251–260 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what legal recourse would an individual consumer have to have this fixed? A lawsuit. That is what the legal system is for. But for some reason people seem to look down on this which I find baffling.
When you buy a Tesla, you agree to arbitrate all disputes with Tesla. Including Lemon Law claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people buying Tesla stock buy it because it just goes up, regardless of the health or future of the underlying company.
The share price hasn't only risen; over the past two years, it has fluctuated between $100 and $400 per share. Also - one defect means absolutely nothing. They make solid cars, everyone that owns one knows that.
Data seems to disagree with this statement [0]
Tesla is also notorious for glaring QC issues, like missing bits and obvious panel gaps.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2023/02/09/tesla-tank...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That kind of policy should mean that in any court case where a customer's version of events/conversations differs from Tesla's, the customer is assumed to be telling the truth until definitely proven otherwise. The legal liability of this policy should be so great that no sane company would have this policy over just creating a paper trail in the first place.
lol, thats not how it works at all.
if electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party fails to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery, the court only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information to use in the litigation may presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party.
Ah, more confirmation (bias) making me doubt the wisdom of ever buying a Tesla in the future. I had a Model 3 LR as a company car and really liked it - even being fine with most of the usual concerns or dislikes people share. I even like the brand (although I dislike most of Musk's other shenanigans over the past few years). I've since given the car back and am considering purchasing a BEV in the future. I've obvious…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a functional difference? Would cracks from a cold shut not disqualify the product (whatever it is) from going into service?
Any sort of defect like this should disqualify the product. It’s embarrassing and alarming that this casting wasn’t scrapped.
Stable process control could eliminate the need, but AOI is relatively cheap insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...and more to do with Tesla chasing higher margins Which is the most American thing you can do.
As the post you’re replying to mentions, this is indeed a thing that US manufacturers did back in the day. It didn’t work out for them, in the long run.
Is this...a joke?
We are currently going through inflation caused directly by margin chasing and stock buybacks. If you look into any industry you will see a long race to the bottom to get the most money for the least product imaginable.
It's the #1 function of a capitalist system, to extract the most value for the least work. Margin chasing is all we do. It should be included in our national anthem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it sounded like the overall point was that, by avoiding retained communications, they could get away with something they otherwise would not be able to get away with, and should not be able to get away with (patenting something obvious) what sort of context could be added which exonerates that behavior? if the context exonerates it, why not have a policy of including context? if it's somehow benign, but cited out of…
I think the context should be pretty obvious to most people in the engineering field. > why not just provide the context? Because lawyers might find ways to dismiss/challenge it?
so, the problem spurring such a policy is that they don't want to be implicated on the record in doing bad things - they want to get away with what society doesn't want them to get away with
that means the policy is bad for society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My 2015's battery "died" the day after the warranty was up. $15k for a refurbished battery from another old broken car. Once fixed, the cars resell value is at about $20k. And they took my battery back to sell to someone else for $15k. Definitely feel like a HUGE sucker for supporting them. This thing was $101k new.
I had a few very smart friends who were very successful in business at a young age. They all sort of celebrated having made it by buying high-end Audi’s when they were the hot luxury cars in the mid-2000’s. The cars weren’t very reliable (even dumb shit like the electric windows would break) and the repairs were notably more expensive than they should have been. One of them explained that he finally understood that s…
Electric windows, sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The share price hasn't only risen; over the past two years, it has fluctuated between $100 and $400 per share. Also - one defect means absolutely nothing. They make solid cars, everyone that owns one knows that.
> They make solid cars, everyone that owns one knows that. Data seems to disagree with this statement [0] Tesla is also notorious for glaring QC issues, like missing bits and obvious panel gaps. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2023/02/09/tesla-tank...
The news picks up on the .0001% of problems and those customers are always the loudest (understandably). For ever cracked front casking, there are tens of thousands of solid castings. Austin alone makes 5K Ys per week.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-giga-texas-5000-unit-weekly-....