Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#61

Post by atomical » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

gioele wrote: post #58

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? If you break your engine control module, who, if not the original manufacturer, can provide you a new one that works for your car? (Serious question, no sarcasm.)

I think it's possible to buy an ECU from a parts dealer. You wouldn't have to necessary go directly through the manufacturer. You might also be able to get one from a junkyard.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#62

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

gioele wrote: post #58

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? If you break your engine control module, who, if not the original manufacturer, can provide you a new one that works for your car? (Serious question, no sarcasm.)

[deleted]

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#63

Post by userbinator » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

You'd think that out of the thousands of people who have already bought one of these cars, there might be one out there with both the skills and desire to actually own what they paid for

On the other hand, it could just be that those who want to really own their cars would not consider buying a Tesla anyway, and those who have the skills are too scared of the legal aspects. I think at the moment, electric cars are still somewhat niche and don't really appeal to the demographic who would be modding their cars. The aftermarket community for existing cars basically doesn't care about emissions --- one of the biggest attractions of an electric. As a bit of a car-geek myself, I'll admit that electrics are rather "boring" and for the same reason I'm not so interested in the newer super-computerised vehicles either; it's the noisy, smelly, smoky, aggressive, obnoxious-mechanical-monster nature of petrol/diesel engines that's the really "fun" part. Batteries, electronics, and motors just don't evoke quite the same feeling.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#64

Post by CalRobert » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #28

why wouldn't an electric car be easier to service? A combustible engine has so many moving parts, fuel pump, filter, oil changes, regulator, etc etc. an electric car is just a battery and an electric engine, which is actually a pretty old peice of technology. I do concede that the battery is a pretty complex piece of engineering. My fear is that DRM "authorized" replacements will become like the toner cartridges of t…

The article discusses the difficulty of servicing a Tesla at length. Perhaps you should read it?

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#65

Post by ryandrake » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:35 PM UTC

gioele wrote: post #58

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

> To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. How many cars sold in 2016 can be activated without the manufacturer's permission? If you break your engine control module, who, if not the original manufacturer, can provide you a new one that works for your car? (Serious question, no sarcasm.)

I've never bought a 2016 model car (maybe something changed this year?) so I have never heard about the concept of having to ask a manufacturer to "activate" your car before reading this article.

I buy used cars and repair them myself. I wonder if this disqualifies me from ever owning an electric car? While more recent cars have begun down the troubling path of making less and less user-serviceable, most cars still have either official service manuals or 3rd party manuals (based on tear-downs), and a healthy after-market parts market.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#66

Post by qume » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #56

JshWright wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more environmentally friendly because it's already built.

Note that this is true of any car in a car dealer lot. But it only matters as a comparison when a car is potentially at end-of-life, and whether it stays on the road or gets shoved in a junkyard and replaced with a new one is an open question. If somebody decides to replace their 2013 model, it's basically 100% odds of staying on the road, and that car being on the road maybe represents one less new car that could ha…

I would wager that 80% of cars that are crushed (which weren't in an accident) could be repaired (if broken) or 'fixed up' to operate better than the last owner thought possible for less than a days work and perhaps a few hundred dollars.

I do appreciate your point, but I think people are far too afraid of older cars and they are scrapped too soon.

I was hoping to convince some folk in this tech community that old cars can be a good idea. Save money, have fun, help the environment. Hell, buy an old Rolls Royce... why not?!

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#67

Post by wernercd » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

MechSkep wrote: post #22

lacker wrote: post #18

None of this seems "throwaway" to me. It just means that rather than build a product that ends up being repaired by a distributed army of mechanics, they are going "full stack" and aiming to repair everything in-house. To me that seems like the ideal system - some people like the author might enjoy repairing their own cars, but I would rather not.

Yep, and it makes sense for Tesla to do this. It's a new product, and the information they collect from maintenance and inspections is going to be invaluable for future revs.

Is it going to be more valuable than the bad press that they will get when it turns out people get burned by all these restrictions? Or the lost sales?

That's the million dollar question.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#68

Post by mizzao » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

It seems like at least one of the problems mentioned here is going to be common to many cars in the future: more and more of the vehicle will involve software rather than hardware, and as such is less transparent to the end-user. It's not just Tesla customers who will be dealing with this.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#69

Post by mizzao » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #63

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

You'd think that out of the thousands of people who have already bought one of these cars, there might be one out there with both the skills and desire to actually own what they paid for On the other hand, it could just be that those who want to really own their cars would not consider buying a Tesla anyway, and those who have the skills are too scared of the legal aspects. I think at the moment, electric cars are st…

Accidentally melting your power electronics doesn't activate your smelly, smoky, aggressive, obnoxious monster senses?

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#70

Post by pcarolan » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

This sounds a lot like the open vs closed system debate we had/(have?) with computers. I'm glad that in my youth I could wrench on the internals of a PC and I'm glad that in my 30s I never have to because my Mac 'just works'. Also, this debate is older than I am: http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry...