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

Post by Arch-TK » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 11:11 PM UTC

jws wrote: post #202

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? My first question would relate to "dezincification". A chemical process where the zinc leaves brass and leaves a copper sponge behind. Does the coolant cause dezincification? Is zinc tolerable in the coolant? Learned this one in my home when my city water dezincified a kitchen faucet causing water to escape through to "solid" surfaces. My second question would be about how tha…

Post by mekal » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 11:12 PM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #144

jakemoshenko wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by usefulcat » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 11:15 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…

Post by cyanydeez » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 11:16 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…

Post by kube-system » Mon, Jul 12, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

anthonygd wrote: post #182

kube-system wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.