Connect with us

News

Tesla responds to Reuters’ claims of faulty suspension issues

Published

on

Tesla has posted a rebuttal to a Reuters investigation which alleged that the company had been blaming drivers for alleged vehicle abuse despite knowing that its cars’ suspension components were faulty. The issue has caught the attention of many, including Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), both of whom have called on Tesla to initiate a recall about the reported issue. 

Reuters‘ investigation indicated that Tesla had informed the NHTSA that frequent failures of components like its vehicles’ aft link were due to drive misuse. Despite this, the publication claimed that Tesla’s own engineers have tracked frequent failures of the components over the years. Tesla’s response, which was posted on X, provided a thorough rebuttal of the publication’s claims. 

Tesla highlighted several issues with Reuters‘ investigation, such as its misleading headline and the lack of important context about the issue. The company also reiterated its service principles, which aim to provide the best support possible to its consumer base. 

Following is Tesla’s response to Reuters‘ investigation. 

Advertisement

Reuters published an article that leads with a wildly misleading headline and is riddled with incomplete and demonstrably incorrect information. 

This latest piece vaguely and nonsensically suggests there are thousands upon thousands of disgruntled Tesla customers. It’s nonsensical because it’s nonfactual—the reality is Tesla’s customer retention is among the best and highest in the industry.

Misleading headline: 

“Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective.” 

Advertisement

Reality (buried in the article): 

Tesla paid for most of the 120,000 vehicle repairs under warranty.

Manufactured story: 

The customer photo represents not a failed component, but instead a post crash component that was damaged in the course of reducing the adverse effects of a collision. The customer was informed that Tesla was able to review the telemetry and understood there was a crash that resulted in this repair not being covered by warranty. 

Advertisement

Most, if not all, manufacturer warranties exclude damages caused by a crash because that is the point of insurance coverage.

Helpful context:

Tesla has the most advanced vehicle telemetry system that can identify emerging issues, determine scope, and allow for faster vehicle and service improvements than has ever been seen in the auto industry. We take action as soon as we see a problem, something that should be celebrated as best-in-class, and is often cited by our regulators as a major safety advantage.

False accusation:

Advertisement

The author has conflated a noise-related (non-safety) issue with a range of unrelated and disconnected service actions. Contrary to the article’s statements based on erroneous data, Tesla is truthful and transparent with our safety regulators around the globe and any insinuation otherwise is plain wrong.

Tesla Service Principles:

a. Our service technicians and advisors diagnose, maintain and fix our customers’ cars efficiently and are not incentivized to profit off customers’ repair needs.

b. Tesla provides our service employees with excellent compensation and benefits packages. They don’t work off of commission like at other dealers who are incentivized to upsell or overcharge their customers.

Advertisement

c. The best service is no service. When service must be done, we fix 90%+ problems without even needing the customer present – either through over-the-air updates or with mobile service at a customer’s house or workplace.

To see Tesla’s approach in action, one can refer to this maintenance study from earlier this year, “Tesla was named the cheapest luxury car brand to maintain..” → https://autos.yahoo.com/tesla-named-cheapest-luxury-car-110000613.html

This cherry-picking approach to journalism results in missing the truth, which is a pattern in many of the negative articles about Tesla. 

Using one customer’s one-sided version of events as the universal experience of all customers paints a false and misleading picture of Tesla. In reality, for every upset customer, there are hundreds more who are thrilled with their Tesla and eager to repeat their business. The numbers don’t lie in terms of repeat sales and customer satisfaction.

Advertisement

We strive to make every customer a lifelong member of the Tesla family. 

While others may have their own agendas, our principles have been the same since the beginning: to make the safest cars in the world, which are easiest to maintain, while accelerating the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.

Advertisement

Simon is an experienced automotive reporter with a passion for electric cars and clean energy. Fascinated by the world envisioned by Elon Musk, he hopes to make it to Mars (at least as a tourist) someday. For stories or tips--or even to just say a simple hello--send a message to his email, simon@teslarati.com or his handle on X, @ResidentSponge.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling

ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.

Published

on

By

ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.

The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.

Additionally,  ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.

SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise

The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.

The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Published

on

elon-musk-jim-farley-tesla-ford

Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.

The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.

Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):

“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”

Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.

Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:

“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”

Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.

Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges

Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.

Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.

Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch

NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.

Published

on

By

NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.

Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.

Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.

SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket

Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.

The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.

The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.

Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.

The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.

Continue Reading