[HN Gopher] Tesla's $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Re...
___________________________________________________________________
Tesla's $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters
Author : samizdis
Score : 431 points
Date : 2021-07-12 20:21 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com)
| rantwasp wrote:
| step 1) repair car (properly. yes it's stupid. it is what it is
| at this point)
|
| step 2) get rid of car
|
| step 3) buy a car from a respectable brand that will do the right
| thing when it comes to repairs
| rasz wrote:
| like ford? https://www.autoevolution.com/news/mustang-mach-e-
| owner-gets...
| xyst wrote:
| 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.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| 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.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| 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.
| _greim_ wrote:
| 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.
| raz32dust wrote:
| 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.
| inlikealamb wrote:
| 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.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| 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.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| How so? Without the app store an iPhone becomes just an
| expensive cordless telephone.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| 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.
| bri3d wrote:
| 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.
| smt88 wrote:
| > _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."_
|
| My anecdata says the exact opposite. The HN crowd seems (to me)
| to be very, very against walled gardens.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| *Walled Prison
|
| It's bad for consumers to repeat corporate marketing jargon.
| Pyramus wrote:
| 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.
| judge2020 wrote:
| 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.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| In my view, the real reason is that many HNers work for Apple,
| but not that many HNers work for Tesla.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| This would make sense.
|
| And those that just paid a thousand dollars have Post
| Purchase Rationalization.
|
| Heck those that actually own heavily marketed Veblen goods
| (Tesla/Jeep/Apple) products typically do have this Bias.
|
| It's people without skin in the game that can think the most
| clearly.
| webinvest wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| Saris wrote:
| 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.
| spoonjim wrote:
| 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.
| rasz wrote:
| magnusson moss - they will have to prove repair broke
| something.
| bloggie wrote:
| 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.
| xyst wrote:
| 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).
| Plasmoid2000ad wrote:
| 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.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Knowing Tesla, they may consider the unapproved fix an excuse
| to brick the vehicle and disable it in software, which they've
| done before.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| 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.
| turtlebits wrote:
| 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.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| 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.
| turtlebits wrote:
| I'm sure the fix will work fine, it's just there are things
| like liability that car manufacturers and dealers have to
| deal with.
| eikenberry wrote:
| "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.
| phamilton wrote:
| Expensive car repair is a society burden. My liability insurance
| rate increases because you drive a car that is expensive to
| repair.
| sjg007 wrote:
| I don't get why that part isn't shielded for one.. but for
| second, non-OEM parts are fine for use in repairs.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > I don't get why that part isn't shielded for one..
|
| There's a whole series of WTFs in this video.
|
| * Guy failed to get full coverage on a leased vehicle.
|
| * Tesla released car to him without verifying coverage.
|
| * Road debris hitting the bottom of the car can result in $16k
| in damage.
|
| * Tesla let him drive off with car after he rejected repair and
| knowing he didn't have comprehensive coverage.
|
| * Critical part of battery is exposed, more so if single motor.
|
| * Critical part of battery is non-serviceable fragile plastic.
|
| * Tesla does not offer a core charge and will not return
| damaged pack to owner.
|
| This was all because they saved some money by having cooling
| line fittings be fixed plastic instead of threaded inserts so
| you could replace the taps.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > 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.
| judge2020 wrote:
| 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).
| quesera wrote:
| For cars specifically, the story is that dealer service is
| more profitable than sales.
|
| Also, and more generally, any component that significantly
| outlasts its design life is overspecified.
|
| "Efficiency engineering". :-/
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| When Teslas get old enough to be off warranty Dorman will
| probably offer a stamped shield for $20.
| nunez wrote:
| 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.
| freeopinion wrote:
| Why would somebody have a right to repair something they don't
| own?
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| roflchoppa wrote:
| Honestly I'm surprised that it would be exposed like that,
| rather than tucked behind a panel.
|
| The rubber fuel lines on my 1973 240z are behind a removable
| panel at the rear wheel. 3 screws and it's off for access.
| turtlebits wrote:
| If you watch the video, the connector is behind a plastic
| panel (albeit not very rigid).
| cartoonworld wrote:
| 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| "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.
| bitexploder wrote:
| 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.
| gamache wrote:
| Electrified Garage were the ones who knew where to hit it with
| a hammer -- seems like a fair deal to me!
|
| https://www.buzzmaven.com/old-engineer-hammer-2/
| mindslight wrote:
| I'm not condemning it, just pointing out the current market
| value of Tesla repair knowledge!
| elsonrodriguez wrote:
| Google says a Model 3 takes about 5 gallons of G48 anti freeze.
| That's $100 in just fluids. High end mechanics can charge about
| $150/hr. Let's say:
|
| 1 hour to dismantle and diagnose
|
| 1 hour to cut/drill/tap
|
| 1 hour to fill and bleed the system
|
| 1 hour for whatever diagnostics are needed to verify that the
| ECU is happy and the car drives well.
|
| Sounds like $700 to me.
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| samfisher83 wrote:
| Ultimately consumers will need to decide whether they want to
| put with this or go with a easier car to repair like a Toyota.
| [deleted]
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| 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.
| mdaniel wrote:
| There's a related YT channel "Rich Rebuilds" showing the
| silliness he has to go through to be able to repair salvaged
| Teslas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAMczraBIM
| namdnay wrote:
| 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.
| passivate wrote:
| >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?
| sparrc wrote:
| 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".
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| > 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)
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _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.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I repair and modify many things a great number of things
| (typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment
| mounted to or towed by them and 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 with an
| attorney (who specializes 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.
|
| [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.
| privateSFacct wrote:
| There is a fair bit wrong with this advice.
|
| 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
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| 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.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > But why are you calling it a hack fix?
|
| Because there is no official process to repairing/replacing
| parts within the pack.
| hrocha1 wrote:
| What motivates Tesla to write one? Woudn't they rather
| contiue selling battery packs for 16k?
| mason55 wrote:
| And now you've arrived at "Right to Repair"
| passivate wrote:
| 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.
| elisharobinson wrote:
| 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.
| passivate wrote:
| 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?
| mschild wrote:
| 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.
|
| [0] https://www.thedrive.com/tech/36274/tesla-model-y-owners-
| fin...
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >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.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Brass is downright professional.
|
| <140degF @ <5 psi? JB Weld and call it a day.
|
| https://www.jbweld.com/product/j-b-weld-professional-size
| throwawayboise wrote:
| 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).
| gamegoblin wrote:
| 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 here
| and there 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
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Two part epoxy is duct tape for adults. I patched a
| cracked tub basin with marine grade and embedded
| fiberglass -- lasted 6 years (so far).
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| 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.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > 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.
| belval wrote:
| > 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.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| giobox wrote:
| 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.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > at that price, of course tesla are profiting from the
| sale.
|
| Auto manufacturers are allowed to sell the spare parts at
| a profit as well.
| giobox wrote:
| Of course, I didn't disagree. OP suggests they are being
| sold at cost.
| kube-system wrote:
| Not that I disagree, but I'm sure these packs have a
| significant amount of overhead costs as well.
| giobox wrote:
| I'm more surprised there are people out there who think
| Tesla would by design offer after sales parts "at cost"
| or a loss personally!
| judge2020 wrote:
| > on your car.
|
| As OP pointed out, it wasn't even OP's car - it was a
| lease, not a loan. The risk of allowing mechanics to do
| quick fixes is too high for them.
| shuntress wrote:
| 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.
| sigzero wrote:
| You don't own a rental so there would be no "right to
| repair".
| [deleted]
| yarky wrote:
| > 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.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I don't get this. If I'm leasing the car, why would _I_ be on
| the hook for the repair? The whole point of paying the lease
| premium is that you aren't.
| brewdad wrote:
| 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.
| Pyramus wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=1415
| wnevets wrote:
| > It's not cost effective to train staff, have facilities and
| parts
|
| Surely its more cost effective for the customer that requires
| this repair?
| Pyramus wrote:
| Absolutely - when I say cost effective I'm talking on
| behalf of the company of course.
| majormajor wrote:
| 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.
| stevev wrote:
| Hack fix are subjective. That same logic can be applied to any
| car makes. Repairs are not a black box. They're not using duck
| tape. A fix is a fix
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I think some of the outrage is Tesla _owning_ the car, but
| essentially demanding the renter keep it in like-new
| condition.
|
| Legally subject to the terms of the lease, of course. But
| it feels unfair not to accept normal wear and tear and
| reasonable repair.
| judge2020 wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| 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.
| coupdejarnac wrote:
| As they say in the original video, it's just plumbing for a
| low pressure system. This is only a hack by the loosest
| definition.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| anthonygd wrote:
| 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.
| coupdejarnac wrote:
| Have you watched the video? The guy who installed the
| brass coupler said it won't be corroded by the coolant.
| mulmen wrote:
| 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.
| yarky wrote:
| Not the OP but "If you can't buy it, don't!" might mean not
| owning/renting it. Either buy it or don't even think about
| it.
| mulmen wrote:
| 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?
| lelanthran wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Trust me, no bank is leasing assets at a loss.
| mulmen wrote:
| 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.
| kuratkull wrote:
| The dealer/bank are running a profitable business. They
| are not on the hook for anything, you are paying for it
| all.
| mulmen wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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?
| mulmen wrote:
| The question is how much utility I get per dollar.
| [deleted]
| olyjohn wrote:
| 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.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| 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.
| amf12 wrote:
| 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.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| 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.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > Buying 10 year old cars that are nearly fully
| depreciated is where you save big money.
|
| Not in my experience. You either pay in depreciation or
| in maintenance, there is no escaping car expenses.
|
| A 10 year depreciated car may need a timing belt/water
| pump, possible head gasket issues, possible transmission
| issues, etc.
| mcguire wrote:
| Depreciation is not a cash flow.
| Retric wrote:
| That calculation ignores transaction costs. Selling every
| 10 years is cheaper 9 years. 9 years is cheaper than 8
| years etc.
|
| Eventually starting over is cheaper, but that's usually
| at 15+ years when facing a major repair.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| 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.
| jakemoshenko wrote:
| > 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.
| mulmen wrote:
| The asset isn't always worth more. If you don't believe me
| ask GM and Chrysler.
|
| Further, it doesn't matter. I don't care if the
| manufacturer makes or loses money. I only care about
| maximizing utility per dollar.
| kube-system wrote:
| > 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.
| barrkel wrote:
| 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| 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.
| tylersmith wrote:
| > It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the
| undercarriage of a car a "collision".
|
| The insurance that covers such an event is literally
| called collison insurance.
| vel0city wrote:
| From Merriam-Webster:
|
| Definition of collide
|
| intransitive verb 1 : to come together with solid or
| direct impact
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collide
|
| Its a stretch to describe road debris coming together
| with solid impact to the undercarriage a collision?
| gimmeThaBeet wrote:
| 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.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > 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.
| sgustard wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| mulmen wrote:
| > 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.
| robocat wrote:
| 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
| jcheng wrote:
| 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.
| busterarm wrote:
| 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.
| garmaine wrote:
| Tesla doesn't let you do your own repairs on cars you "own"
| either.
| roflchoppa wrote:
| Nor will they sell you parts to repair it.
| judge2020 wrote:
| 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.
| topkai22 wrote:
| 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.
| hef19898 wrote:
| So truely the Apple of cars then.
| smt88 wrote:
| Not exactly. Apple is renowned for the build quality of
| their hardware.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Tesla design and build quality can sometimes be pretty
| good after several years of questionable revisions.
| coupdejarnac wrote:
| Unless you've been watching Louis Rossman's repair videos
| for the past few years and have seen the same design
| flaws never getting fixed.
| kuratkull wrote:
| Not sarcasm + sarcasm?
| Hamuko wrote:
| At least the battery isn't glued in.
| iamcreasy wrote:
| This 2017 news from electrek[1] contradicts your claim.
|
| [1]: https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/tesla-opening-up-service-
| repl...
| xmprt wrote:
| Electrek is a very biased website in favor of electric
| vehicles so it makes sense they would say positive things
| about Tesla.
|
| Also, the first sentence of that article is about how this
| is only a thing in Massachusetts because of right to repair
| laws.
|
| If Tesla could, they would brick or make certain systems
| not operational if you don't use first party parts.
| iamcreasy wrote:
| 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.
| olyjohn wrote:
| What good is a parts catalog if you can't buy the parts?
| [deleted]
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >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 it flies, floats...
|
| The calculation on whether to lease or buy is a little more
| complicated than can be captured with rules of thumb.
| dawnerd wrote:
| 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).
| ademup wrote:
| 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"
|
| Seems anti-consumer all the way down.
| cptskippy wrote:
| 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.
| xtracto wrote:
| 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...
| 1123581321 wrote:
| 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.
| vb6sp6 wrote:
| if you finance a car, is comprehensive required?
| endisneigh wrote:
| usually, yes.
| namelessoracle wrote:
| 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.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Yep.
| brigade wrote:
| 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.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| That makes this even more surprising if so, because a
| policy on that car without collision should've raised a
| gigantic red flag with his carrier.
| brigade wrote:
| 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.)
| kube-system wrote:
| This is exactly it. The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-
| fault claim on his record.
| leonhandreke wrote:
| 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)
| 1123581321 wrote:
| 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.
| Pyramus wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=1415
| bitexploder wrote:
| 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.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Mazda's CX-5 LED failure too
| https://www.carcomplaints.com/Mazda/CX-5/2016/lights/daytime...
|
| They eventually did a recall, but no dealer can get the part
| therefore I cannot get it fixed!
| Johnny555 wrote:
| 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".
| endisneigh wrote:
| 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.
| cptskippy wrote:
| The owner failed to get full coverage and Tesla failed to
| verify that he had full coverage and turned the car over to
| him.
| fastball wrote:
| Here[1] is the customer explaining the insurance more
| thoroughly.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=406
| ben1040 wrote:
| 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.
| judge2020 wrote:
| 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.
| dd36 wrote:
| 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.
| ssivark wrote:
| They are now redefining the meaning of the word
| "comprehensive"...
| linsomniac wrote:
| 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.
| ausumm wrote:
| https://ausum.io/s/WsRxwA48rWnjKs-HIKgU9ICxzbmEJkqkvFK_lZmfk...
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| 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.
| rantwasp wrote:
| ding ding ding. if you don't punish a bad behavior (ie not
| buying their crappy cars) they really have no incentive to
| change
| danschumann wrote:
| There needs to be a path for 3rd party repair, even if it is not
| amateurish ( requiring expertise and/or advanced machinery )
| throwawaycities wrote:
| 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)
| TrackerFF wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >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.
| beebmam wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-12 23:00 UTC)