Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

syonyk.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 367 posts

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#231

Post by marincounty »

usaphp wrote: post #191
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…

But think about it from another perspective: someone purchases Tesla car, decided to service it himself without sufficient knowledge, then later he resells his car to another individual, the person who buys his car enables the autopilot mode on a car and because of the poor service quality/mistake the original owner did to a car the autopilot goes crazy and steers your car into a brick wall, everyone will blame Tesla…

I don't think Tesla will be treated any differently than any of the other automobile companies when it concerns liability.

I imagine Tesla's ahead of the liability game right now. Meaning, I imagine they know exactly where, and when someone accesses their vechicles computers? I'm already calling them their computers? We are buying the cars? We own the vechicle? Right? I'll accept full liability after the warranty expires? Like always?

I don't like this trend towards, "Only the factory can work on the device." It's not fair. It's seems like it violates antitrust laws.

It's not just Tesla who doesn't want you to touch their products. It's a lot of companies. It's that Rolex, Patek, Audermars Piguet, any fancy watch you happen to have on your wrist.

I included luxury watches because people don't realize when the warranty runs out on that Rolex; good luck finding an independent Watch Repairer to fix it with Rolex parts.

See Rolex will only sell to authorized dealers. Guys like me, who refuse to pay some sham organization thousands of dollars to be become wotep certified, can't buy watch parts. Rolex wants you to send the watch to the factory, at factory prices. That boutique you bought it from, just sends the watch back, and adds charges to the final factory repair price. Which equals a lot of money for a simple service.

So, in all reality, if you can't bring/authorize repair of an item to whomever you want, including the owner; you are leasing said item? What am I missing?

I forget the name of the Act, but in the U.S. you are allowed to make minor modifications to automobiles, without affecting warranty. For example, you can change the exhaust, and car companies can't disavow you. I sound like The Donald?

I don't think Tesla is even under this Act, which makes there secrecy of product more troublesome.

If companies require us to bring product only back to the factory for repair, guys like me will never buy their product.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#232

Post by TD-Linux »

vvanders wrote: post #122

I don't think things are as dire as he makes it out: 1. Small amount of cars on the road so there's limited incentive for aftermarket parts. 2. People already do brakes/tires/suspension/etc. It's a car after all. 3. I wouldn't want to get near the powertrain. 425kw(~400V @ 1,000 Amps) will kill you if you touch something that you shouldn't. I think it'll be a bigger issue once we see the Model 3 on the road.

Your computer power supply has a ~400 volt rail in it. Are you unwilling to ever open a desktop computer?

The Tesla battery has contactors inside of it, so you'll only have 400V live when the car is on. Additionally, assuming the HV is floating relative to the chassis, you need to touch two spots at different potentials to actually get shocked.

That said, it looks like this is an attempt to prevent service of a lot of non-powertrain components, considering that the Tesla owner in the article got a letter for connecting just to the ethernet port.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#233

Post by castratikron »

ck2 wrote: post #158

So super-liberal-progressive Vermont doesn't have a "right to repair" law? Interesting Mass. is the first. Should be a federal law.

I was delighted to read that a right to repair law exists in at least one state. I've been working to get one passed here (MN).

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#234

Post by nkurz »

greenyoda wrote: post #226
Retric wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just filled up yesterday and gas was 2.89$ a gallon. Where exactly is it 1.80?

$1.89 last week in NYC, where we have the highest gas taxes in the country (42.4 cents/gal[1]). So gas is probably around $1.60 across the river in NJ. [1] http://www.newyorkgasprices.com/Tax_Info.aspx

Interesting, I hadn't realized that NYC gasoline taxes were higher than California. Looking into it, there is some reason to argue that California higher is higher if you apply a broader definition of "tax".

Here's an article showing the breakdown for California: http://watchdog.org/232083/california-gas-taxes/

And here's for New York: http://legacy.wgrz.com/story/news/2015/01/07/new-york-gas-pr...

But since the articles are using a different base price per gallon, I'm not sure what the actual difference is.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#235

Post by qume »

nkurz wrote: post #222
qume wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They come from my keyboard, just above the QWERTYUIOP keys. They are referencing currency.

What 'jjawssd' was actually asking was an explanation of the math you used to come up with those particular numbers. He's doubting that you could pay for the gas using the interest on $30K. While you do have a point that one should pay attention to the 'cost of money', it also seems possible that you were neglecting to account for the withdrawals to purchase gas along the way. 10,000 gallons of gas in 20 years equate…

Thanks for doing the math, I didn't take the time.

FWIW 3.25% happens to be exactly what a term deposit will pay here in mexico for 90 days+

I understand that banks in other countries wouldn't do that, however you don't have to take much more risk over a bank to get 3.25% in most of the world I would imagine

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#236

Post by arkem »

protomyth wrote: post #115

How is "Tampering with the Vehicle and its systems, including installation of non-Tesla accessories or parts or their installation, or any damage directly or indirectly caused by, due to or resulting from the installation or use of non-Tesla parts or accessories;" not a violation of Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act?

There's an exception if you can convince the FTC that the product will only work correctly with branded parts. Take a look at 15 USC 2302(c): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#237

Post by tclmeelmo »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #230
c22 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There likely exists a larger stockpile of fairly well-engineered manually driven cars than there were buggies during the advent of the automobile. This existing stock will likely buffer the robotic revolution of our roads somewhat. Also, I think the convenience delta from self-driven car to "driverless" car is smaller than that from keeping living horses to regular maintenance of an automobile.

> Also, I think the convenience delta from self-driven car to "driverless" car is smaller than that from keeping living horses to regular maintenance of an automobile. The number of teenagers with driver's licenses is the lowest in history. Compound that with the 65+ cohort aging quickly, and older drivers being dangerous drivers (lower reaction time). It's not a convenience delta. Its an experience and safety delta.…

> The number of teenagers with driver's licenses is the lowest in history.

The value of such a statistic is questionable given that the minimum age for a license has increased of late.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#238

Post by Adirael »

ryandrake wrote: post #65
gioele wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

I bought a new (to me) motorcycle last week. It's a 2008 and it has loads of electronics (compared to my old bike). One of them is an immobiliser that deactivates when it detects a transponder inside the key.

The motorcycle comes with three keys: a red one and two black ones. The black ones will turn on the motorcycle but can't be copied. The red one can be copied and is intended as backup in case you lose the black ones. If you lose three the only way to turn the motorcycle on is to get a new ECU from the manufacturer.

I guess most modern cars are the same.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#239

Post by protomyth »

arkem wrote: post #236
protomyth wrote: post #115

How is "Tampering with the Vehicle and its systems, including installation of non-Tesla accessories or parts or their installation, or any damage directly or indirectly caused by, due to or resulting from the installation or use of non-Tesla parts or accessories;" not a violation of Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act?

There's an exception if you can convince the FTC that the product will only work correctly with branded parts. Take a look at 15 USC 2302(c): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302

Has that ever been applied to car parts?

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#240

Post by gwright »

tamana wrote: post #220
gwright wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the market is open and competitive then your concerns should be addressed by other vendors. There is no need, nor is it possible, for every product to be appropriate for every consumer. The 'motivation' for these providers is to achieve a return on investment, they can only do that by creating a value proposition that the market approves, which is not the same things as a value proposition that everyone approves.…

As good get more complex, the industry naturally becomes limited tona few less than competitive competitors. Open design products allow small companies to compete on add-ons like maintenance and repairs, even though they can't offer whole cars.

Examples? What causes the increased complexity? Market demand? Government regulation? What prevents competitors from appearing or for exiting vendors to offer different products at different levels of 'complexity'?
Post reply on HN