There's an element of right to repair in here alongside just one more example on the pile for why most of us self-hosting nuts drone on and on about it.
I really hope lawmakers someday figure out they really do need to make "it must fail to a useable state" law. It should not be a concern that if Tesla goes out of business I won't be able to drive to work.
If there is a right to repair all of this does not matter. Tesla has - or should have - the obligation to sell the parts, and probably to also inform of the risks.
A bad repair is not on tesla, it's on the mechanic doing the work.
Sorry, but as someone who knows little about U.S politics and lobbying there, I don't understand how you are putting Tesla and "the right to repair" in a single sentence. What will you do if the electronics in Tesla fails? What will you do if the motor fails? Battery? You won't be able to fix that on your own.
Teslas can be only repaired in a professional shop, whereas Toyotas can be fixed by a moderately skilled individual in a private garage. You can order all the parts for Toyota online and do everything from engine rebuild to any kind of maintenance.
There is not as much to have fail in an electric car, but that shouldn't mean I lose the right to repair a vehicle I own. Rebuilding batteries isn't new to me, nor is compiling software.
Why should Tesla be allowed to brick every electric car that gets in a fender bender, or refuse to sell parts for cars once the vehicle is out of warranty? A lack of enforcement of the right to repair has driven repair costs on Tesla's vehicles sky high, causing their vehicles to have notably more expensive insurance premiums.
> It's not BS. The fact is that it's much cheaper and easier to design cars to be serviced by people who focus on a few models, and have a full suite of tools specifically made for those vehicles
Unless I'm missing something nothing you state here is disallowed by the right to repair law. That "suite of tools" you describe just has to be made available to everyone, not just the specialists.
The right to repair (and mod) has been a part of contemporary car culture for around a century (at least in the US), and it's also why there is a huge aftermarket for it. If anything, I think Tesla is currently the only automaker who would disapprove.
The article brings up how the auto industry has the right to repair. the auto industry has become increasingly hostile towards self repair.
Encrypting a Wireless tire pressure monitor gauge that locks out your security system if not detected forcing you to bring it to a shop for repair so they can electronically code the 20$ part is outright hostile maintenance practice to the consumer. Tesla is one of the worst cars for hobbyist with how the owner is practically locked out of repairing anything. I think there is alot to be learned from Tesla And John Deere hobbyists in what lessons they learned and tools they actually needes that can be applied to repairing electronic devices.
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?
It does not matter how standard in the industry that fix is, I am not arguing for Tesla here, I am contesting the idea that this situation is covered by "right-to-repair".
Right to repair is about availability of replacement parts and repair manuals so that third parties can do repair on X. It's about Apple no controlling flow of parts so tightly that they can sue someone for doing "unauthorized repairs" when they change a broken screen.
Most importantly right-to-repair is about things that you own, which was not even the case here seeing how the car was leased.
So it does not matter if this is a "clever fix" or the equivalent of tie-wrapping your bumper so it does not fall off while driving. In both cases it has nothing to do with right-to-repair and trying to use it as an umbrella term for every automakers shady practice is how you end up with no legislation at all because lawmakers won't enact bills that allow you to fix a leased car with something that isn't prescribed by the manufacturer.
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".
> Sadow sees the act of salvaging so-called “total loss” Teslas as, paradoxically, part of Tesla’s corporate mission to promote sustainable energy. “We (collective white hats) have saved thousands of cars from the scrap heap and put them back on the road,” Sadow said. “That's the only green thing to do!”
I totally agree. The right to repair[1] should be the basic premise for any device you expect to last more than a couple of months.
You do know that is EXACT same flawed logic that Auto Manufacturers have been making for Decades... and the EXACT same aurgument that John Deere, Apple and every other Anti-Repair advocate makes
The plebs just can not be trusted to repair their own things, it is far too dangerous. If you repair you iPhone you might burn down your home, if you repair your brakes you might kill grandma, and if you repair are Tesla you might .....
Safety has never, and will never be a valid reason to prohibit independent / self repair
I fail to see how right-to-repair reform would have changed this situation. Tesla's fix was too expensive so the customer went elsewhere... and got it fixed. Problem solved.
This isn't the first time we've had this debate. In the 20th century, automakers tried to make it illegal for people to service their own cars (or hire third party mechanics to do it). The "right to repair" movement had to fight to have that right of ownership enshrined in law.
This time around, citizens/consumers are losing the computing device edition of the right to repair campaign.
Software is covered around copyright law, which is different than right to repair. I'm fine not owning the software my Tesla runs, nor having access to the source code, but I agree that legislation should require Tesla provide tooling that allows for diagnostics and canbus control for repairs (such as for issuing commands to the powertrain and ancillary systems).
Massachusetts passed Right to Repair as a ballot measure (which Tesla basically flaunts by making manuals extremely expensive to rent). But note that right to repair does not automatically equate with "easy to repair without special tools and knowledge."
So is the notion they can.
What's truly at stake here is the right to try.
reply