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

Re:Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair ... by kube-system on Monday July 12, 2021 @06:24PM (#27815831)

These terms are clearly defined in auto policies and are strictly regulated. I just read mine, and the things that are covered under my comprehensive policy are in a plain-english list that, clear as day, wouldn't cover this.

Although if we're just talking plain-english and not legalese, I'd say that your assertion is a stretch: that colliding with debris is not a "collision".

And yes, Tesla repairability is poor. That's kind of what you can expect to get when you prioritize time-to-market above anything else. I like to buy old motorcycles that don't have any parts availability and everything has to be custom done... but I wouldn't do that with my daily driver.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair ... by barrkel on Monday July 12, 2021 @08:28PM (#27816590)

As pointed out in another comment, I think this is a case of US / UK difference in insurance jargon. Debris damaging the undercarriage would not be covered by the closest UK equivalent of collision insurance (CDW on rentals), as I understand it.

I also think insurance is a bit of a red herring here. You wouldn't claim on insurance for a flat tyre either; some things are just bad luck. It's the quality of engineering - what I do think is on topic - which controls the risk.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla’s $16k Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair ... by anfilt on Monday July 12, 2021 @10:20PM (#27817090)

Except, in most vehicles something like this would not result in 16k quote to repair so the insurance not covering it is not the end of the world.

This I would say is more of design oversight on tesla’s part. At the very least there should have been a shroud or cover over more vulnerable parts.

[ Parent | on HN ]