Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
I would read this as a cautionary tale against renting your cars. If you can’t buy it, don’t! This holds true for any depreciating asset.
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'.
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.
Much lower pressure, actually - domestic water is supplied closer to 50-60psi.
This fix is only inferior to Tesla because it exposed a design flaw and removed their chance to massively overcharge for a tiny repair.
Cries in England where domestic water can be as low as 10 psi and sometimes won't even reach the top of your house and you have to go downstairs to get water...
Imagine if other cars were like that: "Sorry, we're not able to service engines so instead of replacing your timing belt for $400 you have to buy a new engine for $6000"
My house runs at 60psi, +/-3psi, and I think it is pretty bog-standard for US plumbing. It's about 11m from the basement to the attic, and still needs decent pressure upstairs, so, yes, 2-5 psi is silly low pressure to worry about - it's only going to be a slow leak even while running, the only problem is if it runs out, for which I expect Tesla has a sensor.
This repair is not some janky hack, it is more of an upgrade
Never knew this.
In India, 99.99% of all homes have gravity flow and static pressure, so except for very tall buildings, no one gets pressure more than 5 - 10 psi.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/mythbusters-part-2-tesla-roadster...
I have a hard time saying it isn't "based on" the Elise because they look so similar but it's definitely more different than I suggested in my previous comment.
They can make fart noises when you honk, find me another car that can do that /s
Yeah, that's pretty much what Apple, the Tesla of computer manufacturers, does.
When was the last time you insured your PC for 3rd-party damage?
This is a mute argument.
Also the correct word it moot, not mute. And neither apply in this situation, so the issue of mute is completely moot.
I would add that leasing is actually considered a temporary transfer of property in many legal systems.
Just like if you rent a flat the owner cannot tell you to use only a certain company to paint it or do some repairs (expect of course the ones that are paid by the owner)
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 take it to the dealership like they would have anyway.
Right to repair is an extra _option_ for the consumer. Manufacturers are taking it away for future guaranteed service income (ala subscription model). In my opinion, it has absolutely nothing to do with "risk".
> that car is going to be sold to someone once the lease expires, they just can’t take the risk
How is the risk different from the existing leased model in any industry?
My first question would relate to "dezincification". A chemical process where the zinc leaves brass and leaves a copper sponge behind. Does the coolant cause dezincification? Is zinc tolerable in the coolant?
Learned this one in my home when my city water dezincified a kitchen faucet causing water to escape through to "solid" surfaces.
My second question would be about how that female threaded material holds up under vibration over time.
That said, I'd might accept this as a fix if I broke my own car and just peek at it once in a while to see if it was weeping. But if someone else broke my car, fixed it like this and told me it was good enough I would not be happy. That's the kind of confusion I get for thinking with meat.
Vibration is a non-issue. Pipe threads are is 200yr old tech. Pipe threads in all manner of materials have been in service in all manner of environments the world over. Some of them for a century or more.
I watched the actual video. The mechanic, who previously worked at Tesla, indicated that brass would handle the coolant just fine; a friend of his had been driving the same fix for quite some time.
> My second question would be about how that female threaded material holds up under vibration over time.
Adhesive.
That repair will likely last longer than the car. Brass fittings have been standard for hydraulic and cooling systems for over 150 years. Tesla has been cheap and used plastic instead.
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 actual Tesla trained technicians.
If this was your car, and this damaged was caused by someone else's fault, would you want a hack fix, or it fixed to the manufactures specification? He Broke Telsa's car.
>How is the risk different from the existing leased model in any industry?
Have you looked at a standard lease for cars, they dictate the terms of how their vehicles are to be maintained and repair, often hold authority of who, and how those repairs are done.
Some simply reserve the right to charge you, for services not performed by them.
Other's make even simpler, they charge you for damaging the vehicle or require you to convert the lease to a purchase, before work is done.
>So this repair is made on anecdotal observation of ideal conditions, and disregarding factory specifications, and actual Tesla trained technicians.
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".
>If this was your car, and this damaged was caused by someone else's fault, would you want a hack fix, or it fixed to the manufactures specification? He Broke Telsa's car.
Why don't you just be honest and say "if money was not object because it wasn't your money"? That's all your hypothetical situation changes.
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"
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.
Does Tesla share those specifications, if they dont share it, can you really blame third party repair?
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 liability from that failure event.
In this specific case, I hope Mr. Benoit or his garage has robust liability coverage (at least $1M, hopefully more), especially if a failure event happens while the vehicle is fast DC charging or charging in someone's home overnight.
(disclosure: Tesla owner who performs his own work)
Homeowners insurance covers the fire. They probably don't go after anyone unless they have specific reason to believe the loss was probably caused by a pattern of action that could result in a winnable lawsuit (good luck figuring that out when you have a melted lump of car to to work with). If someone does somehow go after the shop their insurance goes to bat for them and digs up all the reasons they're not liable and this was a reasonable repair that their customer performed.
People get all sorts of repairs done all the time. What makes a Tesla so special? Ever had your brakes replaced at a repair shop? Somehow the world doesn't stop turning and all the liability issues you speak of don't seem to be a problem, yet brake failure would be very bad.
If they didn't, that hypothetical failure when charging would be Tesla's fault.
But I guess Tesla would try hard to pin it on the garage if they knew about the fix.
Hacky too me would be using JBweld, while its a strong epoxy that would be getting into what i would call hack territory.
Maybe I don’t understand the industry, but I was under the assumption that most OEMs don’t do the repairs but only supply the OEM parts. Is this incorrect?
>How is the risk different
It's not but Tesla has decided to not participate in it.
Again, I don't think it's the right call, but it doesn't seem nonsensical either.
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 rates around (you're lifting expensive heavy weights up and down over people all day) and labor is us usually relatively skilled and costly.
There are many repairs on existing cars that can be done incorrectly and lead to injury or worse. What are the extra guarantees that Tesla is providing for repairs done by them?
[1] https://twitter.com/Beastlyorion/status/1288242333864079360
Because there is no official process to repairing/replacing parts within the pack.
> I would read this as a cautionary tale against renting your cars. If you can’t buy it, don’t! This holds true for any depreciating asset.
If the asset depreciates what's the benefit in buying it? The fact that cars depreciate seems like the best reason to "rent" them. The manufacturer ends up dealing with the now less valuable asset.
Tesla lessors pay for depreciation the same way owners do, but the lease is effectively bundled in with a 6% APR loan, which is a lot worse than people with good credit would pay for a new car auto loan.
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.
Further, it doesn’t matter. I don’t care if the manufacturer makes or loses money. I only care about maximizing utility per dollar.
You certainly are, in most places, if you crash it into something. This wasn't a failure of the manufacturer's materials or workmanship, it was a collision loss.
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 it possible.
An example from motorbikes: I would never buy a Triumph Tiger 800 because the rear subframe is welded to the rest of the frame. Any drop which causes a bend in the rear subframe - easily enough done since the passenger footpegs and exhaust are attached to it - would require replacing the whole frame to fix. In most high performance bikes, the rear subframe is bolted on.
While I am on the side of right to repair I don't see how this is that relevant to the issue. It seems like more of an issue with insurance/rental laws, transparency in legal agreements, tesla's pricing & service being a bad deal, and possibly negligence on the renter's behalf. I don't think that any company should be allowed to hold a renter liable unless it's proven they damaged the property on purpose. Usually there are a lot of protections in place for renters so it's possible tesla is breaking the law or the renter accepted some liability attempting to save money.
Rentals and shared ownership situations are always messy anyways... A lot of this just reminds me of: "My condo HOA decided to hire the most expensive roof repair company in town!! Why can't we just pour some cheap tar across the roof and call it good for a few more years?!?!"
Like any other depreciating asset, the renter charges the rentee(sp?) the depreciation anyway, plus a small profit.
You appear to be under the impression that renting is better; this cannot be correct. The rent for any asset is ($COST_OF_PRODUCT + $COST_OF_ADMIN + $PROFIT). How do you figure that it's cheaper to pay those additional costs than to buy?
You only rent if you want something temporarily and don't want to deal with the hassle of resale. For this convenience, you pay extra.
Except that it obviously can be correct by virtue of being a common financial construct. Your formula is meaningless to a person making a choice between buying a renting. There’s seller profit in both situations but it’s irrelevant to the purchaser. A fundamental assumption of our economic system is that value can be created in parallel with profit.
If I always want a car that is less than five years old then a lease is a great option. It’s a matter of what fulfills my needs for the least money. That could be buying or leasing depending on my needs.
In the early 2000s it was not unusual for leases on slow-selling models to have negative interest rates (and that's with a realistic residual), not sure if that is still the case today. I certainly don't ever remember seeing a negative interest rate on non-lease financing offers, not sure why.
Pushing those costs years into the future can be to my advantage. That argument applies to any loan.
Leasing also gives me the option to buy the car at the end of my term, so I can end up owning the car while deferring much of the up-front cost in exchange for interest payments.
For example, if there is heavy tax on new cars, but no tax on cars over 6 months old, then you add more terms to your addition: + $DEPRECIATION - $EXTREME_TAX
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?
Driving around with a shoddy fix on a combustion engine can be just as dangerous. Yet, there are plenty independent mechanics that do a great job because they have access to OEM parts and manuals.
[0] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/36274/tesla-model-y-owners-fin...
Drilling and tapping a broken off plastic barb for a brass (or steel, or plastic, or whatever) barb is a very, very, very, standard procedure in any trade where you repair things.
I wouldn't call this hack. Appealing to authority is fashionable. People will poo-poo anything if they think they can get a few cheap virtue points for appealing to authority. Heck people will poo-poo the aftermarket versions of OEM stuff that's designed to fix specific issues with the OEM stuff on the basis of if the OEM wanted it that way they would have done it that way.
>Another question to consider is why the repair is 16k
Because the service writer couldn't get that part separately so they chose to quote for the whole assembly rather than ask the tech who did the diagnosis if there's any other options. They are not accustomed to having to think for themselves and do a quick fix. The environment of a service center is set up for a part replacing workflow. When all you have is a hammer everything is a nail. Whatever, shit happens. Rookie mistake.
This makes it sound like the part in question could have been easily replaced. The assembly in this case was the seal pack that isn't intended to be serviced. Even if they could have ordered the plastic coolant line, the removal and tear down of the pack to replace the line would have been a tremendous effort. It's debatable that it would have been easier to replace the pack AND then part out the old pack.
The plastic coolant tube should have ended at the pack housing with a threaded insert and the tap should have just threaded into it. If pack had been designed in this manner, the repair would have been trivial.
The pack is has a severe design flaw in my opinion.
<140°F @ <5 psi? JB Weld and call it a day.
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 repair, if Tesla quoted a whole pack that means there aren't any official operating procedures to replace to fix that part without replacing it while you can 100% blame Tesla for that, right-to-repair is about making parts available to do official repair, it's not about letting you figure out clever fixes on your car.
Niche technology is never cheap and they'll do it as long as their customers tolerate/pay it.
No, they used a standard off-the-shelf fitting out of convenience.
Will it work? Probably. Is it a compromise in terms of engineering design and testing? absolutely. Mind you, Tesla owns this car, and they probably would like to keep it in the condition in which they lent it out.
Legally subject to the terms of the lease, of course. But it feels unfair not to accept normal wear and tear and reasonable repair.
It's also not constrained the nose that was damaged here - whenever a part of the battery pack is damaged (could be a single cell) Tesla will replace the whole battery pack but not the part.
I believe Chad calls it "assembly replacement". It's not cost effective to train staff, have facilities and parts, and do the (dis-)assembly. Which is exactly why we need right to repair.
but then in that case, the sticker price of the repair also doesn't seem like it should be 16k, since Tesla's taking the old battery and capturing that side of the value too.
I think he means "Its not cost effective "for Tesla" to train staff, have facilities and parts ..."
Surely its more cost effective for the customer that requires this repair?
I think that’s a fairly smart idea, exactly to avoid issues like this.
If it flies, floats...
The calculation on whether to lease or buy is a little more complicated than can be captured with rules of thumb.
That puts the onus on the car company to look for the cheapest but most effective maintenance and repairs. If they're routinely paying $16k for an $800 repair, the average cost of tesla leases would go up by a bit to the point they're not competitive in lease pricing versus others who get it done for the $800.
And any car manufacturer which creates a system that inflates repair prices for whatever reason, would be similarly unfavourable for leasing.
If this was a personal car, very different story. Now you have an individual getting screwed 75% of the cost of the car for a minor plastic replacement, with no recourse. Here you need right to repair.
But for lease companies it all averages out, lease prices are positioned based on that average, and if the average is consistently high, Tesla is just disqualifying themselves from the market. There's no need for a legal framework to solve that when there's plenty of market incentives already.
But somehow for this guy it wasn't covered, but the solution seems to me not to have right to unlicensed repair of a car that another company owns, but rather that the lease contract (particularly insurance coverage) was poor and should've had coverage for stuff like this. That responsibility lies with the consumer, but because insurance can be technical and hard to understand, I'm entirely in favour of more mandatory insurances for consumer protection. But that's often not a popular take on HN. (we just had a discussion a week ago about mandatory insurance being too high in the US).
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.
When the lease is turned in, it will just have to go back to the factory. Destination/freight charges on a car are often about $1200, and this was otherwise a simple fix.
If Tesla feels the need to charge the customer for using a 3rd party repair service that recreated a stronger version of the original fittings then the current owner will still have saved about $14,000, AND all of.your concerns will have been addressed.
So you're cool with Tesla choosing to repair it for 30k? For 100k? Where does this stop?
> 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
What do you mean by "however safe it can be"? If it's as safe as Tesla's other repair method, then there is no increase in risk.
In that future and without right to repair, a crack in this tiny plastic hose fitting would total the car (heck, depending on your insurer, this already does).
Remember that car insurance costs are pooled. This kind of behavior makes _everyone's_ driving more expensive.
I would not be surprised if they expects from that future making extra profit by "recycling" damaged structures, or something related to such structure. Something for cover the decline in carbon-emissions sales in such future.
Anyway, I think that is called "Programed obsolescence".
It's like when led bulbs suddenly fails, you know it can be repaired, even you know how to replace the bad quality capacitor chosen by the manufacturer, but the plastic encapsulation prevents it. Programed obsolescence + prevent to repair.
This feels like a classic repair rip off and they were fishing for a customer who had more money than brains.
From the article it reads as if he took it to the dealer to get it repaired, they quoted him $16k, so he took it somewhere else. I could be wrong though.
However I completely understand the complaints people are making about repairability and insurance shennanigans etc.
[1]: https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/tesla-opening-up-service-repl...
Also, the first sentence of that article is about how this is only a thing in Massachusetts because of right to repair laws.
If Tesla could, they would brick or make certain systems not operational if you don't use first party parts.
[1] https://www.sculpteo.com/blog/2020/04/29/tesla-replaces-flaw...
I hope people that lease vechicles see this.
(I was under the assumption that all leases had to have full coverage auto insurance before you even signed the lease? And yes--on most insurance policies road hazard insurance is extra, but just assumed on a lease it would be included. I still remember the battle axe who kept questioning me over a broken windshield. She wouldn't shut up, until I mentioned CA has an Insurance Commissioner.)
"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 minor happens"
Seems anti-consumer all the way down.
Leases still near universally require collision coverage though, because they want damage fixed.
(I guess similar arguments could be made about other insurance markets)
I don’t own a Tesla but insurance for their cars is already relatively more expensive in several states. This can be readily seen in annual or semi-annual policies. Monthly payment policies that cost more per annum are a concern to me, but don’t factor into underwriting analysis at the make/model level.
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 to avoid paying the insured as much as possible. That's why we have so many denied payments and abuse in the case of health insurance.
Moreover, given that every insurance claim is a single case for the Insurer, they have the upper hand and oftentimes there is no recourse for the insured to really fight an unjust insurance denial.
We must find an alternative for this terrible system...
If I ever manage to get powerful and\or wealthy, I will task myself with fighting the scourge that is the insurance cabals tooth and nail.
On the other hand, more usual insurances are actuarial and work on the basis that an insurer shares the risk across the people/property that is insured and charges appropriately.
Most insurance of that nature make their profits from investing the income, relying on their actuaries to calculate the expected losses due to claims.
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)
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 requirements, and have a say so in who, and what they feel is a valid fix.
I don't see how right to repair would, or should force a change here?
Case in point: Model 3 came out in 2017, but wasn't available for lease until April 2019[0].
Other car manufacturers tried getting into subscription-based models a few years ago, but don't seem to be that successful with that. BMW introduced their All Access subscription model in 2018, it got discontinued just earlier this year[1]. The rest who tried similar subscription models seem to be going the exact same way too.
0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/04/12/tesla-m...
1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/14/22231451/bmw-access-subsc...
“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.
My understanding (I've never leased a car) is that if you lease a car you must have comprehensive (full coverage) insurance. Either the person failed to do what their lease contract (presumably) mandated, or shockingly you can lease a car without full coverage.
Obviously it depends on what the insurance policy states, but usually comprehensive insurance covers things that aren't even related to driving necessarily like hail, your car getting stolen, etc. It's surprising that they didn't cover this.
The other one I heard of was similar -- someone went from an old beater car to a new Tesla. The old car only had liability coverage and no collision/comprehensive and they didn't change this when replacing the vehicle. They learned this the hard way when making a claim after a crash and having it denied.
I have to imagine this is the result of using a self-service portal from the insurance company. I gotta think that if you spoke to a live human at the insurance firm to make the change, they would not miss an opportunity to sell you additional coverage.
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 the 4-5th generation of EVs roll out.
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).
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.
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 than the status quo from a design perspective, it also doesn't seem worse than most vehicles in this respect.
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 gopher or a 2-by-4. They are also usually guarded by a subframe to which the motor mounts attach.
I don't know that Tesla uses glycol, which is pretty darn poisonous, I was under the impression it was HOAT, which is much less so, still not good, but who knows.
I can see from the video there is a large plate that was supposed to shield this part, that the debris worked its way around, yanking on the poorly moored cooling line, cracking the coolant port. On consideration this looks a lot more like a fluke, so your point is well taken.
The coolant line runs right next to the rear sway bar and is visible from outside the vehicle. There is a basic plastic gaurd plate along the entire rear undercarriage. This 2020 model 3 has missing plastic body clip rivets in the area that is supposed to protect the cooling lines.
I was able to easy move the panel exposing the entire line on both sides.
A stick could easily get bound up in the wheel and whip right under it.
It does look pretty concealed, I'm gonna have a look at one the next chance that I get.
https://jalopnik.com/james-may-had-to-dismantle-his-tesla-mo...
[0] Which is the battery that runs essentially everything except the motors. Doors, windows, etc.
Manufacturers could do a much better job on this kind of thing, but not everything can be completely modular, and even if that was practical from a design perspective, the labor involved could often outweigh the cost of replacing the thing.
I suspect my first EV will be from one of the traditional manufacturers because they all know how to make a car with proper controls. A 30” touchscreen is cool and a nice additional way to control stuff but absolutely terrible if it’s the only way. I’m guessing Elon Musk knows this but hoped he’d be able to make self driving work before now so that controls would be useless anyway.
Unfortunately some of the traditional makers EVs are copying the mistakes of kitchen appliance makers, substituting proper buttons, levers and knobs for touch buttons and touchscreens as well.
My anecdata says the exact opposite. The HN crowd seems (to me) to be very, very against walled gardens.
It's bad for consumers to repeat corporate marketing jargon.
And those that just paid a thousand dollars have Post Purchase Rationalization.
Heck those that actually own heavily marketed Veblen goods (Tesla/Jeep/Apple) products typically do have this Bias.
It's people without skin in the game that can think the most clearly.
I think you are conflating two separate conversations with only a small overlap.
If they don't, then it's a bit deceptive. I'd fully expect to be able to buy OEM parts for any car I buy, and to have the car repaired at an independent shop. If you're defying the norm it's your responsibility to inform your customers.
Hopefully they have yet to incorporate security chips so the thing won't start with unofficial feet.
Genuinely curious why would you even go to Apple for that?
1. hunt around on AliExpress or Amazon for a third-party replacement
2. see if Apple are able to give you a "real" one for a not unreasonable price
That said, while 16k is outrageous (and the part is not well designed), no dealer/manufacturer would repair a car by cutting off a broken part, adding threads both ends and joining them together.
There's really no downsides if you're competent enough to install a pipe threaded object without it leaking (a low bar). Worst case it was already in need of replacement. Best case if it breaks again the next guy only has to replace the hose barb fitting.
Special fittings, formed nylon hoses, etc. etc. change the calculation somewhat but not that much.
Similar to free software. Free software means you can change the code as needed, even if you don't know how to code and pay someone else... that is still free software working as intended.
Sure, right to repair at it's most basic isn't going to make Tesla make this more repairable, or perform the repair in that way. Since they view the battery unit as a single unit, they don't have to sell component internal parts of the battery unit, or give instructions how to open it - they can just wave that off as a glues box never to be opened.
But - Tesla gave the owner a single option for repairing the car - replacing the entire battery. The owner saw that the batter modules, the groups of cells within the battery case were valuable by themselves - $12k versus the $16k Tesla was charging for a new one. But Tesla would not sell a new battery to the customer, they would only sell the service of swapping the battery, keeping the old one. Surely right to repair, forcing Tesla to sell parts like Batteries to owners, would get around the madness of Tesla keeping your old, damaged, but very valuable battery.
If Tesla fixes the battery pack and the fix fails, making the battery pack fail (or worse, catch on fire), they are on the hook to repair or replace your car.
If the independent shop makes a bad repair and it fails, then Tesla will say "That part was unrepairable, you shouldn't have tried to fix it".
They eventually did a recall, but no dealer can get the part therefore I cannot get it fixed!
What happens is that the insurance companies will just opt for condemning the car, and you'll get a brand new one. As you can imagine, the insurance prices are terrible.
What you're really paying for is the irrational fear.
The shops have to charge sky high prices to a) cover their butts or b) because they know nobody else will do it at a lower price.
Electrical system repairs aren't particularly unknown or difficult. In a slightly more rational market someone would make a killing by specializing in those kinds of repairs. But because people are too scared to entertain the thought of driving these repaired cars some importer in Ukraine is making a killing on all these Norwegian EVs he fixes and you guys are paying for it. And Ukrainians (or whoever, that was just an example of a slightly less rich country) love the cheap EVs because they are not nearly rich enough to entertain irrational fears about repaired vehicles.
There are lots of example of other markets like this where people who can pay a lot of money do pay a lot of money to avoid some irrational fear.
https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/repair/draft
They are after real world information and examples about how the Right to Repair is being nobbled by current laws, and they will recommend changes to Australia's law. So far they are leaning towards copyright exemptions for service material, such as manuals, and the removal of "Technical Protection Measures".
The Australian Government frequently implements Productivity Commission recommendations, so this is a real opportunity for positive change to Australia's laws (which might also have international flow ons). Please do make a thoughtful submission!
I've linked the part below [1] where Chad (ex Tesla repair technician) explains why Tesla do what they do, i.e. only replace the whole battery pack (which costs 16k) when some sub unit is broken.
The main reason is cost effectiveness (for Tesla): Instead of training staff how to disassemble, have parts in storage, maintain facilities, assemble again etc, it's cheaper to do 'assembly replacement' and replace the battery pack as a whole.
Watch Louis Rossmann's channel and you can see the vast majority of liquid damaged laptops need an hour or so of experienced technician diagnostic time and usually < $50 worth of component replacements. As opposed to Apple's blind replace-the-entire-logic-board solutions, which are much easier but much pricier.
Apple is happy to charge you $600 to $1k, when you likely just need to spend half or less of that, with the right repair shop.
Right to repair makes sense, but only for products you own.
Pretty shady that they wouldn't return his old battery pack to him, though.
> Tesla was then reportedly willing to return the pack, but apparently still questioned why he would want it. Given that the new pack was $16,000 and a new Model 3 cost just more than twice that, it's clear that the old pack was still valuable. A quick search on eBay confirms this, as used cell modules sell for thousands of dollars.
People listen to Dave Ramsey and pay back debt by size rather than interest rate, people buy Apple for something other than iOS dev, and people buy Jeep/Tesla.
Should we rely on the Free Market, or should the government make correct decisions for those with weak minds? I typically believe in Free Markets, but the longer I live, the more I question it.
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 battery is exposed, more so if single motor.
* Critical part of battery is non-serviceable fragile plastic.
* Tesla does not offer a core charge and will not return damaged pack to owner.
This was all because they saved some money by having cooling line fittings be fixed plastic instead of threaded inserts so you could replace the taps.
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 cutting.
Also, and more generally, any component that significantly outlasts its design life is overspecified.
"Efficiency engineering". :-/
And the people who buy the cars are knowingly or not knowingly supporting that. Probably not buying would be more efficient than passing laws with loopholes.
I know I wouldn't want to buy an electric car if random guys been messing with the battery pack.
Edit , isn't the bigger story the insurance not covering it ?
As to the story itself - garage did not fix the car for $700 - they just got it going.
Also, this owner skimped on comprehensive insurance, so it’s hard for me to feel empathetic about the cost.
step 2) get rid of car
step 3) buy a car from a respectable brand that will do the right thing when it comes to repairs
btw, I would take a ford over a tesla any day
If it's a fundamental flaw like this (easily breakable part exposed directly to road debris), then that is a design failure by Tesla that they should repair for free under a "fit for purpose" consumer protection law.
It shouldn't require someone to find an alternative fix to avoid Tesla's own design failure.
Personally, I would have used a plastic fitting so that if it were to get hit again, the fitting would take the damage instead of the part that has been threaded into.
The driving force being this story seems to be that the owner didn't have road hazard coverage. You've got to wonder how much Tesla is just raking in by defrauding insurance companies who don't yet know any better than to sign off on replacing the whole pack for a simple repair.
There's no way this is a $200 repair, that Tesla took up a bunch of shop time and their specialized technician for the better part of a day, carefully researching and installing this repair fitting. If you are charging $25/hr labor you are out of business.
If the repair fails, they will likely take it back and improve the fix.
Your plastic mystery fitting would likely not be compatible and cause a leak of whatever coolant is running around in there.
Lastly, road hazard insurance didn't cover any repair. Tesla doesn't do this kind of repair as well, leaving the only recourse replacing the entire part.
What's pictured in the article looks like 2 hours of labor, which would be a few hundred dollars at the rate for generic labor. I'm specifically highlighting the additional premium that Tesla expertise is commanding right now.
> mystery fitting
You do realize that all the usual pipe fitting shapes come in materials besides brass, right?
> Lastly, road hazard insurance didn't cover any repair.
Yes, this is reflected in my comment.
> Tesla doesn't do this kind of repair as well, leaving the only recourse replacing the entire part.
I'm sure Tesla takes the "broken" core pack, disassembles it, replaces that one plastic molding, and ships it off to the next repair for another $16k. For Tesla to charge an insurance company $16k with the justification of replacing the whole pack (while not even mentioning core charges!) is essentially insurance fraud.
They're skating by because they're new, but I can imagine in a few years either insurance companies will only pay for repairs from third parties who charge reasonable prices, or they will raise premiums significantly if you want to be entitled to OEM service/parts. I'd bet this dynamic is one of the main reasons Tesla is fighting Right to Repair.
Just because it looks like 2 hours of labor doesn't mean there aren't other risks involved as well as servicing the battery cooling system properly. Such risks include: fire, poisoning, accidental damage, environmental disposal and cleanup, future warranty service, or even an unfortunate death caused by the repair failure causing the batteries to ignite.
If you get the Monroe to spend 2 hours on it, it won't work and I can guarantee that.
>You do realize that all the usual pipe fitting shapes come in materials besides brass, right?
Yes I do. The materials are designed to be compatible with the components in the system. This is why Japanese aluminum motors typically use EPDM rubber parts and HOAT coolant without silicates, to prevent oxidization of the channels and water pump. Throw some ethylene glycol or silicate/borates and natural rubber in there and suffer the consequences.
What will PVC do with the (speculating) polycarbonate body of the battery packs or the coolant(Another commenter claims it is the pretty expensive Zerex G48[0] wich will dissolve some plastics)? Brass is a good guess for compatibility, but why they chose that will cost you $700 to find out -- a bargain! I'm betting it's because available plastic fittings aren't going to have the strength to last in the reduced tolerances caused by the repaired threads in the plastic housing. Quite a bit of experience is really required to know if and how to do this right.
>> Lastly, road hazard insurance didn't cover any repair.
>Yes, this is reflected in my comment.
>[...]
>...For Tesla to charge an insurance company $16k with the justification of replacing the whole pack...
Edit: I see your point here, Tesla dumbery = costly repairs. Definitely agree.
Hopefully Right To Repair will free this proprietary information up to Alldata so anybody can pay a subscription fee and learn of the specifications and repair data. Also, it will standardize labor book time...
[0] - https://www.valvoline.com/our-products/heavy-duty/zerex-g-48
1 hour to dismantle and diagnose
1 hour to cut/drill/tap
1 hour to fill and bleed the system
1 hour for whatever diagnostics are needed to verify that the ECU is happy and the car drives well.
Sounds like $700 to me.
The rubber fuel lines on my 1973 240z are behind a removable panel at the rear wheel. 3 screws and it’s off for access.