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

221–230 of 564 posts

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

#221

Post by blhack »

turtlebits wrote: post #94
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacing a broken hose barb by threading the part and inserting a threaded hose barb is pretty standard in any trade where you repair stuff. Plastic is just so easy to form you'd be stupid not to. There's really no downsides if you're competent enough to install a pipe threaded object without it leaking (a low bar). Worst case it was already in need of replacement. Best case if it breaks again the next guy only has…

I'm sure the fix will work fine, it's just there are things like liability that car manufacturers and dealers have to deal with.

If this repair fails and the coolant leaks out, the battery monitoring system will alert the driver and they will either have to fix it again, or replace the battery.

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

#222

Post by Meph504 »

Pretty sure, you loose the right to repair when you are leasing something, as all lease agreements for vehicles I've seen have direct stipulations on the requirements, and penalties of performing and not performing maintenance and repair to their vehicle.

I fully support right to repair YOUR PROPERTY, but I also support as part of that, that if the car is owned by Tesla, they have the right to dictate maintenance requirements, and have a say so in who, and what they feel is a valid fix.

I don't see how right to repair would, or should force a change here?

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

#223

Post by gretch »

hrocha1 wrote: post #151
judge2020 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because $16k is a high barrier to entry and future prospective buyers will read about this case and think “hey I don’t want that” and buy a Toyota instead.

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

#224

Post by pdq »

bitexploder wrote: post #113
Pyramus wrote: post #91

I'm a bit surprised the original video (from Youtube channel Rich Rebuilds) that this article bases on, is not more prominently mentioned in the discussion. I've linked the part below [1] where Chad (ex Tesla repair technician) explains why Tesla do what they do, i.e. only replace the whole battery pack (which costs 16k) when some sub unit is broken. The main reason is cost effectiveness (for Tesla): Instead of train…

Kind of like modern laptops. Any issues on a modern MacBook means logic board replacement, even if the problem is diagnosable and fixable. Though it is rare a laptop is truly very fixable these days when something goes awry.

Exactly.

Watch Louis Rossmann's channel and you can see the vast majority of liquid damaged laptops need an hour or so of experienced technician diagnostic time and usually Apple is happy to charge you $600 to $1k, when you likely just need to spend half or less of that, with the right repair shop.

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

#225

Post by Retric »

sgustard wrote: post #195
lelanthran wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that cars depreciate seems like the best reason to "rent" them. Like any other depreciating asset, the renter charges the rentee(sp?) the depreciation anyway, plus a small profit. You appear to be under the impression that renting is better; this cannot be correct. The rent for any asset is ($COST_OF_PRODUCT + $COST_OF_ADMIN + $PROFIT). How do you figure that it's cheaper to pay those additional costs than…

> How do you figure that it's cheaper to pay those additional costs than to buy? Pushing those costs years into the future can be to my advantage. That argument applies to any loan. Leasing also gives me the option to buy the car at the end of my term, so I can end up owning the car while deferring much of the up-front cost in exchange for interest payments.

The listed residual value is normally set to make it extremely unfavorable to buy out the lease. The appropriate amount of depreciation still occurs, they just achieve this by inflating the sales price for leases as most people only care about direct costs to themselves when starting a lease.

It’s stuff like this that’s the real reason dealerships love leases. Their much more complex than a sale so the dealerships have far more options to screw people.

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

#226

Post by kube-system »

coupdejarnac wrote: post #185
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.

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

That is only one of the several failures that could theoretically be caused. The fitting could potentially cause galvanic corrosion in other parts of the system as well.

In any case, I’m not saying this is likely, or that the system won’t work. I’m simply saying that it’s no longer the same system designed by the automotive engineers at Tesla.

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

#227

Post by vfclists »

busterarm wrote: post #166
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…

Plans for future Tesla vehicles are for the batteries to be structural. As in non-replaceable. In that future and without right to repair, a crack in this tiny plastic hose fitting would total the car (heck, depending on your insurer, this already does). Remember that car insurance costs are pooled. This kind of behavior makes _everyone's_ driving more expensive.

Who is to say that the insurance company owners don't have shares in Tesla?

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

#228

Post by coupdejarnac »

kube-system wrote: post #226
coupdejarnac wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is only one of the several failures that could theoretically be caused. The fitting could potentially cause galvanic corrosion in other parts of the system as well. In any case, I’m not saying this is likely, or that the system won’t work. I’m simply saying that it’s no longer the same system designed by the automotive engineers at Tesla.

What are you on about with the galvanic corrosion? The brass part is joining two plastic parts!

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

#229

Post by vfclists »

Pyramus wrote: post #67
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…

If you watch the video [1] Chad (former Tesla repair technician) clearly states it's the issue is due to cost effectiveness not whether the car is under lease. It's also not constrained the nose that was damaged here - whenever a part of the battery pack is damaged (could be a single cell) Tesla will replace the whole battery pack but not the part. I believe Chad calls it "assembly replacement". It's not cost effecti…

> It's not cost effective to train staff, have facilities and parts, and do the (dis-)assembly. Which is exactly why we need right to repair.

I think he means "Its not cost effective "for Tesla" to train staff, have facilities and parts ..."

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

#230

Post by awsthro00945 »

tylersmith wrote: post #176
barrkel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision". The insurance that covers such an event is literally called collison insurance.

I have no clue why you're being downvoted (and I'm being downvoted now too, lol). If you hit a rock in the road, or a pothole, or a tree, it is covered under collision insurance.

For posterity: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collision-insurance.asp

> ... it will cover damage from potholes, and accidents involving an inanimate object.

Post reply on HN