Right to repair; Sustainable prioritisation

[Deleted member 3316]

Tesla has been reticent to supply parts to individual consumers in some situations.
Where do we (as consumers) see the balance between Tesla protecting IP, and public liability and the perceived needs of third party repairers and DIYers?

There could be a great safety resource through companies like iFixIt (https://www.ifixit.com/) that provide everything you need to repair household products and mobile phones…

Many of the modules within Teslas should in theory be easy to replace just simply from the ease of manufacture Tesla is pursuing.

1. But how far down the repairability path of those modules should Tesla go?
   
   
2. Should Tesla leave it up to Third party providers to produce instructional information tools and parts?
3. 
   Should Tesla create the educational content and repair products?

 

[rr6013]

Tesla has been reticent to supply parts to individual consumers in some situations.
Where do we (as consumers) see the balance between Tesla protecting IP, and public liability and the perceived needs of third party repairers and DIYers?

There could be a great safety resource through companies like iFixIt (https://www.ifixit.com/) that provide everything you need to repair household products and mobile phones…

Many of the modules within Teslas should in theory be easy to replace just simply from the ease of manufacture Tesla is pursuing.

1. But how far down the repairability path of those modules should Tesla go?
   
   
2. Should Tesla leave it up to Third party providers to produce instructional information tools and parts?
3. 
   Should Tesla create the educational content and repair products?

WRT:

1. Tiered (i.e.3rdParty,LicensedTech,Owner,DIY-RtR)
2. 3rd Party == certified by Tesla
3. EdTech manuals are IP Tesla controls it, period.

Precedent will effect much of “how” Tesla responds to RtR. “What” Tesla does is Twitter media-driven which Elon respects power when people speak. First Principles? Elon hasn’t been forthcoming “why” he’s motivated to do 1, 2, or 3.

As successful as SpaceX, promising as Starlink and aspirational as Neuralink - Tesla is Elon’s golden goose. He knows what got him where he’s at in life. Tesla is his jam, bread and butter. Future exit plans at other entities may surpass Tesla. But as SteveJobs would defiantly brag “ Apple is my baby!”.
I see not one iota difference with ElonMusk and Tesla.

 

[jerhenderson]

Tesla has been reticent to supply parts to individual consumers in some situations.
Where do we (as consumers) see the balance between Tesla protecting IP, and public liability and the perceived needs of third party repairers and DIYers?

There could be a great safety resource through companies like iFixIt (https://www.ifixit.com/) that provide everything you need to repair household products and mobile phones…

Many of the modules within Teslas should in theory be easy to replace just simply from the ease of manufacture Tesla is pursuing.

1. But how far down the repairability path of those modules should Tesla go?
   
   
2. Should Tesla leave it up to Third party providers to produce instructional information tools and parts?
3. 
   Should Tesla create the educational content and repair products?

right to repair shouldn't be confused with ability to repair. this ain't some 1980 Ford.

 

[charliemagpie]

Tesla was found 1% guilty of a fatal car accident (113 mph) because it failed to enable? the speed delimiter.

In light of this, are we asking Telsa to either compromise pack safety by removing the gunk or redesign it (another compromise) so it is easier for wannabee's to fry themselves.

 

[Crissa]

right to repair shouldn't be confused with ability to repair. this ain't some 1980 Ford.

I can replace screens on phones and wire up solar controllers, I have soldered sixty joints per minute and hot rodded Macbooks.

It's not rocket science, tho I've studied that, too. My spouse's software launched on a Delta II, and she later patched it in flight.

It's just plugging things in together. It's not writing new software.

They shouldn't have the ability to block people from putting their cars back together.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

Tesla was found 1% guilty of a fatal car accident (113 mph) because it failed to enable? the speed delimiter.

Tesla techs disabled it, when the kid asked. They wouldn't have had liability had he unlocked it through booting the software on his own.

-Crissa

 

[Deleted member 3316]

right to repair shouldn't be confused with ability to repair. this ain't some 1980 Ford.

Yes, they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive though. I was inspired to start this thread from the discussion “Cybertruck was designed to be built”.

When considering things like the physical simplicity of components, What sort of skill set and equipment would be required to perform non structural repairs and replacement?
Tesla have instructions to replace the air filter on their website but how far down that path can we expect. The after market already has instruction videos for their product installs, but I’d love an instruction video to enable me to disassemble the HVAC outlets to retrieve toys my kids have shoved in there. (As an example, asking for a friend)

 

[JBee]

1. But how far down the repairability path of those modules should Tesla go?
2. Should Tesla leave it up to Third party providers to produce instructional information tools and parts?
3. Should Tesla create the educational content and repair products?

I think firstly there should be a distinction for safety reasons between "critical" and "non-critical" repairs. There's lot of things that can be repaired without posing a significant additional risk, however some things should only be done by qualified personnel.

For example, changing your sound system speakers will unlikely result in a situation that it will injure or kill you. But changing your brake system might.

There's also the expectation of longevity versus premature failure of a component. From my perspective things that don't have much movement should be designed for last the lifetime of the vehicle. The things that move a lot should be designed to be repaired, if non-critical by anyone, if critical by a qualified technician.

So given the above, I think it is only in Teslas best interest to make the vehicle as "repairable" as possible. This helps in resale value, customer satisfaction and repeat customers. Instructions to repair should be openly available to all, but at some point there should really be a control to limit critical repairs to qualified persons only. This might be achieved by limiting part sales for critical parts, for example through Tesla service.

As for modifications by third parties, they should be held responsible for providing instructions, parts and warranty for their products, once again subject to the critical criteria.

Really at the end of the day, the design and quality of the vehicle components should be so that they last the lifetime of the vehicle under normal use conditions. If these parts last so long, the right to repair, or they need to repair at all will take a "back seat" and the expectation and experience will be that the vehicle simply performs without much user interaction at all.

Which at least in my book, is exactly what you want. If you want to modify or customize it, that's fine, but don't expect that modification to perform as well as the Tesla item.

 

[rr6013]

I can replace screens on phones and wire up solar controllers, I have soldered sixty joints per minute and hot rodded Macbooks.

It's not rocket science, tho I've studied that, too. My spouse's software launched on a Delta II, and she later patched it in flight.

It's just plugging things in together. It's not writing new software.

They shouldn't have the ability to block people from putting their cars back together.

-Crissa

We’ve jumped the generation gap technologically. Two cohort populations exist at the dawn of EV, digital,cyber,space and LGBTQXZY.

On one side exist a knowledgable group mechanically/electrically experienced in the western engineering practice of “independence” desgn schema.
On t’other a whole generation steeped in cool your heel system expertise in programming, rocket science, digital communication, advance ARPA “stuff” that they aren’t at liberty to even talk much less show what they can do.
I’ve strattled both worlds and there are those whose confidence exceeds their knowledge who should not tear into a batterypack R+R. Then those whose knowledge exceeds their confidence with experience when things go “boom”. Those folks can sort out the batterypack remove and replace it with “stuff” leftover from aero-space projects.
Its a tough situation, one size doesn’t fit all sort of policy dilemma. And both are right on principle to protest for equality even though the two groups may have very differing opinions on who gets what equally.
RtR is that whicket.

 

[Crissa]

Yeah, we shouldn't tear into battery packs. On that we agree.

I just don't think composite components is really a violation of right-to-repair - blocking access to diagnostic outputs, software, and being blocked from buying for these components is the problem.

There is no reason why Tesla should block people from ordering the plastics or sensors for their car. These things are straight up plug and play. The technology to paint and cut and bolt metal is long and well founded. And yet, they do block people from buying these things and having them installed.

-Crissa

 

[jerhenderson]

I can replace screens on phones and wire up solar controllers, I have soldered sixty joints per minute and hot rodded Macbooks.

It's not rocket science, tho I've studied that, too. My spouse's software launched on a Delta II, and she later patched it in flight.

It's just plugging things in together. It's not writing new software.

They shouldn't have the ability to block people from putting their cars back together.

-Crissa

you're not the average person.

 

[Crissa]

you're not the average person.

The average is irrelevant here, though. The average person has trouble assembling an Ikea desk.

-Crissa

 

[CyberGus]

The average is irrelevant here, though. The average person has trouble assembling an Ikea desk.

-Crissa

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

 

[JBee]

I'm yet to find an average person.
Exactly how low does that bar go? ?

The RtR needs a line between can and should. Anything that can result in serious damage and injury, also to third parties, should not be allowed by the manufacturer.

If the component is not prone to failure from wear and tear, then there's no real need to make it repairable either? The balance is making stuff more reliable and those parts that still fail more repairable.

 

[Crissa]

The RtR needs a line between can and should. Anything that can result in serious damage and injury, also to third parties, should not be allowed by the manufacturer.

The manufacturer shouldn't be the one playing protective patriarch. That's bullshit. They shouldn't be making it dangerous, either, because they have to make it okay for their own techs.

-Crissa