts quickly? I don’t think so.
As a counterpoint, my buddy recently had a damaged mirror on his model 3. The local service center gave him an appointment the next day and fixed it. But added a scratch to his rocker panel. At least the parts weren’t the problem...
Just watching Episode 4 now where he goes to the Tesla approved repair shop. The tech tells Tommy that he wouldn’t buy a Tesla because of the poor fit and finish.
What strikes me about this is that this body shop must have gone through a fairly extensive process to become Tesla approved and now their tech goes on camera to badmouth Tesla. If I was running Tesla I’d find a new repair shop to partner with. What is this dude thinking? They obviously are making good money repairing Teslas. Even if you think it why would you be stupid enough to say it in front of a camera?
What strikes me about this is that this body shop must have gone through a fairly extensive process to become Tesla approved and now their tech goes on camera to badmouth Tesla. If I was running Tesla I’d find a new repair shop to partner with. What is this dude thinking? They obviously are making good money repairing Teslas. Even if you think it why would you be stupid enough to say it in front of a camera?
RobDickinson
Active Member
Sandy Munroe said pretty much the same thing. (relatively) poor build quality in comparison to German premium brands.
I've not had a look at either to be honest and so long as it doesnt fall apart I dont care much..
I've not had a look at either to be honest and so long as it doesnt fall apart I dont care much..
srs5694
Active Member
It seems to me that a Tesla (or any car with parking sensors) would likely create a cacophony when passing through the garage door they've shown. After doing that a few times, a driver could easily begin to "tune out" all the warning tones, thus rendering them next to useless. Add to that the possibility, as suggested by others, of a mistake like hitting the wrong pedal, or simply not being familiar enough with how much acceleration you'll get by hitting a pedal, and a mistake is quite believable.
That said, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they staged it, either. I can see an incentive for doing so, since they might well have heard of repair troubles and figured they could create a simple "fender bender" to document it. This might well result in an increase in their insurance rates, though; and if they got their insurance company to pay for it (as their video suggests they're doing), I'd guess this would be insurance fraud, so this explanation seems like a risky one for them, so I'm skeptical. A legitimate accident makes more sense to me.
This sort of thing is certainly typical of a lot of videos -- not just on YouTube, but in video pseudo-journalism generally.
This is the bottom line, IMHO. Even if TFL Car decided to deliberately crash their car so that they could do a series on Tesla repair problems, those problems are real. They've been reported by multiple sources, and although TFL Car's experiences seem to be worse than average, they aren't so bad that I'd call them outliers or unrealistic.
I'd say that's debatable. I bought my Model 3 in March of this year, and even at that time, before the TFL Car series began (much less before they damaged their car), I'd seen tales of problems getting parts for the car. Those stories went on my "negative" list for the Model 3. Ultimately, they weren't enough to keep me from buying one, but with a different priority list (say, less weight given to the Model 3's DC fast charging capabilities), they might have tipped the scale. Personally, I'd have happily waited another week or two to get my Model 3 if I'd known that repairs took less time and/or were less costly. That would have been a plus for me, compared to the current state. Of course, that's a subjective judgment; somebody else might prefer a faster delivery time and greater risk of a frustrating repair process, should the car be in an accident.
Also, the last I heard, Model 3 production was constrained by batteries, not by the much more mundane body panels, glass roof/rear window, etc. Maybe production capacity for those parts is closer to being a limiting factor than public reporting suggests, but if not, it shouldn't be that hard to crank out enough spare parts.
It's been a while since I watched the relevant video, and I'm not even sure which one (or ones) it was, but my recollection is that Sandy Munro's primary criticism of the Model 3 wasn't that the body suffered from poor build quality, but that it was poorly designed -- that it required too many welds, weighed too much, etc. A lot of these flaws could result in more complicated repairs than you'd see with a car from another manufacturer, and that's exactly what TFL Car's series is showing.
It wasn’t poor, it was overly complicated, redundant, and expensive (most people read this a “safe”, not “poor”). Also a very early build. They are certainly improving everything as they go along. Tesla is not using a typical assembly line that is fixed for the life of the car. They have already indicated a substantial reduction in parts and assembly for the Y, which certainly would translate to the 3.
I find it hard to believe that TFL Car is going document on YouTube insurance its own insurance fraud.
Also, Tesla has admitted it has problems with repair parts availability. It needs to fix this for the the health of the brand and the company.
I wasn't familiar with the laws of Colorado, but another poster indicated that CO allows an owner to use and shop they wish for repair. To me a large contributor to this is the shop. I'm not saying they are doing anything wrong, but the way the operate is not particularly fast. In the end if they do a first class repair it won't matter as much as it does now.
Also, Tesla has admitted it has problems with repair parts availability. It needs to fix this for the the health of the brand and the company.
I wasn't familiar with the laws of Colorado, but another poster indicated that CO allows an owner to use and shop they wish for repair. To me a large contributor to this is the shop. I'm not saying they are doing anything wrong, but the way the operate is not particularly fast. In the end if they do a first class repair it won't matter as much as it does now.
RobDickinson
Active Member
This is from the Munroe info day Sean Mitchel attended recently rather than their earlier tear down.
When I first watched the TFL series, I shared what I thought was their same enthusiasm for the Model 3. As the series progressed, I was a little put off by Tommy’s reaction of the crash given he’s representing a group of presumably professional journalists. He initially fell on the sword saying he “ruined everything”. Then, he was quick to jump on the “It’s Tesla’s fault” bandwagon when frustration grew at the troubles they were having at the hand of the repair facility. Maybe I’m naïve but I don’t feel like there was any subterfuge with the collision. Quite honestly, if it was, they really should have picked a different goat than Tommy. Obviously, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that journalists conjure up a plan to cast shade on a company using this type of attack but I honestly hope that didn’t happen here.
As said above, I think TFL has lost sight of what’s going on with Tesla. The expectation that it should just go into a shop like any other car for a major repair and return the next week seems illogical. As much as haters want to point out Tesla’s differences as faults, we, the loyal, have come to know what makes their cars special. They are limited production performance vehicles that were designed on a clean-slate platform. The high safety ratings come at the cost of making body shops wipe away preconceived techniques and outdated methods. We are informed of this and accept. Patience on our part for the hypersonic development of these vehicles into the mainstream is necessary. This again we accept. Tesla thumbed their noses at known practices in building vehicles and are breaking the mold of a stagnant, plateaued industry. That I believe is where TFL lost its perspective (and part of our faith) as “responsible journalists.” Although I’m not a journalist, I would think that being labeled as a “Responsible Journalist” would involve displaying and or examining all angles. There’s no mention of the possibility of the body shop having any ownership in this situation. In fact, they gave them the platform to add disdain towards this vehicle.
As I said originally, the whole thing doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t think (at least I hope) it wasn’t done intentionally. But, the series was certainly steered away from showing the full perspective. Tommy drove a high torque vehicle into an immovable object. It was not “seemingly minor” as it was portrayed. The safety features that other car manufacturers are scrambling to match absorbed the impact as Tommy continued to accelerate into the wall. All of that energy was deflected through and away until it was redirected away from the wall. In a major freeway collision, those features would have initiated all of the designer’s intents to decrease the impact on interior occupancy. Don’t celebrate or focus on that. It was just a minor fender bender.
Each to their own, opinions and perspectives are cheap and easy on the internet. Anyone with a camera can make Youtube content these days. These guys however (according to their bios) have backgrounds in journalism and understand the impact of steering a narrative. That is, I believe what has happened. As they said, Tesla doesn’t kowtow to the media unlike other companies. Is that all it took for them? Was the difference in how other manufacturers treated them on press days the reason they lost their bias and abandoned perspective on what a company like Tesla is doing? I hope not.
As said above, I think TFL has lost sight of what’s going on with Tesla. The expectation that it should just go into a shop like any other car for a major repair and return the next week seems illogical. As much as haters want to point out Tesla’s differences as faults, we, the loyal, have come to know what makes their cars special. They are limited production performance vehicles that were designed on a clean-slate platform. The high safety ratings come at the cost of making body shops wipe away preconceived techniques and outdated methods. We are informed of this and accept. Patience on our part for the hypersonic development of these vehicles into the mainstream is necessary. This again we accept. Tesla thumbed their noses at known practices in building vehicles and are breaking the mold of a stagnant, plateaued industry. That I believe is where TFL lost its perspective (and part of our faith) as “responsible journalists.” Although I’m not a journalist, I would think that being labeled as a “Responsible Journalist” would involve displaying and or examining all angles. There’s no mention of the possibility of the body shop having any ownership in this situation. In fact, they gave them the platform to add disdain towards this vehicle.
As I said originally, the whole thing doesn’t pass the sniff test. I don’t think (at least I hope) it wasn’t done intentionally. But, the series was certainly steered away from showing the full perspective. Tommy drove a high torque vehicle into an immovable object. It was not “seemingly minor” as it was portrayed. The safety features that other car manufacturers are scrambling to match absorbed the impact as Tommy continued to accelerate into the wall. All of that energy was deflected through and away until it was redirected away from the wall. In a major freeway collision, those features would have initiated all of the designer’s intents to decrease the impact on interior occupancy. Don’t celebrate or focus on that. It was just a minor fender bender.
Each to their own, opinions and perspectives are cheap and easy on the internet. Anyone with a camera can make Youtube content these days. These guys however (according to their bios) have backgrounds in journalism and understand the impact of steering a narrative. That is, I believe what has happened. As they said, Tesla doesn’t kowtow to the media unlike other companies. Is that all it took for them? Was the difference in how other manufacturers treated them on press days the reason they lost their bias and abandoned perspective on what a company like Tesla is doing? I hope not.
I think Tesla deserves way more criticism than the TFL guys do. Why limit number of body shops that can repair Tesla cars (creates bottleneck for repairs) and why not manufacture spare parts as you are ramping up production? If an insurance company approves the work being done by a repair shop then that should be good enough for Tesla too. After all it is the owner who pays for the car and the insurance and it is the insurer that pays for the repair.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
They don't "limit" the number- they just require you become certified at actually doing the work.
Which seems pretty reasonable to me- why would you want someone who has no idea WTF they're doing working on your repairs?
(doubly so when the repairs done wrong can impact the safety of both the driver aids and the structural integrity of what is otherwise the safest car in the world from the factory)
Because resources aren't infinite?
They're literally selling new cars faster than they can build them, so putting available parts into new vehicles, rather than having them sit on shelves at service centers, makes more economic sense during the production ramp.
Parts availability has continually improved as the ramp peaked.
1) Certifying body shops is literally limiting the number of body shops that can work on Tesla cars since the non-certified shops cannot get parts from Tesla (unless I am mistaken and Tesla ships parts to all the shops demanding them). Why does Tesla care which body shop works on a car when it is owner's responsibility to get the car repaired. If a body shop messes up a repair then the owner and/or the insurance company can deal with the body shop directly, shouldn't be a concern for Tesla. If Tesla still insists on the certifying process to control the repairs then just speed up the certifications. Clearly there are not sufficient number of body shops certified to manage the repair load at the moment.
2) It is not an excuse to say we were busy building cars, as a company you are responsible not only selling products but also providing customer service (same thing with the delivery experience complaints). If you neglect your service due to poor planning then you deserve criticism in my opinion.
2) It is not an excuse to say we were busy building cars, as a company you are responsible not only selling products but also providing customer service (same thing with the delivery experience complaints). If you neglect your service due to poor planning then you deserve criticism in my opinion.
Last edited:
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Because any time there's a big problem with a single Tesla (AP accident, fire, etc) it's a HUGE headline and the stock takes a dump.
So they have a pretty significant interest as a company in insuring folks working on their cars have some idea WTF they're doing- especially since it may involve work a "normal" body shop is NOT familiar with... (ie all the AP sensors, or large HV battery packs)
I mean, it is though.
Because if they hadn't been doing that they'd not be in business anymore to get you a part later rather than never.
Same reason they started selling the expensive versions first, and why the cheapest LR version was taken off-menu.
There's lots you can validly be critical of Tesla for.... utter incompetence in internal (and hell, external too) communication, delivery planning and logistics, etc.
But there's also very real math and finance issues that limits their ability to do some things as fast as we might like.
Resources are not infinite- they simply did not have the money to ramp up to full production AND have a bunch of spare parts sitting on shelves at the same time. Spare parts for cars they didn't sell would make no sense- and going out of business to insure enough spare parts for short waits wouldn't either.
Meanwhile, as I said, they've steadily improved this as the ramp pressure has leveled off.... as previously reported parts availability is coming on-par with German car makers at the least, if not yet Japanese ones.... and it looks like they're just about ready to begin operations (and possibly parts production) at the rumored giant parts distribution center in Lathrop-
Tesla's rumored Lathrop distribution center seems poised to start operations soon
srs5694
Active Member
I agree with your conclusion that TFL Car most likely did not orchestrate the whole thing in advance; however, I'll also point out that, in principle, it would be perfectly reasonable for automotive journalists to deliberately damage a car in order to test how easily it's repaired. That's a perfectly valid test for any car. The trouble, of course, is that most automotive journalists don't have the thousands of dollars to spend on repairing a single car that would be so damaged, much less the tens or hundreds of thousands to repair every car they review. (Testing just one car in this way would be pointless; you'd need a baseline for comparison, and ideally be able to rank every car by the same metrics.) Thus, this sort of thing isn't done as a matter of course.
That said, back in the 1970s or so, Consumer Reports did have a "bumper basher" test in which they subjected cars to low-speed (5 mph, IIRC) collisions to assess damage in such situations. Some escaped without damage, but others suffered significant damage. Today, I'd expect all cars to be so damaged; if nothing else, they'd suffer paint damage.
I wouldn't call the Model 3 a "limited production" vehicle. According to Carsalesbase.com, Tesla sold 139,782 in 2018 (in the US only). That compares to, for example, 75,957 for the BMW 3-series or 34,311 for the Audi A4 (two cars that are often cited as Model 3 competitors). Granted, it's low sales compared to something like the 909,330 for the Ford F-series pickup trucks or even 343,439 for the Toyota Camry. It's not that low compared to a Camry, though, and it's actually higher than the 49,534 for the Toyota Prius Liftback, which is a popular trade-in vehicle for the Model 3. I wouldn't expect to wait weeks for a part for a Toyota Prius (although I admit I've never owned one, much less backed one into a concrete wall).
I've seen plenty from Tesla about the Model 3's high safety ratings, but I don't recall ever seeing anything from Tesla about those safety ratings being linked to long waits for parts or longer body-shop repair times in general. In fact, this thread is the first time I recall seeing any sort of linkage being drawn between the two. If you can provide solid evidence, or even just opinion from a qualified engineer, linking the two, please do so.
By definition, anybody who's bought a Tesla has accepted the mix of features in the car, although that's not to say that we have full knowledge of that mix or accept every detail. I for one am nervous about the possibility of encountering a "repair hell" like the one being documented by TFL Car, and was when I bought my car. I am not happy about it; I merely accept it as the down side to a car that has other very strong points. Contrary to your previous point, I don't believe that every owner has had foreknowledge of this problem with the car -- you'll pick up on long repair times if you hang out in forums, watch the right YouTube videos, etc., but if your research is shallow, you might not stumble across this information.
Yes, Tesla has deviated a lot from standard automotive industry practices and designs; but not everything Tesla has done is good. The door handle designs are not good. The automatic wipers are not good. IMHO, Tesla went a little too far in moving almost all controls to the touch screen. As a company, Tesla has a lot of problems, including poor labor relations, its habit of changing prices more frequently than some people change their socks, and -- most relevant for this discussion -- a problem with parts supply and service. These problems can't be brushed aside as if they were nothing.
I at least partly agree with you on this. Perhaps TFL Car had reason to believe that the body shop did everything right; but if so, TFL Car did not present this evidence. At the very least, they should have shown us the receipts for ordering the back/top glass and discussed why it is that the original glass was broken. (Is such breakage common at other body shops?) Those aren't the only sources of delay in the repair, though, and reports from other sources, including reports by contributors to this forum, note long delays for receiving parts from Tesla, so I can't agree that TFL Car has been completely reckless in their coverage. Also, even if the body shop bears a lot of the blame, that shop was approved by Tesla, which means it has Tesla's explicit stamp of approval, and Tesla must accept some of the blame for the shop's screw-ups.
You're spinning it here, as well as speculating. (Why do you say that "Tommy continued to accelerate into the wall?") TFL Car did not present video of the accident, so none of us knows how fast the car was going, much less how other cars would have handled a similar accident. I've been driving long enough to recognize that damage as typical of a parking-lot fender-bender in which nobody's life was in danger (unless of course a pedestrian was caught in the middle). Thus, safety features aren't really at play here, unless the car's design makes it safer at the cost of complicating repairs -- a case that you certainly haven't proven.
SRS5694
I appreciate your discussion points and can see your perspective.
Without copying each statement, here’s my rebuttals;
“Limited Production” is subjective in my opinion. It is absolutely limited production given it began in mid 2017. In contrast to comparing multi-year production vehicles such as Audi’s, BMWs, and Toyota’s 1 year totals, you fail to calculate in their base of years already in production with parts from many vehicles traveling back and forth from one model to other models. Since you mention Toyota, let’s look at the RAV4. The Toyota RAV4 was sold in its early years with parts from 4 of Toyota’s already proven platforms. The RAV4 was brand new, propelled by years of production. Tesla’s Model 3 base is still substantially smaller than those you use as comparisons.
I don’t remember drawing a line between long waits for parts and safety features. My aforementioned point of other brands using parts from other platforms on first year models would be something I’d assume as a difficulty or disadvantage for Tesla. That, would be an assumption I’d be comfortable making when arguing long waits for parts. The cars are different in many many ways as pointed out by Sandy Munro. In fact he said, “The car’s body is too complex, expensive, heavy and difficult to build,”. When a car is taken to a body shop isn’t it partially being rebuilt? I accept the give-and-takes when considering the finished product is arguably ahead of industry in many ways. I and others like me are happy to wait. That’s all I’m saying.
In terms of the collision, I’m definitely not spinning up or speculating about what occurred. Unless TFL isn’t being truthful about what happened which isn’t likely, the car was damaged by backing into a wall, intentionally or not. The car was driven into a wall until until it stopped. Not hard to conclude that “backing collisions” occur when the person operating the vehicle fails to utilize their mirrors and or sensor warnings and ultimately never sees the obstruction their vehicle is traveling towards. Acceleration continues until the driver perceives something has happened but only lets off the throttle after impact (and the brain processes the command to react) has sent the energy too and through the weakest point...not the wall. High torque. More push. More damage. It was absolutely not a typical parking lot fender bender as you say. Things in parking lots move in reaction to being struck. That wall did not. Your assumption unfortunately is narrow in scope and creates the same pitfall as painted by TFL.
I appreciate your discussion points and can see your perspective.
Without copying each statement, here’s my rebuttals;
“Limited Production” is subjective in my opinion. It is absolutely limited production given it began in mid 2017. In contrast to comparing multi-year production vehicles such as Audi’s, BMWs, and Toyota’s 1 year totals, you fail to calculate in their base of years already in production with parts from many vehicles traveling back and forth from one model to other models. Since you mention Toyota, let’s look at the RAV4. The Toyota RAV4 was sold in its early years with parts from 4 of Toyota’s already proven platforms. The RAV4 was brand new, propelled by years of production. Tesla’s Model 3 base is still substantially smaller than those you use as comparisons.
I don’t remember drawing a line between long waits for parts and safety features. My aforementioned point of other brands using parts from other platforms on first year models would be something I’d assume as a difficulty or disadvantage for Tesla. That, would be an assumption I’d be comfortable making when arguing long waits for parts. The cars are different in many many ways as pointed out by Sandy Munro. In fact he said, “The car’s body is too complex, expensive, heavy and difficult to build,”. When a car is taken to a body shop isn’t it partially being rebuilt? I accept the give-and-takes when considering the finished product is arguably ahead of industry in many ways. I and others like me are happy to wait. That’s all I’m saying.
In terms of the collision, I’m definitely not spinning up or speculating about what occurred. Unless TFL isn’t being truthful about what happened which isn’t likely, the car was damaged by backing into a wall, intentionally or not. The car was driven into a wall until until it stopped. Not hard to conclude that “backing collisions” occur when the person operating the vehicle fails to utilize their mirrors and or sensor warnings and ultimately never sees the obstruction their vehicle is traveling towards. Acceleration continues until the driver perceives something has happened but only lets off the throttle after impact (and the brain processes the command to react) has sent the energy too and through the weakest point...not the wall. High torque. More push. More damage. It was absolutely not a typical parking lot fender bender as you say. Things in parking lots move in reaction to being struck. That wall did not. Your assumption unfortunately is narrow in scope and creates the same pitfall as painted by TFL.
srs5694
Active Member
"Many parts," sure, but the difficulties encountered by TFL Car relate to body panels (including the glass roof/rear window), which in other cars are modified for every re-styling of the car. These typically occur every few years, and I don't recall hearing tales of difficulties getting parts for most cars that underwent a refresh two years before an accident.
You wrote, in an earlier post:
There's some ambiguity in the flow here, but I interpreted these three sentences to be related -- that Tesla's high safety ratings have a result of requiring patience on our part for long waits on repairs.
There's also your assertion that Tesla's odd body design is somehow safety-related. This is something I've seen speculation about, but I have yet to see anything to back it up.
Of course you're speculating. You're speculating that the car was accelerating as it backed into the wall. It could be that Tommy recognized his mistake and starting braking, but too late to prevent the accident; or the car could have been traveling at a constant rate of speed. You're also assuming that he was accelerating using something close to the Tesla's full power, or at least more than what most cars have. When I'm backing my car into a tight spot, I do not do so at full speed or acceleration; I do so slowly -- with any car. Although I'm sure there are idiots (or stunt drivers) who try to park at high speeds/accelerations, most people do so slowly. The fact that the car is capable of higher acceleration than I use during that maneuver is irrelevant. Without video and/or other evidence of what happened that day, all that anybody (except Tommy himself) can do is speculate.
I said the damage shown was consistent with what one sees in parking-lot fender-benders. Note also that not all such accidents involve other cars; lots of parking lots have immovable objects, like lamp posts, support beams, and even walls, and people crash into them all the time. My main point, though, was that the speeds and forces involved likely did not pose any sort of safety hazard to anybody in the car. If they had, either the airbags would have deployed or Tommy would have been injured. Apparently neither happened (or if Tommy was injured, I don't recall them ever mentioning it).
joebruin77
Active Member
TFL just posted another update on their Model 3 repair. I thought this one was very interesting in that the TFL guys said they have reached out to Tesla numerous times and have heard nothing in reply. As a result, several viewers have emailed them to say that they crossed Tesla off their list due to the 3 months it has taken to get their car repaired.
IMO, criticism directed at Tesla in this situation is valid. Not only should a repair not take 3 months, but then to not have a car company reply to numerous requests for help or comment? I love Tesla in general, but in this situation, I am disappointed in their response (or lack there of).
BTW, here is the link to the video:
IMO, criticism directed at Tesla in this situation is valid. Not only should a repair not take 3 months, but then to not have a car company reply to numerous requests for help or comment? I love Tesla in general, but in this situation, I am disappointed in their response (or lack there of).
BTW, here is the link to the video:
