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

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

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 564 posts

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

#141

Post by lelanthran »

mulmen wrote: post #81
yarky wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but "If you can’t buy it, don’t!" might mean not owning/renting it. Either buy it or don't even think about it.

Why though? What if renting makes more sense for my use case? Why not leave the dealer/bank on the hook for the depreciation and maintenance?

> Why though? What if renting makes more sense for my use case? Why not leave the dealer/bank on the hook for the depreciation and maintenance?

They aren't on the hook for anything - those costs are billed to you in the standard lease so you're paying the cost of the vehicle, plus the cost of the expected maintenance, plus a profit for the bank.

Trust me, no bank is leasing assets at a loss.

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

#142

Post by deregulateMed »

smnrchrds wrote: post #50
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…

In my view, the real reason is that many HNers work for Apple, but not that many HNers work for Tesla.

This would make sense.

And those that just paid a thousand dollars have Post Purchase Rationalization.

Heck those that actually own heavily marketed Veblen goods (Tesla/Jeep/Apple) products typically do have this Bias.

It's people without skin in the game that can think the most clearly.

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

#143

Post by sparrc »

passivate wrote: post #102
namdnay wrote: post #3

A bit of a stretch to classify this under right to repair.. if you rent a car from tesla, it’s going to be up to tesla to choose how it’s repaired. And it doesn’t seem unreasonable 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 I would read this as a cautionary tale against renting your cars. If you can’t buy i…

>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…

Exactly. I used to work for a time in a bicycle repair shop, drilling out and re-tapping a broken or stripped hole or thread was a common fix, I would hardly consider it a "hack".

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

#144

Post by mulmen »

jakemoshenko wrote: post #72
mulmen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs. If I am on the hook for the repair bill I should get a choice in how the car is repaired. I can buy whatever tires I want for a leased car. If Tesla wants to make these kinds of demands then the repair should be part of the warranty and priced in to the car. > I would read this as a cautionary tale against renting your cars. If you can’t buy it, don’t! This holds tr…

> The fact that cars depreciate seems like the best reason to "rent" them. The manufacturer ends up dealing with the now less valuable asset. Except that they charge you for all of the depreciation plus a rental fee. The dealer/manufacturer ends up with an asset that is more valuable than the price they paid for it less the money they've received for it through the terms of the lease.

The asset isn’t always worth more. If you don’t believe me ask GM and Chrysler.

Further, it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if the manufacturer makes or loses money. I only care about maximizing utility per dollar.

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

#145

Post by barrkel »

kube-system wrote: post #85
mulmen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs. If I am on the hook for the repair bill I should get a choice in how the car is repaired. I can buy whatever tires I want for a leased car. If Tesla wants to make these kinds of demands then the repair should be part of the warranty and priced in to the car. > I would read this as a cautionary tale against renting your cars. If you can’t buy it, don’t! This holds tr…

> When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs. You certainly are, in most places, if you crash it into something. This wasn't a failure of the manufacturer's materials or workmanship, it was a collision loss.

It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision". You should expect a vehicle to be engineered so that small objects hitting the undercarriage don't cause significant damage.

Making subassemblies replaceable in part rather than in whole is definitely a bonus. When they're only replaceable in whole, I do consider it deficient engineering, especially if a small change would make it possible.

An example from motorbikes: I would never buy a Triumph Tiger 800 because the rear subframe is welded to the rest of the frame. Any drop which causes a bend in the rear subframe - easily enough done since the passenger footpegs and exhaust are attached to it - would require replacing the whole frame to fix. In most high performance bikes, the rear subframe is bolted on.

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

#147

Post by judge2020 »

roflchoppa wrote: post #6
garmaine wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla doesn't let you do your own repairs on cars you "own" either.

Nor will they sell you parts to repair it.

As far as I can tell other manufacturers don't do any direct-to-consumer sales either - Honda seems to basically be a middleman to selling you parts that your local dealership has in-stock.

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

#148

Post by kube-system »

judge2020 wrote: post #140
ethbr0 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I bet they do have comprehensive insurance, but their insurance company told them that this is a collision loss. Just read my policy, which is written by a very large insurer -- and this would, in fact, be a collision loss under mine.

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

#149

Post by xyst »

bloggie wrote: post #24

I fail to see how right-to-repair reform would have changed this situation. Tesla's fix was too expensive so the customer went elsewhere... and got it fixed. Problem solved.

Right to repair would make it easier for third parties to perform repairs if they have access to schematics that manufacturers have. One could argue the cost would be significantly lower if Tesla provided schematics to third parties (whether for free or a paid system).

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

#150

Post by passivate »

elisharobinson wrote: post #125
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…

its not like a brake light or a suspension part this was a inlet port for cooling fluid to the battery . If not done correctly it will spring a leak in a onroad driving situation , Tesla probably does have safety systems to stop the car to prevent the battery from overheating and exploding. besides they charged 700$ for 5$ worth of parts and 1~2 hours of labour :) that isnt the best advocacy for RTR IMO.

Hey, I was charged ~$900 (labor) at cartoys to install a new stereo + amp/sub system recently, so I know all about overcharging :)

There are many repairs on existing cars that can be done incorrectly and lead to injury or worse. What are the extra guarantees that Tesla is providing for repairs done by them?

Post reply on HN