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

181–190 of 564 posts

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

#181

Post by privateSFacct »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #163
toomuchtodo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>I highly recommend you ask an attorney about it, Funny, that's exactly what I did. > I'm reiterating the opinion they provided So am I. I repair and modify things, typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment mounted to or towed by them. I work on the economic low end of the market so I get all the stuff that real shops want nothing to do with and have had to consider how liable I am for my work. I have had…

There is a fair bit wrong with this advice.

CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault.

You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour, passing cars, then (likely) falls asleep and veers sharply off the road, then along the side of the road and hits your parked truck.

Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.

From actually seeing cases first hand

1) If you have money

2) you have a connection to an accident however small, particularly a fatal one, and very particularly with any kind of sympathetic angle (wife and children bereaved and at risk of being homeless etc

then you will be named in the lawsuit. And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything

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

#182

Post by anthonygd »

kube-system wrote: post #134
coupdejarnac wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems clear the original engineering was also an _unknown_. Planning for failure cases is part of engineering: making a $16k part that is easily damaged and non-repairable is simply shoddy engineering.

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

#184

Post by Aeolun »

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…

I don’t get this. If I’m leasing the car, why would I be on the hook for the repair? The whole point of paying the lease premium is that you aren’t.

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

#185

Post by coupdejarnac »

kube-system wrote: post #134
coupdejarnac wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you watched the video? The guy who installed the brass coupler said it won't be corroded by the coolant.

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

#186

Post by throwaway0a5e »

privateSFacct wrote: post #181
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I highly recommend you ask an attorney about it, Funny, that's exactly what I did. > I'm reiterating the opinion they provided So am I. I repair and modify things, typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment mounted to or towed by them. I work on the economic low end of the market so I get all the stuff that real shops want nothing to do with and have had to consider how liable I am for my work. I have had…

There is a fair bit wrong with this advice. CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault. You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour…

I kind of took for granted the fact that my customers are typically the party with the money by several orders of magnitude so I don't have to worry much about joint liability even though I live in one of those states.

You're definitely not wrong, "don't be the only party with the money" was one of the things my law professor drilled into us but for a consumer getting their car (or whatever) repaired they don't really have to worry about being the guy with the money since any shop will have a ton of money via insurance and insurance will have a ton of practice defending frivolous claims.

I also forgot the "anyone can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean they win, doesn't mean it won't cost you money to fight them" disclaimer.

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

#187

Post by Swenrekcah »

xyst wrote: post #180

This is a design flaw. I wonder what other shameful design decisions were put in place to cut corners. Kind of glad I canceled a Tesla pre-order. I really hope other EV companies are learning from Tesla’s mistakes. From the lack of customer service from a maintenance aspect to poor repairability, that sort of reputation will stick with a company for a very long time. Going to run my current ICE to the ground until th…

Personally I so want a Tesla because they are undoubtedly the best performers in the market today. However I won’t buy one until they also start being practical.

I suspect my first EV will be from one of the traditional manufacturers because they all know how to make a car with proper controls. A 30” touchscreen is cool and a nice additional way to control stuff but absolutely terrible if it’s the only way. I’m guessing Elon Musk knows this but hoped he’d be able to make self driving work before now so that controls would be useless anyway.

Unfortunately some of the traditional makers EVs are copying the mistakes of kitchen appliance makers, substituting proper buttons, levers and knobs for touch buttons and touchscreens as well.

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

#188

Post by mcguire »

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…

"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."

That would technically be part of "right to repair" legislation.

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

#190

Post by brewdad »

Aeolun wrote: post #184
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…

I don’t get this. If I’m leasing the car, why would I be on the hook for the repair? The whole point of paying the lease premium is that you aren’t.

I hope you aren't currently leasing any vehicles. If you are, and this is your understanding of how leases work, you REALLY need to reread the contract. Tesla is in no way responsible for repairing this car under these circumstances.
Post reply on HN