News
Scaling Tesla Service Centers with Production
In a high tech startup, small or large, the effectiveness in which the business can scale is crucial to its success. Tesla has been known for its world class customer service, which it undoubtedly has, but recent experiences with replacing a Tesla 12V battery here in New England has me asking the question, can Tesla service scale at a rate to match its production?
The Early Days
Tesla service centers are going above and beyond when it comes to customer service. Some of this is to account for early design and quality challenges with the Model S, but also to make up for the limited number of service centers that are available. Either way, Tesla has done a stellar job with customer satisfaction up until this point. For the second year in a row Tesla has topped Consumer Reports satisfaction index.
But as new Model S owners continue to hear about Tesla’s world-class customer service by word of mouth and through mass media, the expectations are set to an extremely high level that service centers will need to deliver against. As Tesla Motors continues to focus its efforts on production and scaling the Supercharger network, they’ll need to ensure that Service Centers scale at a rate to match the growing customer base.
My Tesla Service Center Experiences
There hasn’t been much to service on my Model S other than a tire rotation thanks to the marvels of its simple design. However, my experiences in dealing with a busy Tesla Service Center led me to believe that they’d rather I have went somewhere else for the tire rotation than to have it performed at their facility.
Generally when I need to take my ICE cars in for service the most I have to wait is 1-2 days. My most recent experience with fixing 12V battery issue through the Tesla Service Center here in New England took nearly 2 weeks. Admittedly, some of that was due to poor weather and a holiday in between but there were still seven business days where the service center was too overloaded to get me in within the usual 1-2 days.
From talking to other Tesla owners it sounds like service experiences can be a mixed bag of results depending on where you live. One Model S owner based out of California, reported a similar issue with the 12V battery but managed to receive a call back within 15 minutes and later booked for service the following day. As for me? It took several phone calls, two emails and almost an entire business day gone before I was able to get schedule an appointment. The actual service that the Tesla technicians performed was excellent, but the scheduling process was abysmal.
- A Norwegian Tesla ownership experience
- Tesla LA Club unveils Los Angeles’ largest Tesla Service Center
When the day of service finally arrived, I told the Tesla technician that it was fine to pick up the Model S from my work place and bring it back that same day since they didn’t have a loaner available. The technician arrived by Uber promptly at 10:30am, jotted down some notes and then drove away in my car. The service department had promised to have it back by 3:30pm but in reality I got the vehicle back at 7pm. Fortunately I had no other plans that evening.
Scaling Tesla Service Centers
There was one Tesla Service Center serving all points north of Connecticut on the East Coast at the time when I purchase my Model S. The local Tesla Store had mentioned that they sold nine hundred Model S’ in this area alone and this was over a half a year ago. Today there is still only a single service center supporting the entire area but with many more Teslas on the road.
A second Tesla Service Center is planned for Dedham, MA but is not online yet. What I find interesting is the fact that both service centers are geographically close to one another which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.
This is a lot of area to cover for a single or even two service centers. Given the distances involved in covering such a large area, the technicians are running all over New England to pick up or service cars which just doesn’t scale well.
Summary
I believe that Tesla has fallen behind in scaling its service centers supporting the Model S roll out, at least when it comes to the New England area and likely overseas. It’ll be crucial for Tesla to start keeping a closer eye on service center response times and volume of service, if not already.
In addition to monitoring real-time growth of the Supercharging network Tesla owners should also be watching the rate in which Tesla Service Centers are being deployed.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
