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

241–250 of 564 posts

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

#241

Post by drtgh »

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.

It seems Tesla, Inc. makes most of the profit by selling Carbon-Emissions Credits to other vehicles manufacturers.

I would not be surprised if they expects from that future making extra profit by "recycling" damaged structures, or something related to such structure. Something for cover the decline in carbon-emissions sales in such future.

Anyway, I think that is called "Programed obsolescence".

It's like when led bulbs suddenly fails, you know it can be repaired, even you know how to replace the bad quality capacitor chosen by the manufacturer, but the plastic encapsulation prevents it. Programed obsolescence + prevent to repair.

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

#242

Post by Arch-TK »

belval wrote: post #44
mschild wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, except Tesla has a history of performing just as janky repairs on their cars themselves. Its even stated in the article.[0] Another question to consider is why the repair is 16k. Does is actually cost Tesla that much or do they just quote that much because they are realistically the only ones who can fix it so they can charge the price? Driving around with a shoddy fix on a combustion engine can be just as dang…

> Another question to consider is why the repair is 16k. Does is actually cost Tesla that much or do they just quote that much because they are realistically the only ones who can fix it so they can charge the price? The quote is to replace the whole battery pack so I really doubt that they are making a profit on it since it's one of the actually expensive part of the car. As GP pointed out this is hardly right to re…

Please stop calling this a "clever fix". The fix is standard procedure in the industry of fixing these kinds of things (be it an electric car or an industrial 100 ton press.

That being said, the design of the car underside and this pack is poor. It should not be a single 16k part which has to be replaced as a unit, that's just purely incompetent. I also guarantee that Tesla DOES make money on this part. Nobody sells parts at no profit.

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

#243

Post by cartoonworld »

mindslight wrote: post #86
cartoonworld wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This repair is R&D that is definitely worth the price. There's no way this is a $200 repair, that Tesla took up a bunch of shop time and their specialized technician for the better part of a day, carefully researching and installing this repair fitting. If you are charging $25/hr labor you are out of business. If the repair fails, they will likely take it back and improve the fix. Your plastic mystery fitting would l…

"R&D" ?? It's replacing a molded hose barb with a threaded fitting. Also FTA: "the shop had another significantly cheaper solution it had used once before ". What's pictured in the article looks like 2 hours of labor, which would be a few hundred dollars at the rate for generic labor. I'm specifically highlighting the additional premium that Tesla expertise is commanding right now. > mystery fitting You do realize th…

Regarding your confounding over R&D -- Yes it is. I am on board with you that the specialized Tesla mechanics are gonna charge more per hour, $200-$350 sounds reasonable for a car you can buy and sell for %30 more than you paid for it -- But its R&D for this reason: The worthiness of Tesla repairs are totally unknown. These technicians are taking a chance (and I'll bet they offer a warranty, standard practice among reputable practitioners in the industry) that they can tap the brass fitting into the Tesla plastic which has an unknown composition to me and you and it will be a more or less permanent fix.

Just because it looks like 2 hours of labor doesn't mean there aren't other risks involved as well as servicing the battery cooling system properly. Such risks include: fire, poisoning, accidental damage, environmental disposal and cleanup, future warranty service, or even an unfortunate death caused by the repair failure causing the batteries to ignite.

If you get the Monroe to spend 2 hours on it, it won't work and I can guarantee that.

>You do realize that all the usual pipe fitting shapes come in materials besides brass, right?

Yes I do. The materials are designed to be compatible with the components in the system. This is why Japanese aluminum motors typically use EPDM rubber parts and HOAT coolant without silicates, to prevent oxidization of the channels and water pump. Throw some ethylene glycol or silicate/borates and natural rubber in there and suffer the consequences.

What will PVC do with the (speculating) polycarbonate body of the battery packs or the coolant(Another commenter claims it is the pretty expensive Zerex G48[0] wich will dissolve some plastics)? Brass is a good guess for compatibility, but why they chose that will cost you $700 to find out -- a bargain! I'm betting it's because available plastic fittings aren't going to have the strength to last in the reduced tolerances caused by the repaired threads in the plastic housing. Quite a bit of experience is really required to know if and how to do this right.

>> Lastly, road hazard insurance didn't cover any repair.

>Yes, this is reflected in my comment.

>[...]

>...For Tesla to charge an insurance company $16k with the justification of replacing the whole pack...

Edit: I see your point here, Tesla dumbery = costly repairs. Definitely agree.

Hopefully Right To Repair will free this proprietary information up to Alldata so anybody can pay a subscription fee and learn of the specifications and repair data. Also, it will standardize labor book time...

[0] - https://www.valvoline.com/our-products/heavy-duty/zerex-g-48

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

#244

Post by compiler-guy »

lelanthran wrote: post #130
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. 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…

One thing leasing does is push the depreciation risk onto the leasing company. If you know you intend to keep the car a limited amount of time, then by leasing it, you don’t have to worry about the resale volatility. Mitigating that risk has value.

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

#245

Post by Arch-TK »

kube-system wrote: post #219
anthonygd wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tesla doesn’t market their cars as exceptionally repairable, I don’t think that repairability was an engineering priority. Prioritizing certain product attributes above others is not “shoddy engineering”, it is part of the normal textbook engineering process. The project management triad is a relationship between Cost, Quality, and Timeline. Elon wanted to be the first-to-market with an affordable modern electric car…

Ah yes, prioritizing important features like crashing into things at high speed, remotely making the car a brick if it gets written off, writing an unnecessary amount of data to flash until it wears out, misaligned panels. Just what are people actually paying for here? A shit experience?

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

#247

Post by ademup »

xtracto wrote: post #120
ademup wrote: post #5

I heartily agree with the premise, and there's this compounding problem: "To make matters worse, the owner's insurance policy didn't cover comprehensive claims from road debris..." So when you combine these two issues, you end up with an unwritten, mob-boss-esque command of something like "Buy the most expensive insurance for all of your expensive widgets so that you can (maybe) be covered in the event that something…

Aaah Insurance strikes again. Insurance is a scam that somehow as a society we have allowed to normalize in our society. The Insurance system just doesn't make sense, that's why we see so many problems with car, health, death and other types of insurance. The problem lies in that both parties have misaligned and often oposite objectives: The Insurer's main goal is to maximize their profit , and the levers it has is t…

I couldn't agree more. Anecdote: I have been waiting for 2 weeks for insurance to "approve" an angiogram + interventiin that two cardiologists agree that I need immediately. I am a single 43yo male on a $1,000\mo insurance plan.("reduced" to "only" $550\mo by coverer california).

If I ever manage to get powerful and\or wealthy, I will task myself with fighting the scourge that is the insurance cabals tooth and nail.

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

#248

Post by kube-system »

coupdejarnac wrote: post #228
kube-system wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

My mistake, I meant the opposite: electrolytic corrosion. There are potential (non-electrical) chemical variables too. The chemistry involved is complicated and I can’t claim to fully understand it. Even big automakers sometimes get it wrong from the factory.

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

#249

Post by belval »

Arch-TK wrote: post #242
belval wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another question to consider is why the repair is 16k. Does is actually cost Tesla that much or do they just quote that much because they are realistically the only ones who can fix it so they can charge the price? The quote is to replace the whole battery pack so I really doubt that they are making a profit on it since it's one of the actually expensive part of the car. As GP pointed out this is hardly right to re…

Please stop calling this a "clever fix". The fix is standard procedure in the industry of fixing these kinds of things (be it an electric car or an industrial 100 ton press. That being said, the design of the car underside and this pack is poor. It should not be a single 16k part which has to be replaced as a unit, that's just purely incompetent. I also guarantee that Tesla DOES make money on this part. Nobody sells…

It does not matter how standard in the industry that fix is, I am not arguing for Tesla here, I am contesting the idea that this situation is covered by "right-to-repair".

Right to repair is about availability of replacement parts and repair manuals so that third parties can do repair on X. It's about Apple no controlling flow of parts so tightly that they can sue someone for doing "unauthorized repairs" when they change a broken screen.

Most importantly right-to-repair is about things that you own, which was not even the case here seeing how the car was leased.

So it does not matter if this is a "clever fix" or the equivalent of tie-wrapping your bumper so it does not fall off while driving. In both cases it has nothing to do with right-to-repair and trying to use it as an umbrella term for every automakers shady practice is how you end up with no legislation at all because lawmakers won't enact bills that allow you to fix a leased car with something that isn't prescribed by the manufacturer.

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

#250

Post by sumedh »

Meph504 wrote: post #233
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…

> why would a competent third-party repair shop be "risky"? because of terminology like this "Electrified Garage also notes that the cooling system doesn't get anywhere near as hot as an internal combustion engine, and it's not likely that it would either, given that the operating temperature for most lithium-ion batteries is well below 60 degrees Celsius." So this repair is made on anecdotal observation of ideal con…

> and disregarding factory specifications

Does Tesla share those specifications, if they dont share it, can you really blame third party repair?

Post reply on HN