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

#151

Post by hrocha1 » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:14 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.

What motivates Tesla to write one? Woudn't they rather contiue selling battery packs for 16k?

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

#152

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

ben1040 wrote: post #129

fastball wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here[1] is the customer explaining the insurance more thoroughly. [1] https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=406

This is the second time in as many days I've heard about this happening. Someone gets a new car, replaces the old one on their insurance, while accidentally retaining the prior car's coverages (or lack thereof). The other one I heard of was similar -- someone went from an old beater car to a new Tesla. The old car only had liability coverage and no collision/comprehensive and they didn't change this when replacing th…

The problem seems to be that Tesla isn't doing DD on their leases - I don't see it being hard to have the system/a person look up the new insurance to confirm the customer has comprehensive.

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

#153

Post by deregulateMed » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

The real question to me is, can humans fight against their emotional urges and avoid giving money to bad companies?

People listen to Dave Ramsey and pay back debt by size rather than interest rate, people buy Apple for something other than iOS dev, and people buy Jeep/Tesla.

Should we rely on the Free Market, or should the government make correct decisions for those with weak minds? I typically believe in Free Markets, but the longer I live, the more I question it.

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

#154

Post by ethbr0 » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

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.

Depreciation is variable though, and dependent on fair market value at lease termination.

If Tesla designed the car with a part and sold said part, everyone would be better off: Tesla (less risk of catastrophic repair expenses), insurance companies (lower repair costs, less variability), and the customer (cheaper repairs and insurance).

I get that's not a trivial request, but other car manufacturers manage the task.

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

#155

Post by linsomniac » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

ssivark wrote: post #12

endisneigh wrote: post #7

I'm very curious about the insurance rejecting the repair. My understanding (I've never leased a car) is that if you lease a car you must have comprehensive (full coverage) insurance. Either the person failed to do what their lease contract (presumably) mandated, or shockingly you can lease a car without full coverage. Obviously it depends on what the insurance policy states, but usually comprehensive insurance cover…

They are now redefining the meaning of the word “comprehensive”…

I believe the thing you're missing is that he didn't HAVE the comprehensive coverage, not that he had it and they didn't cover it... As reported elsewhere and in other comments here, he had just carried his coverage from his old car over to the Tesla, without checking the coverages.

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

#156

Post by mulmen » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:16 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #141

mulmen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Expected repairs and actual repairs are very different. The expected repairs are exactly that, expected. I know what they are up front. There’s value in that predictability.

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

#157

Post by rasz » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

rantwasp wrote: post #57

step 1) repair car (properly. yes it’s stupid. it is what it is at this point) step 2) get rid of car step 3) buy a car from a respectable brand that will do the right thing when it comes to repairs

like ford? https://www.autoevolution.com/news/mustang-mach-e-owner-gets...

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

#158

Post by nunez » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

I think Tesla building a huge parts backlog and a robust service program to satisfy Right to Repair would be a huge distraction and would delay moonshots like Cybertruck and Model A even more. A mass-market affordable Tesla is much more important IMO. That’s before considering the fact that this car is super high voltage and HV components usually aren’t user serviceable.

Also, this owner skimped on comprehensive insurance, so it’s hard for me to feel empathetic about the cost.

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

#159

Post by mulmen » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

kuratkull wrote: post #96

mulmen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The dealer/bank are running a profitable business. They are not on the hook for anything, you are paying for it all.

When I lease a new car repairs happen under the warranty. The manufacturer is “on the hook” for fixing the car. Not necessarily because it is leased but because it is under warranty. Leases are a way to always have a car that is under warranty.

You are replying to a counter argument to the claim that leases are always a bad idea.

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

#160

Post by judge2020 » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #137

cptskippy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cu…

The entire point of R&D at car manufacturers is to decrease the cost of manufacturing and parts while increasing efficiency (at least for extremely high production target cars like the 3/Y/Mach-e). They're constantly saving cents here & there and decreasing the cost of the car by $200 weekly (with most of the cost savings going towards their bank account of course).