Hacker News Reader

Comment by belval | Hacker News Reader

> 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 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.

View on HN

Not only did they quote a whole battery pack for this simple repair, but the guy should have the right to keep the 'broken' battery pack (as a backup after he got it repaired) since he is buying a new one for full price. But tesla was refusing that as well.

Especially since the used battery pack would likely fetch 11k+ on ebay.

Update: reread the article, customer has the 50kWh rear wheel drive car. That means he’s been offered a battery at 320 bucks per kWh - at that price, of course tesla are profiting from the sale. If you have the 75 kWh car the bill is presumably then north of $20k…

We can speculate pretty easily on how profitable that $16k pack is.

Let’s assume the customer has the largest pack Tesla fit to a model 3 (~75kwh). He has just been offered a new one at approx 213 dollars per kWh.

While only Tesla know for certain, it’s widly assumed in 2021 this costs Tesla around 140 dollars a kWh.

Aside from a couple of hoses, high and low voltage connectors, the battery is held to the bottom of the car by just 12 bolts if memory serves. If you have an appropriate workshop (like Tesla!) the labour costs will be minimal.

I’d have to disagree and suggest Tesla are likely making a typical car industry margin on the replacement battery.

Not that I disagree, but I'm sure these packs have a significant amount of overhead costs as well.

I’m more surprised there are people out there who think Tesla would by design offer after sales parts “at cost” or a loss personally!

Yeah spares are 30- 50% percent mark up.

> at that price, of course tesla are profiting from the sale.

Auto manufacturers are allowed to sell the spare parts at a profit as well.

Of course, I didn’t disagree. OP suggests they are being sold at cost.

Please stop calling this a "clever fix". The fix is standard procedure in the industry of fixing these kinds of things (be it an electric car or an industrial 100 ton press.

That being said, the design of the car underside and this pack is poor. It should not be a single 16k part which has to be replaced as a unit, that's just purely incompetent. I also guarantee that Tesla DOES make money on this part. Nobody sells parts at no profit.

It does not matter how standard in the industry that fix is, I am not arguing for Tesla here, I am contesting the idea that this situation is covered by "right-to-repair".

Right to repair is about availability of replacement parts and repair manuals so that third parties can do repair on X. It's about Apple no controlling flow of parts so tightly that they can sue someone for doing "unauthorized repairs" when they change a broken screen.

Most importantly right-to-repair is about things that you own, which was not even the case here seeing how the car was leased.

So it does not matter if this is a "clever fix" or the equivalent of tie-wrapping your bumper so it does not fall off while driving. In both cases it has nothing to do with right-to-repair and trying to use it as an umbrella term for every automakers shady practice is how you end up with no legislation at all because lawmakers won't enact bills that allow you to fix a leased car with something that isn't prescribed by the manufacturer.

What you want right to repair to be, and what the law becomes is unlikely to have much in common - judging by other laws

This is still an important consideration for any Right to Repair regulation because there needs to be some thought put in to what constitutes "a part".

It would obviously be absurd for Tesla to claim that the entire car is one part so when this coolant fitting breaks the vehicle is totaled.

It doesn't necessarily mean that Tesla must change their designs, recategorize products, or sell "parts for parts" as separate SKUs. But it is probably not unreasonable for Right to Repair regulations to require that Tesla document reports of damage like this and make those documents available to third parties.

"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."

They're also assuming they will get to keep the broken pack. They end up with $16,000 plus anything recoverable from the pack, like the battery cells.

> 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 is one of the issues with leases. I have some (mostly) non-functional damage to my car from a couple self-inflicted low-speed collisions in a driveway/garage. I'll take some hit when I eventually trade the car in. But I usually trade in cars at 15-20 years and the hit will be far less than if it were a leased vehicle.

Though, in this case, I'm not sure why the owner didn't have comprehensive on a presumably fairly new vehicle. I actually did but decided it wasn't the deductible and presumed hike in premium.

Talked about in the video. The owner (lessee actually), messed up, and admits to the mistake.

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.

It is mentioned in the article that the person was actually driving without the right insurance due to an error when moving his policy from his old to his new car so while it sucks, the liability is not with Tesla nor should it considering the consumer made the error.

> due to an error when moving his policy from his old to his new car

Where does it say that?

> without the right insurance

Not having that coverage isn't objectively wrong, and it shouldn't mean you lose tons of money because you can't choose the mechanic.

https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=6m30s

You're ignoring the part of the transaction where Tesla gets a $16k battery pack for free with $700 worth of damage to it. Want to charge full price for the new pack? Fine, but I'm keeping the old one or you're paying me market value for it as is. This is where the profit margin is for Tesla, you think they just throw these slightly damaged packs in the trash?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com