Right to repair; Sustainable prioritisation

[jerhenderson]

"Imagine an average person, and then realize that half the people are stupider than that."
- George Carlin

I work with a lot of them

 

[CyberGus]

No, the manufacturer is not liable for third party repair quality. That's ridiculous.

Tesla was found 1% liable for an accident committed in one of their cars by a bad driver, which seems ridiculous to me.

American civil litigation is often nutty, causing many businesses to be risk-averse. And yes, I can envision Tesla getting sued for a 3rd party electrocuting himself trying to repair a pack, for instance.

I agree that Tesla should be promoting outside shops, since they clearly cannot keep pace with demand, but their liabilities cannot be ignored.

 

[Crissa]

Tesla was found 1% liable for an accident committed in one of their cars by a bad driver, which seems ridiculous to me.

Tesla techs unlocked a car that the owner had locked. That was the car used in the accident.

This is literally liability for their action, not inaction.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Tesla techs unlocked a car that the owner had locked. That was the car used in the accident.

This is literally liability for their action, not inaction.

-Crissa

So if they unlock it for you to repair this should absolve them from all liability?

 

[flowerlandfilms]

Since Tesla leads in engineering, design, production and many other areas.
It only serves to contrast that they are not leading in right to repair and accessibility as well.
I think they should be pushing the boundaries here as well.

 

[Crissa]

So if they unlock it for you to repair this should absolve them from all liability?

If they aren't involved in the repair, no. The manufacturer is not liable if a third-party mechanic effs up.

-Crissa

 

[Deleted member 3316]

In particular my concern is third party risk from dodgy workmanship. John Deere primarily operates off road and at low speeds and not in the city etc. They should be more open to RtR IMHO. You wanting to build your own off-road EV makes it fairly exempt from my third party risk analysis.

But to be honest the vehicles you mention are far from "state of the art" they are no where in the same league as a modern EV like the CT. From an engineering perspective there is no problem to make multi generational machines that can outlast the original owner with minimal maintenance.

John Deer are vehemently against right to repair….

 

[JBee]

John Deer are vehemently against right to repair….

I know, as are many other manufactures who rely on part and service supplies as a part of the business margins. Tesla is one of the only manufacturers that makes a substantial profit on vehicle sales alone and as such can ignore part sales for their margins, and make things last much longer. It is important to understand the relationship here and how Tesla is different, and how this effects RtR.

The point is still, that engineering components to intentionally last longer without maintenance or service, at some point overtakes the need to repair it, simply because comparatively the repairs are less frequent, and they are more affordable, even if done by the manufacturer at a higher cost than by the user.

The logic is If it barely breaks, you barely have to fix it, and if you barely have to repair it, you don't need to implement the "right to repair" for it to achieve the same or greater value for the user.

This obviously all depends exactly on what parts we are talking about on vehicle, because some parts are more exposed to wear than others, and although these might be upgradable to last longer, at some point they're likely to become more expensive as a result, leading to an inferior part being made, that is in turn subject to more repairs.

There is a balance between longevity, reparability and cost, and accordingly value to the customer.

In the case of the CT for example, I'm am seriously expecting the following performance for the price for each sub-assembly of the vehicle:

1. 40-70years for Exoskeleton, Cabin structure, Front and rear casting (including bed), and all Stainless Steel components, including exterior SS sheeting, glass except windscreen (RtR is moot)
2. Structural Battery Pack good for 1,000,000 mile (1.6million km) with less than 10% degradation (being 2000 full cycles of 500mile range in a TM CT). Resulting in 67 years of 15,000miles per year, which is the USA average or something like 33 years at 30,000miles (48,000 kms) per year. Given the "structural nature" of the pack, as per Monroe teardown, there is little to no way to make it repairable anyway. The advantages of the structural pack, especially in cost, exceed any RtR demand and is therefore moot.
3. Motors and drivetrain minimum 200,000miles (15 year?) before bearings and wear part overhaul. Inverter around 10-15 years depending on components/capacitors etc used. Cabling and connectors (except charge port) +50years. (Longevity, complexity and electrical risk make RtR moot for this too)
4. Doors, seats and interior, between 10-20years depending on wear and use. This most definitely could be user upgradable/repairable, so long safety isn't impaired (airbags/seatbelts etc) and would need to be replaced 2-3 times for the life of the vehicle as per above timelines.
5. Infotainment, FSD, electronics etc, Upgradable in 5-10 year cycle, Partially RtR
6. All usual wear and tear items, like tyres, brakes etc either 1-2years depending on use and mileage. Can do RtR, but only brakes if there is some sort of vehicle self-test.

I hope it is clear from the above, that unlike a ICE, a EV CT can and probably will achieve this level of longevity and performance, and if it would, would mostly make the argument for RtR fairly counter productive from a value to user position.

Further the right to repair doesn't automatically mean you have the capability or willingness to carry out the repair yourself, and I doubt that even 10%, would want it just in case, and probably more like less than 1% would make use of RtR on a CT, let alone the fact if the period between failures would be as high as described above, further pushing RtR into the irrelevant domain.

Sure if you want to fix your $99 Kmart bike and they don't won't to sell you parts, sure go ahead and push them for that right to repair, but at this level of engineering for the CT, there is little point IMHO, because the things that cost a lot to repair, will also probably out live you, if you are over 30 years old.

Hence my "multi-generational" claim, and why I have ordered one for each of my grown kids as an inheritance. ?

 

[Zabhawkin]

In the case of the CT for example, I'm am seriously expecting the following performance for the price for each sub-assembly of the vehicle:

1. 40-70years for Exoskeleton, Cabin structure, Front and rear casting (including bed), and all Stainless Steel components, including exterior SS sheeting, glass except windscreen (RtR is mute)
2. Structural Battery Pack good for 1,000,000 mile (1.6million km) with less than 10% degradation (being 2000 full cycles of 500mile range in a TM CT). Resulting in 67 years of 15,000miles per year, which is the USA average or something like 33 years at 30,000miles (48,000 kms) per year. Given the "structural nature" of the pack, as per Monroe teardown, there is little to no way to make it repairable anyway. The advantages of the structural pack, especially in cost, exceed any RtR demand and is therefore mute.
3. Motors and drivetrain minimum 200,000miles (15 year?) before bearings and wear part overhaul. Inverter around 10-15 years depending on components/capacitors etc used. Cabling and connectors (except charge port) +50years. (Longevity, complexity and electrical risk make RtR mute for this too)
4. Doors, seats and interior, between 10-20years depending on wear and use. This most definitely could be user upgradable/repairable, so long safety isn't impaired (airbags/seatbelts etc) and would need to be replaced 2-3 times for the life of the vehicle as per above timelines.
5. Infotainment, FSD, electronics etc, Upgradable in 5-10 year cycle, Partially RtR
6. All usual wear and tear items, like tyres, brakes etc either 1-2years depending on use and mileage. Can do RtR, but only brakes if there is some sort of vehicle self-test.

You just made my case for RtR for me.

 

[rr6013]

You just made my case for RtR for me.

For RtR, not against?

 

[Sirfun]

Right to repair, didn't even exist a few years ago. I'll always remember in the 80's, my car-nut roommate telling me the reason why English cars were such high maintenance was because English love to tinker with their cars. He was right!
Now, here we are with a large majority of drivers that won't change a flat tire, let alone check the oil and add a quart. RtR is a none issue to most of the populace. BUT, right to repair is just another freedom/right they are willing to give away for convenience and supposed safety. It's amazing how fear can be used as a tool.
How did we get here?

 

[rr6013]

<snip eloquent claims>

3. Motors and drivetrain minimum 200,000miles (15 year?) before bearings and wear part overhaul. Inverter around 10-15 years depending on components/capacitors etc used. Cabling and connectors (except charge port) +50years. (Longevity, complexity and electrical risk make RtR mute for this too)<SNIP> ? humblebrag allowed!

Capacitors, connectors and sealed components at 800-900v exposed to shakedown 50+ yrs exceeds my wildest experience. 1956 Hammond B3 just sounded better, raspier older its caps. But hotrodding with new caps took latest capacitor technology to new sonic heights for the olde girl. New technology at pace its innovating I expect to replace at very minimum caps maybe as soon as first sparkplugs change.

Inverter expect upgrades for the eager early adopters of latest and greatest.

Connectors are evil. Shit happens. Expect Tesla’s are great. Not surprised if I repace them in salty environs.

Sealed components bake in heat. Great lid technology abates failover but expect those sealed component black boxes to fail, falter and fluster.

Great compendium speaks for all my expectations to the letter! Thx

 

[Zabhawkin]

For RtR, not against?

For, his time frame is similar to how long cars last in my arid environment. Still need regular repairs after warranty expires even on a very reliable vehicle.

The crazy thing that he is missing is that the entire motor assembly on an EV is simpler to repair than a run of the mill 5 speed manual transmission. Not to mention rebuilding an engine.

 

[Crissa]

For RtR, not against?

Yes.

-Crissa

 

[Zabhawkin]

Hence my "multi-generational" claim, and why I have ordered one for each of my grown kids as an inheritance. ?

Of course when you have enough money to buy multiple luxury trucks you tend to not have experience working on them unless they do so as a hobby and tend to be clueless as to the needs of most of the population.