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

271–280 of 564 posts

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

#271

Post by kube-system »

barrkel wrote: post #261
awsthro00945 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Ah yeah. In the US, collision also typically applies to single vehicle collisions. (With the frequent exception of animal collision)

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

#272

Post by dheera »

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 also means that OP shouldn't be on the hook for repairs unless it's due to negligence.

And even IF OP is on the hook they should be able to choose how to repair it, as long as it fits NHTSA/DMV/whatever code.

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

#273

Post by novok »

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 I rent an apartment and the landlord doesn't fix something, I can fix it with my own repairman and charge them the bill. There is nothing special about renting.

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

#274

Post by chrisseaton »

late2part wrote: post #238
Meph504 wrote: post #222

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 req…

We should tighten the right to repair - not loosen it!

Why?

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

#275

Post by kube-system »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #257
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.

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.

As I said elsewhere, I would totally do this if it were my own car. It seems kind of unethical to do it to a car you don’t own, though. And if the leasing agreement didn’t prohibit this before, I’m sure Tesla lawyers are working on that now.

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

#276

Post by chrisseaton »

deregulateMed wrote: post #135
smt88 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HN crowd usually sides with Apple, with the justification that "It is a free market. People can buy another phone if they don't like it." My anecdata says the exact opposite. The HN crowd seems (to me) to be very, very against walled gardens.

*Walled Prison It's bad for consumers to repeat corporate marketing jargon.

I don't think 'walled garden' is marketing jargon. It's a negative term. Where have you seen that in marketing?

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

#277

Post by chrisseaton »

rasz wrote: post #165
spoonjim wrote: post #23

The article says that the vehicle is leased. That means that the lessor might be in for a rude surprise when he turns in the car at the end of the lease... Tesla will see the untested third-party repair and assess him for the cost of reversing this repair and for fixing the problem their way. Right to repair makes sense, but only for products you own.

magnusson moss - they will have to prove repair broke something.

It's not a warranty - it's a lease.

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

#278

Post by throwaway0a5e »

throwawayboise wrote: post #112
ricardobeat wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those never-ending payments are covering depreciation. Unless you keep your car for 10+ years and it’s one of the rare models that holds value after that, you’re not much better off buying it.

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 whatever is unfashionable and just a hair older than whatever lenders will finance is where the value always is.

Of course both of those are moving targets to some extent.

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

#279

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

How do you know what the specifications are, as Tesla flaunts the law and doesn’t publish them?

Given the many examples of poor build quality with Tesla cars, it’s laughable to make some sort of case that any third party part doesn’t meet some standards that nobody can see.

I have leased many cars in my lifetime, and never used anything but the cheapest parts available for out of warranty parts. Federal law allows you to use a third party part.

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

#280

Post by tzs »

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…

> Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.

It is important to note that you can then sue the other at fault parties for whatever you had to pay that was above your fair share.

For example if I'm 90% at fault and you are 10% at fault in something that causes $1 million damages to someone and they come after you and win $1 million, you can turn around and sue me for for $900k.

I might not have $900k and so you might still end up screwed but in that case it is either you who gets screwed or the person you and I injured, and the idea behind joint and several liability is if we have to screw someone it should not be someone who was at fault.

Post reply on HN