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.
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.