>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.)
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.