Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 219 posts

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#101

Post by shkkmo »

jefftk wrote: post #27
blamazon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small nit: I can 'jump' (read: charge the battery of) other cars with my model X, as long as the other car is an ICE car. In the frunk there is a panel that pops off and underneath there are (unlabeled) 12V and ground terminals that I can put jumper cables on. However, I have had to get my car towed a mile to a charging station before, I really deeply wish I could have received a jump then.

That's not normally what people mean by "jump": jumping an ICE car is using the battery of one car to power the starter motor of another to get it running (after which it doesn't need a battery to keep running).

That's being unnecessarily nitpicky. Anytime someone helps you get started when your starter battery is dead is close enough that people will call it a "jump".

Not having jumper cables, I've "jumped" several people by hooking them up to my battery charger and getting enough charge into their battery to start their engine.

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#102

Post by mozman »

starbase wrote: post #85
marak830 wrote: post #29

I'm sorry I have seen the thread leads, and I cannot agree with them and think the replies do not get enough notice. Right to repair should be a full set of instructions for "everything" are available. That's it. Give the full specs for everything. If it's code reliant(which wtf), what does it require to work? That's. Fucking. It. We give you rules to say peeps cannot sell what you made, you make it so we can repair…

> Right to repair should be a full set of instructions for "everything" Tesla provides that (and more) for free: • Service Manual, Parts Manual, and Body Repair • Tooling Catalog and Wiring Diagrams • Service Bulletins • Labor Codes and Times • Service Mode Diagnostic Software (on the touchscreen)

Does Tesla sell parts? If so, do you need a Tesla tool to program/activate them?

Electronics fail more often than mechanical parts and even today with independent auto shops having access to manufacturers programming software you still have to go to the dealer for some things

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#103

Post by AnthonyMouse »

esjeon wrote: post #87
omgJustTest wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No normal person can cast an ICE header. Same logic.

It's not the best example unfortunately. People do build custom headers by cutting and welding various pipes using off-the-shelf tools. Welp, ICE is an old tech (from 18c), so it doesn't take dark magic to fix a whole ICE car mechanically . The real deal breaker is electric controllers w/ proprietary software.

That's assuming you need the controller to do the exact same thing in the exact same way as the OEM one. But in many cases people are replacing it because they want it to do something different anyway.

And these functions are in many cases quite simple. You replace the controller for the door locks. It operates a solenoid that locks and unlocks the doors. Maybe they no longer function by calling the call center to have them unlock your car, but maybe you don't want that anyway. They still function if you press a button on your key fob.

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#104

Post by [deleted] »

marak830 wrote: post #29

I'm sorry I have seen the thread leads, and I cannot agree with them and think the replies do not get enough notice. Right to repair should be a full set of instructions for "everything" are available. That's it. Give the full specs for everything. If it's code reliant(which wtf), what does it require to work? That's. Fucking. It. We give you rules to say peeps cannot sell what you made, you make it so we can repair…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#105

Post by diebeforei485 »

thayne wrote: post #42
blamazon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small nit: I can 'jump' (read: charge the battery of) other cars with my model X, as long as the other car is an ICE car. In the frunk there is a panel that pops off and underneath there are (unlabeled) 12V and ground terminals that I can put jumper cables on. However, I have had to get my car towed a mile to a charging station before, I really deeply wish I could have received a jump then.

> I have had to get my car towed a mile to a charging station before It really seems like EVs should have easily replaceable batteries, so that in situations like that you can just have roadside service bring you a charged battery and swap it out. Or for that matter, charging stations could pre-charge batteries, and you pay to swap your drained battery for a charged one.

This became very difficult when Tesla added the undershield.

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#107

Post by diebeforei485 »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #25
omgJustTest wrote: post #2

You can’t even jump another car with your Tesla, let alone do repairs.

Because they are apples and oranges and Tesla is using 48v! Jumping a 12v lead acid battery with 48v is a fantastic way to completely fry the ICE vehicle.

Tesla has future plans for 48V, but they're still on 12V today.

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#108

Post by AnthonyMouse »

api wrote: post #44
Transpire7487 wrote: post #32

No normal person can repair a Tesla, it’s basically a trade secret. My brother is a mechanic and servicing Teslas are a non starter due to the complexity. The notion that I can just download a manual, buy some parts and DIY my own repairs is absolutey ludicrous. The only reason for Tesla to support right to repair is to increase regulatory burden on competitors, stunt innovation and raise costs for their competition.…

EVs could be a gigantic step down in complexity but that doesn’t benefit their manufacturers. It would risk making them a commodity that can be assembled from parts like an old school PC. Instead the industry is looking at the EV transition as a way to increase costs and decrease customer freedom. This is absolutely artificial and in no way mandated by the technology. A similar case in computing is what happened with…

> EVs could be a gigantic step down in complexity but that doesn’t benefit their manufacturers. It would risk making them a commodity that can be assembled from parts like an old school PC.

But the step down in complexity also makes it easier to become a manufacturer, and as battery costs come down this is likely to happen.

At which point a startup with no other way to distinguish themselves can start selling highly repairable electric cars. Customers figure out that these have a lower ownership cost (whether or not they do the repairs themselves) and start preferring them. The incumbents then follow suit or lose the market.

The main reason this doesn't happen for phones is that the market is so consolidated. The main SoCs are made by only a small handful of companies who don't publish documentation, and producing a competitive one is capital-intensive because of the constraints of the form factor. But even there it may not be permanent -- what's going to happen to phones once there is a fully-documented RISC-V SoC on the market that has tolerable performance and power consumption?

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#109

Post by [deleted] »

gnfargbl wrote: post #89
candiddevmike wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to repair eventually runs head first into security and encryption--how do you allow right to repair and TLS, encryption, secure computing, etc to coexist? Get rid of IoT black boxes like Google Homes? Allow Linux on Xbox? How do you create secure platforms while also giving consumers the keys to their devices? (FWIW I'm not advocating against right to repair, I actually hope it helps to get rid of black box IoT…

I don't see the conflict. If it important that the device can prove its authenticity to some centralised service then yes, it is likely that the consumer can't also modify that device. But how many devices really need that level of attestation? Does a tractor need to be able to prove to John Deere that it is a genuine unmolested vehicle, or does it just need to prove to JD that an active subscription is in place for…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla, Rivian Put on Fake Show of Support for ‘Right to Repair’

#110

Post by [deleted] »

photochemsyn wrote: post #62

Repairability is like online security: if companies really cared about it, they'd have built it into the product beginning at the design stage. With most products these days, repairability is actively discouraged at many different levels: components are inaccessible, soldered or glued on, specifications are unavailable, replacement parts are not sold direct to the public, etc. This is all done to shorten product life…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN