19 ms·

Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters

907 points by samizdis 5y ago

vehiclesuggest 5y ago
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.
mindslight 5y ago
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.
- samfisher83 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    [deleted]
- roflchoppa 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    If you watch the video, the connector is behind a plastic panel (albeit not very rigid).
- gamache 5y ago
  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/ https://www.buzzmaven.com/old-engineer-hammer-2/
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I'm not condemning it, just pointing out the current market value of Tesla repair knowledge!
- cartoonworld 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    "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 5y ago
      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.
- elsonrodriguez 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.
namdnay 5y ago
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.
- garmaine 5y ago
  Tesla doesn't let you do your own repairs on cars you "own" either.
  - roflchoppa 5y ago
    Nor will they sell you parts to repair it.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      So truely the Apple of cars then.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        At least the battery isn't glued in.
      - smt88 5y ago
        Not exactly. Apple is renowned for the build quality of their hardware.
        kuratkull 5y ago
        Not sarcasm + sarcasm?
        raisedbyninjas 5y ago
        Tesla design and build quality can sometimes be pretty good after several years of questionable revisions.
ademup 5y ago
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.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    if you finance a car, is comprehensive required?
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      usually, yes.
    - namelessoracle 5y ago
      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 5y ago
      Yep.
  - brigade 5y ago
    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.
endisneigh 5y ago
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.
- ssivark 5y ago
  They are now redefining the meaning of the word “comprehensive”…
  - linsomniac 5y ago
    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.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  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 5y ago
  Here[1] is the customer explaining the insurance more thoroughly. [1] https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=406 https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=406
  - ben1040 5y ago
    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.
danschumann 5y ago
There needs to be a path for 3rd party repair, even if it is not amateurish ( requiring expertise and/or advanced machinery )
beebmam 5y ago
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.
Meph504 5y ago
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?
- late2part 5y ago
  We should tighten the right to repair - not loosen it!
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Why?
    - coolspot 5y ago
      It is a joke on misspelling of “lose”. “Loose the right to repair” means to make the right to repair loose, opposite of tight. “Lose the right to repair” means to make the right to repair being lost.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  2027: automakers gradually stop selling cars and transition to a lease-only "subscription" model.
  - filoleg 5y ago
    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. 0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/04/12/tesla-model-3-leasing-standard-plus/3445401002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/04/12/tesla-m... 1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/14/22231451/bmw-access-subscription-shut-down-nashville-cancel https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/14/22231451/bmw-access-subsc...
sjg007 5y ago
I don't get why that part isn't shielded for one.. but for second, non-OEM parts are fine for use in repairs.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  When Teslas get old enough to be off warranty Dorman will probably offer a stamped shield for $20.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    > 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 5y ago
      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).
systemvoltage 5y ago
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.
raz32dust 5y ago
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.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    How so? Without the app store an iPhone becomes just an expensive cordless telephone.
    - forgotmypw17 5y ago
      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.
      - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
        There's a difference between "almost any" and no apps at all.
        forgotmypw17 5y ago
        Sure, but the apps I install are a better browser and a blocker for sites I don't want to accidentally open.
- 5y ago
spoonjim 5y ago
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 5y ago
  magnusson moss - they will have to prove repair broke something.
  - fnord77 5y ago
    that's for warranties. Leases state the car must be turned in without modifications
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    It's not a warranty - it's a lease.
bloggie 5y ago
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.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  Knowing Tesla, they may consider the unapproved fix an excuse to brick the vehicle and disable it in software, which they've done before.
- xyst 5y ago
  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 5y ago
  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.
turtlebits 5y ago
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.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.
    - blhack 5y ago
      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.
- eikenberry 5y ago
  "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.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
maerF0x0 5y ago
Mazda's CX-5 LED failure too https://www.carcomplaints.com/Mazda/CX-5/2016/lights/daytime_running_led_light_failure.shtml 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 5y ago
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".
yawaworht1978 5y ago
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 5y ago
  ding ding ding. if you don’t punish a bad behavior (ie not buying their crappy cars) they really have no incentive to change
throwawaycities 5y ago
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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  >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.
rantwasp 5y ago
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 5y ago
  like ford? https://www.autoevolution.com/news/mustang-mach-e-owner-gets-rear-ended-is-mad-about-parts-not-being-available-164814.html https://www.autoevolution.com/news/mustang-mach-e-owner-gets...
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    was thinking a toyota or a honda. btw, I would take a ford over a tesla any day
mdaniel 5y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAMczraBIM
Pyramus 5y ago
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 https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=1415
- bitexploder 5y ago
  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.
  - pdq 5y ago
    Exactly. 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.
- vfclists 5y ago
  Cheaper for who? The customer?
ausumm 5y ago
https://ausum.io/s/WsRxwA48rWnjKs-HIKgU9ICxzbmEJkqkvFK_lZmfkaE https://ausum.io/s/WsRxwA48rWnjKs-HIKgU9ICxzbmEJkqkvFK_lZmfk...
_greim_ 5y ago
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.
deregulateMed 5y ago
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.
nunez 5y ago
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.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
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.
dawnerd 5y ago
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).
xyst 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
- bonestamp2 5y ago
  > This is a design flaw. 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).
  - cartoonworld 5y ago
    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. Teslas are full of weird stuff like this.
Saris 5y ago
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.
- killingtime74 5y ago
  How can you charge to fix something that doesn’t break
phamilton 5y ago
Expensive car repair is a society burden. My liability insurance rate increases because you drive a car that is expensive to repair.
- brewdad 5y ago
  And mine goes up because you drive a car that is less safe in a collision leading to higher medical costs.
freeopinion 5y ago
Why would somebody have a right to repair something they don't own?
vfclists 5y ago
Sounds like Apple vs Louis Rossmann.
fnord77 5y ago
since the car is leased, I doubt Tesla will accept the hacky $700 repair. He's going to get billed for a new battery pack when he returns the car
dd36 5y ago
$13k for 75kWh. Can I claim my battery is damaged and buy a replacement?
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  $173/kwh is a screaming deal.
slumdev 5y ago
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.
41209 5y ago
Couldn't the lease holder just buy the car from Tesla if they want to do weird stuff like this ? I know I wouldn't want to buy an electric car if random guys been messing with the battery pack. Edit , isn't the bigger story the insurance not covering it ?
- hnburnsy 5y ago
  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. https://www.tesla.com/support/leasing/lease-end-options https://www.tesla.com/support/leasing/lease-end-options
tjmehta 5y ago
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.
Proven 5y ago
No, you're wrong. You can fix it for $700 today (why would anyone care?) but you can't fuck up a car that's under manufacturer's warranty and expect the manufacturer to honor the warranty, which is what this socialistic movement is about. And stop calling it right to repair - it's a made up right, like right to healthcare. It does not exist.
femto 5y ago
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. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/repair/draft https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/repair/draft They are after real world information and examples about how the Right to Repair is being nobbled by current laws, and they will recommend changes to Australia's law. So far they are leaning towards copyright exemptions for service material, such as manuals, and the removal of "Technical Protection Measures". The Australian Government frequently implements Productivity Commission recommendations, so this is a real opportunity for positive change to Australia's laws (which might also have international flow ons). Please do make a thoughtful submission!
randomperson_24 5y ago
The fact that (a big part of) HN crowd does not understand Right to Repair is - shocking!
marvindanig 5y ago
Right to repair is an absolute must. Period.
conk 5y ago
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.
greggman3 5y ago
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.
- yumraj 5y ago
  I just put the rubber foot and put a tape on top of it. It’s been that way for a couple of years now. Genuinely curious why would you even go to Apple for that?
  - smcl 5y ago
    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
  - vl 5y ago
    BTW, there are replacement rubber feet sold on Amazon.
- tim333 5y ago
  $4 on ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/192313754025?epid=2260447290&hash=item2cc6cb01a9:g:4d8AAOSw7QJfRqLz https://www.ebay.com/itm/192313754025?epid=2260447290&hash=i... Hopefully they have yet to incorporate security chips so the thing won't start with unofficial feet.
lucioperca 5y ago
Lol, you could have probably just used some silicone sealant or some 2k glue to do the job.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
captainbanjax 5y ago
Moral of the story is right at the start. Get better insurance. If he had comprehensive insurance the repair would have cost him nothing.
jacquesm 5y ago
"I think it's terrible to make a profit on service" (Elon Musk, 4th of june 2013)
dusted 5y ago
Wait, why did it cost $700 ? Looks like a $4 part and about 2 hours of labour, unless the drive to home-depot took the entire day..
- K5EiS 5y ago
  Did not watch the whole thing, but maybe they had to buy new fluid?
  - dusted 5y ago
    good point, they probably did
antattack 5y ago
Bigger lesson from this story is to read the fine print from your comprehensive insurance coverage as it may turn out to be not comprehensive. As to the story itself - garage did not fix the car for $700 - they just got it going.
NoblePublius 5y ago
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.
metalliqaz 5y ago
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.
rswail 5y ago
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.
oort-cloud9 5y ago
There's no such right and should not be. It would be a political and legal nightmare if we have every right under the sun you can think of.
oort-cloud9 5y ago
When you have economies severely hampered by gov regulations to the point where manufacturers can't make money in a normal way, you will have cases like this. Any industry would look quite different if free market relationships between producers and consumers were in force. The gov. Is only needed to arbitrate their relationships and prevent outright fraud and theft.

907 points by samizdis 5y ago

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.

mindslight 5y ago

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.

samfisher83 5y ago
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 5y ago
  [deleted]
roflchoppa 5y ago
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 5y ago
  If you watch the video, the connector is behind a plastic panel (albeit not very rigid).
gamache 5y ago
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/ https://www.buzzmaven.com/old-engineer-hammer-2/
- mindslight 5y ago
  I'm not condemning it, just pointing out the current market value of Tesla repair knowledge!
cartoonworld 5y ago
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 5y ago
  "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 5y ago
    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.
elsonrodriguez 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.

namdnay 5y ago

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.

garmaine 5y ago
Tesla doesn't let you do your own repairs on cars you "own" either.
- roflchoppa 5y ago
  Nor will they sell you parts to repair it.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    So truely the Apple of cars then.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      At least the battery isn't glued in.
    - smt88 5y ago
      Not exactly. Apple is renowned for the build quality of their hardware.
      - kuratkull 5y ago
        Not sarcasm + sarcasm?
      - raisedbyninjas 5y ago
        Tesla design and build quality can sometimes be pretty good after several years of questionable revisions.

ademup 5y ago

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.

1123581321 5y ago
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 5y ago
  if you finance a car, is comprehensive required?
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    usually, yes.
  - namelessoracle 5y ago
    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 5y ago
    Yep.
- brigade 5y ago
  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.

endisneigh 5y ago

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.

ssivark 5y ago
They are now redefining the meaning of the word “comprehensive”…
- linsomniac 5y ago
  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.
cptskippy 5y ago
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 5y ago
Here[1] is the customer explaining the insurance more thoroughly. [1] https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=406 https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=406
- ben1040 5y ago
  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.

danschumann 5y ago

There needs to be a path for 3rd party repair, even if it is not amateurish ( requiring expertise and/or advanced machinery )

beebmam 5y ago

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.

Meph504 5y ago

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?

late2part 5y ago
We should tighten the right to repair - not loosen it!
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Why?
  - coolspot 5y ago
    It is a joke on misspelling of “lose”. “Loose the right to repair” means to make the right to repair loose, opposite of tight. “Lose the right to repair” means to make the right to repair being lost.
nerdponx 5y ago
2027: automakers gradually stop selling cars and transition to a lease-only "subscription" model.
- filoleg 5y ago
  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. 0. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/04/12/tesla-model-3-leasing-standard-plus/3445401002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/04/12/tesla-m... 1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/14/22231451/bmw-access-subscription-shut-down-nashville-cancel https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/14/22231451/bmw-access-subsc...

sjg007 5y ago

I don't get why that part isn't shielded for one.. but for second, non-OEM parts are fine for use in repairs.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
When Teslas get old enough to be off warranty Dorman will probably offer a stamped shield for $20.
cptskippy 5y ago
> 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 5y ago
  > 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 5y ago
    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).

systemvoltage 5y ago

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.

raz32dust 5y ago

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.

MattGaiser 5y ago
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 5y ago
  How so? Without the app store an iPhone becomes just an expensive cordless telephone.
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    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.
    - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      There's a difference between "almost any" and no apps at all.
      - forgotmypw17 5y ago
        Sure, but the apps I install are a better browser and a blocker for sites I don't want to accidentally open.
5y ago

spoonjim 5y ago

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 5y ago
magnusson moss - they will have to prove repair broke something.
- fnord77 5y ago
  that's for warranties. Leases state the car must be turned in without modifications
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  It's not a warranty - it's a lease.

bloggie 5y ago

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.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Knowing Tesla, they may consider the unapproved fix an excuse to brick the vehicle and disable it in software, which they've done before.
xyst 5y ago
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 5y ago
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.

turtlebits 5y ago

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.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - blhack 5y ago
    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.
eikenberry 5y ago
"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.
throwawayboise 5y ago

maerF0x0 5y ago

Mazda's CX-5 LED failure too https://www.carcomplaints.com/Mazda/CX-5/2016/lights/daytime_running_led_light_failure.shtml 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 5y ago

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".

yawaworht1978 5y ago

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 5y ago
ding ding ding. if you don’t punish a bad behavior (ie not buying their crappy cars) they really have no incentive to change

throwawaycities 5y ago

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 5y ago

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 5y ago
>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.

rantwasp 5y ago

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 5y ago
like ford? https://www.autoevolution.com/news/mustang-mach-e-owner-gets-rear-ended-is-mad-about-parts-not-being-available-164814.html https://www.autoevolution.com/news/mustang-mach-e-owner-gets...
- rantwasp 5y ago
  was thinking a toyota or a honda. btw, I would take a ford over a tesla any day

mdaniel 5y ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAMczraBIM

Pyramus 5y ago

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 https://youtu.be/vVSw3KSevEc?t=1415

bitexploder 5y ago
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.
- pdq 5y ago
  Exactly. 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.
vfclists 5y ago
Cheaper for who? The customer?

ausumm 5y ago

https://ausum.io/s/WsRxwA48rWnjKs-HIKgU9ICxzbmEJkqkvFK_lZmfkaE https://ausum.io/s/WsRxwA48rWnjKs-HIKgU9ICxzbmEJkqkvFK_lZmfk...

_greim_ 5y ago

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.

deregulateMed 5y ago

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.

nunez 5y ago

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.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

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.

dawnerd 5y ago

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).

xyst 5y ago

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 5y ago
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.
bonestamp2 5y ago
> This is a design flaw. 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).
- cartoonworld 5y ago
  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. Teslas are full of weird stuff like this.

Saris 5y ago

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.

killingtime74 5y ago
How can you charge to fix something that doesn’t break

phamilton 5y ago

Expensive car repair is a society burden. My liability insurance rate increases because you drive a car that is expensive to repair.

brewdad 5y ago
And mine goes up because you drive a car that is less safe in a collision leading to higher medical costs.

freeopinion 5y ago

Why would somebody have a right to repair something they don't own?

vfclists 5y ago

Sounds like Apple vs Louis Rossmann.

fnord77 5y ago

since the car is leased, I doubt Tesla will accept the hacky $700 repair. He's going to get billed for a new battery pack when he returns the car

dd36 5y ago

$13k for 75kWh. Can I claim my battery is damaged and buy a replacement?

ed25519FUUU 5y ago
$173/kwh is a screaming deal.

slumdev 5y ago

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.

41209 5y ago

Couldn't the lease holder just buy the car from Tesla if they want to do weird stuff like this ? I know I wouldn't want to buy an electric car if random guys been messing with the battery pack. Edit , isn't the bigger story the insurance not covering it ?

hnburnsy 5y ago
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. https://www.tesla.com/support/leasing/lease-end-options https://www.tesla.com/support/leasing/lease-end-options

tjmehta 5y ago

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.

Proven 5y ago

No, you're wrong. You can fix it for $700 today (why would anyone care?) but you can't fuck up a car that's under manufacturer's warranty and expect the manufacturer to honor the warranty, which is what this socialistic movement is about. And stop calling it right to repair - it's a made up right, like right to healthcare. It does not exist.

femto 5y ago

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. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/repair/draft https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/repair/draft They are after real world information and examples about how the Right to Repair is being nobbled by current laws, and they will recommend changes to Australia's law. So far they are leaning towards copyright exemptions for service material, such as manuals, and the removal of "Technical Protection Measures". The Australian Government frequently implements Productivity Commission recommendations, so this is a real opportunity for positive change to Australia's laws (which might also have international flow ons). Please do make a thoughtful submission!

randomperson_24 5y ago

The fact that (a big part of) HN crowd does not understand Right to Repair is - shocking!

marvindanig 5y ago

Right to repair is an absolute must. Period.

conk 5y ago

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.

greggman3 5y ago

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.

yumraj 5y ago
I just put the rubber foot and put a tape on top of it. It’s been that way for a couple of years now. Genuinely curious why would you even go to Apple for that?
- smcl 5y ago
  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
- vl 5y ago
  BTW, there are replacement rubber feet sold on Amazon.
tim333 5y ago
$4 on ebay https://www.ebay.com/itm/192313754025?epid=2260447290&hash=item2cc6cb01a9:g:4d8AAOSw7QJfRqLz https://www.ebay.com/itm/192313754025?epid=2260447290&hash=i... Hopefully they have yet to incorporate security chips so the thing won't start with unofficial feet.

lucioperca 5y ago

Lol, you could have probably just used some silicone sealant or some 2k glue to do the job.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

captainbanjax 5y ago

Moral of the story is right at the start. Get better insurance. If he had comprehensive insurance the repair would have cost him nothing.

jacquesm 5y ago

"I think it's terrible to make a profit on service" (Elon Musk, 4th of june 2013)

dusted 5y ago

Wait, why did it cost $700 ? Looks like a $4 part and about 2 hours of labour, unless the drive to home-depot took the entire day..

K5EiS 5y ago
Did not watch the whole thing, but maybe they had to buy new fluid?
- dusted 5y ago
  good point, they probably did

antattack 5y ago

Bigger lesson from this story is to read the fine print from your comprehensive insurance coverage as it may turn out to be not comprehensive. As to the story itself - garage did not fix the car for $700 - they just got it going.

NoblePublius 5y ago

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.

metalliqaz 5y ago

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.

rswail 5y ago

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.

oort-cloud9 5y ago

There's no such right and should not be. It would be a political and legal nightmare if we have every right under the sun you can think of.

oort-cloud9 5y ago

When you have economies severely hampered by gov regulations to the point where manufacturers can't make money in a normal way, you will have cases like this. Any industry would look quite different if free market relationships between producers and consumers were in force. The gov. Is only needed to arbitrate their relationships and prevent outright fraud and theft.