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

261–270 of 564 posts

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

#261

Post by barrkel »

awsthro00945 wrote: post #230
tylersmith wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Perhaps part of the confusion here is UK vs US? A collision in the UK would normally involve a third party.

In the rental space, collision damage waivers - CDWs - explicitly don't cover undercarriage, wheels, windshields and so on, the kind of damage we're talking about here.

https://www.aviva.co.uk/insurance/motor/car-insurance/what-a...

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

#262

Post by ghaff »

judge2020 wrote: post #110
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…

> on your car. As OP pointed out, it wasn't even OP's car - it was a lease, not a loan. The risk of allowing mechanics to do quick fixes is too high for them.

Which is one of the issues with leases. I have some (mostly) non-functional damage to my car from a couple self-inflicted low-speed collisions in a driveway/garage. I'll take some hit when I eventually trade the car in. But I usually trade in cars at 15-20 years and the hit will be far less than if it were a leased vehicle.

Though, in this case, I'm not sure why the owner didn't have comprehensive on a presumably fairly new vehicle. I actually did but decided it wasn't the deductible and presumed hike in premium.

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

#263

Post by ErikVandeWater »

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…

The problem is the court system is too inefficient and expensive so you can't reasonably sue any company who does you wrong without having an 8 figure + bank account.

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

#264

Post by cartoonworld »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #197
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…

> This is a design flaw. How do you know? I mean, maybe they very intentionally designed that part out of plastic so that it would break away from the battery in a case like this (instead of not breaking away and creating a higher risk of damaging the battery).

The right move is to route the coolant lines away from harmful road debris or add a shield or deflector. If the coolant line is the protection for the case, that sounds like a big mistake. The owner is indeed lucky that the bunge snapped off rather than crack the case, spilling gallons of toxic coolant all over the place and resting his un-burnt flesh in the failsafes of this battery monitoring system.

It really smacks of someone who hasn't designed a lot of cars. Not that I have designed even one, but of all the things that can go wrong, coolant line damage seems pretty obvious.

Teslas are full of weird stuff like this.

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

#265

Post by barrkel »

kube-system wrote: post #169
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…

These terms are clearly defined in auto policies and are strictly regulated. I just read mine, and the things that are covered under my comprehensive policy are in a plain-english list that, clear as day, wouldn't cover this. Although if we're just talking plain-english and not legalese, I'd say that your assertion is a stretch: that colliding with debris is not a "collision". And yes, Tesla repairability is poor. Th…

As pointed out in another comment, I think this is a case of US / UK difference in insurance jargon. Debris damaging the undercarriage would not be covered by the closest UK equivalent of collision insurance (CDW on rentals), as I understand it.

I also think insurance is a bit of a red herring here. You wouldn't claim on insurance for a flat tyre either; some things are just bad luck. It's the quality of engineering - what I do think is on topic - which controls the risk.

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

#267

Post by systemvoltage »

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…

This makes me want to move out of CA as soon as possible.

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

#268

Post by STRML »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #253
Meph504 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 actu…

These engineers are actual ex-Tesla technicians, so it's a bit more than half-assing it.

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

#269

Post by dheera »

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 rent a car

Renting and leasing are different. If it really is a rental they should be able to return the car at any time and stop payments at no cost. They should not have to foot the bill for repair unless it was due to negligence. That's the whole point of renting.

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

#270

Post by throwaway0a5e »

xnyan wrote: post #239
elisharobinson wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its not like a brake light or a suspension part this was a inlet port for cooling fluid to the battery . If not done correctly it will spring a leak in a onroad driving situation , Tesla probably does have safety systems to stop the car to prevent the battery from overheating and exploding. besides they charged 700$ for 5$ worth of parts and 1~2 hours of labour :) that isnt the best advocacy for RTR IMO.

>5$ worth of parts and 1~2 hours of labour :) I think you're vastly undervaluing the cost of operating a auto shop + skilled labor. $700 was the cost for an auto repair business to 1) have a skilled technician find the problem 2) devise a repair method and 3) execute the repair. Car repair is an expensive business to operate. Rent/building costs are high, lots of expensive equipment, one of the highest insurance rate…

$150 diagnosis fee.

$50 for the repair and overhead ($5 supplies after markup, 1/3hr labor to include testing the system for leaks after the repair)

$200 for being the only people able and willing to do the repair.

$300 because they know how much the only available alternative costs.

Post reply on HN