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

251–260 of 564 posts

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

#251

Post by ghaff »

quickthrowman wrote: post #193
throwawayboise wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying 10 year old cars that are nearly fully depreciated is where you save big money. You can get a dependable car for a few thousand dollars, and even if it needs more repairs than a new car you still come out money ahead especially if you can do small repairs yourself.

> Buying 10 year old cars that are nearly fully depreciated is where you save big money. Not in my experience. You either pay in depreciation or in maintenance, there is no escaping car expenses. A 10 year depreciated car may need a timing belt/water pump, possible head gasket issues, possible transmission issues, etc.

You're also just paying for predictability. While lemons are a thing, they're less so than they used to be, and there's something to be said--if you can afford it--for buying a car that can probably run for 10+ years with minimal risk of serious maintenance issues.

And, in snow belt areas, you start to run into rust issues 15 or so years on.

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

#252

Post by abrokenpipe »

kube-system wrote: post #85
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…

> When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs. You certainly are, in most places, if you crash it into something. This wasn't a failure of the manufacturer's materials or workmanship, it was a collision loss.

Usually rentals require/include max comprehensive insurance (regulations vary based on the state in US), so if the warranty doesn't cover it then the insurance should.

While I am on the side of right to repair I don't see how this is that relevant to the issue. It seems like more of an issue with insurance/rental laws, transparency in legal agreements, tesla's pricing & service being a bad deal, and possibly negligence on the renter's behalf. I don't think that any company should be allowed to hold a renter liable unless it's proven they damaged the property on purpose. Usually there are a lot of protections in place for renters so it's possible tesla is breaking the law or the renter accepted some liability attempting to save money.

Rentals and shared ownership situations are always messy anyways... A lot of this just reminds me of: "My condo HOA decided to hire the most expensive roof repair company in town!! Why can't we just pour some cheap tar across the roof and call it good for a few more years?!?!"

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

#253

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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…

>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 conditions, and disregarding factory specifications, and actual Tesla trained technicians.

The context here is not "they're half-assing it because the system demand are minimal so they can". It's "this repair technique works just fine on real automotive cooling systems that are much more demanding".

>If this was your car, and this damaged was caused by someone else's fault, would you want a hack fix, or it fixed to the manufactures specification? He Broke Telsa's car.

Why don't you just be honest and say "if money was not object because it wasn't your money"? That's all your hypothetical situation changes.

Most people's answer is going to be along the lines of "sure I'll take a free battery but if the hose barb is functionally equivalent and gets me my car a week sooner than it'll depend on how badly I want the car back"

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

#254

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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…

I would have personally sought out a plastic barb for the chemical compatibility reasons you state (one less variable to worry about) but if it's glycol type coolant brass will be fine. Also there may very well be brass elsewhere in the system informing their decision.

Vibration is a non-issue. Pipe threads are is 200yr old tech. Pipe threads in all manner of materials have been in service in all manner of environments the world over. Some of them for a century or more.

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

#255

Post by fomine3 »

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…

I wish unrepairable expensive products are correctly labelled.

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

#256

Post by roflchoppa »

judge2020 wrote: post #147
roflchoppa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor will they sell you parts to repair it.

As far as I can tell other manufacturers don't do any direct-to-consumer sales either - Honda seems to basically be a middleman to selling you parts that your local dealership has in-stock.

I’m a little confused by this statement; but here are my service options for my datsun. I can order parts from my local dealer, an online dealer, (and I’ve never tried it but I assume from Nissan), and finally the Nissan Motorsports department.

If Tesla chooses to have no dealerships, then I have to go to them for support.

If I go to a dealership and get ripped off, I can call the manufacturer and they can assist with the problem. Happened to our TSX when the motor was burning oil and the guy who was at the parts shop was saying it was within spec. I had to get a support representative from Honda involved with the repair.

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

#257

Post by ErikVandeWater »

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.

The worst case scenario is probably totaling the pack. So why not give the "hack" a try first. It wouldn't be dangerous since the car can sense overheats and shutdown before a cooling system malfunction would cause a fire.

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

#258

Post by kube-system »

fomine3 wrote: post #255
kube-system wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wish unrepairable expensive products are correctly labelled.

I wish so too, but I certainly wouldn’t market my own products/services by highlighting their shortcomings.

Regulation or third-party analysis is the only real way to solve that problem.

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

#259

Post by ErikVandeWater »

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…

I thought a big part of the pack being made of modular cells is that the software can disengage cells that are problematic and you can keep running with the 999 remaining cells?

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

#260

Post by kube-system »

abrokenpipe wrote: post #252
kube-system wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs. You certainly are, in most places, if you crash it into something. This wasn't a failure of the manufacturer's materials or workmanship, it was a collision loss.

Usually rentals require/include max comprehensive insurance (regulations vary based on the state in US), so if the warranty doesn't cover it then the insurance should. While I am on the side of right to repair I don't see how this is that relevant to the issue. It seems like more of an issue with insurance/rental laws, transparency in legal agreements, tesla's pricing & service being a bad deal, and possibly negligen…

The article doesn’t say his insurance wouldn’t cover it. It says his comprehensive coverage on his insurance wouldn’t cover it. Which is highly likely because this type of incident is usually a collision claim.

If he has comprehensive at all then he almost certainly has collision coverage. It’s just that, then it’s $16k accident that’s he’s at fault for.

Post reply on HN