Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#131

Post by throwaway0a5e » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #116

passivate wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that they won’t accept a hack fix (however safe it may be) - that car is going to be sold to someone once the lease expires, they just can’t take the risk But why are you calling it a hack fix? Also, why would a competent third-party repair shop be "risky"? A customer should be free to pick out an experienced and competent repair-shop just the way they currently do for their cars. And if they don't want to, they can…

> A customer should be free to pick out an experienced and competent repair-shop just the way they currently do for their cars. And if they don't want to, they can take it to the dealership like they would have anyway. I would agree, as long as that third party has insurance in the event their fix (due to work performed on the high voltage battery pack) causes a failure resulting in the loss of the vehicle and liabil…

Your peddling FUD. Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault.

Homeowners insurance covers the fire. They probably don't go after anyone unless they have specific reason to believe the loss was probably caused by a pattern of action that could result in a winnable lawsuit (good luck figuring that out when you have a melted lump of car to to work with). If someone does somehow go after the shop their insurance goes to bat for them and digs up all the reasons they're not liable and this was a reasonable repair that their customer performed.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#132

Post by forgotmypw17 » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #54

MattGaiser wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same reason HN goes against Apple when it comes to battery repairs. App Store is optional extended functionality. A battery impacts your ability to use your phone or car for its fundamental purpose.

How so? Without the app store an iPhone becomes just an expensive cordless telephone.

The Web browser is built-in. I personally don't install almost any apps on my smartphones, because I don't need much beyond that. It is extremely useful without any additional apps. Not as much without a battery.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#133

Post by coupdejarnac » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #37

hef19898 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So truely the Apple of cars then.

Not exactly. Apple is renowned for the build quality of their hardware.

Unless you've been watching Louis Rossman's repair videos for the past few years and have seen the same design flaws never getting fixed.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#134

Post by kube-system » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

coupdejarnac wrote: post #128

kube-system wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take an engineered system and apply a non-engineered fix, I'd say it's a hack, even if it works. Did this person do a metallurgical/chemical engineering analysis before changing the material type? OEMs do this on their cooling systems. No, they used a standard off-the-shelf fitting out of convenience. Will it work? Probably. Is it a compromise in terms of engineering design and testing? absolutely. Mind you, T…

As they say in the original video, it's just plumbing for a low pressure system. This is only a hack by the loosest definition.

Cooling system corrosion has killed plenty of vehicles. I'm not saying it probably won't work for a long time, I'm just saying that it is now technically an engineering unknown.

If it were my car, I would probably do it. If I were lending my car to someone, I probably would not want them doing it.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#135

Post by deregulateMed » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #40

raz32dust wrote: post #20

When a company like Apple says that only their app store can run on iPhones, HN crowd usually sides with Apple, with the justification that "It is a free market. People can buy another phone if they don't like it." Why doesn't the same principle apply here? If your car company does not offer the right to repair, then buy another car. What is the difference? Both are instances of big companies gating access to their d…

> HN crowd usually sides with Apple, with the justification that "It is a free market. People can buy another phone if they don't like it." My anecdata says the exact opposite. The HN crowd seems (to me) to be very, very against walled gardens.

*Walled Prison

It's bad for consumers to repeat corporate marketing jargon.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#136

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:04 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #131

toomuchtodo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A customer should be free to pick out an experienced and competent repair-shop just the way they currently do for their cars. And if they don't want to, they can take it to the dealership like they would have anyway. I would agree, as long as that third party has insurance in the event their fix (due to work performed on the high voltage battery pack) causes a failure resulting in the loss of the vehicle and liabil…

Your peddling FUD. Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault. Homeowners insurance covers the fire. They probably don't go after anyone unless they have specific reason to believe the loss was probably caused…

I highly recommend you ask an attorney about it, that's what I did (and paid for) and I'm reiterating the opinion they provided. Not an attorney, not your attorney, not legal advice.

I'm not in the repair business, and I own no TSLA stock; I have no incentive to peddle FUD, and actively support right to repair. Crucially, right to repair does not mean an absence of or indemnification from liability.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#137

Post by marcosdumay » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:05 PM UTC

cptskippy wrote: post #59

sjg007 wrote: post #29

I don't get why that part isn't shielded for one.. but for second, non-OEM parts are fine for use in repairs.

> I don't get why that part isn't shielded for one.. There's a whole series of WTFs in this video. * Guy failed to get full coverage on a leased vehicle. * Tesla released car to him without verifying coverage. * Road debris hitting the bottom of the car can result in $16k in damage. * Tesla let him drive off with car after he rejected repair and knowing he didn't have comprehensive coverage. * Critical part of batter…

> because they saved some money by having cooling line fittings be fixed plastic instead of threaded inserts

Save a few cents here, a few cents there, and suddenly your $40k car is an astonishing $200 cheaper!

Honestly, I never understood why companies do that. It just creates bad PR all around, and nobody chooses a product based on those minuscule differences. Maybe it's more for planed obsolescence than for cost cutting.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#138

Post by lelanthran » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:06 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #71

olyjohn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit of buying it is that you can drive it well after it's paid off. Leasing and trading up all the time means you're constantly making never-ending payments. It's not that hard to sell your car when the time comes to get rid of it.

Those never-ending payments are covering depreciation. Unless you keep your car for 10+ years and it’s one of the rare models that holds value after that, you’re not much better off buying it.

> The fact that cars depreciate seems like the best reason to "rent" them.

Last I checked, the average age of cars in the US is 13 years. on average you are going to be better off buying.

The number of people who, after an item is paid of, go out and replace it immediately are the same people who are bad with money anyway, so it makes sense that those people think it's financially better to rent.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#139

Post by passivate » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:06 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #117

passivate wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that they won’t accept a hack fix (however safe it may be) - that car is going to be sold to someone once the lease expires, they just can’t take the risk But why are you calling it a hack fix? Also, why would a competent third-party repair shop be "risky"? A customer should be free to pick out an experienced and competent repair-shop just the way they currently do for their cars. And if they don't want to, they can…

> But why are you calling it a hack fix? Because there is no official process to repairing/replacing parts within the pack.

Maybe the repair is obvious based on the design / construction of battery packs used in other industries and applications. I don't want to get into details as this is not even remotely my area of expertise, and my point was about the principle anyway. I trust that repair-shops can build expertise via their own experience and knowledge. Again, if someone is not comfortable - great, take it to Tesla by all means.

Re: Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

#140

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:07 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #124

kube-system wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take an engineered system and apply a non-engineered fix, I'd say it's a hack, even if it works. Did this person do a metallurgical/chemical engineering analysis before changing the material type? OEMs do this on their cooling systems. No, they used a standard off-the-shelf fitting out of convenience. Will it work? Probably. Is it a compromise in terms of engineering design and testing? absolutely. Mind you, T…

I think some of the outrage is Tesla owning the car, but essentially demanding the renter keep it in like-new condition. Legally subject to the terms of the lease, of course. But it feels unfair not to accept normal wear and tear and reasonable repair.

Lease monthly payments are charges for depreciation plus profit, so they do expect you to keep it in like-new condition. Tesla's screw-up was giving the customer the car and not verifying that they have comprehensive insurance, which is what Tesla relies on for keeping it like-new.