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 it, don’t! This holds true for any depreciating asset.
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'.
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.
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...
Got one. It's super noisy, the sound vibrates through all the pipes in the house, and sometimes the water can't even get as high as the inlet to the pump.
It would just be better if the utility company supplied a decent pressure. But they don't want to do that because their pipes have thousands of leaks in, and the higher the pressure the more water leaks out.
This is the problem of living in a place where most of the infrastructure is 200 years old.
> It's super noisy, the sound vibrates through all the pipes in the house, and sometimes the water can't even get as high as the inlet to the pump.
FWIW, the first bit means the pump is defective/badly designed and you need to get a better one (don't have any actionable advice on where, unfortunately), and the second should be fixable by putting the accumulator tank in the basement/hole in the ground, although YMMV on practicality.
I got tired of a small pressure tank, and thus no water without power. So I bought a 50 gallon one.
Now I can take a shower in the morning, even without power.
Not sure of the pump to use here, and I think we're discussing the same thing almost, but pressurizing the holding tank would be pump before vs pump after.
Ah, yes, I was talking about a catchment tank (before the main pump; so the pump has water to pump) for the low-pressure input water. The pressure tank can be whereever.
Consider adding in a vibration isolation to the pump connection. This article describes some of the different types. Probably for your application the "hose and braid" would be what I'd be looking for. This is a pretty standard part from a hardware store.
They should also have to state how much the repair would cost if done at the factory where they can actually service the battery pack.
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"
If you're using the shift key, then "Tesla" is 6 keypresses whereas "TSLA" is only 4.5 (.5 since you don't technically have to release shift, which you can take advantage of in certain cases [0]).
You took 79 key presses to point that out. And here I am taking even more to respond. Clearly commenting is not based purely on a keypress-based economical model.
How would quote from factory help? I'm pretty sure they would quote disassembly/reassembly work on the battery pack, to replace whole piece of plastic the nipple is part of.
I'm talking about the fees charged to a someone returning a lease for any damage, which would be less than the cost of a new battery pack. When you return a lease you are obligated for any damage/repairs not caused by normal wear & tear or covered by warranty. Tesla shouldn't charge a lease return customer for such things unnecessarily by replacing a battery pack when a repair is possible. If I return a leased Honda and the exhaust system needs to be repaired with a new muffler, they charge me for the repair, not to replace the whole exhaust system.
In this case, Tesla under-equips service centers so local battery repairs aren't possible. Shipping it back to the factory is necessary. So I can kind of understand if they charge the customer a $1200 freight fee + the cost of the repair itself, but that would still be > $10,000 less than the cost of an entire new battery pack.
Although I think it would be much better if Tesla actually enabled their service centers to do repairs like this. They can get away with it right now since they're more of a luxury/prestige brand and have minimal competition in that EV segment, but if you buy a Cadillac you don't deal with this type of thing:
As other manufacturers are catching up with offerings that compete on the lucury/prestige side of EV's as well as entry level cars. These are manufacturers with more experience in engineering their cars for decentralized service, with customers that expect that: Honda knows that their Civic customers won't buy a comparable EV if a little road debris will either cost them $10k out of pocket or raise their insurance by getting a $10k at-fault claim that raises their insurance costs. Tesla may have a hard time facing such competition without changing their model.
Currently the extra price of an EV makes attracts customers where price is not as much of an issue. As manufacturers significantly larger than Tesla enter the marker with their economies of scale and lower prices, the target customer for an EV will change, as will their expectations.
Yes, although I think it is about an order of magnitude less of a problem than that.
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
40m doesn't seem at all surprising if you consider the height of a water tower built somewhere with higher elevation than most of the town. My house is 20m lower than the base of either of the two nearest water towers, at least one of which is ~75m tall. A few years ago, the town completed migrating one of the outlying areas with lots of new development into their central pressure zone, resulting in an increase by 45psi in those neighborhoods.
Pressure reducing valves are used anywhere the pressure going into a home is above 80 PSI, and those are a lot more common than homes needing their own booster pumps.
> Pressure reducing valves are used anywhere the pressure going into a home is above 80 PSI, and those are a lot more common than homes needing their own booster pumps
My house has one of these, as the pressure would go up to 90 psi sometimes (iirc). Weirdly, my water pressure isn't consistent and can still burst to a "visibly from the tap" higher pressure for a few minutes at a time. I have no idea what causes it.
I wonder if it's from water expanding in the hot water heater. That might be pressurizing your system after you send a volume of cold water into the heater after use. Your pressure reducer valve might be acting like a check valve preventing expansion relief into the municipal supply.
4 bar is the normal house inlet pressure in Norway. In fact in some places the mains pressure is much higher and a pressure reduction valve is fitted. No one uses header tanks.
nah, just one pump. The well is about 518'/158m deep, so the basement +2 stories are kind of a small add-on. I seem to recall most of the bog-standard plumbing bits are rated at 120 or 150 psi.
I just put in some new PEX line extensions and that stuff is rated for 160psi at 74F, 100psi at 180F and 80pis at 200F. (BTW, very good experience installing the PEX, as long one takes care to make clean cuts, it's great - I'm about to go test it for vacuum lines at my shop)
Edit: Plus, I've got to say that it is really cool to get perspectives from all over the world here - India, Norway, and a few other places, just in a few comments - just how differently things are done, and what we each take for granted in our environment.
I'd probably compare it to patching tires or installing a replacement tire valve. The pressure in a car tire is around 2.5-3 bar, the bike tires go up to 4-4.5 bar.
The Gen 1 Tesla Roadster was a license built Lotus Elise. The Lotus Elise had a Toyota motor, the Tesla was all electric, what other Toyota parts are you talking about? Did they also use Toyota accessories?
The roadster was a “glider” (body minus powertrain) built on contract by Lotus, but it was not based on the Elise: it shared only a handful of parts with the Elise.
This is interesting. I had forgotten all the changes they made. It makes perfect sense, especially for the parts that can't be seen.
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.
It took a while to realize irrational defenses of Elon Musk/Tesla and down voting nearly anything negative about either were tied to the large number of people here who have invested significant sums in the stock and not so much a cult of personality.
This is a leased vehicle, meaning that “right to repair” is not associated at all unless you wish to break the lease agreement and owe BIG $$$. All leases are essentially like initial warranties. The dealer has to fix or your warranty goes invalid.
You're allowed to bring a leased car to any mechanic for repairs. You don't have to use the dealership, or even OEM parts if others are available. Or at least every lease agreement I've ever read-- and I always read the whole thing-- has never limited this. I'm in the US though, things may differ elsewhere.
Also the correct word it moot, not mute. And neither apply in this situation, so the issue of mute is completely moot.
That is your opinion. Another way to see things is that if you have to pay for repairs you should be able to choose whatever method suits you. If Tesla wants to restrict repairs they can include all repairs in the leasing price.
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)
>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 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.
I would have personally sought out a plastic barb for the chemical compatibility reasons you state (one less variable to worry about) but if it's glycol type coolant brass will be fine. Also there may very well be brass elsewhere in the system informing their decision.
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.
Why the assumption that the independant tesla repair people don't know this? It might be unknown to you but I assume that people who work with metals and liquids all day long (including coolant) would have some idea of their interaction.
The point is not to call them incompetent - there absolutely are rigorous and good third party repair shops out there.
Unfortunately, there are just as much of them just trying to get your money and then fixing it the simplest and cheapest way possible, without the consideration for long term safety and secondary effects that Tesla has probably put in.
As an outsider, it's hard to tell the difference, but I agree with the grandparent that an order of magnitude cheaper does look too good to be true at first.
While I agree (good and bad repair shops), this extends to dealers and even management at local, non-franchised shops.
EG, a specific Tesla shop can be stuck with bad management too.
A Canadian banks was caught because tellers were signing people up, unaware, with free credit cards, over draft protection, monthly plans, and even lines of credit. Why?
Management tying performance and promotion, and even job security, with overly aggressive conversion numbers.
So, even a Tesla shop may try an upsale, to get monthly profit numbers up.
In terms of the hack? It's not a hack. It is a simple, sensible fix. Bear in mind, the Tesla shop he went to? Seems to be little more than a component swapping repair site. They likely know little about car repair.
One other thing. You get good at car repair, when you work on 10, 20, 30 year old cars.
Fixing new, in lease cars is easy by comparison. Tesla has little experience with 20 year old wear and tear fixes...
Yet independent shops and experienced mechanics do.
> As an outsider, it's hard to tell the difference, but I agree with the grandparent that an order of magnitude cheaper does look too good to be true at first.
Whereas, looking at it the other way around, an order of magnitude more expensive on the part of the manufacturer unfortunately doesn't look too bad to be true at all.
> without the consideration for long term safety and secondary effects that Tesla has probably put in.
This seems like an incredibly wild assumption. The German concept of 'keine ehrfurcht fur deine maschine' will keep you from seeing every problem as a chance for your box to shine.
Well, it depends a bit on the possible failure scenarios. If we would be talking about a 10$ toy, hacking something together would totally be fine with me.
But we're talking about a 40k$ car and a system which is critical for cooling a part that is very eager to start a fire. I can easily imagine that the higher pressure or temperature tolerance would be needed if you're using the car in extremely hot weather (which can be a bit unexpected [0]) or when the battery experiences a critical failure. When working with systems that can have very bad failures, a bit of Ehrfurcht might be appropriate.
It was a callback to KMFDM's point of view combined with a little "every problem looks like a nail" thinking that wildly missed its mark as a joke, unfortunately for me.
A possibly more accurate translation, depending on how "Erfurcht" is read, might be "don't deify the machine", as in "don't hesitate because you fear you can not understand it" (I'm German myself). This interpretation would somewhat make sense in the context.
> Does the coolant cause dezincification? Is zinc tolerable in the coolant?
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.
I'm certain that the mechanic, who took 3 or 4 years to learn his trade, has thought of these things.
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.
> 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 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.
>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.
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"
Tesla’s own factories use all sorts of shoddy fixes. This is a legitimate fix that you could expect at any licensed mechanic and that Tesla would likely use it they had a parts shortage. Not every repair needs to be done with perfect oem replacement parts. Good luck getting an insurance company to cover 100% replacement during an accident for example.
Ok, So your argument is that someone at a Telsa factory did shady shit, so then the company should accept any third parties fixes?
As far as the shoddy work, people keep acting like Telsa is a hivemind, and that every dept. in the company had signed off on these bad choices as a matter of corporate policy. Doesn't seem far more likely somebody working in the factory was worried about making quota, and did a very shitty job?
And as far as the "Not every repair needs to be done with perfect oem replacement parts." I agree, but that should be the owner of the car's choice, and in this case the car is owned by Telsa.
>As far as the shoddy work, people keep acting like Telsa is a hivemind, and that every dept. in the company had signed off on these bad choices as a matter of corporate policy. Doesn't seem far more likely somebody working in the factory was worried about making quota, and did a very shitty job?
"You shouldn't have the right to make shitty choices! That's the Big Corporations' prerogative!"
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.
There’s a big gulf between “we’re using a common technique that’s regularly used in engines, even though it’s not OEM spec for this specific area” and “we’ve disabled an emergency safety system because it’s not working right”. Trying to equate the two is very disingenuous.
Again, there is a difference between fixing a non-safety critical system in a non-spec but commonly used way, and completely disabling a safety system.
If they were disabling this car’s airbags or ABS to solve a different issue, this would be a good comparison. But they’re just not the same at all.
If a fitting exposed to road debris being damaged results in the only option being a 16000 repair the OEM should do it for free as penence for their incompetence.
To fix panel damage on jet airliners, instead of replacing half the skin, they usually just rivet a patch over the hole. Or in the case of the composite-skinned Boeing 787, they basically glue a patch over it [1].
Sometimes they don't even bother with that, and just tape it up instead [2].
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
It recognizes that someone might want to call it hackish, and effectively says "don't even start".
That's not an agreement that it actually is hackish.
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 you to use a third party part.
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.
Oof, you'd have a heart attack if you knew what mechanics regularly do to "normal" cars.
But yeah, it's the lease contract dictating things. Read your contracts carefully kids, they're often designed to screw you over and (sadly) rarely negotiable.
As someone who has a great deal of experience working on high performance cars and racing them, I feel your characterization of this fix as a “hack” is ridiculous. People do more questionable fixes and ferraris and lambos regularly.
Yeah some people can't think outside the box though. Probably not worth arguing with them. Nothing short of a Tesla engineering team coming out to inspect it will they be happy.
Do you rent most of them? Because that is the crux of matter, if the guy owned the car, hell I'm all for them doing what they want, and fixing how they choose, and I think Telsa should legally be required to provide the manuals, software, and within reason make the parts available.
But this case is, that the guy is renting the car, and Tesla wants him to fix to their standards, and he's trying to pass of this fix, which you have to admit is questionably, and they didn't agree to it.
In this case, I'm not sure how right to repair would make any difference.
And when your motor is going to only last 30k miles, you can probably get away with a lot more, as opposed to a fix that is expected to last 200-300k.
> But this case is, that the guy is renting the car, and Tesla wants him to fix to their standards
If Tesla the manufacturer charges twenty times more for a repair, it's certainly reasonable to check other alternatives first.
If Tesla the leasor insists that repairs must be done by Tesla the manufacturer, then it seems only fair and equitable that the leasor pays the 1,900 % excess charge to the manufacturer. (It's not as if they'll be that much out of pocket anyway.)
If the terms of the lease dictate that Tesla get final say and he signed it. I don't really see how this has anything to do with right to repair, and is a contract dispute, one the renter won't likely have a leg to stand on.
> 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 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)
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 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.
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.
I would bet a lawyer would tell you not plug a third party phone into the AT&T phone system either in case you damaged it, as AT&T disingenuously argued would happen.
I repair and modify things, typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment mounted to or towed by them. I work on the economic low end of the market so I get all the stuff that real shops want nothing to do with and have had to consider how liable I am for my work. I have had these sorts of discussions in a non-professional context (i.e no money changed hands) with an attorney who specializes in businesses in social services settings (so the advice is probably biased toward whatever he finds his clients defending against most often) and aside from the typical disclaimers[0][1][2][3][4][5] that any responsible lawyer will give you I feel confident enough in my analysis that I put my money where my mouth is making similiar repairs in my day to day life.
The general gist of things is that for a successful lawsuit there has to be some evidence that the work you performed caused the injury and even if so there then also needs to be a precedent of strict liability or you would to have had to do something negligent or check the boxes for some other tort, but I've been advised negligence is the one you really have to watch out for in a professional setting. Negligence is a fuzzy concept but it suffices to say that proving it to the standard required for a civil suit would be a very uphill battle for a reasonably standard repair procedure performed in a reasonably standard setting.
Strict liability scares me far more than a lawsuit arising out of alleged negligence. I can do good, defensible work and stand by it. I cannot know all the areas of law where strict liability may be an issue. I cannot control whether my customers use the things I have repaired for them in a strict liability context (e.g. fumigation, overhead lifting) which could make my party to a lawsuit.
No I didn't pay for the advice but for the volume and riskiness of work I do I'm content.
[0] if you're not paying for it it's not legal advice
[1] nobody can make guarantees about what will happen in court
[2] you have the wrong demographics to get sympathy from judges in this state, they'll expect you to know better than to cut corners so don't cut corners
[3] bad facts, bad case law, hope your malpractice kills a skinhead and not a single mother or you'll be the case law
[4] just defending yourself can be no more than a consultation fee or it can be ruinously expensive
[5] if a megacorp or the state sues you everything goes out the window because the playing field is so unlevel.
CA is a joint and several liability state. Joint and several liability is the legal doctrine that each defendant in a personal injury claim may be held responsible for ALL the victim's economic damages. Importantly this can occur if you are fractionally at fault.
You've parked 10 feet off the side of the freeway, 16 feet away from any lane. Someone is going 80 miles an hour, passing cars, then (likely) falls asleep and veers sharply off the road, then along the side of the road and hits your parked truck.
Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.
From actually seeing cases first hand
1) If you have money
2) you have a connection to an accident however small, particularly a fatal one, and very particularly with any kind of sympathetic angle (wife and children bereaved and at risk of being homeless etc
then you will be named in the lawsuit. And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything
I kind of took for granted the fact that my customers are typically the party with the money by several orders of magnitude so I don't have to worry much about joint liability even though I live in one of those states.
You're definitely not wrong, "don't be the only party with the money" was one of the things my law professor drilled into us but for a consumer getting their car (or whatever) repaired they don't really have to worry about being the guy with the money since any shop will have a ton of money via insurance and insurance will have a ton of practice defending frivolous claims.
I also forgot the "anyone can sue anyone for anything, doesn't mean they win, doesn't mean it won't cost you money to fight them" disclaimer.
Perfect - the best defense BY FAR is to have less / little / no $$.
This is unique in CA - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays). But you can actually be the one paying rather than getting paid even if they hit you.
No its not, its the pure comparative fault rule followed by 13 states.
> - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay
And you’d be right, if you suffered damages. If they were 90% responsible and you were 10% responsible, they’d have to suffer 9× the compensible injury that you did to net anything, because California is a pure comparative fault state.
> (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays).
Incorrect.
Some states do each of:
* Whoever is >0% at fault cannot collect from other parties (pure contributory negligence).
* Whoever is at least 50% at fault cannot collect from other parties (one modified comparative fault rule.)
* Whoever is at least 51% at fault cannot collect from other parties (another modified comparative fault rule.)
Let me give you an example - see if you can figure out who will pay and how much. The answer may surprise you.
Husband / driver falls asleep at the wheel while trying to speed home (going 70-80MPH). Weaves and then veers sharply off the freeway, hitting a parked vehicle parked well clear of the roadway and killing themselves, damaging the parked vehicle and causing pain and suffering to driver of parked vehicle.
Wife and family brings suit against driver and company owning parked vehicle for damages including funeral and burial costs, unreimbursed medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, loss of income and financial support, loss of insurance coverage, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.
Questions you may wish to consider.
Family bringing case has no money - there is no chance of collection. Guy falling asleep and running off the road was only source of income.
Company owning parked vehicle has money - there is a high chance of collection on any judgement.
Who will pay out in CA. The guy causing the situation by running off the road and smashing into a parked vehicle at 80 MPH? Or the company owning the vehicle he smashed into.
In CA - the answer may surprise you. And the size of awards may surprise you.
Most states are either joint and several liability states or (more commonly, and as California actually is), modified joint and several liability states.
> And at least in CA - even if the husband was 90% at fault (to a normal person the one who did things wrong). YOU could pay out everything.
No, because California is also a comparative fault state, so if the decedent (for wrongful death claims) abd/or plaintiff (for any claims) is 90% responsible, other actors who might be jointly (for economic damages) or severally (for non-economic damages) liable would only be liable for up to a total of 10% of the resulting damages (any tortfeasor for the full amount under joint liability, or the amount of their proportionate responsibility for several liability.)
> Even though you are fractionally at fault you are on the hook for everything.
It is important to note that you can then sue the other at fault parties for whatever you had to pay that was above your fair share.
For example if I'm 90% at fault and you are 10% at fault in something that causes $1 million damages to someone and they come after you and win $1 million, you can turn around and sue me for for $900k.
I might not have $900k and so you might still end up screwed but in that case it is either you who gets screwed or the person you and I injured, and the idea behind joint and several liability is if we have to screw someone it should not be someone who was at fault.
Another part you are forgetting is these are often designed to save govt money. Should a rich person slightly involved pick up the tab, or should the kids be homeless and costing $ in social services kind of thing.
Note though that YOU can be the one 90% at fault and the person you hit has to pay if you are broke (wife will sue because you died ) Ralph’s grocery caught this type of case all the way and lost
Your choices then are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
The rest either have pure joint and several liability in which each defendant is responsible for the full amount of damages (Alabama, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia), or like California have modified joint and several liability in which defendants above some threshold fault percentage are responsible for the full amount of damages (Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).
> 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.
I dunno. I think if I walked in with some random "brake rotor" that wasn't like any of the OEM or aftermarket ones they were used to seeing, the mechanic didn't know much about and couldn't verify would work sufficiently, even if it bolted into place, they might tell me to take a hike. I expect they would do a similar thing if I wanted airbags that went off replaced with something that looked like it wouldn't work right. Or a gas tank that looked suspect.
I know I would turn people away if I was a mechanic and they came to me with those requests. Maybe those items worked perfectly fine, but if I don't have assurance I'm making a good call (like, for example, by knowing I'm replacing components with parts that are trusted by the OEM or have a proven rack record), why would I take that risk, legally or morally (if I think the person is making a bad decision)? Some decisions impact safety (especially when dealing with components that have a lot to do with safety), and I think those deserve some consideration.
That doesn't mean Tesla should be the only entity allowed to repair though. Perhaps some of these components are perfectly fine, and you just need to find a mechanic that has enough experience with them to know that (but good luck finding the experienced mechanic instead of the one that doesn't care when looking around I guess, I'm not sure how you tell them apart). Competition is generally good.
>I dunno. I think if I walked in with some random...
They'd tell you not to bring your own parts because they make money off parts and it's a variable they can't control and can introduce warranty headaches for them if it fails and it can waste their time if it's not rich (which is a real PITA for the tech in a flat rate pay system, they lose money directly). They have suppliers they like to deal with and want to stick to. As you get into less cookie cutter, higher dollar or more informal work it is much more common for the customer to provide parts. Oddball or obsolete heavy equipment is often dropped off with a rebuild-able core the repair shop is expected to use and/or modify because that's more economically efficient than having the repair entity source parts. Of course this can create hang-ups but these businesses expect that to happen sometimes. It's not super streamlined for high speed parts swapping on consumer automobile repair is. For side gig type work the mechanic might just tell the customer to go to the car parts store or Rockauto and buy it himself.
>wasn't like any of the OEM or aftermarket ones they were used to seeing
>couldn't verify would work sufficiently
You're giving examples where the professional using their judgement is assessing the parts to be suspect causing the potential work to be sub par and not something they can stand behind. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a case where the professional used their judgement and called the repair (tap the plastic, install a nipple) good enough and there was no reason to believe it wasn't other than pure speculation.
>but if I don't have assurance I'm making a good call
That's the thing, the guy tapping the plastic does have fairly good assurance he is making a good call because he has training and or experience repairing vehicles. He's going to have a good idea what does and doesn't work. At some point someone has to stick their neck out and make a judgement call. That's why people get paid, to make decisions. You can try and be a drone kick all the thinking up the chain to corporate but you're leaving money and satisfied customers on the table. You can run a business that way. It's perfectly valid. But you can also be the independent shop that just uses their professional judgement to do things like repair the battery on a Tesla or, a drain and fill plug to a Ford PTU or replace the Toyota oil filter cap with the metal one after the plastic one gets chewed up.
"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."
That would technically be part of "right to repair" legislation.
No chance. The battery is loaded with sensors. Any charging is going to stop immediately if the temperature gets too high. Even your cell phone has battery temperature sensors built in to the battery pack.
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.
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...
Exactly. I used to work for a time in a bicycle repair shop, drilling out and re-tapping a broken or stripped hole or thread was a common fix, I would hardly consider it a "hack".
Similar thought, i find it funny people call this hacky. It looks like it was well done. Also most auto-shops own a set of taps for jobs just like this.
Hacky too me would be using JBweld, while its a strong epoxy that would be getting into what i would call hack territory.
>Manufacturers are taking it away for future guaranteed service income
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?
Tbf the unknown is risky. Tesla doesn't want to verify the fixes or the third-party. I agree the customer should have the freedom, but I understand the policy.
>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.
its not like a brake light or a suspension part this was a inlet port for cooling fluid to the battery . If not done correctly it will spring a leak in a onroad driving situation , Tesla probably does have safety systems to stop the car to prevent the battery from overheating and exploding. besides they charged 700$ for 5$ worth of parts and 1~2 hours of labour :) that isnt the best advocacy for RTR IMO.
I think you're vastly undervaluing the cost of operating a auto shop + skilled labor. $700 was the cost for an auto repair business to 1) have a skilled technician find the problem 2) devise a repair method and 3) execute the repair.
Car repair is an expensive business to operate. Rent/building costs are high, lots of expensive equipment, one of the highest insurance rates around (you're lifting expensive heavy weights up and down over people all day) and labor is us usually relatively skilled and costly.
i understand that things need to cost something . But if you owned a toyota or a ford car and they charged you 700$ for service. Does that sound reasonable.
That rate likely includes transportation to the facility to do the repair. I would happily pay that over paying $16k and so did the customer. That's a fantastic argument for RTR.
> 1. invest money in a supply chain to have parts in stock for the battery assembly(take many months).
They already have this for other parts, it's trivial to extend the model to the battery. The problem is that the battery was not designed to be serviced without specialized tooling and expertise.
It doesn't have to be that way. It was their choice. They made that choice because it costs them less money to service the batteries in bulk at a specialized facility, at the expense of the customer. It's not like the customer has a choice. They already bought the car. What are they going to do?
Here is another option:
4. Design your vehicles in a way where a $1 part can be easily detached and replaced by anyone with basic tooling, instead of charging the customer $18k for a new battery.
This isn't just an issue with Tesla. This is an issue with almost all manufacturers today. They make more money when they replace the entire assembly.
Apple operates in the same way. If one of the keys breaks on your laptop, Apple will replace half the laptop. That's the only option. You can't replace the key. It was designed this way.
Hey, I was charged ~$900 (labor) at cartoys to install a new stereo + amp/sub system recently, so I know all about overcharging :)
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?
Because $16k is a high barrier to entry and future prospective buyers will read about this case and think “hey I don’t want that” and buy a Toyota instead.
If Tesla owners aren't price sensitive, then why do we care? Are we up in arms that Lamborghini (cars not tractors) is going to over charge for bumper repair?
For the record, I believe the right to repair to an extent. But I believe when we back the movement with crappy data points like this one, the whole movement loses legitimacy.
IMO this case is not just about the price, the perceived fairness plays a central role. From the article:
> Benoit and the team at Electrified Garage are huge proponents of Right to Repair and say that this is a lesson on that very subject.
I also think that it’s still a good case. The owner wanted an alternative to just throwing away the $16000 part, and found a shop that provided a legit way to do that (until proven otherwise at least).
Hopefully getting punished for choosing alternatives to Tesla to service it would be prohibited by right to repair clauses.
Maybe the repair is obvious based on the design / construction of battery packs used in other industries and applications. I don't want to get into details as this is not even remotely my area of expertise, and my point was about the principle anyway. I trust that repair-shops can build expertise via their own experience and knowledge. Again, if someone is not comfortable - great, take it to Tesla by all means.
When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs. If I am on the hook for the repair bill I should get a choice in how the car is repaired. I can buy whatever tires I want for a leased car. If Tesla wants to make these kinds of demands then the repair should be part of the warranty and priced in to the car.
> 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.
It really just comes down to math. A lease has a “residual” which is the expected value of the car at lease end. You pay for the difference between the new value and the residual with your lease payment. It’s essentially like buying a car with an installment loan, except you’ve pre-arranged to sell the car after 3 years at a determined price. There’s also a “money factor” which is the implied interest rate you are getting in the lease. It turns out that Tesla leases have a high money factor, which makes them a bad deal.
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.
> 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.
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.
Not all cars are set to depreciate. If you buy something more rare or in demand you will probably see it worth about the same when you sell, sometimes decades down the line. If you bought an aircooled 911 or some old land cruiser today, it would probably be worth even more in 15 years even with your mileage.
It sure does apply to mass market cars. A 15 year old Jeep wrangler with a manual transmission will hold its value fine. Most trucks actually hold quite a bit of value, especially with the manual transmission as these are sought after.
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?
Simple financial engineering. Sometimes they take the loss but cover it up or push it out using lease terms. The company has profit now but takes a write off later. Good for juicing executive bonus packages.
Also because lease terms are complex they can stack with other promotions or incentives and allow for leases lower than the cost of ownership would have been otherwise. There is a whole lease community dedicated to finding these crazy deals but they wouldn’t be something you could do by just walking into a random dealer.
Via risk miscalculation or bad luck on the side of the manufacturer. The lease conditions are usually fixed at the start; if the car ends up requiring a lot of warranty covered repairs or deprecates faster than anticipated (for example because they cheated on emissions), the manufacturer ends up with a bad deal.
The miscalculation is often intentional. Manufacturers for example know that Low end EVs depreciate faster than equivalent ic cars but still assign similar depreciation tables because otherwise they couldn’t get rid of the cars or would have to sell em at steep discounts and take immediate losses
> When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs.
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.
It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision". You should expect a vehicle to be engineered so that small objects hitting the undercarriage don't cause significant damage.
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.
These terms are clearly defined in auto policies and are strictly regulated. I just read mine, and the things that are covered under my comprehensive policy are in a plain-english list that, clear as day, wouldn't cover this.
Although if we're just talking plain-english and not legalese, I'd say that your assertion is a stretch: that colliding with debris is not a "collision".
And yes, Tesla repairability is poor. That's kind of what you can expect to get when you prioritize time-to-market above anything else. I like to buy old motorcycles that don't have any parts availability and everything has to be custom done... but I wouldn't do that with my daily driver.
As pointed out in another comment, I think this is a case of US / UK difference in insurance jargon. Debris damaging the undercarriage would not be covered by the closest UK equivalent of collision insurance (CDW on rentals), as I understand it.
I also think insurance is a bit of a red herring here. You wouldn't claim on insurance for a flat tyre either; some things are just bad luck. It's the quality of engineering - what I do think is on topic - which controls the risk.
That's a pretty typical construction for a cradle tube frame. A Triumph Tiger 800 is not a high performance bike. Cradle frames are cheap, the bikes that have bolted on subframes typically have backbone frames and use the engines as stressed members. Also that subframe attachment is an adjustment point for fine-tuning rider position.
I have no clue why you're being downvoted (and I'm being downvoted now too, lol). If you hit a rock in the road, or a pothole, or a tree, it is covered under collision insurance.
Perhaps part of the confusion here is UK vs US? A collision in the UK would normally involve a third party.
In the rental space, collision damage waivers - CDWs - explicitly don't cover undercarriage, wheels, windshields and so on, the kind of damage we're talking about here.
At the US rental companies I've used, CDWs specifically do cover those things, and in fact cover pretty much everything related to any damage of the vehicle (with caveats, like you were using the vehicle for something illegal). I guess the US/UK difference is good to keep in mind next time I head to the UK.
Indeed. I have full coverage with Geico, as well as uninsured motorist coverage, damage etc.
Well the other night some asshole decided to pac-man all the cones on the highway late at night so we had to navigate a field of almost impossible to see cones (the borders are black and there were no lights up). Several cars, including mine ended up running over a few. I got lucky as it just messed up my paint a bit on the front bumper and I lost a license plate. Two other vehicles crashed over it, really sucked.
Called Geico when I got home and was informed I don't have collision coverage. They told me for this I would have needed comprehensive coverage and collision coverage.
Well joke's on them, my renewal is this month and I'm bouncing. I'd rather find another company that won't weasel out on me. When I signed up I said I wanted to be covered no matter what. I pay enough monthly I should be.
Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should. It ends up being a tax we pay to still have to pay out of pocket no matter what.
Yikes. That’s an unfortunate but sadly common mistake. Terms like “full coverage” don’t really have any real meaning, despite people repeating the made-up term.
I am fairly certain that it would be illegal for an agent to sell that to you without clarifying.
Not sure maybe we all just pay a tax to cover the damage...exactly like insurance is supppsed to be, but more like a co-op so it's just us, no C-Suite asshats stealing 99% of the money for themselves. Insurance on paper sounds good, it's the ever-greedier businesses that eff it all up.
As another reply to me mentioned, 'full-coverage' should be just that. The US allows so much lies I believe nothing, our gov't lies ,ads lie, politicians lie,police lie,lawyers...well
That doesn't pass the smell test for me - with a co-op, incentives are aligned for everyone. With liability that's covered by society, you create incentives that are directly opposed - e.g. you can drive a giant SUV that's more deadly to other drivers and pedestrians - and without mandatory insurance, you're getting the benefits of driving a tank-like vehicle while offloading all the costs and risks onto others.
You'd also need some new framework for dealing with high-risk drivers - e.g. instead of increasing the insurance cost for someone with a DUI conviction, you'd need to simply take away their ability to drive.
Important words in contracts are usually defined in the contract itself. "Collision" is almost certainly defined in any automobile insurance contract you purchase. If you can read code, you can (and should!) read the contracts you sign, especially contracts that could pay you money.
Relying on the dictionary alone can mislead you.
Here's the pertinent definition from my policy (USAA specifically):
"Collision" means the impact with an object and includes upset of a vehicle. Loss caused by the following is covered under Comprehensive Coverage and is not considered collision: fire; missiles or falling objects; hail, water or flood; malicious mischief or vandalism; theft or larceny; riot or civil commotion; explosion orearthquake; contact with bird or animal; windstorm; or breakage of window glass
I understand words can often have their definitions narrowed and agree people should read their contracts. I tend to irk sales people because I do bother to read all the papers they start throwing my way and start asking questions they've never been asked by the hundreds of customers.
The person I was replying to wasn't referencing any particular contract. They were just speaking generally about hitting road debris being a stretch to define as a collision.
> It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision".
Seeing as how neither I nor he referenced any particular insurance contract, why would we then bother to use your insurance contract to define the term instead of probably the one shared point between us to define the term (the dictionary)? Why not reference a contract I'll sign with a friend where for the purposes of the contract a collision is defined only as a 5 foot person running into a blue colored wall. I guess a car slamming into a wall isn't a collision anymore since this one contract defines it a different arbitrary way!
Not really the debris is colliding with the car. Even a pebble hitting a wind shield can hit with quite a bit of force and is also a collision. Let alone larger debris on the road. Also both objects dont need to be moving for instance you can collide into a tree or guard rail.
Now insurance certainly can exclude things that are collisions. A common on in the US are animal collisions like deer ect...
Usually rentals require/include max comprehensive insurance (regulations vary based on the state in US), so if the warranty doesn't cover it then the insurance should.
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?!?!"
A bit off topic, but tar should only be used as temp repair to prevent further damage from water and moisture. For example its winter and you have asphalt shingle roof. Asphalt shingles are brittle when cold so attempting a proper repair could damage more shingles on what was a rather localized problem. Also ice and snow makes working on a roof more hazardous.
An other possible reason would be you don't have enough money on hand at the moment the issue was discovered giving you a few months to set asside enough money. Similar, thing the contractors schedule is packed so a quick temp repair can hold you off while you wait the week or two for his crew to begin work. An other similar issue is waiting on materials if your roof uses a material that is not locally stocked.
Tar also has a nasty problem of becoming brittle from UV light something roofs get plenty of. So instead of flexing under thermal expansion and contraction it just cracks. So its not ideal for anything but a temporary fix.
Now for choosing the most expensive contractor that is on your condo. Although they could have certainly been valid reasons.
The article doesn’t say his insurance wouldn’t cover it. It says his comprehensive coverage on his insurance wouldn’t cover it. Which is highly likely because this type of incident is usually a collision claim.
If he has comprehensive at all then he almost certainly has collision coverage. It’s just that, then it’s $16k accident that’s he’s at fault for.
I'm not sure if it said he had comprehensive, sounds like he didn't, but the wording is a bit strange.
> "the owner's insurance policy didn't cover comprehensive claims from road debris"
My guess was that this would have been a comprehensive claim, but he didn't have that insurance plan. Could just be a deceptive play on words to evade the real issue...
I am not aware of any US insurer or state where striking an object on a road would be a comprehensive claim. After watching the video I think he’s probably just confusing the two. Which might be likely since he clearly doesn’t have his whole insurance situation figured out.
The benefit of buying it is that you can drive it well after it's paid off. Leasing and trading up all the time means you're constantly making never-ending payments. It's not that hard to sell your car when the time comes to get rid of it.
It’s not that simple. Sometimes the lease is a better deal if you fall into the correct mileage band or if a manufacturer over estimates residual value. This happens a lot for fast depreciation luxury cars that aren’t a as popular or low end economy cars that manufacturers are dumping.
Those never-ending payments are covering depreciation. Unless you keep your car for 10+ years and it’s one of the rare models that holds value after that, you’re not much better off buying it.
> The fact that cars depreciate seems like the best reason to "rent" them.
Last I checked, the average age of cars in the US is 13 years. on average you are going to be better off buying.
The number of people who, after an item is paid of, go out and replace it immediately are the same people who are bad with money anyway, so it makes sense that those people think it's financially better to rent.
Buying 10 year old cars that are nearly fully depreciated is where you save big money. You can get a dependable car for a few thousand dollars, and even if it needs more repairs than a new car you still come out money ahead especially if you can do small repairs yourself.
You're also just paying for predictability. While lemons are a thing, they're less so than they used to be, and there's something to be said--if you can afford it--for buying a car that can probably run for 10+ years with minimal risk of serious maintenance issues.
And, in snow belt areas, you start to run into rust issues 15 or so years on.
I've seen plenty of freak issues with new cars that turn them into a similar pit, and not all of it under warranty or recall. The trick is to find a used car that just had some of this work done and from models that aren't plagued with these issues typically, and if the cars are 10 years old or so people start learning which of these models are the lemons and which will happily go 300k miles with not much drama.
What messes with the perception is people buy used cars they could never afford new. An apples to apples comparison is what that same car would have cost new not simply what someone can afford because it’s new.
A nice new BMW SUV is likely to depreciate 30k in 5 years, but that same car is extremely unlikely to need 30k of repairs if bought after 10 years and kept for another 5.
More critically you’re also paying dramatically more in sales and property taxes.
An older bmw could easily cost you 3-5k a year in repairs . Couple that with lesser but still substantial depreciation and you might find it too be a lot more expensive than you thought.
My 2010 BMW had $5,000.00 in repairs in the first year after the warranty expired. That doesn’t include the $15,000.00 in unnecessary repairs the dealership quoted me. In the four years since then repairs have been closer to $2,000.00 a year.
The electric water water pump alone was $2,000.00. $1,200.00 in parts and $800.00 in labor. This is basically a “maintenance” item. The car has less than 100k miles and is on the third pump.
Sure. I'm pre turbo. The electric water pump is undoubtedly better for long term, but had initial issues (on the other hand, it has a clear engine code and is easier to access)
I have a 2010 BMW 335, which is twin turbocharged. It is on electric water pump #3 in less than 100k miles. My mechanic tells me not to worry about coolant change intervals because these water pumps will never last that long anyway.
The electric pump is great from a performance/efficiency perspective because the car can make choices about coolant temp irrespective of engine speed. It's a horrible device from a reliability perspective though. I have already been stranded by it once.
My turbos are "fine". But I know they will fail in the next 30k miles. In talking to my mechanic the prices fluctuate quite a bit, so I am going to start keeping an eye out and just buy a pair to have on hand when mine finally let go.
The previous owner of mine installed a new water pump at 80k miles, and I did it again at 150k. Similarly don't have to change the coolant because the coolant expansion tank will break in 5 years time. (the corner is plastic and can't take the pressure.
My experience with BMWs is that they do tend to have ridiculous flaws, like the main bearing problems in the E90 M3s and the V10 M5s, or the fuel pump issues on the E90s in general. But BMW will set them right.
The reality is BMWs just have a lot of stuff on them and so it is a numbers game. Things are going to break. Cars are a hostile environment. This is compounded by the fact that it is a BMW. I expect everything to work. If it was a used Corolla I may not complain as much about the seat mechanism not working perfectly every time.
Additionally BMW also expects the car to work perfectly and the car is eager to tell you any time something is abnormal. This creates something of an illusion of unreliability. An old Toyota also has a lot of problems, you just don't notice until you go looking.
And finally, dealers are predatory. They take advantage of the reputation of BMWs as expensive unreliable cars and sell unnecessary services, which perpetuates the expensive/unreliable reputation.
Thanks for the anecdote; Makes me glad I have an e46. About the only thing that didn't make it 80k miles on my car was the plastic headlight reflectors. (and that coolant expansion tank that fails 5 years on the dot)
I'm also lucky enough to be trained in vehicle maintenance; The only service I've had done by professionally were recalls and when I didn't have garage available to do the expansion tank (and Pep Boys didn't have a supply chain, so I got my choice in parts)
The timing belt and water pump are each <2 hour jobs if done preventatively.
Head gasket shouldn't be a problem if the pump and coolant are changed before they go bad.
Anecdotal source; bought a 7 year old bmw at 123k miles (timing chain is still good at 185k), clutch is still good, brake parts cost $250, shocks less than $500, a valve cover gasket and oil filter housing gasket. Coolant expansion tank has to be replaced every 5 years ($150). My 10 years, 180k miles has been a better experience than many friend's first 5 years.
This. I drive a bmw 3 series. It retailed for $41k in 2004. I bought used in 2011 for $11k. It's now worth about $4. I still drive it, my maintenance costs are minimal, about $250 a year (I do it myself)
Eh, that depends. Typically car depreciation is not linear. Depreciation is higher in the initial years and the % depreciation reduces each year. Buying a car, keeping it for 5 years and selling it off might be cheaper than leasing a new one every 3 years.
> The fact that cars depreciate seems like the best reason to "rent" them.
Like any other depreciating asset, the renter charges the rentee(sp?) the depreciation anyway, plus a small profit.
You appear to be under the impression that renting is better; this cannot be correct. The rent for any asset is ($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.
> You appear to be under the impression that renting is better; this cannot be correct.
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.
For car dealers and manufacturers, the math is more complicated than that--the lease can be a loss leader, which may be useful to the dealer or manufacturer for any number of reasons.
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.
> How do you figure that it's cheaper to pay those additional costs than to buy?
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.
The listed residual value is normally set to make it extremely unfavorable to buy out the lease. The appropriate amount of depreciation still occurs, they just achieve this by inflating the sales price for leases as most people only care about direct costs to themselves when starting a lease.
It’s stuff like this that’s the real reason dealerships love leases. Their much more complex than a sale so the dealerships have far more options to screw people.
>The listed residual value is normally set to make it extremely unfavorable to buy out the lease.
Close but it's a little more nuanced.
You lease a trendy car (4Runner or something) and they expect able to turn it around, detail it and sell it on their CPO lot for way to much money to someone who thinks they're being savvy by buying CPO. You wanna keep it then you gotta pay them the way too much money they'd otherwise make.
You lease a black sheep (say a Sentra, Chrysler 200, Focus or some other cheap lower end compact that there's gonna be a ton of with high miles in a few years) and the buyout will be minimal because they expect to make peanuts reselling it.
Your lease rate is based in part on their expectation of how much profit the car will get them at the end of your lease. Something with a low MSRP and customer base that drives the used value straight into the ground won't make them squat after cost of turning it around and selling it used. So in those case you pay much less on the buy out.
Lowering the buyout without lowering the upfront cost simply increases what you’re paying during the lease. Anyway a favorable buyout price means they lose out on charging you for excess mileage at the end of the lease because you can simply buy out the lease and skip those fees.
The buy out on the black sheep cars can be a really good deal. Instead of lowering the price a manufacturer can artificially raise the residual thereby dropping the lease rates down.
They loose more money but they make up for it in volume and get to book profits now and losses later (financial engineering).
I don’t think leasing a 4Runner ever makes financial sense unless you flip though cars every 2 years and live in a high sales tax state.
One thing leasing does is push the depreciation risk onto the leasing company. If you know you intend to keep the car a limited amount of time, then by leasing it, you don’t have to worry about the resale volatility. Mitigating that risk has value.
Hiring a car can be significantly cheaper if there are odd tax laws in the country the car is in.
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
> Why though? What if renting makes more sense for my use case? Why not leave the dealer/bank on the hook for the depreciation and maintenance?
They aren't on the hook for anything - those costs are billed to you in the standard lease so you're paying the cost of the vehicle, plus the cost of the expected maintenance, plus a profit for the bank.
Expected repairs and actual repairs are very different. The expected repairs are exactly that, expected. I know what they are up front. There’s value in that predictability.
If it makes sense for you, do it. The question isn't who pays the depreciation or maintenance (this is explicitly factored into leases) -- the question is, who can predict it more accurately?
When I lease a new car repairs happen under the warranty. The manufacturer is “on the hook” for fixing the car. Not necessarily because it is leased but because it is under warranty. Leases are a way to always have a car that is under warranty.
You are replying to a counter argument to the claim that leases are always a bad idea.
The article this thread is on is a strong counterexample to your assertion. You may very well end up on the hook for a repair that isn't covered by the warranty.
They're on the hook for the finance, if you're leasing.
If you're talking about a short-term rental to pootle around in for a while: they're on the hook for the car itself, because that's now a car they can't rent to someone else.
If they weren't on the hook for anything, there wouldn't be much of a business.
A bit of splitting hairs, the notable exception I can think of is that if it comes with run-flats, you are expected to return it with run-flats since it's a specification. Higher end cars also usually have a "similar quality" clause in addition, but I don't know how frequently that is enforced, if at all.
Sure, except Tesla has a history of performing just as janky repairs on their cars themselves. Its even stated in the article.[0]
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.
>Sure, except Tesla has a history of performing just as janky repairs on their cars themselves. Its even stated in the article.[0]
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.
> 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.
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.
> it would have been easier to replace the pack AND then part out the old pack
That's what Tesla should have done. Charge $16k for a new pack including a $15k core charge. They aren't out the cost of the whole pack and the customer doesn't get screwed over.
I started woodworking as hobby a few years ago, and used some epoxy here and there to fill voids in wood. But after having epoxy on hand all the time, I realized just how absurdly useful it is for fixing little things around the house. Our microwave handle barb broke off. Epoxy it back on. Dropped a potted plant and the pot broke. Epoxy it back together. Etc.
There are super ergonomic and foolproof products that I feel like everyone should have around in that one kitchen drawer that accumulates all the miscellaneous stuff: https://www.jbweld.com/product/j-b-weld-syringe
I ripped the front edge off one of my snowboards by riding into a tree - paid $20 for a shop repair that ripped off again in a day - glued it back with marine epoxy when I got home from that trip, and it's been good for another ~40 days of hard riding so far.
Agreed. The brass part is obviously higher quality, but I also wonder if it was intentionally plastic so that it would breakaway instead of damaging the battery in an event like this. If that was a design decision (not a cost decision), it would actually be a better idea to stick with the jb weld plastic part than go with brass.
It was intentionally plastic in that they were designing a molded part and chose to not have the nipples a separate part, but molded them in to save on the expense of designing and assembling a separate part.
Tesla really loves to integrate parts together - look up the "superbottle" for a previous example.
Yep I had a plastic barb break off my coolant reservoir tank. I reamed it out with a twist drill, used epoxy to glue in a new barb I got at the hardware store, and it's been good since then (over 2 years now).
>Another question to consider is why the repair is 16k
If you watch the video on 'Rich Rebuilds' YouTube channel that this article comes from, they mention the problem... The battery pack _can_ be opened and repaired, but it requires special training, equipment, and a specialized area of the service center to perform the work. They mention that Tesla _used_ to do this work and some of the Service Centers were properly equipped/trained to do handle it. However, Tesla found it was cost prohibitive to do at individual Service Centers, so now they have one central facility that repairs/reprocesses packs.
Rather than equip and train every Service Center, they've found it makes more sense to just replace the whole battery pack and send the old one back to the one central facility for service.
The battery pack is considered a high-voltage part. Tesla, by their policy (safety and liability reasons, presumably), won't sell you any of the high-voltage components.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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?
Niche technology is never cheap and they'll do it as long as their customers tolerate/pay it.
If you take an engineered system and apply a non-engineered fix, I'd say it's a hack, even if it works. Did this person do a metallurgical/chemical engineering analysis before changing the material type? OEMs do this on their cooling systems.
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.
Lease monthly payments are charges for depreciation plus profit, so they do expect you to keep it in like-new condition. Tesla's screw-up was giving the customer the car and not verifying that they have comprehensive insurance, which is what Tesla relies on for keeping it like-new.
I bet they do have comprehensive insurance, but their insurance company told them that this is a collision loss. Just read my policy, which is written by a very large insurer -- and this would, in fact, be a collision loss under mine.
Depreciation is variable though, and dependent on fair market value at lease termination.
If Tesla designed the car with a part and sold said part, everyone would be better off: Tesla (less risk of catastrophic repair expenses), insurance companies (lower repair costs, less variability), and the customer (cheaper repairs and insurance).
I get that's not a trivial request, but other car manufacturers manage the task.
Cooling system corrosion has killed plenty of vehicles. I'm not saying it probably won't work for a long time, I'm just saying that it is now technically an engineering unknown.
If it were my car, I would probably do it. If I were lending my car to someone, I probably would not want them doing it.
It seems clear the original engineering was also an _unknown_. Planning for failure cases is part of engineering: making a $16k part that is easily damaged and non-repairable is simply shoddy engineering.
Tesla doesn’t market their cars as exceptionally repairable, I don’t think that repairability was an engineering priority. Prioritizing certain product attributes above others is not “shoddy engineering”, it is part of the normal textbook engineering process.
The project management triad is a relationship between Cost, Quality, and Timeline. Elon wanted to be the first-to-market with an affordable modern electric car. And he accomplished exactly that.
Ah yes, prioritizing important features like crashing into things at high speed, remotely making the car a brick if it gets written off, writing an unnecessary amount of data to flash until it wears out, misaligned panels. Just what are people actually paying for here? A shit experience?
My comment wasn’t an invitation to shit on Tesla. They make a product that’s different than other products. Some things people like, some things people don’t. The same applies to anything ever made. Nobody has ever made a perfect product for everyone.
I drive a Toyota, but I know why people drive Teslas. I’m not them. They’re not me.
The worst case scenario is probably totaling the pack. So why not give the "hack" a try first. It wouldn't be dangerous since the car can sense overheats and shutdown before a cooling system malfunction would cause a fire.
As I said elsewhere, I would totally do this if it were my own car. It seems kind of unethical to do it to a car you don’t own, though. And if the leasing agreement didn’t prohibit this before, I’m sure Tesla lawyers are working on that now.
That is only one of the several failures that could theoretically be caused. The fitting could potentially cause galvanic corrosion in other parts of the system as well.
In any case, I’m not saying this is likely, or that the system won’t work. I’m simply saying that it’s no longer the same system designed by the automotive engineers at Tesla.
My mistake, I meant the opposite: electrolytic corrosion. There are potential (non-electrical) chemical variables too. The chemistry involved is complicated and I can’t claim to fully understand it. Even big automakers sometimes get it wrong from the factory.
I am sure that is the case. I was never suggesting that this part was intentionally chosen to be plastic because nothing else could work. There’s hundreds of materials you can make a fitting out of, and likely dozens of materials would work, with varying pros and cons. I’m saying this is typically a problem that would have a carefully engineered solution.
All this says to me is that you don't have any experience fixing plumbing, HVAC, or anything related. This whole line of reason has been completely ridiculous, and you ought to just stop.
In the usa there is established law that a car maker cannot void the warranty just because of a repair or modification you did. They have to prove that what you did actually caused the problem. For minor issues dealers will often screw you anyway, but when facing a 16k bill you could certainly lawyer up a little
If you watch the video [1] Chad (former Tesla repair technician) clearly states it's the issue is due to cost effectiveness not whether the car is under lease.
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.
Does Tesla then have a separate workflow that re-uses the components of the "broken" 16K battery pack? Seems like that is necessary in order for spending an extra 15K in parts to be worth more than training some more people to repair them...
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 thought a big part of the pack being made of modular cells is that the software can disengage cells that are problematic and you can keep running with the 999 remaining cells?
I hope you aren't currently leasing any vehicles. If you are, and this is your understanding of how leases work, you REALLY need to reread the contract. Tesla is in no way responsible for repairing this car under these circumstances.
No, that’s not the point at all. In fact with any lease you are required to carry insurance to cover accidents like this. The person in question did not have said insurance.
No, not stretch at all. If it's up to company to choose how their car (that they rented to someone) needs to be repaired - it should either be done by their expenses to be fair. Otherwise they will always just choose the most expensive way (like 10x, 100x, unlimited x) and that won't be fair at all.
A car is just an utility, that's not a unique piece of art, such matters should be regulated, a price of $16k for a repair that can be done 10 fold cheaper is just not fair.
If I rent an apartment and the landlord doesn't fix something, I can fix it with my own repairman and charge them the bill. There is nothing special about renting.
I also don't really get how this works, it's a lease. In my country a lease includes all payments except fuel. That means the car, the insurance, the taxes. If anything happens (outside of you wilfully ramming the car into something), it's covered by the lease. The car company makes sure to get insured and may seek payout from their insurance company, but you're not involved.
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).
Magnuson-Moss forces them to accept third party fixes. I's been law for 45 years. The current state of affairs with monopolistic control over servicing eliminates competition and allows them to gouge on repairs like this. It is exactly what RTR is trying to fix.
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.
The article seems to imply that Tesla can very well fix this issue, but they don't train & equip their service centers to maintain the battery.
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.
> 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.
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.
Do you have a right to reasonable charges for damage of rented items? If you rent a jackhammer and break the trigger is it fair to charge the customer five hundred dollars to repair a ten dollar piece of plastic? If you rent a wedding dress and rip a seam should you be expected to pay a fashion designer for the stitching? Nobody would ever rent anything if every object was a minefield of potential absurd over-charges.
Plans for future Tesla vehicles are for the batteries to be structural. As in non-replaceable.
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.
It seems Tesla, Inc. makes most of the profit by selling Carbon-Emissions Credits to other vehicles manufacturers.
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.
Tesla's core business of car manufacturing is extremely profitable. Their automotive gross margin is substantially higher than most of their competitors, including the likes of Mercedes and BMW. It's only after you add on the costs of growth (capital expenditure, R&D, etc) that overall company profits become marginal.
This is because Tesla is doing exactly what you'd expect from a company undergoing rapid growth: they're spending every dollar they can on growing. Yes, Tesla have received a windfall of cash from credit sales, but all these have done is turbocharged their growth spending. If they didn't have this extra cash, they probably would have had to wait 12 months before beginning construction in either Berlin or Texas.
Tesla also plans to be the preferred insurer for their own vehicles. This is great, because it will provide a financial signal to Tesla to make their cars cheaper to repair.
Fine, then Tesla should not be charging the price of a full battery replacement plus labor for the fix since they are getting a full battery that can be very simply refurbished and then sold as such.
Is Tesla demanding that they actually fix it their way?
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.
If the customer is willing to take the risk, and the repair shop takes on liability, why would Tesla care? Brand image? This is already negatively affecting their brand image (for me).
Because Tesla owns the car (It is a leased car) and want it fixed according to the manufacturer's specifications (which happens to be them). It is not an unreasonable request.
However I completely understand the complaints people are making about repairability and insurance shennanigans etc.
The only difference between Apple and its competitors (Dell, Acer, Samsung, etc) is that Apple's shiny brand image makes content like Louis Rossmann's compelling. If the same treatment was applied to the likes of Dell and Acer, they'd be looking just as bad if not far, far worse than Apple.
(To be clear, the above is regarding Apple's engineering specifically, not about their business practices. I agree that Apple's competitors are generally far better at parts supply and general right-to-repair matters.)
Funny because I've never had problems with, what is commonly accepted as the lowest of the three you mentioned: Acer, like I have with Apple. I have an old Chromebook C710 that just. will. not. die. My Partner's newer Macbook only has one working USB port now. There are more Apple products in my product history graveyard than everything else. Combined.
I've long come to the conclusion that people simply treated their Apple devices better and not that they actually were higher quality or better engineered.
Fascinating. My own experience has been exactly the opposite. Every single Apple product I've ever bought has worked perfectly for their entire useful life. My own Apple graveyard is a stack of devices in perfect working condition. Whereas I'm looking at my pile of non-Apple devices and every single one of them had to be repaired, replaced or abandoned due to hardware failures. I've had to replace numerous Lenovo tablets and the last (expensive!) Dell laptop I bought started randomly crashing upon resume from sleep.
And don't get me started on the Microsoft Surface Book. My partner (who worked at Microsoft) chose this as their work laptop. Junk. Driver problems. DRIVER PROBLEMS on MICROSOFT'S own hardware, managed by MICROSOFT'S own IT department.
As far as I can tell other manufacturers don't do any direct-to-consumer sales either - Honda seems to basically be a middleman to selling you parts that your local dealership has in-stock.
That is because, for historical reasons, they are generally not legally able to. Tesla has actually done great work pushing back on the requirements many states had to franchise automobile sales. However, almost every existing manufacturer has the entire country divided up into franchises and it is a legal nightmare to unpack it.
I’m a little confused by this statement; but here are my service options for my datsun. I can order parts from my local dealer, an online dealer, (and I’ve never tried it but I assume from Nissan), and finally the Nissan Motorsports department.
If Tesla chooses to have no dealerships, then I have to go to them for support.
If I go to a dealership and get ripped off, I can call the manufacturer and they can assist with the problem. Happened to our TSX when the motor was burning oil and the guy who was at the parts shop was saying it was within spec. I had to get a support representative from Honda involved with the repair.
I agree that Electrek is biased, but they usually provide substantive materials in terms of source and quotes to backup their claim.
Also, it is a 2017 article, and things have improved since then. For example, Tesla has released their parts catalog for all models.
Things are still far from prefect though, as you still can not buy those parts. Hopefully with this new Right to Repair Executive order - this situation will improve.
"hack fix". Have you seen some of the garbage hacks Tesla put in the cars they sold as new? 3d printed parts[1] and I am not talking about industrial 3d prints. These prints look like they come of a $200 home printer.
You are absolutely right, and I am a huge Right to Repair guy.
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.)
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 minor happens"
He didn’t have comprehensive at all. Comprehensive is cheap with a deductible of a few hundred. People don’t forgo it unless they’re driving a junker. Reading the comments on the article, it sounds like the lack of comprehensive might have been a mistake during transferring policies between cars. If so, that’s a brutal consequence of an easy misclick or misstatement without a double check.
The first half is strictly true though - comprehensive doesn’t cover road debris; you have to file under collision and unlike comprehensive the premiums are more expensive and claims are solely your fault for the damage, increasing them further.
Leases still near universally require collision coverage though, because they want damage fixed.
My suspicion is that he did have collision and comprehensive, thought “obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive,” then found out that it doesn’t unless it never actually touched the road.
And either no one told him that it has to be a collision claim, or he just decided not to bother with a $700 collision claim after he got an independent estimate (and complain to the author that debris ought to be covered by comprehensive instead of being treated the same as you hitting a wall.)
Not sure where that quote is from, but whoever said it is confused.
If you hit an object in the road, that is normally (in the US) classified as a collision incident.
The only time that comprehensive would cover a claim like this (in the US) is if the object was a projectile, or an animal.
I’m guessing they are thinking about the common scenario where a truck kicks up a rock and it hits your windshield… and they are falsely assuming this is normally a comprehensive claim because it is “road debris”, when the real reason it is covered that way is because it is a projectile.
Whether or not he was insured against this particular damage doesn't make the cost of the repair less outrageous. In the end, drivers will be paying for these repairs, whether directly or through "cheap" monthly insurance payments that hide these occasional events.
(I guess similar arguments could be made about other insurance markets)
Yes, as you noted, you’re basically describing the general principle of insurance. :)
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.
I was under the impression that the cost in insuring Teslas was down to the slow repair times, since insurance companies were often on the hook for rental cars while parts are on back order.
Usually full coverage is required for buying a car with a loan. Under the idea that the bank wants their asset protected. Lease rules may be different and may be more exploitative.
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 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...
I couldn't agree more.
Anecdote: I have been waiting for 2 weeks for insurance to "approve" an angiogram + interventiin that two cardiologists agree that I need immediately. I am a single 43yo male on a $1,000\mo insurance plan.("reduced" to "only" $550\mo by coverer california).
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.
The sad part is that when you become wealthy, you realize that you can just ignore the whole insurance scam [*] and not buy it. Insurance has negative expected value. It only makes sense to insure against events that would materially change your lifestyle. At a certain degree of wealth, your house burning down no longer has that effect, nor does just about anything other than lawsuits or medical problems. Even health insurance typically has lifetime maximums in the single-digit millions.
So don't look to the wealthy to fix this one. They don't have this problem.
[*] except health insurance [**] and vehicular liability insurance where required by law in places that do not allow posting a cash bond instead (almost every state in the US does).
[**] unless you're wealthy enough to make large donations to hospitals, which is much better than having health insurance.
> Even health insurance typically has lifetime maximums
The ACA, in the US, prohibited lifetime and annual maximums except those that apply only to services not defined as essential health benefits, with the exception of pre-existing grandfathered-in individual (not group) plans.
The problem is the court system is too inefficient and expensive so you can't reasonably sue any company who does you wrong without having an 8 figure + bank account.
You are confusing health "insurance" (which is not insurance as such) versus things like life insurance and property insurance. The US health economy is flawed in many ways that have been discussed endlessly.
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.
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)
In this case, the guy leasing the car was required to have comprehensive coverage on the car and didn't. Tesla failed to verify this fact when they turned the car over to him. Ultimately it's the guy's responsibility to insure the car properly and he didn't so he was on the hook for the cost of the repair regardless of what it cost.
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 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?
If anything, Tesla seems to be going in the opposite direction, because their cars usually become available for lease only a a couple of years after the release. All while most other car manufacturers tend to offer lease options immediately on release.
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.
A subscription model isn't ideal for a physical depreciating asset like a car. Maybe for software features but having the customer pay outright for the vehicle is more beneficial to Tesla.
You're supposed to perform scheduled maintenance. You are generally not limited in which mechanic you use. A mechanic will simply look in the service manual (or owner's manual if you've kept that in the glove box) on a particular model if you bring it to them and say "I need a 30k mile maintance"
I'm very curious about the insurance rejecting the repair.
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.
This is the second time in as many days I've heard about this happening. Someone gets a new car, replaces the old one on their insurance, while accidentally retaining the prior car's coverages (or lack thereof).
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.
The problem seems to be that Tesla isn't doing DD on their leases - I don't see it being hard to have the system/a person look up the new insurance to confirm the customer has comprehensive.
Not that I doubt you, but I must say that does seem like a pretty stupid mistake on the part of the insurance company. Surely having a customer go from a beater with liability only to a new car is a prime opportunity for the insurance company to increase its revenues..
Also a related issue: often it's a good idea to get the gap insurance so that if the car gets totalled and you still owe more than the replacement cost, you don't get hit with a bill.
Self-service portal should catch this too. It’s neglect on the insurers side. They have superior information on what is normal and customary and can flag unusual policies for confirmation.
I just got a new car, the dealership handled the insurance transfer. It was on us to separately verify current vs. desired coverage separately. Not sure this is the norm though.
Ultimately it’s the insurer’s product. They should verify everything, especially if they’re allowing third parties to input policies. They can easily flag outliers.
Very true. And customers should always check on things too. But I can also understand how a customer that goes with the flow of a car dealership smoothing through these things (when they should be more deliberate about) doesn't realize what's happened.
That abstract scenario aside, it's pretty bad that the insurance & dealership didn't flag anything in this issue when the Tesla was purchased. Even if they only gave a pro-forma "do you want to keep your current level of coverage?" It's bad... they're the experts on these things and should advise customers appropriately.
I believe the thing you're missing is that he didn't HAVE the comprehensive coverage, not that he had it and they didn't cover it... As reported elsewhere and in other comments here, he had just carried his coverage from his old car over to the Tesla, without checking the coverages.
This is a design flaw. I wonder what other shameful design decisions were put in place to cut corners.
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).
The right move is to route the coolant lines away from harmful road debris or add a shield or deflector. If the coolant line is the protection for the case, that sounds like a big mistake. The owner is indeed lucky that the bunge snapped off rather than crack the case, spilling gallons of toxic coolant all over the place and resting his un-burnt flesh in the failsafes of this battery monitoring system.
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.
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 than the status quo from a design perspective, it also doesn't seem worse than most vehicles in this respect.
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 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.
Yes. Don't forget that Chrysler sold a car where the water pump was at the highest point in the system. Slightly low coolant level, no more pumping, no more cooling, no more driving. Lots of manufacturers make a few cost-cutting, weight-saving, or whatever choices that ultimately harm durability.
I just took a close look at a new model 3. I identified how the damage occurred in about 5 seconds.
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.
If it's intentionally designed to break away to protect something else they would/should have the ability to replace it instead of wanting 16k to replace the whole battery. If they did design it to break away AND don't make it reasonably replaceable it starts to look positively sinister....
I generally agree, although it seems like Tesla service might be the problem, not the design. The article states that the depot the car was sent to only had the option to replace the battery. In other words, they don't have the tools and/or parts to remove the broken part and replace it. The repair could be done by Tesla if they wanted to, which means it's not necessarily bad design, but certainly bad service at a minimum.
There's other stuff like the moon roof motor is buried DEEP in the dash instead of right next to the window like most other cars so it requires huge amounts of labor to remove when it breaks. Or that the car can wind up with a dead (12v [0]) battery while connected to a charger. To then charge it you have to pull off numerous panels under the frunk.
It happens all the time, I recently had a crack in a seal around the fuel pump, but it was all one piece so I needed a new fuel pump. It's also a 12 year old car, has had only 1 other minor problem, and the pump was a cheap fix, so I don't feel I got ripped off on that particular repair.
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.
Personally I so want a Tesla because they are undoubtedly the best performers in the market today. However I won’t buy one until they also start being practical.
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.
When a company like Apple says that only their app store can run on iPhones, HN crowd usually sides with Apple, with the justification that "It is a free market. People can buy another phone if they don't like it." Why doesn't the same principle apply here? If your car company does not offer the right to repair, then buy another car. What is the difference? Both are instances of big companies gating access to their devices.
Why do you think so? My impression is that the majority of HN is super critical when you mention Apple and right to repair, and rightfully so. Thinking especially of the Macbook keyboard disaster, or discussions that involve Louis Rossmann.
In TFA, the Tesla is rendered inoperable. An IOS AltStore doesn’t contain much other than ROMs. Even if it contains more, no one apparently can browse the altstore app lists until they go through the effort of installing it —- so no one cares. Also HN has tons of Tesla fanboys.
So I was downvoted but no one has still provided any lists of apps or tweaks worth side-loading onto a iPhone in 2021. This isn’t 2012 when the only way to listen to Pandora or another music app while having another app open on IOS 6 is to jailbreak your phone and use Cydia to install backgrounder.
There is a right to repair on cars, it's a law. But there's not a right to repair on cars someone else owns, ie. a lease, like the customer in the article got his car via.
I agree with that sentiment. If I am renting my car to you and you somehow damage the bumper, I do not want you to duct-tape it and claim that it is fixed without any damage.
Right to repair and sandboxed/secured device operating system have very limited overlap. The intersection happens when the vendor uses a locked operating system to try to enforce parts-marriage or remotely bricks aftermarket-repaired devices. And, in the few places where this happens with Apple, I think HN are very much on the right-to-repair side.
I think you are conflating two separate conversations with only a small overlap.
Without arguing whether your premise is even correct, the difference is that in this crowd, people know Apple's walled garden exists. Perhaps the fact that you never "own" a Tesla is less set-in of a fact.
Same reason HN goes against Apple when it comes to battery repairs. App Store is optional extended functionality. A battery impacts your ability to use your phone or car for its fundamental purpose.
The Web browser is built-in. I personally don't install almost any apps on my smartphones, because I don't need much beyond that. It is extremely useful without any additional apps. Not as much without a battery.
Does Tesla include this information in the sales pitch? the contract? I doubt it.
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.
I think there is a general tendency and trend for companies to infantilize users. "This repair is too complex" or "This UI is too complicated". Dumbing down things to its detriment is how we operate these days. We constantly underestimate how everyone to used read Telephone books and Yellow pages - that kind of density and "complexity" would get shot down by designers today. Similar trends are going on in hardware design - design for maintanability is dying or dead. Partly due to aforementioned reasons and partly due to how cheap we've made everything (imported goods from China). When a kitchen mixer costs $1200, you betchya there are going to be shops that can fix it. I've worked in this area and you'd be amazed how engineers and designers choose to use ultrasonic welding to shave off 40 cents worth of fasteners. It's a no brainer and no one bats an eye. Unrepairability is deeply seeded from college education, corporate blue books, professionals, consumers, lawmakers to the supply chain, vendors, contracts, etc. I am glad we're talking about it.
I had this type of issue with a Macbook Pro. The rubber/plastic foot came off the bottom. Asked at the Genius Bar how much to replace it. It looks like a part that should cost $0.02 and expected an "Apple" markup of say $5. They wanted $350. Said they had to replace the entire bottom of the computer to put on a new rubber foot.
That's only an option if you actually still have the foot. If you didn't notice it coming off, you won't have it and you won't be able to reattach it with tape. At that point you can either:
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
It’s bad policies like this that encourage insurance fraud…if a $700 fix is going to cost $16,000 from the manufacturer and insurance won’t cover it, then owner’s are going to total vehicles just so insurance will cover the full thing (not to mention deductible will probably be less than the $700 non-manufacturer fix)
Considering that a 3rd party was able to repair it, I'm not sure why this is classified as "right to repair".
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.
Replacing a broken hose barb by threading the part and inserting a threaded hose barb is pretty standard in any trade where you repair stuff. Plastic is just so easy to form you'd be stupid not to.
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.
If this repair fails and the coolant leaks out, the battery monitoring system will alert the driver and they will either have to fix it again, or replace the battery.
"Right to repair" doesn't mean you have to do it yourself. Paying someone else to do it would still be made possible by "right to repair" laws.
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.
Do you work as a dealer repair tech? I'm wondering where your idea comes from that they won't improvise repairs particularly on a non-safety-critical part.
I fail to see how right-to-repair reform would have changed this situation. Tesla's fix was too expensive so the customer went elsewhere... and got it fixed. Problem solved.
This case is a bit tangentially related when it comes to the solution.
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.
Right to repair would make it easier for third parties to perform repairs if they have access to schematics that manufacturers have. One could argue the cost would be significantly lower if Tesla provided schematics to third parties (whether for free or a paid system).
I don't think this is a right to repair issue, seems more like a liability issue.
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".
The EV market here in Norway (and probably rest of Europe) is out of control when it comes to repairs. Any critical repair, i.e anything close to the battery, often comes in the range of tens of thousands.
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.
>Any critical repair, i.e anything close to the battery, often comes in the range of tens of thousands.
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.
Please do put a submission into Australia's currently open inquiry into the Right to Repair, being run by the Productivity Commission! Submissions are due by Friday 23rd of July.
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'm a bit surprised the original video (from Youtube channel Rich Rebuilds) that this article bases on, is not more prominently mentioned in the discussion.
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.
Kind of like modern laptops. Any issues on a modern MacBook means logic board replacement, even if the problem is diagnosable and fixable. Though it is rare a laptop is truly very fixable these days when something goes awry.
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.
That's just such a terrible design. Surely it was designed that way to save a few cents but wow. Would be interested to see how Munro would redesign that (then again he likes removing parts so he's probably think this was clever).
Along with the struggle for the Right to Repair, we should also organize to boycott products from companies which prevent us from repairing (or modifying!) them.
The article says that the vehicle is leased. That means that the lessor might be in for a rude surprise when he turns in the car at the end of the lease... Tesla will see the untested third-party repair and assess him for the cost of reversing this repair and for fixing the problem their way.
Right to repair makes sense, but only for products you own.
I am on my third Tesla and service/repairs remain the only reason why I would consider another type of car. While there are many hard working employees at my local Tesla garage, they simply don’t have the tools or training to provide a good service experience. My Ford dealer treats me better, and actually picks up the phone.
Just wait for the follow up in 2.5 years when this guy goes to turn in his lease and is told he has to pay to replace the battery due to an unapproved modification. If I were him I wouldn’t have made a video with a +1m subscriber YouTube celebrity. I’m sure this car is on Tesla’s radar now.
Legal rights aside, it seems like components are so over-engineered and over-integrated nowadays that the best option still ends up being to swap it out or send it to a brand-name specialist.
This issue seems only adjacent to Right to Repair. As far as I can tell from the article, there was no licensing or software locks preventing the fix, nor were there any making the fix more expensive. Rather, this is an issue where a very expensive part contained an exposed molded flange that breaks easily. In other words, just a bad design. And he suffered no impediment to having it fixed at a 3rd party garage.
Pretty shady that they wouldn't return his old battery pack to him, though.
The real problem here was charging the cost of a brand new battery pack without considering the old pack was fine for refurbishment.
> 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.
The real question to me is, can humans fight against their emotional urges and avoid giving money to bad companies?
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.
It's strange that they used a plastic fitting where road debris could hit it in the first place, seems like there should be a metal plate to protect it.
> 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 cutting.
The entire point of R&D at car manufacturers is to decrease the cost of manufacturing and parts while increasing efficiency (at least for extremely high production target cars like the 3/Y/Mach-e). They're constantly saving cents here & there and decreasing the cost of the car by $200 weekly (with most of the cost savings going towards their bank account of course).
Tesla mostly trains workers for replacing assemblies and not individual parts. This reduces the probability that a worker will be able to sort out small issues within assemblies. That is why, Tesla quotes higher repair costs, as they have to end up replacing entire assemblies.
I would agree, they are notoriously slow to repair, too expensive (ask the insurance companies) and use blackmail via software.
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.
Tesla does not allow the buy option at the end of the lease for Model 3/Y. On the insurance, the leaseee admitted he made a mistake and omitted coverage.
I dunno.. if the coolant leak damaged the batteries, it could put the entire car at risk. I guess the owner should have the right to take that risk though, but not sure Tesla should be held accountable for the full car warranty.
I think Tesla building a huge parts backlog and a robust service program to satisfy Right to Repair would be a huge distraction and would delay moonshots like Cybertruck and Model A even more. A mass-market affordable Tesla is much more important IMO. That’s before considering the fact that this car is super high voltage and HV components usually aren’t user serviceable.
Also, this owner skimped on comprehensive insurance, so it’s hard for me to feel empathetic about the cost.
The lesson in this article is, if you drive a $50,000 automobile and can't afford to repair it after an accident, you should probably carry comprehensive insurance.
People forget that the original reason for the dealership model was entirely to protect consumers against manufacturers doing shit like this.
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.
Oof, that's not even a $700 repair. What's pictured looks more like a $200 repair. The rest is straight profit for Electrified Garage, for having Tesla knowledge at this point in time.
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.
This repair is R&D that is definitely worth the price.
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.
"R&D" ?? It's replacing a molded hose barb with a threaded fitting. Also FTA: "the shop had another significantly cheaper solution it had used once before".
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.
You have to know that repair is safe and meets all the coolant system design constraints. It certainly isn’t something most shops are going to just have a standard procedure for. That was what caused the problem in the first place.
Sure you technically have to "verify that repair is safe and meets all the coolant system design constraints". Except you don't, because common sense says most of those constraints are not critical. Like sure, the narrower ID of that 1/4" NPT nipple might cause a little more backpressure to the coolant pump. But there is no way the system would have been designed to be that marginal in the first place.
The main thing to worry about is chemical compatibility of the antifreeze to the new materials, but that's at worst a half hour to find the antifreeze datasheet. Or the mechanic already knows, from seeing the parts of other systems that antifreeze is used in.
Regarding your confounding over R&D -- Yes it is. I am on board with you that the specialized Tesla mechanics are gonna charge more per hour, $200-$350 sounds reasonable for a car you can buy and sell for %30 more than you paid for it -- But its R&D for this reason: The worthiness of Tesla repairs are totally unknown. These technicians are taking a chance (and I'll bet they offer a warranty, standard practice among reputable practitioners in the industry) that they can tap the brass fitting into the Tesla plastic which has an unknown composition to me and you and it will be a more or less permanent fix.
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...
Maybe I didn't state my original point well, but I'm only trying to point out that this type of repair done as well-known problem on a popular car would be a few hundred dollars. I don't think you could find a Tesla-focused shop that would do the repair for much less, and the customer here is definitely happy with the price.
I'm not putting down Electric Garage for charging "too much", but rather pointing out how lucrative it is to go into the third party repair business for Teslas. Anyone into Right to Repair should appreciate encouraging a more vibrant repair market.
My point about the material of the fitting is that you can run into trouble when you use a stronger/heavier material to tie into an existing lighter piece. For example, the next hit to that area will end up breaking the newly-threaded part as the brass acts as a lever and stress point, necessitating a much deeper repair.
In general, plastic would be a better starting point. Given that there are no less than 3 types of plastic visible in the area of a repair, surely there is some commonly-available plastic that will work. A sibling comment says it's using Zerex G48 antifreeze. It looks like that is compatible with nylon. Five minutes of web research isn't a way to be sure though, and obviously you'd want to be very sure before actually using it. But a mechanic can figure that out once and then they'll know. Just like the mechanic in the video says they've used brass before and know it's compatible.
> The insurance didn't cover road debris, 16K is what Tesla charges for the parts and R&R of the battery pack to customers
Yes, I understand Tesla's policies here. The point is the policies themselves are patently ridiculous. If my car window were to get smashed and the dealer told me the only way they could fix that window was to sell me a new car, any insurance company would rightly balk - because insurance companies understand that windows can be replaced independently.
Here Tesla is disingenuously claiming that the battery pack is some indivisible unit, and insurance companies just don't know any better yet. If you watch the video, you can hear the customer explain that Tesla pushed back hard on him wanting to keep his old battery pack. That's because they don't throw bad packs into the trash, but rather they recover most of their value by rebuilding them. Yet the customer/insurer is paying as if there is no residual value in the broken pack ("core charge"). Fraud is a strong word, but I feel it appropriately describes what Tesla is doing to insurance companies with these policies.
Oh for sure, once these things have been around and there exists an aftermarket, there's going to be all kind of fixes and repair kits available once people figure out how these fixes work. I feel a lot more in accord with your comments.
I don't think its disingenuous or crazy unreasonable for Tesla to not support a repair like this, I kind of think they can't wrap their heads around it. Their service network is still very underdeveloped and they don't have the benefit of real-world repair data like everybody else. Their solution to everything seems to be "Replace the unit." It does indeed seem crazy that Tesla does service this way and has such a weak cooling port on such a critical component though.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that broken Tesla windows come only as the whole door, too.
The thing about the plastic repair is for real though, brass is the way to go. Nothing will make it less susceptible to this kind of damage aside from protecting and anchoring the cooling line in a much less dumb way.
Good point on the antifreeze. I think you're overestimating the time though. And the premium between $80/hr generic shop rate and $150/hr "high end mechanic" is exactly what I was trying to highlight.
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.