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

321–330 of 564 posts

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

#321

Post by maxerickson »

cartoonworld wrote: post #316
DannyBee wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look. I will never own or consider a Tesla given what i've seen, and will happily take them to task. But i think this is a bit far. It's pretty common in ICE vehicles for the oil pan to be easily damaged by road debris, and the oil it spills is more toxic than coolant. In particular, the Tesla's use glycol for cooling, which is not that bad to spill (certainly better than most oils). So while certainly not better tha…

Man, that reminds me of the time I cracked an oil pan in my old MB 190e. I was going to a trail head for a planned hike, and the vehicle markings were....ambiguous. I followed some tracks between two trees, but a wheel dropped into a pothole in the dirt, bottoming out right over a big ass rock which nicked the side of the pan, cracking it wide open. It can and does happen. Oil pans are metal and can usually handle a…

HOAT is the additives, it's still ethylene glycol based.

It's really more poisonous than it is toxic. A small amount will break down in a reasonable amount of time if released into the environment.

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

#322

Post by nerdponx »

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…

2027: automakers gradually stop selling cars and transition to a lease-only "subscription" model.

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

#323

Post by Meph504 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #279
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…

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 yo…

Firstly, did you read the article, this isn't a replacement part, its a hack job, look at the pictures, read what they did, this isn't about 3rd party part, this is a service, and a poor one.

Additionally, the terms of your lease, dictate how maintenance is done, and if third party parts are allowed.

Magnuson-Moss act is likely what you are talking about, which wouldn't apply here, firstly because it only applies to warranty claims, and voiding warranties it wouldn't play a role here, additionally because Tesla owns the car, this person is just renting it it has no barring.

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

#324

Post by coolspot »

chrisseaton wrote: post #274
late2part wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why?

It is a joke on misspelling of “lose”.

“Loose the right to repair” means to make the right to repair loose, opposite of tight.

“Lose the right to repair” means to make the right to repair being lost.

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

#325

Post by kumarvvr »

crmrc114 wrote: post #303
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…

Mate, your talking about a brass nipple being threaded into a broken plastic part to replace a plastic reducer that was [probably] poorly ultrasonic welded in place. What I see in the article is a common sense repair. Anyone who turns a wrench is laughing at the Tesla fanboy pearl clutching over this. Not an attack on your post btw, just a general statement that every Tesla owner comes out of the cracks in these post…

I agree with the pearl clutching part.

Unless Tesla can state exactly how this fix is inferior to it's original design.

Putting a brass nipple in a plastic pipe is a tried and tested process. The stated pressure is 2 psi, or max 5 psi during testing. 5 psi is about 3.5 meters of water column. So the pressure is equivalent to what you get in your home.

The piping is essentially house plumbing level stuff.

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

#326

Post by Sebb767 »

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…

> 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"

No. That solution might be acceptable if the alternative is spending 15k$, but if money is not a factor, I bet anyone would take a manufacturer approved replacement over "some screwed in thingy that's probably within temperature range" just to get out of your rental a week early.

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

#328

Post by chx »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #116
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…

> 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 take it to the dealership like they would have anyway. I would agree, as long as that third party has insurance in the event their fix (due to work performed on the high voltage battery pack) causes a failure resulting in the loss of the vehicle and liabil…

Hold on for a minute. I dearly hope Tesla battery packs have enough smarts in them that shuts charging down when overheating. There must be fifty ways to set your battery pack on fire...

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

#329

Post by lolinder »

rdtwo wrote: post #307
mekal wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you only drive like once a month or something? If you drive every other day or so then buying is the way to go...otherwise I agree, renting is probably going to be a better deal than owning a depreciating asset that you rarely use.

It’s a complicated formula sometimes it works for you but most of the time the manufacturer gets gets the better deal

Why would that be? If I'm leasing a vehicle, not only does the manufacturer need to earn back the cost of manufacturing plus some margin, they also need to earn back the cost of administrating a lease and the cost of selling the car again later (with depreciation). They're not going to cover those extra costs for free, they're going to pass them on to the consumer. So how can leasing a vehicle possibly work out in the consumer's favor?

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

#330

Post by bluGill »

mulmen wrote: post #144
jakemoshenko wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that cars depreciate seems like the best reason to "rent" them. The manufacturer ends up dealing with the now less valuable asset. Except that they charge you for all of the depreciation plus a rental fee. The dealer/manufacturer ends up with an asset that is more valuable than the price they paid for it less the money they've received for it through the terms of the lease.

The asset isn’t always worth more. If you don’t believe me ask GM and Chrysler. Further, it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if the manufacturer makes or loses money. I only care about maximizing utility per dollar.

While it doesn't always work out, in the long run it works out well often enough to pay for the losses.
Post reply on HN