My first question would relate to "dezincification". A chemical process where the zinc leaves brass and leaves a copper sponge behind. Does the coolant cause dezincification? Is zinc tolerable in the coolant?
Learned this one in my home when my city water dezincified a kitchen faucet causing water to escape through to "solid" surfaces.
My second question would be about how that female threaded material holds up under vibration over time.
That said, I'd might accept this as a fix if I broke my own car and just peek at it once in a while to see if it was weeping. But if someone else broke my car, fixed it like this and told me it was good enough I would not be happy. That's the kind of confusion I get for thinking with meat.
Vibration is a non-issue. Pipe threads are is 200yr old tech. Pipe threads in all manner of materials have been in service in all manner of environments the world over. Some of them for a century or more.
Unfortunately, there are just as much of them just trying to get your money and then fixing it the simplest and cheapest way possible, without the consideration for long term safety and secondary effects that Tesla has probably put in.
As an outsider, it's hard to tell the difference, but I agree with the grandparent that an order of magnitude cheaper does look too good to be true at first.
EG, a specific Tesla shop can be stuck with bad management too.
A Canadian banks was caught because tellers were signing people up, unaware, with free credit cards, over draft protection, monthly plans, and even lines of credit. Why?
Management tying performance and promotion, and even job security, with overly aggressive conversion numbers.
So, even a Tesla shop may try an upsale, to get monthly profit numbers up.
In terms of the hack? It's not a hack. It is a simple, sensible fix. Bear in mind, the Tesla shop he went to? Seems to be little more than a component swapping repair site. They likely know little about car repair.
One other thing. You get good at car repair, when you work on 10, 20, 30 year old cars.
Fixing new, in lease cars is easy by comparison. Tesla has little experience with 20 year old wear and tear fixes...
Yet independent shops and experienced mechanics do.
Whereas, looking at it the other way around, an order of magnitude more expensive on the part of the manufacturer unfortunately doesn't look too bad to be true at all.
This seems like an incredibly wild assumption. The German concept of 'keine ehrfurcht fur deine maschine' will keep you from seeing every problem as a chance for your box to shine.
But we're talking about a 40k$ car and a system which is critical for cooling a part that is very eager to start a fire. I can easily imagine that the higher pressure or temperature tolerance would be needed if you're using the car in extremely hot weather (which can be a bit unexpected [0]) or when the battery experiences a critical failure. When working with systems that can have very bad failures, a bit of Ehrfurcht might be appropriate.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/weather/2021/jul/08/weatherwatch...
I watched the actual video. The mechanic, who previously worked at Tesla, indicated that brass would handle the coolant just fine; a friend of his had been driving the same fix for quite some time.
> My second question would be about how that female threaded material holds up under vibration over time.
Adhesive.
That repair will likely last longer than the car. Brass fittings have been standard for hydraulic and cooling systems for over 150 years. Tesla has been cheap and used plastic instead.
At least its not glued in https://rennlist.com/forums/cayenne-958-2011-2018/1045931-20...
because of terminology like this "Electrified Garage also notes that the cooling system doesn't get anywhere near as hot as an internal combustion engine, and it's not likely that it would either, given that the operating temperature for most lithium-ion batteries is well below 60 degrees Celsius."
So this repair is made on anecdotal observation of ideal conditions, and disregarding factory specifications, and actual Tesla trained technicians.
If this was your car, and this damaged was caused by someone else's fault, would you want a hack fix, or it fixed to the manufactures specification? He Broke Telsa's car.
>How is the risk different from the existing leased model in any industry?
Have you looked at a standard lease for cars, they dictate the terms of how their vehicles are to be maintained and repair, often hold authority of who, and how those repairs are done.
Some simply reserve the right to charge you, for services not performed by them.
Other's make even simpler, they charge you for damaging the vehicle or require you to convert the lease to a purchase, before work is done.
>So this repair is made on anecdotal observation of ideal conditions, and disregarding factory specifications, and actual Tesla trained technicians.
The context here is not "they're half-assing it because the system demand are minimal so they can". It's "this repair technique works just fine on real automotive cooling systems that are much more demanding".
>If this was your car, and this damaged was caused by someone else's fault, would you want a hack fix, or it fixed to the manufactures specification? He Broke Telsa's car.
Why don't you just be honest and say "if money was not object because it wasn't your money"? That's all your hypothetical situation changes.
Most people's answer is going to be along the lines of "sure I'll take a free battery but if the hose barb is functionally equivalent and gets me my car a week sooner than it'll depend on how badly I want the car back"
As far as the shoddy work, people keep acting like Telsa is a hivemind, and that every dept. in the company had signed off on these bad choices as a matter of corporate policy. Doesn't seem far more likely somebody working in the factory was worried about making quota, and did a very shitty job?
And as far as the "Not every repair needs to be done with perfect oem replacement parts." I agree, but that should be the owner of the car's choice, and in this case the car is owned by Telsa.
"You shouldn't have the right to make shitty choices! That's the Big Corporations' prerogative!"
And I'm one that is for right to repair, I just don't think it holds up for the lease scenario, I expect my repairs to be done to manufacturers spec and would be concerned about any mechanic for any make making "half arsed" repairs.
They disabled it because they thought they knew better and that the cable would never fail in the way they thought it would.
Spoiler: it didn't.
But: it did in a completely different way they were not aware was possible.
I'm sorry you couldn't see the similarity. Obviously it is a less likely to cause ten deaths scenario, but how do you know it won't?
If they were disabling this car’s airbags or ABS to solve a different issue, this would be a good comparison. But they’re just not the same at all.
To fix panel damage on jet airliners, instead of replacing half the skin, they usually just rivet a patch over the hole. Or in the case of the composite-skinned Boeing 787, they basically glue a patch over it [1].
Sometimes they don't even bother with that, and just tape it up instead [2].
[1] https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/commercial-airline/new...
No. That solution might be acceptable if the alternative is spending 15k$, but if money is not a factor, I bet anyone would take a manufacturer approved replacement over "some screwed in thingy that's probably within temperature range" just to get out of your rental a week early.
Firstly, using a tap to reverse thread into plastic housing, and then using brass threading into the housing and into a cut hose with a screw clamps.
Internal combustion or not, its hackish, the article even recognizes that, and their defense is that some people in Tesla's factory shipped some cars with fake bits of wood from home depot. You don't put metal threads into plastic in something that is exposed to vibration, in this fix they do it 4 times, it might work, for a while, but it isn't a good long term solution.
It's not a hypothetical, it happens literally every single day, I spend my youth working in a car shop, and people expect their cars to be fixed the way they where made, and even more so when someone else damaged it, and they (or their insurance company) are financially responsible.
It would be foolish for Tesla to allow this, they will likely want to sell that car after the fact, and I doubt they want to take on the liability of selling that car, that had this sort of hackish work done to it.
Also, I don't know where you reference for "Most people's answer is going to be..." but it wasn't my experience when working in a shop, so on that we can agree to disagree.
At the end of the day, he signed a lease, and agreed to the terms, those terms include how this maintenance and repair should be handled. Right to repair isn't going to change those terms, even more so when he isn't the owner of the vehicle.
If anything we should take away, is that leasing cars is stupid, on many levels, and this just high lights another one.
You don't put metal threads into plastic in something that is exposed to vibration
...have you seen how a lot of modern internal combustion engines --- which vibrate a lot more than an EV --- are put together?
It recognizes that someone might want to call it hackish, and effectively says "don't even start".
That's not an agreement that it actually is hackish.
Given the many examples of poor build quality with Tesla cars, it’s laughable to make some sort of case that any third party part doesn’t meet some standards that nobody can see.
I have leased many cars in my lifetime, and never used anything but the cheapest parts available for out of warranty parts. Federal law allows you to use a third party part.
They flaunt it when they flout the law.
Additionally, the terms of your lease, dictate how maintenance is done, and if third party parts are allowed.
Magnuson-Moss act is likely what you are talking about, which wouldn't apply here, firstly because it only applies to warranty claims, and voiding warranties it wouldn't play a role here, additionally because Tesla owns the car, this person is just renting it it has no barring.
But yeah, it's the lease contract dictating things. Read your contracts carefully kids, they're often designed to screw you over and (sadly) rarely negotiable.
But this case is, that the guy is renting the car, and Tesla wants him to fix to their standards, and he's trying to pass of this fix, which you have to admit is questionably, and they didn't agree to it.
In this case, I'm not sure how right to repair would make any difference.
And when your motor is going to only last 30k miles, you can probably get away with a lot more, as opposed to a fix that is expected to last 200-300k.
If Tesla the manufacturer charges twenty times more for a repair, it's certainly reasonable to check other alternatives first.
If Tesla the leasor insists that repairs must be done by Tesla the manufacturer, then it seems only fair and equitable that the leasor pays the 1,900 % excess charge to the manufacturer. (It's not as if they'll be that much out of pocket anyway.)
Does Tesla share those specifications, if they dont share it, can you really blame third party repair?
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)
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.
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.
Funny, that's exactly what I did.
> I'm reiterating the opinion they provided
So am I.
I repair and modify things, typically light commercial vehicles and the equipment mounted to or towed by them. 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 (i.e no money changed hands) with an attorney who specializes in businesses 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. I cannot control whether my customers use the things I have repaired for them in a strict liability context (e.g. fumigation, overhead lifting) which could make my party to a lawsuit.
No I didn't pay for the advice but for the volume and riskiness of work I do I'm content.
[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.
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
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.
This is unique in CA - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays). But you can actually be the one paying rather than getting paid even if they hit you.
No its not, its the pure comparative fault rule followed by 13 states.
> - other party can be 90% at fault - so you’d think they’d have to pay
And you’d be right, if you suffered damages. If they were 90% responsible and you were 10% responsible, they’d have to suffer 9× the compensible injury that you did to net anything, because California is a pure comparative fault state.
> (some states do whoever is 51%+ pays).
Incorrect.
Some states do each of:
* Whoever is >0% at fault cannot collect from other parties (pure contributory negligence).
* Whoever is at least 50% at fault cannot collect from other parties (one modified comparative fault rule.)
* Whoever is at least 51% at fault cannot collect from other parties (another modified comparative fault rule.)
None require 51% fault to be required to pay.
Husband / driver falls asleep at the wheel while trying to speed home (going 70-80MPH). Weaves and then veers sharply off the freeway, hitting a parked vehicle parked well clear of the roadway and killing themselves, damaging the parked vehicle and causing pain and suffering to driver of parked vehicle.
Wife and family brings suit against driver and company owning parked vehicle for damages including funeral and burial costs, unreimbursed medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, loss of income and financial support, loss of insurance coverage, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support.
Questions you may wish to consider.
Family bringing case has no money - there is no chance of collection. Guy falling asleep and running off the road was only source of income.
Company owning parked vehicle has money - there is a high chance of collection on any judgement.
Who will pay out in CA. The guy causing the situation by running off the road and smashing into a parked vehicle at 80 MPH? Or the company owning the vehicle he smashed into.
In CA - the answer may surprise you. And the size of awards may surprise you.
Most states are either joint and several liability states or (more commonly, and as California actually is), modified joint and several liability states.
> 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.
No, because California is also a comparative fault state, so if the decedent (for wrongful death claims) abd/or plaintiff (for any claims) is 90% responsible, other actors who might be jointly (for economic damages) or severally (for non-economic damages) liable would only be liable for up to a total of 10% of the resulting damages (any tortfeasor for the full amount under joint liability, or the amount of their proportionate responsibility for several liability.)
It is important to note that you can then sue the other at fault parties for whatever you had to pay that was above your fair share.
For example if I'm 90% at fault and you are 10% at fault in something that causes $1 million damages to someone and they come after you and win $1 million, you can turn around and sue me for for $900k.
I might not have $900k and so you might still end up screwed but in that case it is either you who gets screwed or the person you and I injured, and the idea behind joint and several liability is if we have to screw someone it should not be someone who was at fault.
Another part you are forgetting is these are often designed to save govt money. Should a rich person slightly involved pick up the tab, or should the kids be homeless and costing $ in social services kind of thing.
Note though that YOU can be the one 90% at fault and the person you hit has to pay if you are broke (wife will sue because you died ) Ralph’s grocery caught this type of case all the way and lost
The rest either have pure joint and several liability in which each defendant is responsible for the full amount of damages (Alabama, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia), or like California have modified joint and several liability in which defendants above some threshold fault percentage are responsible for the full amount of damages (Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).
I dunno. I think if I walked in with some random "brake rotor" that wasn't like any of the OEM or aftermarket ones they were used to seeing, the mechanic didn't know much about and couldn't verify would work sufficiently, even if it bolted into place, they might tell me to take a hike. I expect they would do a similar thing if I wanted airbags that went off replaced with something that looked like it wouldn't work right. Or a gas tank that looked suspect.
I know I would turn people away if I was a mechanic and they came to me with those requests. Maybe those items worked perfectly fine, but if I don't have assurance I'm making a good call (like, for example, by knowing I'm replacing components with parts that are trusted by the OEM or have a proven rack record), why would I take that risk, legally or morally (if I think the person is making a bad decision)? Some decisions impact safety (especially when dealing with components that have a lot to do with safety), and I think those deserve some consideration.
That doesn't mean Tesla should be the only entity allowed to repair though. Perhaps some of these components are perfectly fine, and you just need to find a mechanic that has enough experience with them to know that (but good luck finding the experienced mechanic instead of the one that doesn't care when looking around I guess, I'm not sure how you tell them apart). Competition is generally good.
They'd tell you not to bring your own parts because they make money off parts and it's a variable they can't control and can introduce warranty headaches for them if it fails and it can waste their time if it's not rich (which is a real PITA for the tech in a flat rate pay system, they lose money directly). They have suppliers they like to deal with and want to stick to. As you get into less cookie cutter, higher dollar or more informal work it is much more common for the customer to provide parts. Oddball or obsolete heavy equipment is often dropped off with a rebuild-able core the repair shop is expected to use and/or modify because that's more economically efficient than having the repair entity source parts. Of course this can create hang-ups but these businesses expect that to happen sometimes. It's not super streamlined for high speed parts swapping on consumer automobile repair is. For side gig type work the mechanic might just tell the customer to go to the car parts store or Rockauto and buy it himself.
>wasn't like any of the OEM or aftermarket ones they were used to seeing
>couldn't verify would work sufficiently
You're giving examples where the professional using their judgement is assessing the parts to be suspect causing the potential work to be sub par and not something they can stand behind. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a case where the professional used their judgement and called the repair (tap the plastic, install a nipple) good enough and there was no reason to believe it wasn't other than pure speculation.
>but if I don't have assurance I'm making a good call
That's the thing, the guy tapping the plastic does have fairly good assurance he is making a good call because he has training and or experience repairing vehicles. He's going to have a good idea what does and doesn't work. At some point someone has to stick their neck out and make a judgement call. That's why people get paid, to make decisions. You can try and be a drone kick all the thinking up the chain to corporate but you're leaving money and satisfied customers on the table. You can run a business that way. It's perfectly valid. But you can also be the independent shop that just uses their professional judgement to do things like repair the battery on a Tesla or, a drain and fill plug to a Ford PTU or replace the Toyota oil filter cap with the metal one after the plastic one gets chewed up.
That would technically be part of "right to repair" legislation.
thats enough to frighten anyone. insurance companies live on FUD
People get all sorts of repairs done all the time. What makes a Tesla so special? Ever had your brakes replaced at a repair shop? Somehow the world doesn't stop turning and all the liability issues you speak of don't seem to be a problem, yet brake failure would be very bad.
Just slip out the pack, Jack Plug it into a new toy, Roy Hook it up to the wrong bus, Gus Don't need to discuss much!
If they didn't, that hypothetical failure when charging would be Tesla's fault.
But I guess Tesla would try hard to pin it on the garage if they knew about the fix.
Hacky too me would be using JBweld, while its a strong epoxy that would be getting into what i would call hack territory.
Maybe I don’t understand the industry, but I was under the assumption that most OEMs don’t do the repairs but only supply the OEM parts. Is this incorrect?
>How is the risk different
It's not but Tesla has decided to not participate in it.
Again, I don't think it's the right call, but it doesn't seem nonsensical either.
I think you're vastly undervaluing the cost of operating a auto shop + skilled labor. $700 was the cost for an auto repair business to 1) have a skilled technician find the problem 2) devise a repair method and 3) execute the repair.
Car repair is an expensive business to operate. Rent/building costs are high, lots of expensive equipment, one of the highest insurance rates around (you're lifting expensive heavy weights up and down over people all day) and labor is us usually relatively skilled and costly.
$50 for the repair and overhead ($5 supplies after markup, 1/3hr labor to include testing the system for leaks after the repair)
$200 for being the only people able and willing to do the repair.
$300 because they know how much the only available alternative costs.
1. invest money in a supply chain to have parts in stock for the battery assembly(take many months).
2. do a repair in Tesla warranty and pick up the Tab again if it breaks or worse the battery is damaged.
3. force a repair on the owner/lessee to pay for a new battery assembly which is less likely to have issues/safer
They already have this for other parts, it's trivial to extend the model to the battery. The problem is that the battery was not designed to be serviced without specialized tooling and expertise.
It doesn't have to be that way. It was their choice. They made that choice because it costs them less money to service the batteries in bulk at a specialized facility, at the expense of the customer. It's not like the customer has a choice. They already bought the car. What are they going to do?
Here is another option:
4. Design your vehicles in a way where a $1 part can be easily detached and replaced by anyone with basic tooling, instead of charging the customer $18k for a new battery.
This isn't just an issue with Tesla. This is an issue with almost all manufacturers today. They make more money when they replace the entire assembly.
Apple operates in the same way. If one of the keys breaks on your laptop, Apple will replace half the laptop. That's the only option. You can't replace the key. It was designed this way.
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?
[1] https://twitter.com/Beastlyorion/status/1288242333864079360
Because there is no official process to repairing/replacing parts within the pack.
For the record, I believe the right to repair to an extent. But I believe when we back the movement with crappy data points like this one, the whole movement loses legitimacy.
> Benoit and the team at Electrified Garage are huge proponents of Right to Repair and say that this is a lesson on that very subject.
I also think that it’s still a good case. The owner wanted an alternative to just throwing away the $16000 part, and found a shop that provided a legit way to do that (until proven otherwise at least).
Hopefully getting punished for choosing alternatives to Tesla to service it would be prohibited by right to repair clauses.
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?