-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yep, it's time to let the public know of Tesla's dark side. Rushing cars out in order to meet quarterly numbers, and expecting the Service Centers to fix stuff they have no clue about isn't working too great.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Not according to the article you linked. Kodak would only sell parts to the owners of the equipment, not to the independent repair shops. Tesla sells equipment to both owners and independent repair shops. There are some "restricted" parts that are only sold to certified independent shops (not available to owners), but there is no general ban on parts for independent shops.
"Since 1975 Kodak has followed a policy of selling patented and unpatented repair parts only to direct purchasers of its equipment. The 18 plaintiff in this case are independent service organizations ("ISOs") engaged in repairing and servicing Kodak's copiers and other equipment, and in buying, reconditioning and selling used Kodak copiers and equipment. The effect of these practices is to bar sales of parts required to repair and maintain Kodak copiers and imaging equipment to the ISOs."
I'm not lawyer and I presume you are not. Given the major differences that I pointed out above, I would presume that your example does not apply. Tesla doesn't make it impossible to engage in fair competition, it is just that it is a new/niche manufacturer today, so there will be less options available and no desire by the market to make third party parts (nor is there a large supply of refurbished parts). Anti-trust law does not mean the manufacturer has to handhold potential competitors in coming up with parts.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
So you now resort to name calling after you fail to present a valid argument? I get you want Tesla to release their service manuals in your state, but the fact of the matter is nothing they are doing right now is illegal, despite your insinuation otherwise.
That sounds a lot like "cutting off the nose to spite the face." Helping the dealers block Tesla from opening stores and forcing Tesla into a franchise model does nothing to push forward the "right to repair". The whole point of "right to repair" is that dealerships got access to service equipment that independent shops did not. Rather what you are ensuring is that you have one less option for servicing your vehicle in your state.
Rather, if you feel "right to repair" is a big issue, you should push your legislator to pass such a law in your state.
I agree with you on this. There is actually a Federal bill introduced a few years back that was co-sponsored by a NOVA Congressman. (ironically, Don Beyer of Beyer Automotive now holds this seat).
H.R.1449 - 112th Congress (2011-2012): Motor Vehicle Owners Right to Repair Act of 2011
diamond.g
Active Member
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
According to the link, they sold parts and provided support to other organizations that just repaired Kodak products. They key point is that the other organizations had to refuse to work with any ISO. I believe that ISO in the context of this case just means any independent company who didn't have some kind of service contract/agreement with Kodak. Another business that had a contract with Kodak was probably considered separate, but not independent because of the contract/s they signed with Kodak.
I think the differences you've pointed out are out of context given the article in it's entirety, but I can see reasonable individuals disagreeing about these sorts of things. As laypersons, we're probably both missing interesting pieces of information.
If Tesla is willing to sell their diagnostic equipment and technical information to third parts who can then create lower cost generic versions, allow other organizations to sell their products and repair their cars without contracts limiting the sales of parts and/or cars by those organizations, sell parts to owners without requiring those owners have service done through Tesla or it's authorized repair facilities, and allow aftermarket manufacturers to build and refurbish the parts in Tesla vehicles, like any other major auto manufacturer, then they wouldn't be violating the Sherman act.
With that said, they haven't allowed any of that. They don't have to developer and provide inexpensive parts, documentation, diagnostic equipment, and so on themselves, but they also cannot implement policies that make it difficult or impossible for others to develop and provide those services and parts, and it looks like that's what they've done. It hasn't been an issue because of their position in the market and customer base, but it might be going forward, and for that reason I expect they will slowly but surely provide the same options to independent entities other large manufacturers provide.
P.S. FWIW, I'm not a lawyer. At the same time, the industry I work in does have a lot of exposure to the law, my wife is an ABD in Criminology who taught Law and Society (undergrad) at UCI, and I've been able to successfully pursue remedies problems I've experienced that were unlawful (Lemon Law, ADA, and UCC stuff) or just contractually invalid (Mostly annoying cancellation fees and warranty coverage).
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I would highlight the part "allegedly" and the fact that the article makes no reference to where they got that statement (while others have citations, for example the paragraph before).
I looked through the source and it makes no reference to a third type of contracted repair organization. Only Kodak's own and the ISO.
IMAGE TECHNICAL SERVICE, INC. v. EASTMAN KODAK CO. | Leagle.com.
Here's the extent to which Kodak did to prevent independent shops from competing with their service organization, none of which apply to Tesla. There is no evidence Tesla bans their parts suppliers from selling parts to others, from owners selling parts to repair shops, or from repair shops gaining access to used parts/cars. The reason why Kodak lost the suit is because they had a concerted effort to prevent independent shops from repairing their equipment at all levels.
"The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's denial of Kodak's summary judgment motion reversing the district court. Justice Blackmun began by emphasizing some additional facts from the record that neither court below had relied on. Kodak did not make all of the parts that went into its equipment. It purchased parts from parts manufacturers. As part of Kodak's policy to a policy to limit sales of replacement parts for micrographic and copying machines only to buyers of Kodak equipment who use Kodak service or repair their own machines, Kodak sought to limit ISOs' access to other sources of Kodak parts besides Kodak itself, Kodak got manufacturers of its parts to agree with it that they would not sell parts that fit Kodak equipment to anyone other than Kodak. Kodak also pressured Kodak equipment owners and independent parts distributors not to sell Kodak parts to ISOs. In addition, Kodak took steps to restrict the availability to ISOs of used machines."
You keep saying they are violating the Sherman act, yet you don't provide evidence how doing those things you listed are a requirement of the Sherman act.
There is no general requirement in the Sherman act that requires you to make life easier for competitors by releasing all technical information about your parts such that third parties can make them. Try requesting that from Apple for example and you will be laughed off the face of the earth. Rather, if there is a sufficient market for such parts, third parties will reverse engineer and make their clones of such parts (provided they don't violate patents). Or if they are generic in the first place (as are many car parts), they will just substitute a similar alternative after figuring out what works.
This is not a general requirement of the Sherman Act, otherwise dealerships and franchise agreements will fail to exist. The whole ideal behind franchise agreements is that it allows manufacturers to control the sales of products/parts. For example, Manufacturers typically impose bans on known exporters of grey market vehicles via terms in their dealership agreement. To use the Apple analogy, Apple also restricts sales of certain parts only to certified technicians. None of this is a violation of the Sherman Act.
Where's the evidence Tesla doesn't do this (not that it is a requirement of the Sherman Act)? Unlike Kodak, they don't require you to sign any contract to buy a part from Tesla.
Where's the evidence that aftermarket manufacturers are banned by Tesla from building and refurbishing parts in Tesla vehicles? I know at least a few hobbyists (for example wk057, Jack Richards of EVTV) are already doing so. There are also some that are making a commercial business out of it (Ingineer for salvage vehicles, Tony Williams of Quick Charge Power for charging equipment, HCSharp for adapters, EVAnnex, TSportline, for accessories). Some are even stepping on patent issues (the adapters for example uses Tesla's patents for their socket design) but Tesla have not issued any C&Ds about it (the only one they did was for Jack Richards telling people to pretend to be in Massachusetts in order to access the service manuals).
The lack of third parties interested in aftermarket parts is simply because it is a niche/new manufacturer. This will naturally change when Tesla gets more popular.
Last edited:
ProphetM
Member
Given the average consumer, they're right to prefer that you not work on your own car. You and I may be smart, but they didn't write the manual just for you and I. They wrote it for lots of people, and lots of people are idiots. An electric car is not the same as an ICE car and I can't blame them for trying to protect themselves from people who assume that it is and then do something stupid.
I do whatever regular maintenance that I can on my cars, and I'm very much looking forward to not having as much to do. There's no oil to change, or fuel filter, or spark plugs, fuel injectors, etc. Brakes are about the only somewhat-involved thing that I would expect to possibly do on a Model 3, and as I understand it Tesla brakes are extremely long-lived due to the regen system.
Plus, the lack of dealership sales model means that Tesla stores are not designed to extract their profits through service. That goes an immense distance towards alleviating my fears about taking the car in to be serviced.
Ha! The only thing I'm willing to sign is for them to drive the car for me (while I remain on standby ready to take over if necessary, of course!). I'll take care of the maintenance though.
Funny thing, I remembered this thread on my way home from work this afternoon when the "low washer" notice came up! No joke! Uh oh, I better call a professional and schedule a refill, I thought.
JeffK
Well-Known Member
I wonder where the washer fluid cap will be in the model 3.... Hope it's easy to get to like the model X.
CoastalCruiser
Member
Good points being made. Love the dashcam comment. Really gotta get one of those. I think the strategy would be to record it live on your portable device while sitting in the waiting room. Then if you have enough bullets from the recording show it to the manager when it's time to pay the bill (how much is that charge going to be today (to avoid a viral youtube experience?). Ha ha ha.
For myself -and I wouldn't try to convince anyone else of this- I am going to give Tesla a lot of leeway the first few years of M3 production. When I first heard how much was being charged for annual service I freaked. I do most all car maint. myself.
But this is not business as usual. This is David taking on Goliath, and I'm on David's side (as we all are). For the time being I'm going to go with the inherent integrity I pick up in Elon. From statements he's made the intention is to not have service be a 'profit center'. For now, I'm giving Tesla Motors the benefit of that doubt until they get up to critical mass. I have reversed my earlier decision and plan on brining my M3 in for its first annual service.
Which after 28 cars in this lifetime will be a literal first.
For myself -and I wouldn't try to convince anyone else of this- I am going to give Tesla a lot of leeway the first few years of M3 production. When I first heard how much was being charged for annual service I freaked. I do most all car maint. myself.
But this is not business as usual. This is David taking on Goliath, and I'm on David's side (as we all are). For the time being I'm going to go with the inherent integrity I pick up in Elon. From statements he's made the intention is to not have service be a 'profit center'. For now, I'm giving Tesla Motors the benefit of that doubt until they get up to critical mass. I have reversed my earlier decision and plan on brining my M3 in for its first annual service.
Which after 28 cars in this lifetime will be a literal first.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
That's assuming there wasn't an error in manufacturing or service that left the brake fluid low to begin with. Some owners like to check ALL fluids before driving a car aggressively and trusting it won't fail to perform as designed.
The model 3, lacking a lot of the servicable parts, and including out of warranty repairs of around $700, all synthetic oil changes, and all services up to 100K on my saturn, the model 3 would exceed the 10 year/100K mile cost of ownership of my ICE car in 2 years of "annual service", not including the 2 year brake fluid change and alignments on the tesla. if they aren't "extracting profits" at that cost of ownership level, I would like to know what the hell they are doing to these cars that costs so damn much. if this isn't profit, then they maybe need GM to engineer the car to need less frequent servicing. I live 5 hours from a tesla service center, and based on elon's info, don't expect one to pop up much closer, ever. I don't want to have to drive 5 hours to pay an insane amount of money to get my brakes flushed, or alignment. I should be able to have a local shop perform the alignment, and do the brake fluid and coolant myself, at least. I can even possibly stomach paying for the differential fluid change, but I should have the option to perform this myself, too. these are all BASIC services DIYers have been performing on their cars since there have been cars.
btw, I have a 2007 that's as easy to work on as a 1975, if not easier, because there's no tuneup, no vacuum besides the brake booster, no EGR, no SAI, no plug wires, and loads of room around everything.
CoastalCruiser
Member
With apologies to the OP for straying so off topic... I'd like to amend my earlier post about never having had one of my 28 cars serviced at the dealer. There was one time. and one time ONLY. 1991 Honda Accord. True story... here's what happened:
1) Car is nearly new. Some idiot with no insurance lays a fender bender on me. I take the car to the dealer for repairs in their body shop. I always carry an uninsured motorist rider on my policy, so I'm feeling quite smug, as there will be no deductible. Just minus the car a few days. When time to pick up car I hop in and notice that someone has spilled an entire cup of coffee in the front seat... and it went everywhere. The dash, the passenger seat, and right door panel are covered with dried coffee. AND THEY DIDN'T CLEAN IT UP. So it's brown stains on a tan fabric interior. They literally were going to return the car in this condition.
2) I get the service manager and show him the car. I'm a little PO'd. He shows great concern as to what had happened. NOT. I leave the car, and a couple of days later they have me come in to pick it up. The stain is kind of gone, but in it's place are brush and wear marks where someone had scrubbed the sh** out of the upholstery. Stands out like a sore thumb. The car is weeks old and the interior now looks years old. What happened? Believe it or not the dealer invoked the upholstery warranty and had some cleaning guys who drive around in those vans come over to remove the stain. This is MY warranty that the pretty girl in the back office made me buy when I purchased the car (I couldn't resist her).
3) So I get the service manager. Again. I knew he was around because earlier I had seen him tripping over his johnson offering to help some Marin county hottie housewife get her car serviced (she was simply waiting for her car and brushed him off). So I tell him that the cleaning job is unacceptable and that the dealer had better replace the fabrics that did not clean up. Again, it's a NEW car. The owner happens by and joins the conversation. They agree to my demands. The owner looks at me and says "Mr. Coastal-Cruiser, is there anything else we can do for you while we have your car?" I say "The car is great, but one thing. When idling if I roll down the window or turn on the fan, the engine RPMs drop, and the motor flutters like it's about to die. Then it recovers." The service manager fields the question and --in front of the owner of the dealership-- basically says the Accords are trouble free and that they've had no problems with them in that regard. ...................... That was it. No offer to even look at the issue. Translation: you are imaging the problem and we're not even going to offer to check for such a symptom while the vehicle is here.
That is one reason I've never since taken my car to the dealer for maint/repairs. Plus I'm a cheapo. Thanx for listening. I guess I vented that since I'm among car people here. Gee, I even feel better. :>
1) Car is nearly new. Some idiot with no insurance lays a fender bender on me. I take the car to the dealer for repairs in their body shop. I always carry an uninsured motorist rider on my policy, so I'm feeling quite smug, as there will be no deductible. Just minus the car a few days. When time to pick up car I hop in and notice that someone has spilled an entire cup of coffee in the front seat... and it went everywhere. The dash, the passenger seat, and right door panel are covered with dried coffee. AND THEY DIDN'T CLEAN IT UP. So it's brown stains on a tan fabric interior. They literally were going to return the car in this condition.
2) I get the service manager and show him the car. I'm a little PO'd. He shows great concern as to what had happened. NOT. I leave the car, and a couple of days later they have me come in to pick it up. The stain is kind of gone, but in it's place are brush and wear marks where someone had scrubbed the sh** out of the upholstery. Stands out like a sore thumb. The car is weeks old and the interior now looks years old. What happened? Believe it or not the dealer invoked the upholstery warranty and had some cleaning guys who drive around in those vans come over to remove the stain. This is MY warranty that the pretty girl in the back office made me buy when I purchased the car (I couldn't resist her).
3) So I get the service manager. Again. I knew he was around because earlier I had seen him tripping over his johnson offering to help some Marin county hottie housewife get her car serviced (she was simply waiting for her car and brushed him off). So I tell him that the cleaning job is unacceptable and that the dealer had better replace the fabrics that did not clean up. Again, it's a NEW car. The owner happens by and joins the conversation. They agree to my demands. The owner looks at me and says "Mr. Coastal-Cruiser, is there anything else we can do for you while we have your car?" I say "The car is great, but one thing. When idling if I roll down the window or turn on the fan, the engine RPMs drop, and the motor flutters like it's about to die. Then it recovers." The service manager fields the question and --in front of the owner of the dealership-- basically says the Accords are trouble free and that they've had no problems with them in that regard. ...................... That was it. No offer to even look at the issue. Translation: you are imaging the problem and we're not even going to offer to check for such a symptom while the vehicle is here.
That is one reason I've never since taken my car to the dealer for maint/repairs. Plus I'm a cheapo. Thanx for listening. I guess I vented that since I'm among car people here. Gee, I even feel better. :>
