4 ms·

Why do you believe that Tesla’s assessment (One guy in his garage without any specific training might not have proper quality controls) isn’t authentic?

• perfmode 8y ago
  On the surface, Tesla's statement is authentic. It's just that Tesla has a financial incentive to be disingenuous about this... and it's hard to ignore the profit motive.
  • bertil 8y ago
    They could easily sell training for more than it costs them. Maintenance is annoying, and often a cost centre; labelling professionals allow them to offer a better service and guarantee the value of their cars.
• ryandrake 8y ago
  Well, their attempt to stop owner-conducted maintenance and aftermarket repair is authentic! Assuming their assessment is correct, that a non-Tesla employed mechanic doesn’t have the training or quality controls, then my response to Tesla would be: “Document these quality controls and release sufficient information to allow a mechanic to become trained and qualified.” In my view making this kind of information available should be required by law for any product.
  • microcolonel 8y ago
    > In my view making this kind of information available should be required by law for any product. AFAIK in the case of automobiles, it is already required by U.S. law. It is my understanding that they are obligated to make the same materials available to third party mechanics that they do to their own.
    • sokoloff 8y ago
      If that were the case, why would there be multiple "Right to Repair" initiatives? I don't think that documentation and tooling is required to be provided currently by federal law.
      • microcolonel 8y ago
        > I don't think that documentation and tooling is required to be provided currently by federal law. It is, but they can charge some amount for it (not prohibitively though). The biggest problems in R2R generally in the U.S. seem to stem from misuse of the DMCA as a mechanism to prevent modification of physical goods by making those goods rely on what they can argue are copyright protection devices (and thus difficult to legally circumvent).
    • FireBeyond 8y ago
      Tesla does a few things in regards to these laws. One, they have an online parts catalog. Except, where pricing and purchase information are supposed to be listed, they say "Contact Tesla". For everything. Down to the most inane of bolts and nuts. So you could "Contact Tesla". Who will tell you that you are unable to order any of those parts. Down to the most inane of bolts and nuts. Or you could go to MA, where they are required to provide servicing information. How does that work? You call ahead, and make an appointment. You also pay a fee which, the last time I heard, was $295. When your appointment arrives you show up at the location and are lead into a room. You are not allowed: a cell phone, a camera, or a laptop, any "audio and/or video recording device". Handwritten notes only. And you have a time limit. That's Tesla's "commitment to corporate transparency" (the same one they quoted when they bailed out of an NTSB investigation), and their "approach to third party repair" in a nutshell.
      • perl4ever 8y ago
        Well, I think most people buying a Tesla know it's the Apple of cars. Repairs you can make to an iPhone are pretty limited too, and you certainly don't expect it to be useful in 10 years. How else are we going to save the environment if we don't switch to cars that are as disposable as smartphones?