Live data from Hacker News

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

thedrive.com

301–310 of 564 posts

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

#301
post #250

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…

> and disregarding factory specifications Does Tesla share those specifications, if they dont share it, can you really blame third party repair?

Even for aerospace you can use equivalent or stronger parts for repair. You can even reverse engineer part capability and build a stronger part

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

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your peddling FUD. Just because you touched something in a way that wasn't specifically authorized by the original manufacturer of that something doesn't make you liable for anything that something does in perpetuity unless there is evidence that it's actually your fault. Homeowners insurance covers the fire. They probably don't go after anyone unless they have specific reason to believe the loss was probably caused…

I highly recommend you ask an attorney about it, that's what I did (and paid for) and I'm reiterating the opinion they provided. Not an attorney, not your attorney, not legal advice. I'm not in the repair business, and I own no TSLA stock; I have no incentive to peddle FUD, and actively support right to repair. Crucially, right to repair does not mean an absence of or indemnification from liability.

To be fair when you ask an attorney "how to", their default answer is "don't".

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

#303
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 posts and talks about how magical their cars are and how they are so advanced that no one could possibly understand them. The SAE has programs and industry standards on EV's- every other car manufacturer works with aftermarket shops. Teslas are not made of magic pixie dust and rainbows. The Gen1 tesla roadster was all Toyota parts. Their advanced motor technology is based on reluctance motors invented in the late 1800's. Tossing tcp/ip in your car as a bus [vs much better industrial protocols] and a vfd and calling something groundbreaking does not make it so.

You should have access to the documentation and parts- I and many other gear heads will refuse to drive/own/buy any Tesla car until I can turn a wrench on it.

How would you feel if I told you only Dell/HP should make computers because people make dangerous repairs that will allow hackers to attack systems? It's just as ridiculous when people make claims that fixing a busted fitting is a 'hack'.

imho Tesla Autos are straight-up 'unauthorised bread'.

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

#305

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…

> 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".

Firstly, using a tap to reverse thread into plastic housing, and then using brass threading into the housing and into a cut hose with a screw clamps.

Internal combustion or not, its hackish, the article even recognizes that, and their defense is that some people in Tesla's factory shipped some cars with fake bits of wood from home depot. You don't put metal threads into plastic in something that is exposed to vibration, in this fix they do it 4 times, it might work, for a while, but it isn't a good long term solution.

It's not a hypothetical, it happens literally every single day, I spend my youth working in a car shop, and people expect their cars to be fixed the way they where made, and even more so when someone else damaged it, and they (or their insurance company) are financially responsible.

It would be foolish for Tesla to allow this, they will likely want to sell that car after the fact, and I doubt they want to take on the liability of selling that car, that had this sort of hackish work done to it.

Also, I don't know where you reference for "Most people's answer is going to be..." but it wasn't my experience when working in a shop, so on that we can agree to disagree.

At the end of the day, he signed a lease, and agreed to the terms, those terms include how this maintenance and repair should be handled. Right to repair isn't going to change those terms, even more so when he isn't the owner of the vehicle.

If anything we should take away, is that leasing cars is stupid, on many levels, and this just high lights another one.

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

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't get why that part isn't shielded for one.. There's a whole series of WTFs in this video. * Guy failed to get full coverage on a leased vehicle. * Tesla released car to him without verifying coverage. * Road debris hitting the bottom of the car can result in $16k in damage. * Tesla let him drive off with car after he rejected repair and knowing he didn't have comprehensive coverage. * Critical part of batter…

> because they saved some money by having cooling line fittings be fixed plastic instead of threaded inserts Save a few cents here, a few cents there, and suddenly your $40k car is an astonishing $200 cheaper! Honestly, I never understood why companies do that. It just creates bad PR all around, and nobody chooses a product based on those minuscule differences. Maybe it's more for planed obsolescence than for cost cu…

$200 or $20000 or $200000? If you make up numbers, you can argue anything. Perhaps you didn't understand it because it's not true?

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

#307
post #213
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#308
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Until it isn't. The attitude about this seems reminiscent of that cable snap in Italy recently.

https://youtu.be/uCB1xbkn1Ps

And I'm one that is for right to repair, I just don't think it holds up for the lease scenario, I expect my repairs to be done to manufacturers spec and would be concerned about any mechanic for any make making "half arsed" repairs.

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

#309
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…

Car insurance isn't really that bad. It's often moderately expensive, because cars are expensive and we drive a lot.

Michigan, in a big populist maneuver, got rid of requirements for unlimited personal injury protection (with lifetime medical payments). Drivers are happy, as the risk they take when they hit the road has been transferred to Medicaid. It's not quite the libertarian victory the Republicans that back it are claiming, shifting from a required user fee to a public payor of last resort.

(It's more consistent for Democrats, moving a cost that disproportionately impacts lower income people to a public funding model)

Post reply on HN