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.
Auto manufacturers are allowed to sell the spare parts at a profit as well.
That being said, the design of the car underside and this pack is poor. It should not be a single 16k part which has to be replaced as a unit, that's just purely incompetent. I also guarantee that Tesla DOES make money on this part. Nobody sells parts at no profit.
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.
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.
They're also assuming they will get to keep the broken pack. They end up with $16,000 plus anything recoverable from the pack, like the battery cells.
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.
Though, in this case, I'm not sure why the owner didn't have comprehensive on a presumably fairly new vehicle. I actually did but decided it wasn't the deductible and presumed hike in premium.
And even IF OP is on the hook they should be able to choose how to repair it, as long as it fits NHTSA/DMV/whatever code.
Where does it say that?
> without the right insurance
Not having that coverage isn't objectively wrong, and it shouldn't mean you lose tons of money because you can't choose the mechanic.
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.