Tesla vs. Magnuson Moss - Resolved In Time For Model 3?

[SageBrush]

I'd love to take care of my Tesla maintenance personally, but unfortunately I--along with most of the general public--isn't professionally trained in handling potentially lethal high voltage systems.

That is why I want access to the service manuals: then I know what I can do safely.

E.g., if the manual says : go get your high voltage gloves I'll think twice before getting involved.
But if the manual says "disconnect this 12v line first," -- well that I can do.

 

[ElectroFroggy]

I'm sure the M3 complete service manual will be available via your favorite Torrent late next year or early 2018. Not too many X & S owners are interested in working on their own cars. M3 owners however are going to be a much different demographic group with no doubt a lot more DIY'ers. There will also be a lot more after market mods available then X or S.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm sure the M3 complete service manual will be available via your favorite Torrent late next year or early 2018. Not too many X & S owners are interested in working on their own cars. M3 owners however are going to be a much different demographic group with no doubt a lot more DIY'ers. There will also be a lot more after market mods available then X or S.

And hopefully, a used part market and with market success, a generic parts market.

All the accouterments of a mainstream car.

 

[TSLAholic]

As someone who shares OP's desire to perform the simple maintenance myself, I'll add one oar in defense of Tesla: between the car changes and the OTA updates, yesterday's manuals may already be out of date.

We're talking about servicing basic mechanical parts of the car. No parts of the systems in question could possibly be affected by an OTA. Besides, someone who does their own maintenance is typically up to date on what's going on with the car, and the updates it has gone through since the last time they were under it. I have heard of a manufacturer updating hardware torque specs before, but like I said, it isn't something that would go unannounced. "Dear Mr. Johnson, with this OTA software release, we have tightened your lug nuts to 100 ft/lbs. while you slept"

I'd love to take care of my Tesla maintenance personally, but unfortunately I--along with most of the general public--isn't professionally trained in handling potentially lethal high voltage systems.

I think we're only discussing the basic mechanical maintenance here. i.e. tire rotations, pad/rotor replacement, wiper blades, windshield washer refill etc.

 

[SageBrush]

We're talking about servicing basic mechanical parts of the car.

Your case.
Tesla does not have the luxury of presuming the same for everybody.

Unless of course you would be happy to sign an agreement to limit yourself to windshield wiper replacement, in which case I think Tesla will be happy to provide you with only that part of the service manual if you really need it. ;-)

 

[WileyTheMan]

From my perspective, this is a trend the auto industry in general has been marching towards for a long time. Remember how simple and easy cars from the 60s and 70s were to work on? As many people here, I've owned cars in various eras and they have been increasingly more and more complex and the manufacturers have make it increasingly more and more difficult for the non-mechanic owner to service the car. Specialized tools to get and bolts in small spaces, plastic fasteners that you have to pretty much break to remove a plastic cowling, and even encasing the entire freaking engine in a uniplastic enclosure with only a few access points for oil and dip sticks.

So I'm not surprised that Tesla is handling maintenance in this way. That said, once their cars become more mainstream, the tools and skills will become more available because there will be money to be made in the self-maintenance market. Will it happen with the Gen1 Model 3? I doubt it. Gen2/3/4? I would say yes.

 

[ohmman]

From my perspective, this is a trend the auto industry in general has been marching towards for a long time.

I agree. In the early 90's I rebuilt the suspension, motor, and some of the interior in a '68 Mustang. A close friend did the same but also put in new quarter panels, floorboards, etc. Part of that was that the secondary market was alive by then. And part was that those cars were much simpler.

At the risk of being called out again for using analogies (looking at you, @callmesam), I have found the same trend in computing devices. When I had some of my first IBM clones, I swapped everything out. As we went to laptops, that became more difficult. Apple has made things much more difficult in some models, where you just buy what you need and don't even think about self-service. And most smartphones will provide you some limited capability to increase memory, but servicing them yourself is just about out of the question.

 

[Krugerrand]

From my perspective, this is a trend the auto industry in general has been marching towards for a long time. Remember how simple and easy cars from the 60s and 70s were to work on? As many people here, I've owned cars in various eras and they have been increasingly more and more complex and the manufacturers have make it increasingly more and more difficult for the non-mechanic owner to service the car. Specialized tools to get and bolts in small spaces, plastic fasteners that you have to pretty much break to remove a plastic cowling, and even encasing the entire freaking engine in a uniplastic enclosure with only a few access points for oil and dip sticks.

That's the truth!

 

[SageBrush]

Repairing stuff has become the terrain of hackers, but replacing components is becoming a DIY commodity.
And in something of an irony, as devices become more complex, they also get better at self-diagnostics.

 

[callmesam]

I agree. In the early 90's I rebuilt the suspension, motor, and some of the interior in a '68 Mustang. A close friend did the same but also put in new quarter panels, floorboards, etc. Part of that was that the secondary market was alive by then. And part was that those cars were much simpler.

At the risk of being called out again for using analogies (looking at you, @callmesam), I have found the same trend in computing devices. When I had some of my first IBM clones, I swapped everything out. As we went to laptops, that became more difficult. Apple has made things much more difficult in some models, where you just buy what you need and don't even think about self-service. And most smartphones will provide you some limited capability to increase memory, but servicing them yourself is just about out of the question.

Take it up with @elonmusk

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Several recent threads on service and repairs continue to trouble me.

Specifically, when does Tesla get called out for this:

Mini Settles with FTC Over Magnuson-Moss Warranty Law Violation

The changes to their warranty allow them to comply with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. With that said, no aftermarket part availability, no service manual access for individuals, (mostly) no access to their diagnostic protocols, very limited vendor support (Only for bodywork as far as I know), and virtually no variation in service cost may lead to a lawsuit for violating antitrust laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc.

At the moment, it's likely not a significant risk because most of the owners who have standing won't sue because everything's either covered under warranty or not too expensive compared to the savings in operating costs if they are out of warranty, and owners of luxury cars aren't hugely into DIY. The 3 will change that, and I imagine Tesla will need to provide service manual access, diagnostic information, and allow aftermarket part production.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The changes to their warranty allow them to comply with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. With that said, no aftermarket part availability, no service manual access for individuals, (mostly) no access to their diagnostic protocols, very limited vendor support (Only for bodywork as far as I know), and virtually no variation in service cost may lead to a lawsuit for violating antitrust laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc.

At the moment, it's likely not a significant risk because most of the owners who have standing won't sue because everything's either covered under warranty or not too expensive compared to the savings in operating costs if they are out of warranty, and owners of luxury cars aren't hugely into DIY. The 3 will change that, and I imagine Tesla will need to provide service manual access, diagnostic information, and allow aftermarket part production.

Your link is broken, this is the one:
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, that lawsuit doesn't seem to apply, since Tesla does sell parts to and allow independent shops (unlike Kodak which didn't).

States with "right to repair" laws can require Tesla provide access to service manuals and necessary repair equipment, but other than those laws, there is nothing that makes Tesla "need" to provide such access.

As for aftermarket part production, there is no law requiring any manufacturer to support aftermarket part production. If the car gets popular enough, such parts will be made, but there is no law that forces the manufacturer to support their production.

 

[182RG]

The 3 will change that, and I imagine Tesla will need to provide service manual access, diagnostic information, and allow aftermarket part production.

My guess is they'll only do it while kicking and screaming and under legal threat. Currently, they are doing as little as possible. M3 owners will be different. You are correct. More DIY, budget conscious, and hopefully far fewer blind apologists who defend their stance. I thought the population on the Cirrus Aircraft Owners Forum had the lock on sheer number of fanboys. I was wrong.

DMV is holding another hearing in Virginia on allowing Tesla to open a store in Richmond. Perhaps they need some public testimony on the anti-consumer attitude to balance the message? Might be worth the trip.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Your link is broken, this is the one:
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, that lawsuit doesn't seem to apply, since Tesla does sell parts to and allow independent shops (unlike Kodak which didn't).

States with "right to repair" laws can require Tesla provide access to service manuals and necessary repair equipment, but other than those laws, there is nothing that makes Tesla "need" to provide such access.

As for aftermarket part production, there is no law requiring any manufacturer to support aftermarket part production. If the car gets popular enough, such parts will be made, but there is no law that forces the manufacturer to support their production.

Kodak allowed sales to independent entities (both individuals and businesses as far as I can tell), they just required that those entities only purchase equipment from them.

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.

They also sold directly to owners.

Kodak will sell parts to owners who agree to self-service their machines.

And interestingly enough, refused to provide service contracts on used equipment unless it was inspected, and if applicable, fixed, by Kodak.

In addition, Kofak refuses to sell maintenance service contracts on used equipment unless it is first inspected and brought up to standard by Kodak.

This sounds similar to what Tesla is doing. It's not identical, but it doesn't have to be to violate section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.

Sherman Antitrust Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specifically...

As explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan 506 U.S. 447 (1993):

The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.[9]

According to its authors, it was not intended to impact market gains obtained by honest means, by benefiting the consumers more than the competitors. Senator George Hoar ofMassachusetts, another author of the Sherman Act, said the following:

"... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition."[10]

If Tesla's actions, as a whole, make it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition in terms of service and parts sales, then they're probably violating the Sherman Act.

 

[bonnie]

[snip] and hopefully far fewer blind apologists who defend their stance. I thought the population on the Cirrus Aircraft Owners Forum had the lock on sheer number of fanboys. I was wrong.

I never understand why, when someone can make the same point without insulting other forum members, they still feel the need to do so.

DMV is holding another hearing in Virginia on allowing Tesla to open a store in Richmond. Perhaps they need some public testimony on the anti-consumer attitude to balance the message? Might be worth the trip.

You're welcome to join the crew already fighting this.
Virginia Hearing, 4/25 -- Represent!

 

[ohmman]

You're welcome to join the crew already fighting this.

I think @182RG wants to join the opposing team, Bonnie.

 

[bonnie]

I think @182RG wants to join the opposing team, Bonnie.

Hahah. Oh oops. You're absolutely right.

@182RG, you might want to read some of the local dealership Yelp reviews, before you decide Tesla is anti-consumer.

 

[SageBrush]

I think @182RG wants to join the opposing team, Bonnie.

Or at least use the threat to get what he wants.

I think he deserves a Chevy Bolt

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

I think @182RG wants to join the opposing team, Bonnie.

They may be straddling the line. On one hand, I don't see anything wrong with Tesla opening a shop in Richmond, and at the same time I don't see anything wrong with local government leaning on Tesla to provides the tools and parts, or allow others to provide the tools and parts, to repair Tesla's cars at reasonable cost.

 

[qwk]

Hahah. Oh oops. You're absolutely right.

@182RG, you might want to read some of the local dealership Yelp reviews, before you decide Tesla is anti-consumer.

There are mom and pop dealerships that blow Tesla Service out of the water. Only fools use Yelp....

I will agree that the Tesla Service Centers are nice and have decent customer service, but their work is very shoddy at best. At this point, I would rather go to a place that kicked me in the nuts as long as the car got fixed properly. Nice doesn't fix problems....