Tesla’s are some of the safest cars on the road for impacts and crash testing
The model S was, they really made a show of it too, IDK if model Y and 3 are equal. But for sure Cybertruck is a death trap. So the record isn’t that good overall.
basically just a spectacular drivetrain
Is it really that special anymore? AFAIK VW has surpassed it, with for instance better electric engines.
Tesla models are becoming dated, and the only reason they still have high market share, is that they have reduced prices quite a lot. Profitability is of course suffering. So Tesla does no longer have that much better margin than competitors. Meaning Tesla as a business is way less competitive than they were just a couple of years ago.
That said. I acknowledge that Tesla model S was a breakthrough for electric cars, and a wake-up call for the rest of the industry.
But Tesla has failed to evolve, and their minimalist designs actually make them illegal to use for learners and to take a drivers license in some countries.
For instance the turn signal buttons on the steering wheel are a problematic (idiotic) solution just to save a few cent.
Model Y and 3 until 2022 at least are still extremely solid cars. Cybertruck is a pile of shit, you can tell it’s a rushed Musk pet project created after his brilliant engineers left.
I read the hitch can’t support vertical loads over 165 pounds. So a tall dude literally can’t stand on something extending from the hitch without potentially warping the frame. That alone, to me, shows how poorly thought out this “truck” is, and that doesn’t even include all the other fundamental and critical problem it has.
Worse… aluminum is not malleable like steel. A (rather destructive) youtuber found that simply trying to do a kinetic recovery is enough to rip the frame off at the hitch mount. Not the hitch mount. The frame behind it. A good pothole hitting your trailer’s wheels can rip the frame off.
The same youtuber then showed how a truck with a steel frame will not rip apart by getting bumped, by dropping an F150 10ft onto a rock ledge on its hitch 100 times in a row doesn’t rip the frame off. It bends the frame eventually, but it doesn’t rip it apart.
Watched the video, pretty fun. It really shows that the Cybertruck was designed around Musk’s current paranoid obsessive personality.
It is critically flawed in almost every way except two: 1) it’s fast as hell. And 2) IT TOOK A C4 CHARGE WITH A MINOR DENT! LOL
Nevertheless, in terms of use-case analysis, it’s a sloppily designed truck. And while I have to admit the C4 thing was impressive, if we are thinking about it as some sort of quasi-military vehicle, then, while the C4 thing might be valuable, all of the other critical failures make it worthless and dangerous for that application.
Basically it didn’t try to be a good truck because they tried to make it withstand gunfire and C4. And it’s not good as a quasi-military vehicle because they tried to make it also a regular truck.
Reminds me of bicycles. If you are building a “touring” bike – something you want to use for multi-day rides while carrying shit – you always go steel. “Steel is real.” You’re much more likely to bend something that you can literally hammer or bend it back into “good enough to keep going” working order, whereas if you have aluminum or, god forbid, carbon fiber, you crack your frame and your ride is over.
As I see it, Elon Musk has lost it, he is not a good decision-maker anymore. He made good decisions with the Model S, and model 3 and Y were mostly good additions, but after that he seems to have declined more and more. And now he is basically insane as I see it.
I don’t think Tesla can keep up with current already dated models they have next year, when the competition is coming out with a constant flow of ever more attractive models. And I have no faith in Musk making good decisions to stay on top.
Also his claims every year for 8 years that fully autonomous driving will be ready next year, that Tesla is not a car company, nut an AI/Robot/energy company. Seems like he is entering more and more into conman territory.
Personally, I just won’t buy a car from a conman, and it surprises me that so many Norwegians will?
I think durable, large network, ready availability, and Model 3 still ends up being the best “bang for buck” at the moment are the main reasons. Most of the more attractive models haven’t been around as long, so haven’t dealt with issues cropping up as long, are more (and sometimes much more) expensive, and the 3 and Y continue to cost the least in maintenance and repair. But that will only last for a while longer.
Many companies are catching up, but their margins are still smaller and are, for the moment and for the most part, more expensive. There’s probably also some draw from the ecosystem that Tesla has: residential solar, residential batteries, residential charging. You can truly power your car and house with the sun and have everything work together pretty seamlessly… if you’ve got like an extra 100K lying around and can wait 1.5 years for the "smartc solar roof tiles and batteries to be installed and connected to everything.
But, I agree, their dominance is clearly waning and Musk is too busy with his ketamine induced fascist fever dream to notice. And, frankly, the brain drain due to his public emotional breakdown and hatred of all the cool kids not liking him, epitomized by when Grimes left his ass, means the likelihood of him having the absolute best of the best in engineering and product development ever again are slim to none.
Are you sure? Last I heard Tesla has been abandoned among some car rental services, because they are too expensive to maintain.
There are often stories about minor things that cost a shitload to repair, because Tesla doesn’t actually repair it, they switch whole modules out instead.
I didn’t say they are cheap to repair. I said maintenance and repairs costs are the lowest of all brands over ten years of ownership. Second place is Buick. I was a little surprised by the study results as well, but when you think about it, it begins to make more sense.
All auto repairs from accidents are expensive, and electric cars in general can be more expensive due to their novel and less-supported design. Nevertheless, accident repairs in Tesla happen less frequently, and the fact that there are almost no moving parts, no oil to change, no need to replace brake pads, no catalytic converter, no transmission fluid, no fuel pump, etc., etc., means that the average total amount of money you put into repairing and maintaining a Tesla ends up being less than any other brand.
As far as the reddit post, as the commenters noted, he’s either being fleeced by that quote, or there is extensive damage. Difficult to tell with a picture, but any vehicle with advanced technology, ICE or EV, can have high collision-damage repairs costs. This appears to have damage to: door, bumper, hood, sensor, wheel, sensor harness, camera, upper pillar, and who knows what else. On all modern cars with crumple zones, this is an example of car damage that appears “minor” but is actually fairly extensive.
I didn’t say they are cheap to repair. I said maintenance and repairs
So you did say repair! Normal maintenance is usually not a huge problem, except ICE cars where things like timing belt can be expensive.
But I’m not arguing Tesla against ICE, I’m arguing Tesla against increased competition in EV cars. To begin to claim Tesla is cheaper than ICE in maintenance is dishonest in the context of this debate.
But maybe I shouldn’t have posted the anecdote, because you avoided the far bigger scope of rentals and insurance complaining about high cost too.
From what I understand 2 aspects make Tesla more expensive to repair, 1 is that Tesla doesn’t repair repairable parts, but replace them. The other is that to make production cheaper, Tesla cars are often more expensive to repair, because they integrate parts more. So the parts are harder to repair, and the part that needs to be swapped is bigger and more expensive.
Your response is a classic example of deliberate misdirection. I stated “repair and maintenance costs” — a critical distinction that I even reiterated for you and that you chose to ignore (twice) by zooming in on just one word, repair, and then further subdividing it to mean specifically only 1) collision repairs that 2) result in totaled vehicles. This hyper-focus on a single, narrow scenario distorts the broader point I made from the outset: when considering all repair and maintenance costs—both routine upkeep and non-collision repairs—Tesla still ends up being cheaper than any other brand, as confirmed by Consumer Reports.
Your response, predictably, sidesteps this reality by focusing exclusively on collision repairs, which are expensive for all premium EVs, not just Tesla. And even here, the idea that Tesla’s collision repairs are somehow uniquely cost-prohibitive doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The fact that some insurers choose to total vehicles instead of repairing them doesn’t mean Teslas are inherently more expensive to repair in all scenarios. It simply reflects insurers’ decisions based on cost thresholds, which, again, applies broadly to high-end vehicles with integrated components—not just Tesla.
The reality is, Tesla’s proactive measures, like design adjustments and integrated insurance, are aimed precisely at reducing these costs over time. But none of this even needed to be addressed because you shifted the argument to something entirely different. You started by trying to counter my point on total repair and maintenance costs, yet had to cherry-pick a very narrowly defined set of repairs – collision repairs – because the broader data doesn’t support your stance. And when I reiterated the broader context of my original post, you needed to italicize one of two words from my original statement and then even further narrow its meaning—an admission that you couldn’t counter the broader claim on total costs and had to resort to hair-splitting over a narrow subset of scenarios.
I get it, you don’t like Tesla. I’m not a huge fan either. The original point of my comments was simply to acknowledge the hard work and innovation of the engineers that created their core designs. The fact that you’re accusing me of missing the “bigger scope” of your intentionally and misleadingly narrow definition is ironic. Regardless, I don’t care enough about this to continue discussing it. I was simply sharing the results of a study about the cost of repairs and maintenance of Teslas vs other brands. Feel free to respond, but I’m unlikely to read it and won’t be replying to this particular thread any further.
The model S was, they really made a show of it too, IDK if model Y and 3 are equal. But for sure Cybertruck is a death trap. So the record isn’t that good overall.
Is it really that special anymore? AFAIK VW has surpassed it, with for instance better electric engines.
Tesla models are becoming dated, and the only reason they still have high market share, is that they have reduced prices quite a lot. Profitability is of course suffering. So Tesla does no longer have that much better margin than competitors. Meaning Tesla as a business is way less competitive than they were just a couple of years ago.
That said. I acknowledge that Tesla model S was a breakthrough for electric cars, and a wake-up call for the rest of the industry.
But Tesla has failed to evolve, and their minimalist designs actually make them illegal to use for learners and to take a drivers license in some countries.
For instance the turn signal buttons on the steering wheel are a problematic (idiotic) solution just to save a few cent.
Model Y and 3 until 2022 at least are still extremely solid cars. Cybertruck is a pile of shit, you can tell it’s a rushed Musk pet project created after his brilliant engineers left.
I read the hitch can’t support vertical loads over 165 pounds. So a tall dude literally can’t stand on something extending from the hitch without potentially warping the frame. That alone, to me, shows how poorly thought out this “truck” is, and that doesn’t even include all the other fundamental and critical problem it has.
Worse… aluminum is not malleable like steel. A (rather destructive) youtuber found that simply trying to do a kinetic recovery is enough to rip the frame off at the hitch mount. Not the hitch mount. The frame behind it. A good pothole hitting your trailer’s wheels can rip the frame off.
The same youtuber then showed how a truck with a steel frame will not rip apart by getting bumped, by dropping an F150 10ft onto a rock ledge on its hitch 100 times in a row doesn’t rip the frame off. It bends the frame eventually, but it doesn’t rip it apart.
Watched the video, pretty fun. It really shows that the Cybertruck was designed around Musk’s current paranoid obsessive personality.
It is critically flawed in almost every way except two: 1) it’s fast as hell. And 2) IT TOOK A C4 CHARGE WITH A MINOR DENT! LOL
Nevertheless, in terms of use-case analysis, it’s a sloppily designed truck. And while I have to admit the C4 thing was impressive, if we are thinking about it as some sort of quasi-military vehicle, then, while the C4 thing might be valuable, all of the other critical failures make it worthless and dangerous for that application.
Basically it didn’t try to be a good truck because they tried to make it withstand gunfire and C4. And it’s not good as a quasi-military vehicle because they tried to make it also a regular truck.
Reminds me of bicycles. If you are building a “touring” bike – something you want to use for multi-day rides while carrying shit – you always go steel. “Steel is real.” You’re much more likely to bend something that you can literally hammer or bend it back into “good enough to keep going” working order, whereas if you have aluminum or, god forbid, carbon fiber, you crack your frame and your ride is over.
As I see it, Elon Musk has lost it, he is not a good decision-maker anymore. He made good decisions with the Model S, and model 3 and Y were mostly good additions, but after that he seems to have declined more and more. And now he is basically insane as I see it.
I don’t think Tesla can keep up with current already dated models they have next year, when the competition is coming out with a constant flow of ever more attractive models. And I have no faith in Musk making good decisions to stay on top.
Also his claims every year for 8 years that fully autonomous driving will be ready next year, that Tesla is not a car company, nut an AI/Robot/energy company. Seems like he is entering more and more into conman territory.
Personally, I just won’t buy a car from a conman, and it surprises me that so many Norwegians will?
I think durable, large network, ready availability, and Model 3 still ends up being the best “bang for buck” at the moment are the main reasons. Most of the more attractive models haven’t been around as long, so haven’t dealt with issues cropping up as long, are more (and sometimes much more) expensive, and the 3 and Y continue to cost the least in maintenance and repair. But that will only last for a while longer.
Many companies are catching up, but their margins are still smaller and are, for the moment and for the most part, more expensive. There’s probably also some draw from the ecosystem that Tesla has: residential solar, residential batteries, residential charging. You can truly power your car and house with the sun and have everything work together pretty seamlessly… if you’ve got like an extra 100K lying around and can wait 1.5 years for the "smartc solar roof tiles and batteries to be installed and connected to everything.
But, I agree, their dominance is clearly waning and Musk is too busy with his ketamine induced fascist fever dream to notice. And, frankly, the brain drain due to his public emotional breakdown and hatred of all the cool kids not liking him, epitomized by when Grimes left his ass, means the likelihood of him having the absolute best of the best in engineering and product development ever again are slim to none.
Are you sure? Last I heard Tesla has been abandoned among some car rental services, because they are too expensive to maintain.
There are often stories about minor things that cost a shitload to repair, because Tesla doesn’t actually repair it, they switch whole modules out instead.
Stories like this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaModelY/comments/15u4t0n/21k_repair_cost_for_damaged_right_front_fender/
Insurers apparently don’t agree they are cheap to repair:
Europe:
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/01/28/autos-tesla-repairs
USA:
https://robbreport.com/motors/cars/teslas-too-expensive-to-fix-1234802618/
I didn’t say they are cheap to repair. I said maintenance and repairs costs are the lowest of all brands over ten years of ownership. Second place is Buick. I was a little surprised by the study results as well, but when you think about it, it begins to make more sense.
All auto repairs from accidents are expensive, and electric cars in general can be more expensive due to their novel and less-supported design. Nevertheless, accident repairs in Tesla happen less frequently, and the fact that there are almost no moving parts, no oil to change, no need to replace brake pads, no catalytic converter, no transmission fluid, no fuel pump, etc., etc., means that the average total amount of money you put into repairing and maintaining a Tesla ends up being less than any other brand.
As far as the reddit post, as the commenters noted, he’s either being fleeced by that quote, or there is extensive damage. Difficult to tell with a picture, but any vehicle with advanced technology, ICE or EV, can have high collision-damage repairs costs. This appears to have damage to: door, bumper, hood, sensor, wheel, sensor harness, camera, upper pillar, and who knows what else. On all modern cars with crumple zones, this is an example of car damage that appears “minor” but is actually fairly extensive.
So you did say repair! Normal maintenance is usually not a huge problem, except ICE cars where things like timing belt can be expensive. But I’m not arguing Tesla against ICE, I’m arguing Tesla against increased competition in EV cars. To begin to claim Tesla is cheaper than ICE in maintenance is dishonest in the context of this debate.
But maybe I shouldn’t have posted the anecdote, because you avoided the far bigger scope of rentals and insurance complaining about high cost too.
From what I understand 2 aspects make Tesla more expensive to repair, 1 is that Tesla doesn’t repair repairable parts, but replace them. The other is that to make production cheaper, Tesla cars are often more expensive to repair, because they integrate parts more. So the parts are harder to repair, and the part that needs to be swapped is bigger and more expensive.
Your response is a classic example of deliberate misdirection. I stated “repair and maintenance costs” — a critical distinction that I even reiterated for you and that you chose to ignore (twice) by zooming in on just one word, repair, and then further subdividing it to mean specifically only 1) collision repairs that 2) result in totaled vehicles. This hyper-focus on a single, narrow scenario distorts the broader point I made from the outset: when considering all repair and maintenance costs—both routine upkeep and non-collision repairs—Tesla still ends up being cheaper than any other brand, as confirmed by Consumer Reports.
Your response, predictably, sidesteps this reality by focusing exclusively on collision repairs, which are expensive for all premium EVs, not just Tesla. And even here, the idea that Tesla’s collision repairs are somehow uniquely cost-prohibitive doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The fact that some insurers choose to total vehicles instead of repairing them doesn’t mean Teslas are inherently more expensive to repair in all scenarios. It simply reflects insurers’ decisions based on cost thresholds, which, again, applies broadly to high-end vehicles with integrated components—not just Tesla.
The reality is, Tesla’s proactive measures, like design adjustments and integrated insurance, are aimed precisely at reducing these costs over time. But none of this even needed to be addressed because you shifted the argument to something entirely different. You started by trying to counter my point on total repair and maintenance costs, yet had to cherry-pick a very narrowly defined set of repairs – collision repairs – because the broader data doesn’t support your stance. And when I reiterated the broader context of my original post, you needed to italicize one of two words from my original statement and then even further narrow its meaning—an admission that you couldn’t counter the broader claim on total costs and had to resort to hair-splitting over a narrow subset of scenarios.
I get it, you don’t like Tesla. I’m not a huge fan either. The original point of my comments was simply to acknowledge the hard work and innovation of the engineers that created their core designs. The fact that you’re accusing me of missing the “bigger scope” of your intentionally and misleadingly narrow definition is ironic. Regardless, I don’t care enough about this to continue discussing it. I was simply sharing the results of a study about the cost of repairs and maintenance of Teslas vs other brands. Feel free to respond, but I’m unlikely to read it and won’t be replying to this particular thread any further.