>Tesla has a strange way of communicating with customers I think is best described as customer service vaporware. That is, they spend more time trying to create the illusion of customer service, rather than actually providing it. There is no mechanism for them to get feedback, as I tried to provide, so its difficult to see how they can improve if they don’t know where they are going wrong.
Now we find out the unexpected corporate benefit of not having showrooms or physical locations by which to service clients - if they can't walk into your place of business and make a scene, just consider them a happy customer!
>In my experience, its a hobby masquerading as a company, and it can probably run as a hobbyist organization for some time.
This is the gut feeling I get with every over-the-top announcement by Tesla. Frequently I get down-voted here for griping about the linguistic flourishes in Tesla announcements, but I have my reasons. Sure, creating a neat innovation or clever door opening apparatus is impressive and all, and great for show, but the boring part of pulling it off reliably XX,XXX times is a totally different animal.
Also, a corporation where everybody is too on eggshells to point out that the boss lifted a customer's car and they're too scared to engage either the CEO or the customer is, for lack of a better concept, high-school-level drama lameness.
They've built over 100,000 vehicles, built out a massive nationwide charging network (plus a huge network in Europe and a decent-sized one in China), produced the best highway auto-drive system available today, and currently have the best selling car in their price segment in many areas.
Yes, clever doors and gimmicks like their new Summon feature aren't worth the hype they put into them, but that's not the only thing they're doing.
That's not a hobby company by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah, they have problems. Specifically, communications during the delivery process has always been troublesome for them, and there's no reason it should be. But that doesn't make it a "hobbyist organization." That's just silly.
I mean, GM's failed processes meant that their products spontaneously shut off and killed people, and they sat on their hands doing nothing while people were still dying, but we don't call that a "hobbyist organization...."
They do have showrooms, even if they're not the same as other car manufacturers. See here and sort by Stores & Galleries: https://www.teslamotors.com/findus#/
I've visited one nearby. It was small, but had several Teslas inside and out.
Tesla reminds me of Formula Student where teams also would do hilarious stuff like put a phone in the steering wheel (actually was not that bad) or program their car to make donuts on the spot with 4 electric motors and pushing a button. But fun is simply part of the competition and it's not the end of the world if something goes wrong or isn't perfect.
There is a difference between Elon Musk having a low tolerance for technical stupidity, and people treading on eggshells to avoid having to report bad news. My guess is that it would have been far better report "We have this issue, and here is our solution" than simply report bad news.
It would be likely that Elon didn't just walk over to a particular car at random, but asked for a dealer inventory model, and this particular car was not recorded as "sold" to a customer for whatever reason.
Publicly saying "How Elon Musk Stole My Car" probably wouldn't have made it easier to resolve this one more smoothly.
This incident sounds pretty isolated and exceptional. The post and your reply made me feel kind of nauseated. Just sit back and critique the doers. How lame.
>"[The Tesla Owner Advisor] called me to explain he had a call in with the Office of the CEO at Tesla and was working with his team in Tesla to resolve a problem that had come up — their CEO, Elon Musk, had taken my car and was using it as his personal vehicle to test a new version of autopilot. Even worse, he said he could see all the calls I had made into the Orlando delivery center this past week, and no one was taking my calls because no one knew what to do."
The fact that a customer-facing resource is airing information about internal process screwups directly to a customer is indicative that something is very wrong with service management at Tesla; this is a bush-league customer service mistake. Not only is the customer being informed that there is a apparently a massive issue with the pipeline for delivering product to customer, but they're also indicating that there's clearly nobody enforcing ownership or accountability for reported issues.
The article I read said "(1) tesla fucked up a customer's order, then (2) tesla fucked up fixing it ten times in a row at many different levels of the organisation despite the fact a fix should have been easy, then (3) the customer insisted on an explanation and someone at tesla was honest"
I'm confused as to why you think (3) is the problem here - it seems to me that (1) and (2) are the root cause - (3) is just an embarrassing repercussion.
I mean, the customer knows there's nobody enforcing ownership or accountability for reported issues when they contact ten different people and can't get the problem resolved. It's not like inscrutable customer service would have hidden the fact the car hadn't been provided.
Two seperate issues there, 1) I don't see a problem with a honest CSR 2) yeah there is no way that a car that had been allocated to a customer should be taken even by the CEO.
Honesty is rarely an issue, the lack of accountability is.
> they're also indicating that there's clearly nobody enforcing ownership or accountability for reported issues.
Based on gossips about how it allegedly is like to work for Elon Musk, it might be that people are even more scared of reaching out to him than to violate the process.
Which is a deadly issue: when people are too scared to give honest feedbacks to their CEO, the CEO stops knowing how his company actually runs. Parallels can be made with soviet countries, run through the deforming lenses of five-year plans and fantasy reports.
They're probably just terrified of Elon. Fear would explain the paralysis; I'm not sure why they thought that not communicating would make things better.
Honestly, as a customer, I appreciate the honesty and clarity of this CSR. Ideally, the CSR would just do something to quickly resolve the issue without divulging details. But if they can't actually fix it, being honest about the reasons is the best they can do. Then I can at least empathize with someone, feel like someone is empathizing with me, and not feel like everyone there is jerking me around.
The actual screw up at Tesla is that this kind of problem should literally never ever happen, and that CSRs should never be put in this situation.
Had this been "Elon took my car and told his company to give me a heavily discounted one in exchange" then presumably this article would have been filled with praise for their customer service. What a missed opportunity.
Instead of feeling like you are gambling on a potential upgrade my perception is now I'd be gambling on a potential loss / failure-to-deliver if I bought a used car from Tesla. It's only one datapoint, but it's the only data point I have.
Had this been "Elon took my car and told his company to give me a heavily discounted one in exchange" then presumably this article would have been filled with praise for their customer service. What a missed opportunity.
Were it the case, we'd have never heard anything from this customer. Happy customers rarely make the news.
never mind that, had it been "sorry, that car turned out to have some experimental hardware in it and is not certified road safe; here's a refund of your advance" the customer would have been disappointed but not pissed off, and that would have been the end of the matter. despite the hyperbolic title, the real issue is not that elon musk "stole" his car, but that tesla people deliberately ignored his calls because they didn't know what else to do(!)
At first, I was pissed about the hyperbolic attention grabbing headline, Elon Musk isn't a moniker for Tesla...
...then I got to the part where (allegedly), Elon Musk literally took his car, never delivered it, and pretty much just fucked Kevin over super bad.
Elon seems like a pretty smart guy, he must realize he is quite famous, so if there is any way this can be corroborated, it will play negatively all over techcrunch for the next few days.
edit: I accidentally implied fact checking and corroboration are important factors to Techcrunch when publishing.
I once ordered 100 Model S's at one time (Google it) then later took delivery of 12 Model S's at one time. Here's what I can tell you. Tesla's system for selling one new car to one person at one time is very, very good.
Tesla's system for doing anything other than one car to one person at one time is not good.
When we initially placed our 100 unit order we got 100 confirmation emails timed suspiciously as though some poor person was entering the details one at a time. Their owner's website couldn't handle 100 unique vehicles tied to one user. When we took delivery we had to go through a bunch of human processes 12 unique times. The people seemed incapable of batching tasks like signing title paperwork. We went through the routine for each car twelve times.
All of their systems are built to do one thing very well.
So this guy asked Tesla to do something it is not built to do and sell him a loaner car. And the systems broke. All of them. In Tesla systems (operational and technological) everything is built to do one thing.
Yes, it stinks that some people at Tesla acted dumbly in response to this. But overall, don't forget. People are components of a system.
There are no programs in the Tesla system to handle any of the variables this situation threw at it, starting with what the guy wanted Tesla to do.
When you deliberately ask a system to do something it isn't designed to do you shouldn't be surprised when it breaks.
> Tesla is pioneering two things at once, (a) a luxury full-EV segment for passenger vehicles, and (b) bypassing the traditional dealer network and selling directly to consumers. Since I never got my car, I can’t speak to (a). But, because (b) is so horribly broken, I don’t think (a) can succeed.
How on earth does this person's experience point to the non-dealership model being broken? Has this person never dealt with a shitty dealership?
Yeah, that's pretty weird. People experience this problem all the time with dealerships: you call up and make a deal on a car, they "hold it" for you, you get there and it turns out the car you wanted "was just sold" but the dealer is happy to sell you this other one instead, which by the way is several thousand dollars more expensive.
At least with Tesla, you can be pretty sure that Elon Musk actually did take this guy's car. The dealers will just lie to you; in the scenario above, they typically never had the car in the first place.
I'm not defending what Tesla did here in any way, but this problem certainly doesn't make a case for dealers.
When you have a shitty dealership, you drive somewhere else in town to buy a car.
I went to five different dealerships when I bought my car. Three of them were shitty / scumbags. The last two were good, and one offered me a better price.
The benefit of the dealership model is that customer service is decentralized, and different dealerships even offer different levels of customer service. Some offer free tuneups for life for example (and seem to factor that into the cost of the car). I went for a dealership with a lower price, since I expect to do my own oil changes / basic maintenance.
I don't think he was arguing that the (possible) non-dealership model was broken, but that Tesla's current attempt to disrupt it is flawed, and that if they fail because of poor execution, that this could stifle future innovation in this area.
The next sentence:
> My concern is if Tesla fails the experiment of directly selling cars to consumers may be considered a failure, when in reality it was tremendous missteps on Teslas part that caused it to not work.
Tesla is climbing uphill against an entrenched dealer network. In order to succeed, Tesla needs to be much better than dealers. Any time the message becomes "but the incumbents are just as bad," the innovator is falling behind.
I bought a car last year. Found a dealership with exactly what I wanted, ordered it from them, and traveled a long distance to get there.
The car they had in their inventory didn't match it's description and no one at the dealer (despite cleaning it and installing a few options for me) noticed it had the wrong trim level.
So I had to find the car somewhere else for more money.
If you can't keep track of the inventory sitting on your lot you're screwed up. Not 'oops we sold it to someone else' but 'the car physically isn't what the computer says and no one noticed'.
Way to go Honda dealer. Ruined my experience of buying my first new car and put a SERIOUS dent in my respect for Honda.
The best customer service 1) identifies and resolves the client's problem and then 2) tries to identify what went wrong internally and escalate appropriately.
Aligning yourself with the customer, then failing to provide a solution is a rookie move.
None of us were on the line with this customer; it's very possible he was prying for details and the CSR was trying to be accommodating with information because they weren't empowered to deliver a good solution.
My father-in-law works for a Tier 2 auto supplier that works primarily with GM. Elements of this story sounded very similar to how GM operates: no callbacks, lack of empathy, passing the buck, etc.
I wonder how deep the similarities go, or if this story is just a really odd edge case.
If they have any customer service savvy they'll get ahead of this, public statement apologising and a much better car at the original price.
It's easily fixed if they just get ahead of it and then figure out what the hell went wrong and how to prevent it in future.
It's like that thing about Doctors getting sued less if they just apologise for screwups, shit happens and most people are understanding if you are honest about it - mealy mouthed platitudes from the "Big Book of Covering Screwups" however annoy people.
This is an interesting anecdote about an extremely unlikely scenario, and one that hopefully you could laugh off if you're in a position to spend $100k on a luxury car.
Seems silly to chalk Tesla up to a "hobby masquerading as a company" based on a single interaction buying (or trying to buy) a vehicle that is not even sold as part of their typical sales and delivery channel. What would this person's experience had been if they weren't seeking a special discount deal and just ordered one normally?
The only concerning part in the article is the explanation by Kevin that the reason he couldn't get through to anyone wasn't because no one was available, but rather that they saw him calling and refused to answer because they didn't want to deal with him.
You probably had case for a lawsuit, but not worth the effort. You story probably lost more business for Telsa than they would have paid you damages. (Maybe they'll sue you for libel)
A lawsuit for something like this would have been ludicrous. Clearly, the OP was trying to purchase his car through a discount channel which this relatively new company had not completely ironed out.
Mistakes happen, people get embarrassed, no one wants to tell Mr Musk "No", and no one wants to be the focal point of a customer complaint which they can't really do anything about.
It seems like a screw-up on Tesla's part. Stuff like this happens all the time at good companies and this one has a funny twist but it doesn't signify anything as far as Tesla's ability to deliver, IMHO.
What damages could the plaintiff have shown here? He got his money back, and Tesla kept the car. He had never executed a bill of sale for the car. While what Tesla did looks like horrible customer service, there was no damage here, any more than when you order the daily special at a restaurant and the waiter comes out to tell you it's sold out.
As for libel, if he is telling the truth, then in the US, it can not be libelous. The saying goes "truth is an absolute defense against libel"
It likely that this article put whoever told him Elon was driving the car around in some hot water. I would not want to be that guy when Elon reads the headlines. I am not saying Elon is vindictive or anything just that it would be a uncomfortable position to be in. It's likely he thought the buyer would think it was neat that Elon was driving around in the same car he was going to get... if so he was wrong.
Why do you think they would do that? I don't see anything that would come close to the bar that you'd need to meet to be able to sue for libel in the article.
While many bemoan the dealership models it is a dealership I once used to get something done when all else seem to fail. There are far more good ones than bad and big companies can effectively and afford to ignore a single consumer, even a vocal one. So while there are some benefits of dealing directly with a manufacturer it can also be insane at time how tone deaf they can be. Dealers suffer this at times too but larger ones know the game and better yet know the people to call. I had a North American rep calling me direct on my issue and it was resolved.
Once Tesla ever moves into a large volume car I don't see how they will keep up the image they portray. Its not that simple. Whats worse here is that they have people who saw what was going on and it wasn't run up the flagpole fast instead they tried to up sell the customer!!! Get real guys.
That is a really weird experience. That being said one weird experience doesn't mean a system is "horribly broken." You got into a weird hole, but how many of these problems can really come up.
These problems suggest more to me about the immaturity of Tesla's Inventory Car channel than about its customer support in general. There may be one person spending 20% of his time on the loaner car sales channel at Tesla.
Pretty amazing how organizational incompetence took what could have been a minor inconvenience or even a positive (your car gets driven by Elon for 50-100km is probably a plus, if it is already used) to a pissed off customer.
Otoh, I'd far prefer a company screw over a rich guy who is the very definition of an equal party to contract/informed consumer. The "buy here pay here" used car dealers catering to poor, relatively uninformed, and powerless consumers do things far worse than this as routine business practice.
Source: Owner of a non-dual-charger who has literally never missed it. I charge at 30mi/hr off a 220v dryer connection in my garage, what's not to like?
I was thinking about buying a (edit: new) Tesla recently, and my main concern was that one might have a difficult experience receiving the car after paying a deposit well in advance.
Tesla - if you're reading this, this guy's experience has convinced me; I won't be considering buying a Tesla again until you can buy one and drive off with it that day.
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|10 years ago|reply
Now we find out the unexpected corporate benefit of not having showrooms or physical locations by which to service clients - if they can't walk into your place of business and make a scene, just consider them a happy customer!
>In my experience, its a hobby masquerading as a company, and it can probably run as a hobbyist organization for some time.
This is the gut feeling I get with every over-the-top announcement by Tesla. Frequently I get down-voted here for griping about the linguistic flourishes in Tesla announcements, but I have my reasons. Sure, creating a neat innovation or clever door opening apparatus is impressive and all, and great for show, but the boring part of pulling it off reliably XX,XXX times is a totally different animal.
Also, a corporation where everybody is too on eggshells to point out that the boss lifted a customer's car and they're too scared to engage either the CEO or the customer is, for lack of a better concept, high-school-level drama lameness.
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
Yes, clever doors and gimmicks like their new Summon feature aren't worth the hype they put into them, but that's not the only thing they're doing.
That's not a hobby company by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah, they have problems. Specifically, communications during the delivery process has always been troublesome for them, and there's no reason it should be. But that doesn't make it a "hobbyist organization." That's just silly.
I mean, GM's failed processes meant that their products spontaneously shut off and killed people, and they sat on their hands doing nothing while people were still dying, but we don't call that a "hobbyist organization...."
[+] [-] gtk40|10 years ago|reply
I've visited one nearby. It was small, but had several Teslas inside and out.
[+] [-] Vik1ng|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neurotech1|10 years ago|reply
It would be likely that Elon didn't just walk over to a particular car at random, but asked for a dealer inventory model, and this particular car was not recorded as "sold" to a customer for whatever reason.
Publicly saying "How Elon Musk Stole My Car" probably wouldn't have made it easier to resolve this one more smoothly.
[+] [-] pbreit|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sithadmin|10 years ago|reply
The fact that a customer-facing resource is airing information about internal process screwups directly to a customer is indicative that something is very wrong with service management at Tesla; this is a bush-league customer service mistake. Not only is the customer being informed that there is a apparently a massive issue with the pipeline for delivering product to customer, but they're also indicating that there's clearly nobody enforcing ownership or accountability for reported issues.
[+] [-] michaelt|10 years ago|reply
I'm confused as to why you think (3) is the problem here - it seems to me that (1) and (2) are the root cause - (3) is just an embarrassing repercussion.
I mean, the customer knows there's nobody enforcing ownership or accountability for reported issues when they contact ten different people and can't get the problem resolved. It's not like inscrutable customer service would have hidden the fact the car hadn't been provided.
[+] [-] noir_lord|10 years ago|reply
Honesty is rarely an issue, the lack of accountability is.
[+] [-] fab13n|10 years ago|reply
Based on gossips about how it allegedly is like to work for Elon Musk, it might be that people are even more scared of reaching out to him than to violate the process.
Which is a deadly issue: when people are too scared to give honest feedbacks to their CEO, the CEO stops knowing how his company actually runs. Parallels can be made with soviet countries, run through the deforming lenses of five-year plans and fantasy reports.
[+] [-] vanattab|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kabdib|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gherkin0|10 years ago|reply
The actual screw up at Tesla is that this kind of problem should literally never ever happen, and that CSRs should never be put in this situation.
[+] [-] technofiend|10 years ago|reply
Instead of feeling like you are gambling on a potential upgrade my perception is now I'd be gambling on a potential loss / failure-to-deliver if I bought a used car from Tesla. It's only one datapoint, but it's the only data point I have.
[+] [-] jjoe|10 years ago|reply
Were it the case, we'd have never heard anything from this customer. Happy customers rarely make the news.
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
But yes, it's extremely weird that they didn't just immediately apologize and offer him a nice discount on a different car.
[+] [-] orik|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zem|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vonklaus|10 years ago|reply
...then I got to the part where (allegedly), Elon Musk literally took his car, never delivered it, and pretty much just fucked Kevin over super bad.
Elon seems like a pretty smart guy, he must realize he is quite famous, so if there is any way this can be corroborated, it will play negatively all over techcrunch for the next few days.
edit: I accidentally implied fact checking and corroboration are important factors to Techcrunch when publishing.
[+] [-] zachware|10 years ago|reply
Tesla's system for doing anything other than one car to one person at one time is not good.
When we initially placed our 100 unit order we got 100 confirmation emails timed suspiciously as though some poor person was entering the details one at a time. Their owner's website couldn't handle 100 unique vehicles tied to one user. When we took delivery we had to go through a bunch of human processes 12 unique times. The people seemed incapable of batching tasks like signing title paperwork. We went through the routine for each car twelve times.
All of their systems are built to do one thing very well.
So this guy asked Tesla to do something it is not built to do and sell him a loaner car. And the systems broke. All of them. In Tesla systems (operational and technological) everything is built to do one thing.
Yes, it stinks that some people at Tesla acted dumbly in response to this. But overall, don't forget. People are components of a system.
There are no programs in the Tesla system to handle any of the variables this situation threw at it, starting with what the guy wanted Tesla to do.
When you deliberately ask a system to do something it isn't designed to do you shouldn't be surprised when it breaks.
[+] [-] knowaveragejoe|10 years ago|reply
How on earth does this person's experience point to the non-dealership model being broken? Has this person never dealt with a shitty dealership?
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
At least with Tesla, you can be pretty sure that Elon Musk actually did take this guy's car. The dealers will just lie to you; in the scenario above, they typically never had the car in the first place.
I'm not defending what Tesla did here in any way, but this problem certainly doesn't make a case for dealers.
[+] [-] dragontamer|10 years ago|reply
I went to five different dealerships when I bought my car. Three of them were shitty / scumbags. The last two were good, and one offered me a better price.
The benefit of the dealership model is that customer service is decentralized, and different dealerships even offer different levels of customer service. Some offer free tuneups for life for example (and seem to factor that into the cost of the car). I went for a dealership with a lower price, since I expect to do my own oil changes / basic maintenance.
[+] [-] blackkettle|10 years ago|reply
The next sentence:
> My concern is if Tesla fails the experiment of directly selling cars to consumers may be considered a failure, when in reality it was tremendous missteps on Teslas part that caused it to not work.
[+] [-] snowwrestler|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MBCook|10 years ago|reply
I bought a car last year. Found a dealership with exactly what I wanted, ordered it from them, and traveled a long distance to get there.
The car they had in their inventory didn't match it's description and no one at the dealer (despite cleaning it and installing a few options for me) noticed it had the wrong trim level.
So I had to find the car somewhere else for more money.
If you can't keep track of the inventory sitting on your lot you're screwed up. Not 'oops we sold it to someone else' but 'the car physically isn't what the computer says and no one noticed'.
Way to go Honda dealer. Ruined my experience of buying my first new car and put a SERIOUS dent in my respect for Honda.
[+] [-] sqeaky|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thecosas|10 years ago|reply
Aligning yourself with the customer, then failing to provide a solution is a rookie move.
None of us were on the line with this customer; it's very possible he was prying for details and the CSR was trying to be accommodating with information because they weren't empowered to deliver a good solution.
[+] [-] _lce0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wiremine|10 years ago|reply
I wonder how deep the similarities go, or if this story is just a really odd edge case.
[+] [-] Navarr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] et2o|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noir_lord|10 years ago|reply
It's easily fixed if they just get ahead of it and then figure out what the hell went wrong and how to prevent it in future.
It's like that thing about Doctors getting sued less if they just apologise for screwups, shit happens and most people are understanding if you are honest about it - mealy mouthed platitudes from the "Big Book of Covering Screwups" however annoy people.
[+] [-] zekevermillion|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x1798DE|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brandon272|10 years ago|reply
The only concerning part in the article is the explanation by Kevin that the reason he couldn't get through to anyone wasn't because no one was available, but rather that they saw him calling and refused to answer because they didn't want to deal with him.
[+] [-] peter303|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crispyambulance|10 years ago|reply
Mistakes happen, people get embarrassed, no one wants to tell Mr Musk "No", and no one wants to be the focal point of a customer complaint which they can't really do anything about.
It seems like a screw-up on Tesla's part. Stuff like this happens all the time at good companies and this one has a funny twist but it doesn't signify anything as far as Tesla's ability to deliver, IMHO.
[+] [-] URSpider94|10 years ago|reply
What damages could the plaintiff have shown here? He got his money back, and Tesla kept the car. He had never executed a bill of sale for the car. While what Tesla did looks like horrible customer service, there was no damage here, any more than when you order the daily special at a restaurant and the waiter comes out to tell you it's sold out.
As for libel, if he is telling the truth, then in the US, it can not be libelous. The saying goes "truth is an absolute defense against libel"
IANAL ...
[+] [-] vanattab|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|10 years ago|reply
Why do you think they would do that? I don't see anything that would come close to the bar that you'd need to meet to be able to sue for libel in the article.
[+] [-] Shivetya|10 years ago|reply
Once Tesla ever moves into a large volume car I don't see how they will keep up the image they portray. Its not that simple. Whats worse here is that they have people who saw what was going on and it wasn't run up the flagpole fast instead they tried to up sell the customer!!! Get real guys.
[+] [-] ck2|10 years ago|reply
What Tesla did wasn't right but very hard to have a pity-party for Marty Puranik.
[+] [-] Arzh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malchow|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|10 years ago|reply
Otoh, I'd far prefer a company screw over a rich guy who is the very definition of an equal party to contract/informed consumer. The "buy here pay here" used car dealers catering to poor, relatively uninformed, and powerless consumers do things far worse than this as routine business practice.
[+] [-] lectrick|10 years ago|reply
Source: Owner of a non-dual-charger who has literally never missed it. I charge at 30mi/hr off a 220v dryer connection in my garage, what's not to like?
[+] [-] agentgt|10 years ago|reply
Of course I have doubts the reporter was accurate but I do believe this guys complaint sounds legit.
[+] [-] jdenning|10 years ago|reply
Tesla - if you're reading this, this guy's experience has convinced me; I won't be considering buying a Tesla again until you can buy one and drive off with it that day.