News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tesla pushes U.S. to boost fuel economy penalties by barbazoo on Thursday September 23, 2021 @02:14PM (#28632920)
There has been a follow up video by RichRebuilds where explains (and regrets) what he did. It doesn't change anything about Tesla's stance against 3rd party repairs and their reluctance to do anything other than a complete battery swap in that case.
Re:Tesla pushes U.S. to boost fuel economy penalties by ajross on Thursday September 23, 2021 @02:31PM (#28633184)
It may not change the individual fact, but it quite clearly doesn't support the ridiculous hyperbolic generalizations about a "non-repairable" car upthread either.

Look, cars are complicated. Manufacturers write repair manuals and stock parts based on expected failures. Not every conceivable failure is going to be in those manuals. In this case there was a valve that was part of "The Battery Pack" as far as the manual was concerned, but that had a localized failure more that could have been repaired with a targetted replacement of a single part.

And it wasn't in the manual. And yeah, that's sort of an engineering failure. They should have anticipated this low-hanging-fruit kind of repair (just as they do for other very common stuff like brake calipers or shocks or whatnot). And they didn't. Shame on them.

But that's not a systemic failure. They just didn't write it up.

What are you really asking for here? That Tesla empower its local service centers to do their own engineering work on a 400V electrical system and decide for themselves how to disassemble and reassemble the battery pack in a safe way just to save a handful[1] of battery replacements? Does that sound like a good idea? Seems like we'd be right back here with entirely different (and IMHO more justified) anti-Tesla safety flame wars.

[1] So far as anyone can tell, this is in fact the only such valve that has failed on a wild Tesla. It's not like these things are dropping everywhere.

Re:Tesla pushes U.S. to boost fuel economy penalties by jcims on Thursday September 23, 2021 @02:56PM (#28633590)
>What are you really asking for here? That Tesla empower its local service centers to do their own engineering work on a 400V electrical system ...

Yes. This is what certifications are for.

> and decide for themselves how to disassemble and reassemble the battery pack in a safe way just to save a handful[1] of battery replacements?

No. See above.

The Tesla fleet is aging every day. This type of repair is going to become much more common and the lack of recourse is going to start to decimate the used car value. If Telsa's long game is to sell trips and not cars it might not be a terrible plan.

Re:Tesla pushes U.S. to boost fuel economy penalties by ajross on Thursday September 23, 2021 @03:28PM (#28634049)
> Yes. This is what certifications are for.

No... no, it's not. Manufacturer certifications are designed to provide liability protection for repairs done by people given training on how to make specific repairs to specific systems. What you're asking for here is for someone to independently determine that this valve can be replaced in isolation from the battery it's attached to. That's not the same problem at all, and good luck getting an insurer to cover that kind of nonsense under a "certification" contract.

> This type of repair is going to become much more common and the lack of recourse

Again, that's just simply wrong. Small part repairs are routine and common in the Tesla world just as they are everywhere else. The overwhelming majority of repairs don't involve replacing the battery pack! This controversy was about a very specific small part that happens not to have an individual part number nor disassembly spec.

And maybe it should! But your generalization is just silly. Tesla doesn't treat repairs any differently from any other manufacturer, period. You got sold a line that matched your priors.

Re:Tesla pushes U.S. to boost fuel economy penalties by judge2020 on Thursday September 23, 2021 @02:20PM (#28632993)
I mean, if a part isn't supposed to be opened up to be serviced, then them doing so would increase liability in case they botch the repair or it later catches on fire. If the part was on a smaller scale, say replacing a mosfet on the ADAS unit when the service techs are only allowed to replace the full ADAS unit, would it be the same story?