UPDATE: Munro Threatened With Lawsuit For Tesla Model 3 Teardown


This just in.

Teardown expert Sandy Munro is being threatened with a lawsuit for his recent dissection of a Tesla Model 3.

***UPDATE  – 8-21-2018 – New info revealed in Tweet embedded directly below:

Flip to 12 minutes and 54 seconds in the video for the breaking info, which comes to us via Autoline’s John McElroy.

Munro Associates, which performed the much-publicized teardown of the Model 3, is being sued by an entity connected with that work. We don’t yet know who’s behind the potential lawsuit against Munro though.

Back when Munro first performed the teardown, Tesla issued a rather lengthy response. We’ve reproduced it again here in its entirety, though in no way are we implying Tesla is connected to this latest development, but rather we’re including it as it’s the only official comment made by the automaker in connection to the teardown.

“The primary car evaluated by Munro was built in 2017. We have significantly refined our production processes since then, and while there’s always room for improvement, our data already shows that Model 3 quality is rapidly getting better.”

“Since we began shipping Model 3 last year, we have been very focused on refining and tuning both part and body manufacturing processes. The result being that the standard deviation of all gaps and offsets across the entire car has improved, on average, by nearly 40%, with particular gap improvements visible in the area of the trunk, rear lamps and rear quarter panel. Today, Model 3 panel gaps are competitive with Audi, BMW, and Mercedes models, but in the spirit of relentless improvement, we are working to make them even tighter.”

“The U.S. government found Model S and Model X to have the lowest probability of injury of any cars it had ever tested, and Model 3 was designed with the same commitment to safety. While there’s always room for refinement of cost and mass, which we are already improving, electric cars have unique safety requirements to prevent intrusion into the battery, and Model 3 was also designed to meet the latest small overlap front crash requirements that other reference vehicles may not have. We stand behind our physical crash testing and our computer simulations of it, which have been remarkably accurate, and the safety that they demonstrate. The safety of our customers is more important than any other metric.”

Developing story…

Categories: Tesla, Videos

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

183 Comments on "UPDATE: Munro Threatened With Lawsuit For Tesla Model 3 Teardown"

newest oldest most voted

I figured this was coming when Munro did not show up on Autoline After Hours last week as scheduled… Tesla is suing him, of course… haha! Good luck on that!

Of course? Just because you can’t think of anybody else?

I will wait for more news before I comment further.

Starting your comments with facts rather that searching for them afterwards makes for much better posts.

lol…now you wait for some news…after you commented? How low can you go?

My comment started with “I figured” which means opinion… Not factual statement…

“Not factual statement…”
That should be the disclaimer at the bottom of all your posts.

“Tesla is suing him, of course” is a declarative statement, but yes clearly not factual. You only said that you “figured it was coming” to brag about you predictive prowess, which didn’t pan out because “it” wasn’t even happening in the first place.

Just like Senator Jon Kyle’s office walking back one of the Senator’s more notorious “alternative fact” statements, you and the other serial Tesla bashers should be required to put this disclaimer at the end of all your posts:

“Not intended to be a factual statement.”

But then you turned to…”Tesla is suing him, of course…”

How many neg votes does it take for David Green to just find something else to do but stir up controversy on IEV.com? When a poster gets 40 or 50 neg votes, it seems plain that an attack has been made to disrupt the site. Perhaps action is in order. Here is my idea: When a poster receives over 20 neg votes for a post twice in a week, he or she is placed on a temporary ban from posting for two weeks. This ban list is checked regularly and posters on the list are reinstated after the penalty period. At their return, repeat offenders with 2 posts receiving 20 or more neg votes in a week are banned indefinately. Post this policy as a link above the commentary area. Disruptors have mental issues or bones to pick. Their presence degrades the website that hosts their commentary. Free speech is a privilege as well as a right. Human rights can be tested and abused in any free forum or society. People will push the limits until action need be taken. As a private entity, IEVs can apply guidelines and rules that it pleases to insure the civil intercourse between readers… Read more »
We won’t have a policy that bans people based on votes. Those that post very Tesla-positive comments and that get upset at those that don’t like Tesla also get a ton of negative votes at times. They would then be banned just the same. People are entitled to their opinions and are free to debate. Not every single person that isn’t a Tesla lover is a Russian troll, FUDster, stock-shorter, loser. In fact, many are not any of those things. We are moderating and deleting comments in which posters call one another names, accuse one another, attack the writers and editors, use multiple usernames to hide, imitate another user, etc. If we banned people that are skeptical about Tesla, we’d also have to ban those that knock GM, hate Nissan, shoot down any non-Tesla product, etc etc etc. It’s a vicious cycle/slippery slope/double-edged sword. We’ll always strive to keep it clean here, as well as to rid of personal attacks, accusations, finger-pointing, and the like. We also need to write articles, so we can’t spend 24/7 assuring that not a single comment gets through that may not be something someone wants to hear. There are about 50,000 people that have… Read more »

Thanks Steven… Hey, do you think the title to this story should be changed to “Munro threatened with lawsuit”?

BTW I noticed you deleted a couple of my messages, and I am …. Nothing, Just kidding! LOL, I am sure I deserved it.

Haha. Yes, let me look at that title.

If that’s the case why did you comment initially ?

Come back today then. Seems it’s not Tesla doing the Suing here!

Only xxxxxs start like that and then retreat.

It is almost certainly the funder (or one of the funders) of the teardown threatening legal action. OEMs, Tier1 suppliers, and financial people pay Munro buckets of cash to develop the information that he does. Certainly there are non-disclosure agreements in place about the report. It greatly surprised me the amount of Model # information he then gave away for free, especially the profitability follow-up.

We do not know the funders of the teardown but if it was Audi (VW) they surely would not appreciate Munro giving a press “Win” to Tesla at a time many people may be delaying the purchase of an EV while waiting for other brands to introduce competing cars.

More likely UBS and the Shorts are sue-ing him.
He didn’t back up their claim that Model 3 would be unprofitable.

So far Model 3 has been unprofitable… I think the shorts had that right… Tesla lost 700M last qtr, I assume s and X are profitable, so where do you suppose those losses came from?

How about: From building out their Supercharging network? No other car producer is actually doing the foundation work of providing a charging network for big battery, long-range, EVs. This is NOT a cheap element in the equation and soon there WILL be enough to slow that element of “cash burn” down and let the cars being sold accumulate real profit.

Heck, I could easily buy the new/incoming Porsche Taycan, but as a single car household, without a real charging network for road trips around the country, that vehicle is just another fun “city car.”

VW is pretty busy building out a charging network, and theirs have 150-350KW chargers, not the wimpy Tesla 72-120KW models.


So how many has VW installed and how many will they install, and where? They have a Loooong way to go to catch Tesla’s Superchargers and destination chargers.

I linked the locations on the map, two months after hiring their design build contractor they have gone from 3 under construction to 9 finished and 55 stations under construction, 12 of which are within a 450 mile radius of my house in every direction… I found permit data for 8 more stations in WA and OR that are not listed in those 55, so more to come…

Do you know how many handles per location? I am curious how many they are installing.

Electrify America is installing a minimum of four (4) fast chargers per location. Actually about half or so will be the four stall ones. Then they have a few locations that will be up to a maximum of ten (10) chargers. The only ten charger location currently is in Georgia.

Everett WA a 10 stall on Everett Mall Way, and then a 4 stall 2 miles away on Evergreen Way, Reading the permit data, some jurisdictions write on their permit how many stalls, and others just say “Electric Vehicle Charging Station”

Still a long way to go till they catch Tesla up. A long long long long way to go. Keep trying.

Without a doubt… Tesla is the leader in this for sure. I am forward looking, thinking that will not always be the case, especially in the USA. I was surprised, talking to the contractor building the stations for EA, they are not nearly as expensive as I thought. I got a lot more insight into their strategy, and operations. Thankfully the NW region is near the top of their list, so we are getting chargers soon, like real soon.

How much per station? And who is the contractor?

Yup! Clarity is non standard! Check out those “Information Gaps!”

Last week you said several times that Tesla has stopped building their Supercharger network. When proven dead wrong on that claim, you ran away. What will be the lie this week?

I was not on this site last week…. So try again… Tesla currently has 17 Supercharger stations under construction in the USA, Electrify America 55 under construction, can you tell the difference. Electrify America is still ramping, I expect by the end of the month to see at least 100 EA stations under construction, and of those 20 in the NW were I live, all should be done just in time for my I-Pace in November or December. Yeah!!!


This is what it says on the i-Pace site: “The best way to get a quick top up of your battery’s charge for those long journeys is with DC chargers — a typical 50 kW DC rapid charger can achieve a 0-80% charge in 85 minutes. As the public charging infrastructure improves, the I‑PACE will be equipped to accept up to a 100 kW DC charge rate.” So given the slower charge rate than a Tesla, I’m guessing the only possible advantage you could be claiming is more comprehensive coverage in the US? Hmm, the EA map was revealed at the beginning of May with 12 sites under construction. Today, about three and a half months later, nine of those sites have been constructed and no particular long distance route is possible. There are ten stations claimed to be under construction in the most generous definition of the Pacific Northwest of the United States and three and a half months from now would be December. Going by their current rate of progress, it would be reasonable to assume some or all of those ten would be constructed by December in addition to the single remote site available today, leaving a… Read more »

How about this? It’s fantastic that the Supercharger network exists and awesome that initiatives like Electrify America are ramping up now, too. Any little bit helps. We are all on the same team here. We want to charge our EVs and we want the public to be more comfortable adopting EVs due to increasing infrastructure. Further, there are many people that may want to buy an EV and can’t possibly afford a Tesla. Hopefully, efforts like Electrify America will help make that possible. Win win win!

I was only objectively speaking from the perspective of purchases made in December of 2018, but the existence of a comprehensive public fast-charging network is going to change the face of automotive transport.

However it happened, I think EA will be great for the adoption of electric vehicles and I fully support its existence.

Makes sense. Thank you. And yes … Go Charging Infrastructure!

And… Thanks to EA, even More places for Model S & Model X to charge up at!

Yes, 100KW is pretty good, I will post a video of my I-Pace charging as soon as it is here, the local EA chargers are going to be done long before December, talking to the superintendent on the site here, he said their schedule is 6 weeks from start to finish, but they usually have a delay to get going because the utility has to do the off site work and set the service transformer before they start construction, he told me for example Snohomish County PUD who is supplying the Everett stations is quicker then Puget Sound Energy who is supplying stations South of Seattle and East on I-90. We shared a few laughs about utility companies, because my company also does underground utility work so I am very familiar with the red tape. If you want to follow the actual construction, check EA on plugshare, and you can see pictures posted by users, for example the station In Albany OR is done, and Vancouver WA is nearly done, as is Grants Pass OR That gets my I-Pace Into CA already.. https://www.plugshare.com It seems EA has been having some technical problems with payment processing, they will work that out,… Read more »

Who cares that you didn’t say it on THIS site?

Tesla currently has over 10,000 chargers world wide and EA currently does not even have 100. They have a long way to go till they catch Tesla up. I wish them well but to say they are beating Tesla is wishful thinking on your part. I am all for any advancement in the EV area no matter what company it is by, just so long as they are serious. You however are a well known troll who hates all things Tesla, so obviously you are not interested in sustainable transport at all.

But there are over 5000 CCS locations (not just chargers) in Europe. The Supercharger network has already been dwarfed on any metric except numbers of users.

Certainly not. Tesla’s Supercharger network has “dwarfed”, if you want to use that term, all other networks in being built out in a planned fashion to support long-distance travel. No other network is even in the ballpark.

Electrify American is apparently planning to do something similar, but I seriously doubt the number of actual charging stalls is going to rival the Supercharger network. I’d love to be proven wrong on that!

According this web site, the first cycle will be a mix of level 2, 50KW, and 150KW chargers, The output of the 150KW chargers will be capable of charging at the 50KW rate.


I think I would follow Electrify America directly for information that is the latest, as they update their site weekly with the latest…


OK, the web site I referenced doesn’t state that the 50KW rate is for cars that can’t charge at higher rate.

When you dig down into the national plan at the electifyamerica web site it does state that.

Rumor has it that Tesla has suspended new supercharger stations for the moment, presumably in a profitability push. I suspect they are not very expensive, however. Electrical supply is a mature industry.



I think Electrify America spends about 250K per charging station (4 dispenser slightly less, 8 dispenser slightly more), so if you figure they are going to spend 250M in the next 8 months that would be 1000 stations, nearly doubling Tesla’s USA deployment. Tesla people say constantly… EA is only spending 2B, My gosh, that is a lot of flipping charging stations… 8000 to be exact, or 16X Teslas current USA deployment… Then the revenue those stations will generate = a massive business

Where are you getting your figures? You are mixing up a lot of facts. VW has been ordered to spend $2B on Electrify America due to Dieselgate (of which 40% will be in CA). The expenditure is over 10 years and will not be applied solely to charging stations.

Also, their charging stations are a mixture of Level 2 & Level 3 – they are not all L3. If you are comparing to Tesla’s locations, then you will need to add the thousands of destination stations Tesla has.

Evaluation only L3 locations, EA is building 240 locations at as cost of $190m. $790k per location. These locations are non-proprietary so will also be available for Teslas with the CHAdeMO adapter (available for S&X and most likely soon for the 3/Y).

Yes, each station has one CHAdeMO, good luck Tesla and Leaf. Take a look on plugshare at the completed stations to see the setup… Those are also 50KW…. Think VW has a plan? Let me guess all their cars are CCS…. haha!


This is from the Electrify America Site… Key statement “IN CYCLE 1” AKA phase 1 which is due to be completed June 2019 650+300=950 I said 1000, sorry

“In its first ZEV investment cycle, Electrify America will establish a network that includes non-proprietary electric vehicle chargers (CCS, CHAdeMO and J1772 standards) at over 650 community-based sites and nearly 300 highway sites across the country.”


According to https://supercharge.info/changes , Tesla started construction of a new site today and opened two of them yesterday.

Ah, actual facts, as opposed to FUDster “alternative facts”.

Thank you!

Of course, they are winding down the operations, the rate of completed stations has dropped dramatically in the last 45 days, and the cross Canada route Tesla told Canadians was coming in 2016, has been put off another year. Go to the Tesla forum, many Canadians have been complaining about it.

What are you hoping to accomplish here exactly? Unless you’re just trying to gather down votes, I can’t imagine you’re accomplishing it.

Just posting the facts… Tesla currently has 560 station in the USA, EA is planning to have 950 by next June…


Okay, you must be referring to the Cycle 1 investment plan that outlines EA’s charging plans until June 2019 given here: https://www.electrifyamerica.com/downloads/get/51603 The high speed charging network plan for that period is outlined starting on page 5. There are two networks. One is the community charging and the other is the “high speed highway network” The community network is described as: “Within selected metros, Electrify America plans to build 350+ stations across five major use cases (multi‐family homes, workplace, commercial/retail, community, and municipal lots/garages). A deployment mix of L2, 50 kW, and 150 kW chargers will be offered across these use cases to help best meet the anticipated needs of EV drivers.” The long range network is described as: “Electrify America will build a long distance high speed highway network consisting of approximately 50+ charging stations along high‐traffic corridors between metropolitan areas. These stations will focus on 150 kW and 320 kW DC fast chargers; each station will have 5 plugs on average” Both the Q1 and Q2 2018 update reports refer readers to the Cycle 1 plan and there are no references to the number “950” in any article related to EA that I could find or on the… Read more »

I like how you grab a document dated March 2017, when I posted a link to Electrify America’s website that is updated weekly. Keep digging Dante… but if you analysis was real, it would mean the 64 stations that are currently listed on plugshare as active or under construction, is it for cycle 1? Well, YOU ARE WRONG, as I have the permit documents sitting here on my desk for 8 additional stations in WA and OR that are submitted, and paid for, but not on the map yet… Go read the page I linked, and stop trying to spin the facts with a CARB report from 17 months ago.


I still don’t get what you’re trying to do. So you claim to short Tesla, buy Jags, process permits for chargers, all while being ready in every single article to troll the comment section?

No, you must have found some way to monetize down votes.

No, I do not get paid for downvotes, or posting here, but I do my homework, and know what is going on before I post. Whenever possible I go straight to the source for information. I have been in contact with the people at Electrify America several times, and also visited their construction site to talk directly to the contractors doing the work. I am curious about EV, and EV adoption and want to learn as much as I can. I shorted Tesla one time, mostly to see how it works, because at some point the long bull market is going to become more bearish, and I want to have an idea how shorting works, from a fee and account availability standpoint, so I can optimize my transactions. Now, when you look at the Electrify America locations map I liked above every one of those small dots is part of cycle 1, I do not know if they will complete all 300 by next June, but the way I understand it is they get fined if they are not at least started with construction on all of those sites by June 2019. The superintendent I talked to said he is… Read more »

Just to clarify a typo, I meant $1.5 million per high speed highway network charging location, not charger and I would like to further clarify that this assumes 50 of these locations as stated in the Cycle 1 plan.

Taycan will be great in the USA… Lots of charging coming before the car…

Yea, hopefully….

Building factories, the M3 ramp (move to 7×24 hour operations, training, etc.) and fixing automation around the M3 lines, the tent, Gigafactory investments, Super Charger Investments – I could go on..

All those CapEx expenditures, and yes, they contribute to negative cash flow, but that doesn’t mean the M3 is currently unprofitable. It takes lots and lots of capital to get a car line started, hence reasons why not and new car companies have successfully started in the past 50 years or so…

CapEx is not reflected in the 700M loss in Q2… That is operations loss only… CapEx is additional to that….

Prove that.

Prove what? Loss from operations does not include CapEx? OMG, I hope you understand junior high school level accounting. CapEx is considered an investment, so it is categorized outside of the operational accounting similar to other 1 time expenses.

We all know last quarter was a loss. What is your point?

Paul Smith evidently does not know the difference between a loss, and CapEx… He needs a quick accounting class…


David, you are oversimplifying. There are many aspects of growth that are reflected in operational expense.

I agree with you, and REXisKing. If speculating, Munro was negative before he went positive. How hard a turn can he take, and be providing the same report? There are too many ways to end up getting sued doing that.

M3 was debated to have -1, to Teslas Q2 finishing +3% Gross Margin. 15% estimated for Q3 was the guidance during the call, despite settling into a 40-45k avg selling price in the second half of 2018.
Whether Tesla chooses to take SG&A for out of Model 3 operations, even though it is to tool up Y, the Semi, etc., is something they are free to do. When your production doubles, you can’t capitalize (bring on balance sheet) everything it takes to do it.

Please provide a list of profitable cars while in their first year of production.

In general, every model of car which has been in production only a year or less is “unprofitable”.

But of course, serial Tesla bashers always try to paint Tesla as somehow being “different” or “bad” when it does what every other auto maker does.

Research and development, supercharger buildout, factory buildout and setup…

it’s not Telsa suing them -They really can’t – Car (and even device) teardowns are extremely common and legal. If it was legal to stop this, Apple would have, given what the iFixIt folks do to iPhones, etc. – It’s likely whoever commissioned the report, either they aren’t happy with some detail (not enough detail), or they are unhappy that info they paid for has been made public, which they consider a breach of their NDA.

We’ll see how this pans out, but dollars to donuts, it’s someone affiliated with the commissioned work. – See some limited details – https://bleisure-travel.net/sandy-munro-sued-tesla-model-3-teardown or https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/98w5y4/autoline_broadcast_says_sandy_munro_is_being_sued/

Thats why I wonder who would sue them? I am not sure there would be case for anyone to sue over this report. Tesla, Panasonic, UBS, or Nvidia would be my only guesses… I remember Sandy stating Panasonic was a customer. Who knows? Unless it is some Tesla shareholder, like Gerber? So much drama…

“it’s not Telsa suing them…”

I do wonder who it is. Just my speculation: Some company paid for Munro’s full teardown analysis of the Model 3, which was sold as being a confidential report. And now they are upset that Munro has revealed so many of the details in the two videos he’s released on the subject.

Shorter the clock is ticking tic….tack…tick…tack you will be broke before the year ends.

Correlation is NOT Causation.

Will you look at that? You’re wrong, it’s not Tesla.

Seems you have been proven wrong…again ,David.

Munro gave a glowing review of the Tesla Model 3 and then your logic is Tesla would sue him for doing so.


Boy, you shorters really have your brains all twisted up to try and blame Tesla.

》Munro Associates, which performed the much-publicized teardown of the Model 3, is being sued by an entity connected with that work.

I can’t hear him saying anything about who is behind the lawsuit. What’s your source for your claim above?

And isn’t it natural to suspect it’s Tesla?

It’ll be interesting to see what emerges.

That’s crazy.

UBS might not be happy he disclosed stuff from the report they paid him to do, but I can’t see them suing. Tesla might have a beef if he got the car under false pretenses, but it’d be really dumb for them to sue.

Who else would be unhappy with him?

Probably his customers that paid him, got a fake review and then he changed his tune on the Model 3. Why did he do a 180?

There is nothing fake or opinion changed in the report, other then cost… He said the build quality on the body and interior is substandard, and the report details just what is off in the most minute measurements. He liked the electronics, and integration of the systems… Also loved the rear suspension, but said the front suspension is older tech.

I am curious how this works out… I assume it is Tesla lashing out, like suing Ontario last week…

They also announced they would sue the German government for removing the Model S from the list of subsidised vehicles after Tesla cancelled orders of the base model.
So far they haven’t actually done it. Teslas lawyers are probably advising against it. The temporary removal and payback of the subsidy is a really mild reaction to subsidy fraud and it seems stupid to beg for an actual punishment.

Man, Tesla legal department must be hiring like mad, there is Liens, and lawsuits coming and going like crazy…. I heard they lost a couple more chip engineers recently too.. Wow, get rid of the chip engineers to hire more lawyers… haha ! Its a growth story..

Citation please?

for which part of my comment?

Any of it – Chip Engineers resigning, Legal Hiring – Just a tad bit of data, to support any of this

Look at todays stories on Electrek for the chip engineers, and the legal hiring


You can’t glean anything at all about the company from that kind of data. You’re really grasping at straws.

I worked a while as a wafer fabrication manufacturing technician for a processor company in Germany , making the K6-3 processor (more or less just to learn it, being a technofile and all.. and to improve my German. Turned out the factory was using English 90% of the time, and with 12 hour shifts – there was not a lot of time to speak German) but the work contract is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Page up and down with legal stuff, with rules and regulations. We’re talking 3-4 times as thick as a “normal” contract. I think technology companies in the cell phone and microprocessor business are the most legal heavy industires in the world . . and not to forget the medical industry. I understand the need to protect their IP and all, since IP = money, just think the number of pages in the contract was unique. Could probably just reduce it all by signing a contract where one point is: I will not do anything that can hurt the company financially in any form. As cars are getting more and more advanced, and firmware, software and some design is what differenciate them from each other,… Read more »

On the suspension: “Munro is very impressed with the Model 3 suspension, saying the people who designed it could be Formula One princes, according to Autoweek. Thanks to how well the suspension works, the Model 3 has superior road handling characteristics the discussion”
Not even close to what you said, which was just plain wrong.
Inaccuracy, is par for the course when I read your comments.

Again, get and read the report, and stop spinning soundbites you heard… Right after he praised the suspension in the same Autoline After Hours video you can see where he rips on the front A arms for being heavy, and poorly designed, complicated, and expensive.

Munro sells his reports for around $35K to $80K. You have never read them. You are a construction contractor.

I am pretty well connected in the industry, and I did see Munro’s report. I am also a customer of UBS, and have seen theirs as well.

You say I am a construction contractor is some kind of derogatory way? Thats interesting, maybe you have as little understanding of the economy as you do of auto manufacturing.

“I am pretty well connected in the industry…”

So you keep claiming. Are those claims any more factual than all the claims you make about Tesla?

Great. Post it.

He said that the door handles were too hard to open but did not disclose that he was using his injured hand. He said that the chasis parts were too heavily constructed and that Tesla can’t turn a profit on the car then six months later retracted that statement and said that Tesla could make a gross profit of 30% on the car. It was a hit piece and I wouldn’t trust Munro as far as I could throw him.

Actually in the first video he said nothing about profit… Maybe you need to revisit the video… He said let me finish the teardown and I will tell you if it is profitable…

“…did not disclose that he was using his injured hand. ”

He did mention in the first video that it was the hand which had been broken. The odd thing is that right after he says in the video you can’t open the door with just one hand, he does exactly that! Shoot the editor? 😉

Because he got new insights as he dug deeper into the car and its parts?

Tesla’s integrated electronics are smart, using certain components for multiple systems is the way of the future for sure, but they still do not know how to build the basic chassis efficiently.

Yeah I had commented in the past that there is something to this Brian. As someone reasonably familiar with car deconstruction, (Munro is certainly more experienced than the self-appointed big experts here), and after Munro totally disassembled the car, and THEN later on totally changed his mind 180 degrees ABOUT EVERYTHING, – well adults just don’t do that without reason. The question remains, where does the real evaluation lay? And why was he obviously pressured? Certainly, this lawsuit is further pressure.

Munro did not change his mind about anything, the report confirms everything he said on Autoline. Where he backtracked was on profit, on Autoline he originally did not say whether or not the car was profitable, but he left the impression that it is not.

Repeating completely false statements doesn’t make them more true.

Well, David – I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on that one. I saw two separate interviews with Munro and I couldn’t believe the second after watching the first.

Interesting. I can’t see why Tesla would bother suing them as some suggest, as their breakdown, at least the updated version, was very positive. The scuttlebutt is the company that did the actual work, of the teardown is suing, and why would that be?
Because their work was misrepresented? To be sure as Sandy suggests the reviews were a tale of two reviews.
Two men say they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong.

The report is not positive, perhaps you should get access and read it before commenting? You are forming an assumption from bits and pieces of what you heard, but no complete info.

“Troll harder DG; no one is buying it. Thanks! Chanos.”

You have access to the entire report, and have read this?

Not the entire report, it’s 1000’s of pages, but the important ones!

Great. Post them.

The He can’t because he doesn’t have them, nor are almost any of the other asinine FUD assertions he makes here daily any more true.

And you know this how? – How about a lot less speculation, and a bit more facts and data.. – I’ll give David the benefit of the doubt, but I would like to know the source, and specifically what material he has seen (versus just the important bits…)

“I’ll give David the benefit of the doubt…”

Why? In the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, the, villagers only gave the shepherd boy the benefit of the doubt twice. After several hundred times of proven false statements, why would any reasonable person still give someone the benefit of the doubt about anything?

Let’s remember that this was the guy who bragged on other forums about how he loves to troll EV fans. And that’s precisely what he’s doing here. I gotta admit, he’s pretty good at it. But then, everyone should have something they do well.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

From the Tesla letter above, they really didn’t care too much.
But if I were the one who paid them to do the teardown, I sure as hell wouldn’t want anyone else to know the results or even see the process.
It’s like they got paid and brought the process and results to public domain for FREE……..lol

This isn’t Munroe’s first BBQ and they know when they can reveal their impressions of the car from a legal standpoint.

You can reveal anything that is opinion, but if you misstate a fact like “Funding Secured” that can lead to legal issues

As I recall, Elon stated at one point he has called Sandy Munro, or will call him… My recollection of that is Elon stated in some interview that he “had been meaning to call Sandy Munro”. Maybe this lawsuit was the call?

“You can reveal anything that is opinion…”

Are you going to claim you’re a lawyer, in addition to all the other claims you’ve made about having expertise and influence in an astonishing number of careers and industries?

No? Well then, your layman’s opinion here is neither authoritative nor conclusive. My guess is that it’s just as wrong as 98%+ of your other “alternative fact” statements in this discussion thread.

Well apparently he also released the report to all and sundry if you got a look at it.

How many of his other “rodeos” drew this kind of attention? It’s easy to avoid disclosure when nobody asks you questions.

Perhaps the “entity connected with that work” is one that paid for the report. They saw the free online tear-down videos out there that showed more than what they paid for.

I doubt Tesla would actually sue.

The shorts were depending upon a BS report, they didn’t get it.

I was a short until this AM, made almost 25% in 2 weeks, report or no report.

Another Euro point of view

I wonder how much of today’s activity is related to shorts covering. While hanging around the Tesla Motors club investor’s threads, it’s always funny to read that when the stock price is going down it has to be a “short attack”, no other explanation allowed ! From there one would logically think that when stock is going up those longs could equally justify it by shorts covering right ? Somehow so far I never read this in TMC as an explanation for the stock going up after a long descend . Shorts always push the stock down, always you see, no exception ! Then I read in the NYT article Elon’s remark about shorts being “smartish” 🙂 At least I never came across a short who thought that shorting a stock always pushes the stock down, probably Elon noted that too. Geez…

Well, I have exited my short position, “mission accomplished”. I thought I would make 10% in a month, I made 23% + in 2 weeks. I do not think Tesla is going to 0 or a fraud, so I am not in long term short camp, I just hit and ran when the opportunity presented itself. Now I will look for the next opportunity.

“I never came across a short who thought that shorting a stock always pushes the stock down…”

Sure, shorting a stock is like betting on a horse to lose. Just one bet doesn’t generally change the odds. That’s why serial Tesla bashers, like you “Another Euro…”, post anti-Tesla FUD in attempts to manipulate the stock. It’s like drugging a horse to make sure he’ll lose the race after you bet against him!

Too bad that’s not illegal, but it certainly is immoral and unethical!

Yea you.. So now that your out of your short position, you frequently negative Telsa posts can lighten up a bit? and be a bit more fact and data based…

Slow down tiger… I highly doubt there are people reading the comment sections on these forums that have enough money either way to influence the share price, and if they do have that kind of influence they certainly are not looking to my comments for investment advise. Every serious investor does just what I do, research the company throughly before making an investment, and know what you are getting into. I just follow Tesla’s operation closely because the drama is far more intense and exciting then my usual work. I am writing soil compaction reports today, they are pretty dang boring compared to all this lawsuit, shorty, vs Elon stuff… Plus I like EV’s so that makes it even more exciting.

What do you get from a website, where people exist to be first, and loudest, with an intent to troll?

If I wanted to destroy the comment section of a fan website, I know just what I’d do. That’s, if someone would let me.

Not feeding trolls can only get you so far. Correcting their BS pushes meaningful comments further down, and they know it.

Yes. Sadly, a troll here is taking advantage of InsideEVs’ new policy towards civility in comments by carpet bombing this discussion with troll posts.

Are you now afraid to insult people when you run out of rational arguments?

What kind of person defends a troll?

Tesla model X was dissected in China by an auto shop for reverse engineering. Why didn’t Elon Musk go sue that shop in China? This is double standard! What was the purpose of Munro? Enough of this crap! Tesla legal team should go suing that shop in China! So instead he’s going to set up his shop in China to train the engineers and workers there so US taxpayer’s subsidized money are wasted and technology given free to China?

Telsa didn’t sue, the party that sued is unknown – Enough grandstanding.

And after the latest round of tariffs, anyone wanting to sell cars in China, is going to need to build them in China, that’s simple cause and effect of tariffs, look at Toyota and BMW in the US..

Munro was involved in that too I believe, he did the drive unit analysis.

“Tesla model X was dissected in China by an auto shop for reverse engineering. Why didn’t Elon Musk go sue that shop in China?”

1. You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Tesla is suing Munro. Perhaps you need to read the article again?

2. A non-Chinese company trying to sue a Chinese company for patent violation is nearly always a waste of time and money. As a general rule, Chinese courts ignore intellectual property rights.

FYI – It’s not federal, nor in the Michigan docket – See: https://twitter.com/goodetrades/status/1031627738828943361

thanks. Good link

Yes, substantiated facts are good, unsubstantiated FUD like David not Green gets paid tp post is simply BS and nothing more without documented citations.

And you have facts that David Green gets paid to post? – Care to share them? – Complaining about DG’s “undocumented citations”, while complaining that he gets paid to post BS seems a bit hypocritical, perhaps?

Facts are a funny thing, the cut both ways.

Being a fact checker is good.
If the “paid to post” crowd has actually shown up on IEVs, I would hope they could hire some more competent FUDsters, because what we are seeing now is pretty pathetic.

It’s good that the other side has some volunteer cheerleaders, “undocumented citations” make for fluffy Pom Poms!

Autoline’s John McElroy appears to be a real dolt, when it comes to climate change. The question before revealing Munro’s suit, lays it plain. He’s among the “when running toward a wall, run faster” crowd. He minimizes the transportation sector’s effects (to cows), when it just took the lead in US CO2 emissions (>2Gt/yr). What does he think, we should start with planes? Really sad how much Detroit gear heads can be oblivious.

I’m sorry if physics piss people off, but they won’t apologize.

What does McElroy’s view on climate change have to do with this article or the lawsuit against Munro?

Just about as much as all the armchair speculating by all the above!

Thank you.

I’m certainly in favor of fact-based reasoning and real science, but talking about physics and climate change seems to be completely off-topic here.

You’re correct; that man is blinkered.

My guess is that Munro, being in the business of selling reports, sensationalized the Model 3 margins to sell more copies. This may have included misrepresenting the prices of parts which pissed off a supplier. Now all auto manufacturers, including Tesla, want the “Munro deal” from the supplier, and the supplier then sued Munro.

Perhaps, this seems like a plausible root cause.. The case has to be on a docket somewhere, that is public info – It’s just a matter of finding it. Seems hard to believe such a case would be sealed.

I think you are exactly right… When Munro was talking about F35 tech in the drive controller, and what not, he was totally playing to sell reports. Good for him, he has a business, and marketing is important in any business

Wow, the plot thickens… Maybe UBS?

Interesting for sure. After that CNBC article claiming UBS hired engineers and having no links, no reference to who it was, completely different information, etc., I had a feeling things were going to get interesting. Some people even suggested that Munro would likely call out or sue UBS. If it’s the other way around, there will be a whole lot more to the story. We’ll stay on it. I’m eager to learn what the heck is going on.

Me too… The drama is very exciting, but Sandy Munro, is a good old boy, he is not the suing kind of guy. He is however in a very controversial business, especially with the Model 3 and all the drama surrounding Tesla. There are a lot of investors very upset the last month, both longs and shorts…

Anybody have a guess on which “Corporation” has attempted to use coercion on Munro and associates? This recent action seems meticulous and thorough, in its implementation and execution.

No way at all right now to really know. To even assume or suggest won’t get us anywhere, except that people want to be able to say that they were right when the truth comes out. Let’s wait and see.

I am leaning my guesstimate to UBS… and its a lawsuit threat… not a lawsuit, because once a suit is filed it is public information, and we would all know exactly who it was.

My fallback though is this is some kind of action from Tesla, threatening lawsuits follows their pattern, and to gag Munro really only makes sense for them. Hmmm, its very interesting… I am guessing more the a dozen Model 3’s have been torn down already, by all the major OEM’s Its weird… As is Tesla slow model 3 production the last week or so. We will have to wait to see it in the “days of our lives” episode…

Anyone with an interest to MAGA, how ironic that a good old boy like Munro has a business that dissects IP for easier digestion by foreign manufacturers.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

OPEC/Big Oil.

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous


I dare you to prove me wrong! 😉

Well it’s likely UBS.

PuPu no matter what I post you and your posse of Tesla cultists will poke holes in, I have better things to do… I see the stock is rising, I am getting ready to short again if it goes too high, add to my 25% ROI from the last 2 weeks. A couple more of those, and my I-Pace will be free.

Yes, imaginary car buying tends to be free.

And this post helps the thread how?

A couple more of those, and my I-Pace will be free……. Better get it before Trump adds more tax on it, you “are” supposed to buy American!

“I have better things to do…”

Pretty obviously you don’t, since you made no less than 43 posts just to this one discussion thread. Come to think of it, that’s about the same number of anti-Tesla comments you posted to a recent Ars Technica article. Is that your daily quota?

hahaha, “there can’t be any positive news on the Model 3 being profitable! gotta shut that down so we can crash the price and get in low before the $420 buyout price” -wall street

The commentary is out of control. Used to enjoy the commentary as much as the articles. Not anymore. I guess that comes with growth.

Of course, an article like this particular one – that has also been updated as new and has a ton of comments – will provoke more of this type of commentary. But, I will have you know that about 100 comments have already been moderated from this one. Can you imagine the commentary you are not seeing? It’s crazy. Though it may be difficult to see, there have been drastic changes since Eric’s comment article the other day. Also, those people that were personally attacking me have disappeared. Many new usernames with horrendous things to say are not even able to join the conversation, which is a good thing. We are devoting about twice as much time to dealing with the comments, only because many people have an expectation now and are calling out publicly any time someone breaks a rule, which is about every 2-5 minutes. It will get there. Work in progress. Soon, people will have to log in to comment and won’t be able to use a fake email. I can’t wait for that day to come!

“Soon” can’t come soon enough!

“Soon, people will have to log in to comment and won’t be able to use a fake email.”

Oh, thank goodness!

That will also stop the accidental re-use of common names as screen names, which has lead to people posting as… if I recall correctly… “John (no, not that John)”.

It will also allow doxxing of dissenting commenters, as occurred with Montana Skeptic. Who knows when Elon will next call up someone’s boss and threaten their livelihood.

Now don’t go dissin’ the doxxers.

Your buddy Montana Skeptic, will hardly be missed over on SA, by the ELong Musketeers!

“It will also allow doxxing of dissenting commenters, as occurred with Montana Skeptic.”

I would absolutely consider the outing of leading professional Tesla basher “Montana Skeptic”, outing him as the manager of a Big Oil investment fund, as a “feature” and not a “bug” of whatever method was used to ferret out his identity.

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with having to register a screen name here at InsideEVs. Most forums required users to register a unique screen name; I haven’t noticed that outing (or “doxxing”) of identities is a problem at most forums.

Your comment appears to be a “concern tr0ll” post.

Is it possible to use Double Blind Registration, or Double Confirmation? As in registration emails are sent a confirmation link to that email, an user must cofirm registration from the coded link in the email, within a set number of minutes!

Yes. It will be an updated system with a real registration process.

Yeah I hate all that crap. Simply too hard to login to make a comment. I occasionally frequent many places but rarely comment there since its such a chore.

Register to comment? I’m sorry to hear that. Being able to comment without jumping through such hoops is literally the reason why I’m here.

“He said he’s under threat of being sued— not from Tesla, nor from any bulls or bears. It’s from a corporation that’s unnamed for now.”

Sounds like the unnamed corporation paid him for the teardown report and now they are mad that he is revealing parts of that report for free.