# Tesla Model S the most expensive car to insure in the US



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> It was only a matter of time before those expensive repairs, lack of spare parts, and Autopilot failures had an impact on insurance costs
> 
> Can you afford that new vehicle? 25 most expensive car models to insure


Wow, I was being given a hard time by one member for saying that Musk wasn't an experienced automotive manager, but apparently his team has surpassed all traditional manufacturers in at least one way. 

The big difference seems to be in the collision component which is 50% higher than any of the other 24 in the list (and so not liability, theft, or other comprehensive coverage components). That presumably is driven by the repair cost which Kevin mentioned, although a lack of parts or slow repair work could drive up cost of rental vehicles provided as a replacement. At-fault collision probability could be a factor as well, although should also increase the cost of the liability component.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I really don't see the problem

The bottom car was a $16,000 car and the insurance was $1100
The Tesla was a $75,000 car and the insurance was $1700

So a car five times the price costs 50% more to insure??

Sounds like a bargain to me!

The Tesla does cost a bit more than an equivalent Mercedes - But a Tesla is not "just" a luxury car - its a damn sight more sporty with much higher performance

If you look at "Sporty Cars" on that list - like the Lancer, then they cost more - as always


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Duncan said:


> The bottom car was a $16,000 car and the insurance was $1100
> The Tesla was a $75,000 car and the insurance was $1700
> 
> So a car five times the price costs 50% more to insure??
> ...


The price of the cars in the list is all over the place - the Tesla Model S is not the only expensive car, and the total insurance cost is not closely related to the purchase price. There are $67K and $90K Mercedes models at #19 and #2, but a $16K Scion at #12, for instance.



Duncan said:


> The Tesla does cost a bit more than an equivalent Mercedes - But a Tesla is not "just" a luxury car - its a damn sight more sporty with much higher performance
> 
> If you look at "Sporty Cars" on that list - like the Lancer, then they cost more - as always


The list also does not fall into order by "sportiness", assuming that you don't consider a Kia Optima Hybrid sedan as much sportier than a Mustang, for instance.


This is not a list of 25 random vehicles, sorted by insurance cost; it is a list of all vehicles for which data is provided by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, showing only the most expensive 25. That means that there are lots of high-performance cars, and lots of cars more expensive than a Model S, which didn't even make the top (worst) 25. For instance, some Porsche models, and every Ferrari.

Since the analysis is pretty simplistic, and does not eliminate the effect of various relevant factors, the insurance cost may to some extent reflect the drivers. One reason the "sporty" cars are more expensive to insure is that - given the same driving record - the driver of a sport car is assumed to be more likely to have a collision. One could jump to interesting conclusions about Tesla drivers...


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> So a car five times the price costs 50% more to insure??



That's not how insurance works.

Easy Counterpoint: The Land Rover costs only 15% less, and yet insurance is 50% less. Teslas are a ripoff. QED.

Actual car repair costs are dwarfed by the medical component, injuries, hospital bills, etc. Which somewhat plateau across all makes and models. There's a medical baseline that represents a large component of the necessary premium. This means differences between vehicles are even larger than they seem, because the first, oh, suppose $500 (made up, just for illustration) is medical. So now an $1100 vs. $1700 isn't 54%, it's ($1100-500) $600 vs. ($1700-500) $1200. A full 100% difference of the component from the actual car type.

This study was an average of existing insurance prices of real drivers for those vehicles, not a baseline cost for an equivalent driver across all vehicles. So these numbers include some selection bias.

The way that this would make a difference is, suppose drivers with a poorer driving history are attracted to Teslas. Then this method of sampling would show them higher than another similarly priced vehicle, even if same driver in each would pay the same amount (fictional scenario we have no info about).


Another component might be that Teslas are attractive to rich people who don't care about their price of their premiums because cost isn't an issue to them. They might not be poor drivers in a crash sense, but poor drivers in a demerits sense, that they don't care how many speeding/etc tickets they accumulate because, it's only money and they're rich, who cares. If Tesla drivers are less scared about the insurance impact of demerits on their license, their premiums will be higher. This is not true of a random person promoted into a Tesla, and thus their premium might not reflect so large an increase.

However, being blind to this, the reverse could just as likely be true...

Perhaps Teslas are attractive to people who're never on the road or who drive like grannies, never get into crashes, always run a clean license, (like, say, stereotypical Prius drivers) and these (high) premiums represent a huge discount to what some normal or average driver would be charged. Maybe it should actually be $2200.

Another thing to consider is that the actuarial models used by the underwriters can be increasingly competitive (closer to cost) the more accurate they are. The more data they have, the more accurate those models can be. Any type of unknown or uncertainty causes a spike in premiums so the insurance company doesn't lose their shirt if they guess wrong. 

Supply chain uncertainty? Repair uncertainty? Driver uncertainty? All make higher premiums just for the uncertainty itself, let alone the actual higher cost of those components.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Brian
The fact that there are no Ferraris/Porsches is because the numbers are not there or the writers ignored them - they are INSANELY high insurance 

That was a cherry picked list - and it still did NOT show very high insurance 

I suspect the mere fact that a LOT of Teslas are based in Californian big cities would add most of that diference

In the UK and here in NZ the same car in two different locations can change the premiums by a factor of two


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Re-reading the first page of the item, it looks like we have all missed an important point: the data is the amount *paid out by insurers* ("cost to the insurer per year"), _not_ the *insurance premium paid by owners* (as the title suggests).

Here's the actual 24/7 Wall St article, rather than USA Today's presentation:
25 Most Expensive Cars to Insure
that also links to the least expensive models, which includes the Chevrolet Corvette, which is not cheap and is generally considered kind of sporty.

So the Telsa Model S is costing a lot to fix per year (whether due to more claims or higher claims)... a lot more than any other vehicle in the list, and the list isn't 25 cherry-picked models, it is the 25 highest average insurance payouts of all vehicles in the data set.

It is likely true that Tesla cars tend to be in major metropolitan areas. That is also true of every sports and luxury vehicle; there are not a lot of Bentleys, Porsches, or Ferraris on farms and in small towns.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Here's the organisation that undertakes the research and produces the report;

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses — deaths, injuries and property damage — from motor vehicle crashes.

The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model.

Both organizations are wholly supported by auto insurers and insurance associations."

I've attached the list of member groups from the IIHS website.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> the data is the amount *paid out by insurers* ("cost to the insurer per year"), _not_ the *insurance premium paid by owners* (as the title suggests).


Nice catch.

That simplifies things. However, the same biases are in place, and, to a very close degree, insurance premiums reflect costs to the insurer. The only additional variable I can think of is their confidence in their amalgamated payouts, with the less data having a larger markup as represented in premiums.

I.E. If the average payout for a vehicle is $1100, they will charge some likely fixed percentage above that (10%, 50%, I don't have a lot of knowledge of insurance markup).

So the entire previous conversation is still relevant except for using it to guess your premium directly (versus relatively).


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Jack at EVTV has discussed the Tesla insurance issue a number of times... in this video (published July 21, 2017) he includes some interesting stats from last years IIHS report and predicts that Tesla insurance premiums will rise to $6000->$9000 a year 

(watch from 22m28s);


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Nice catch.
> 
> That simplifies things. However, the same biases are in place, and, to a very close degree, insurance premiums reflect costs to the insurer. The only additional variable I can think of is their confidence in their amalgamated payouts, with the less data having a larger markup as represented in premiums.
> 
> ...


 Depending on the insurer, they will have many other risks to factor into a premium calculation beyond just the repair costs..
Not least of which would be ...the driver age, occupation, claim history, driving offence history, address, annual mileage driven, garaging or street parking, etc etc
Even if you have other insurance policies with the same company can make Significant difference (-20% ).
In other words, to some insurers, the driver can be more relavent than the actual vehicle when calculating a premium figure. !


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Karter2 said:


> Not least of which would be ...the driver age, occupation, claim history, driving offence history, address, annual mileage driven, garaging or street parking, etc etc



Erm, no. I don't think so.



This number is the average cost to the insurer for the vehicle. It amalgamates all of those factors by observation. I.E. When all is said and done, all payouts divided by all policies, what was the average cost.


----------



## Karter2 (Nov 17, 2011)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Erm, no. I don't think so.
> 
> This number is the average cost to the insurer for the vehicle. It amalgamates all of those factors by observation. I.E. When all is said and done, all payouts divided by all policies, what was the average cost.


I realise what that number is, it is average COSTS incurred....not related to the premium charged.
It represents the likely cost outcome, not the probability or risk, of that outcome happening, which the insurance company have to asses to calculate a premium .
You are implying that a 19yr old , with convictions and a history of car accidents , living in Compton, with only street parking,...
.....would pay the same premium for the Tesla as a retired university professor, with a clean driving record, living on private estate the Hamptons with a 5 car classic collection all insured with the same company ?

Erm, no i dont think so !


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Karter2 said:


> You are implying that a 19yr old , with convictions and a history of car accidents , living in Compton, with only street parking,...would pay the same premium for the Tesla as a retired university professor, with a clean driving record, living on private estate the Hamptons with a 5 car classic collection all insured with the same company ?


Obviously not.

I'm saying that it amalgamates all of that info, and doesn't reveal the particulars and, thus, induces a selection bias to the dataset.

I'm saying you can't draw a conclusion on it necessarily, because they are are observational only.

But I am saying that, whether it was average premium or average cost to insurer doesn't make much impact on the discussion, because both are observational with the same biases. What distorts one distorts the other the same way. The premium side of things will be slightly higher than the insurance costs, if you care about the actual number, that matters, but that's not the point of this discussion really. The point is how expensive insurance on Teslas are (whether from cost or premium, nearly the same thing) relative and compared to other vehicles.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

brian_ said:


> The big difference seems to be in the collision component which is 50% higher than any of the other 24 in the list (and so not liability, theft, or other comprehensive coverage components)


It was inevitable. Fenders can be repaired, batteries MUST be replaced and are the most expensive part of the car.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

PhantomPholly said:


> It was inevitable. Fenders can be repaired, batteries MUST be replaced and are the most expensive part of the car.


I'm aware of two companies that have purchased Model S wrecks from the US and imported them into the UK to extract body parts before selling off the motors, batteries, etc.

This is despite Tesla having the body parts available on the shelf in the UK and at least one of the repairers being a body shop that specialises in high end Mercedes repairs. Restricting access to parts for repairing vehicles is a deliberate Tesla policy.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> I'm aware of two companies that have purchased Model S wrecks from the US and imported them into the UK to extract body parts before selling off the motors, batteries, etc.
> 
> This is despite Tesla having the body parts available on the shelf in the UK and at least one of the repairers being a body shop that specialises in high end Mercedes repairs. Restricting access to parts for repairing vehicles is a deliberate Tesla policy.


Of that I also have no doubt - my point was merely that, once damaged, batteries truly cannot be repaired and they are expensive.

I don't really take Tesla cars seriously yet anyway. EVs in general are still rich people's toys, and will be for at least another 5-8 years while the price of batteries drops in half again. Expect auto makers to split the battery pack into sections so that if one section gets damaged in a crash the others are still recoverable, and other tricks to reduce the cost of fixing a boo-boo, as they attempt to truly compete on price.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

PhantomPholly said:


> It was inevitable. Fenders can be repaired, batteries MUST be replaced and are the most expensive part of the car.


That's my guess, too. Minor collisions typically won't hurt the pack, but if the pack case is compromised at all, they are probably replacing the entire pack at massive cost, rather than repairing it. Insurers may also be writing off (declaring to be a complete loss and sending to salvage) cars with any pack damage, especially since they would likely have significant structural body damage as well. This, of course, is the source of salvage Tesla battery modules for DIY EV projects.

An engine is rarely damaged to the point of requiring replacement in a crash, and Tesla drive units are probably relatively safe from damage, too; however, the battery pack is more vulnerable simply due to its size.



PhantomPholly said:


> ... my point was merely that, once damaged, batteries truly cannot be repaired and they are expensive.
> 
> ... Expect auto makers to split the battery pack into sections so that if one section gets damaged in a crash the others are still recoverable, and other tricks to reduce the cost of fixing a boo-boo, as they attempt to truly compete on price.


That's already an option. All production battery packs are in modules, and it would be possible to get a replacement outer case and many modules as needed, re-using the undamaged modules. It seems more likely that rebuilt exchange packs would be offered, rather than rebuilding at the service garage (which is how other major automotive systems have gone, particularly automatic transmissions); perhaps this is already available.


----------



## mjrickard (Jan 14, 2017)

I believe Tesla insurance rates are hurt by a couple of pretty basic things.

1. The combination of aluminum body and basically a requirement that Tesla's be repaired by Tesla or an approved body shop lead to astronomically high costs for even minor damage.

I met a Tesla owner from Kansas city who had had his car repaired from hail damage four times. $14-$19k each time.

Tesla basically insists that Tesla repair the car and they make parts availability and repair data quite difficult to get. This increases repair cost.

2. Because of high repair costs, the Insurance companies are quick to "total" the car. They recover some of the value by remaindering the car to salvage auctions. Your insurance rates are heavily affected by the prices they get from the salvage of the totalled vehicle.

Salvage value is driven by a couple of items. There are a lot of people who purchase salvaged autos and repair them and resell them. But again, Tesla does not make repair data and parts available almost at all. Indeed, they have been known to actively DISABLE cars over the air.

As most of the large electronic parts are under warranty in almost all of the cars on the road, there really isn't any automotive aftermarket for drive trains and batteies parted out.

And so the residual value of Tesla's is reduced.

Musk thinks he's just dealing with greedy insurance companies and seeks to start his own to counter this issue. But he'll run into the same issues unless he assumes repairs, which I guess he could do.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

> Restricting access to parts for repairing vehicles is a deliberate Tesla policy.



Is it? Or do they just not have the production capacity to produce extra stock items?


Like, if they're cranking out cars as fast as they can, which still isn't fast enough to meet demand, then any parts they make available for repairs will slow down the production line even further.


I don't think that's the same thing as them being deliberately obtuse and restrictive.


----------



## mjrickard (Jan 14, 2017)

Simply no. It is very much by design. There are no "parts shortages" for the Model S or X Try buying them to repair a wreck.

They REALLY DO discourage such work and there are dozens of reports of people who tried to repair wrecked Teslas who have looked into this monster and retreated in horror at what they encountered.

The one I never understood was a guy in California who is essentially famous for doing SUPERB stretch limousines of everything but mostly luxury cars and notably a hummer. He bought a BRAND NEW Tesla Model S and did a stretch on it and Tesla deliberately, deceitfully, and emphatically shut him down and his car off.

Why they would NOT want a stretch Model S limo escapes me. And the guy doing it was no home tinkerer. He was a VERY accomplished professional much in demand. 

Ironically, the build was a bespoke for INTEL, one of Teslas suppliers at the time.

For a supposedly open source car, Tesla has been a horror in recent years. Therre are currently no SCHEMATICS even of the Model 3. Shortage of PDF space?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Is it? Or do they just not have the production capacity to produce extra stock items?
> 
> 
> Like, if they're cranking out cars as fast as they can, which still isn't fast enough to meet demand, then any parts they make available for repairs will slow down the production line even further.
> ...


If they really are cranking out new product which can't be fixed (due to the lack of parts) at the expense of current owners, then it would be abusive and irresponsible rather than obtuse and restrictive. Is that better?


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

mjrickard said:


> I believe Tesla insurance rates are hurt by a couple of pretty basic things.
> 
> 1. The combination of aluminum body and basically a requirement that Tesla's be repaired by Tesla or an approved body shop lead to astronomically high costs for even minor damage.
> 
> ...


This all makes good sense to me.

Even after warranties end, motors probably still won't be worth much because they are inherently reliable (not just Tesla motors - brushless motors in general). Gearboxes will see some failures, but these are so simple that the vast majority should still outlive the rest of the car. My guess is that the electronics will rise in value, because some portion of even properly designed and well-constructed electronics let the magic smoke out eventually. 



mjrickard said:


> Musk thinks he's just dealing with greedy insurance companies and seeks to start his own to counter this issue. But he'll run into the same issues unless he assumes repairs, which I guess he could do.


Such a conundrum for the Tesla Motors / Musk fan: is there a conspiracy in reporting to make insurance premiums for Tesla cars look high, or is the premium cost in fact high and there is a conspiracy by all insurance companies to exaggerate repair costs? The only certainty is that can't be Saint Elon's fault.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

mjrickard said:


> Simply no. It is very much by design.


Oh, so you've spoken to someone from high up in Tesla that has confirmed their intentions?



> There are no "parts shortages" for the Model S or X Try buying them to repair a wreck.


I'm not sure what your point is.

Is your point that there are plenty of parts in stock and they are easy to buy? If so, then what's the problem? Just buy them.

Or is your point that it is difficult to buy parts because they are not available anywhere? If so, then there's clearly parts shortages.



> Why they would NOT want a stretch Model S limo escapes me.


I can think of several reasons off the top of my head. Since so much of the car is electronic, it is untested to perform correctly when you start adding signalling delays and structural changes. How will the autopilot react to being 8 feet longer? Lots of stuff going on in the brains to mess up.

Seems prudent to me that as the electronics are engineered for a certain platform, they should be disabled and, if someone wants to use the carcass to do something new with it, to do it from scratch.



> For a supposedly open source car, Tesla has been a horror in recent years. Therre are currently no SCHEMATICS even of the Model 3. Shortage of PDF space?


I don't think the Tesla is supposed to be an opn source car. What was announced was that they were waiving rights to their patents and essentially giving that away. Not that this is a community project that everyone is also entitled to demand specifics. It's not an open source non-profit, it's a company that's not going to sue you for using specific parts of its IP.

I think perhaps you're letting personal motivation influence your objectiveness.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> I can think of several reasons off the top of my head. Since so much of the car is electronic, it is untested to perform correctly when you start adding signalling delays and structural changes. How will the autopilot react to being 8 feet longer? Lots of stuff going on in the brains to mess up.
> 
> Seems prudent to me that as the electronics are engineered for a certain platform, they should be disabled and, if someone wants to use the carcass to do something new with it, to do it from scratch.


There is some sense in this, but in reality all stretch limos are built from production vehicles with lots of electronic complexity, and it is all quite manageable. Autopilot is particularly easy: just don't use it - it is a chauffeur-driven vehicle, and the chauffeur can just drive.

Building a car from scratch for limo service is simply not reasonable.

Sure, Tesla Motors doesn't want the vehicles that they built on the road in a form which is out of their control, but that is true of every manufacturer. Most of them manage to deal with it, without limiting access to parts. Many of them even sell "crate" engines so that people can build custom vehicles with them. Some work directly with customization companies to make specialty vehicles with full factory warranties.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> I think perhaps you're letting personal motivation influence your objectiveness.


Assuming this post was by Jack from EVTV then he has plenty of ownership experience (and a large network of Tesla owners) to inform his opinion. iirc he was also involved in some Tesla litigation following the publication of the MA right to repair information.

Furthermore, I can confirm that in Europe Tesla are working really hard to prevent us from repairing our cars. I say this as an owner of an older Tesla vehicle who's had lots of part supply issues (including one incident where my car was off the road for six months despite having a full warranty), and someone who knows a lot of Tesla owners across Europe.

One important thing to remember is that the vast majority of proposed repairs do not involve electrical/electronics systems but rather mechanical damage resulting from minor accidents.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

brian_ said:


> Some work directly with customization companies to make specialty vehicles with full factory warranties.


Interestingly Tesla are a little schizophrenic on this... in the UK they have continued the warranty on a Tesla 'Shooting-brake'


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Interestingly Tesla are a little schizophrenic on this... in the UK they have continued the warranty on a Tesla 'Shooting-brake'


An interesting decision by Tesla Motors!
I read about this car earlier, and noted from various article (including in Autoblog) that this body conversion involves no mechanical changes, probably no electronic changes (although there is re-routing of wiring), and...


> RemetzCar says it left the Model S's major structural parts and crumple zones intact.


The extent of structural changes is important to repairability and potential manufacturer's liability.

It's apparent in RemetzCar's page about the conversion that one reason that the modified car's upper rear quarter area is so awkward is that they left the entire original structure, so there's aluminum behind those "windows" - it's a roof extension and new hatch stuck onto the hatchback body. The earlier effort by QWest looks much cleaner, but may have violated stock structure; I don't know what the Tesla Motors position on that might be.

RemetzCar's earlier hearse is a much more substantial body modification - I wonder if that still has a warranty? How about their 800 mm stretch (to be used for custom limousines or hearses, presumably)?


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Assuming this post was by Jack from EVTV then he has plenty of ownership experience



Yeah, I know who he is.

When someone starts talking about how they know the secret intentions of company, just because of how they personally feel about it, I think it's reasonable to say they're not being as objective as they think they are.



> Furthermore, I can confirm that in Europe Tesla are working really hard to prevent us from repairing our cars.



Okay, so, I get how it might feel that way, and how frustrating that can be. But I can think of other explanations too, beyond intent, malice, and conspiracy. Occam's Razor and all.

To me, it seems reasonable that a car company would want its vehicles on the road as much as possible with their owners as happy as possible. To not develop a reputation for being difficult to repair, or for not having spare parts. That is a desirable position to be in. So if that is the position Tesla is not in right now, why?

Is it because they're meanies who are out to get you? Or is it because they're doing the best they can but have limitations?


I have no skin in the game, I have no ego attached to the discussion. Either way it seems like Tesla is screwing this up, I don't doubt everyone's experiences that it's difficult to get repaired, I'm just not sure I buy the conclusion that it's intentional.



> I say this as an owner of an older Tesla vehicle who's had lots of part supply issues



I believe you, and others that say that. But it seems more reasonable that Tesla lacks the production capacity (something we also know that they struggle with), versus that they have mountains of parts that they're hording and not letting anyone use just so that vehicles have to stay off the road for 6 months. That doesn't make sense.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> To me, it seems reasonable that a car company would want its vehicles on the road as much as possible with their owners as happy as possible. To not develop a reputation for being difficult to repair, or for not having spare parts. That is a desirable position to be in. So if that is the position Tesla is not in right now, why?
> 
> Is it because they're meanies who are out to get you? Or is it because they're doing the best they can but have limitations?


One possibility: they are relatively incompetent (in supply chain management in particular), and are not concerned about their reputation affecting anything they care about. What they care about would includes the ability to endlessly raise capital to cover operating losses. They are not likely concerned about sales, as they have a large backlog of orders from people who seem very tolerant... they put down deposits on vehicles with no delivery commitment and no pricing. They may be more concerned about maintaining a high level of control of the product even after is it sold than about pleasing paying customers, reflecting the attitude of the company's leader.


----------



## mjrickard (Jan 14, 2017)

Nothing much has changed here since my last visit months ago. You guys type a tremendous amount of text with no information content but lots of conjecture.

Setting aside the Model 3 for the moment, and discussing JUST the Model S, there simply IS no shortage of parts. But many are "restricted" and even those repairing wrecks have actually PURCHASED non-restricted parts up to the point where Tesla became aware of what they were doing, and then suddenly they had ZERO access to parts.

This is not a theory. It is not conjecture. It isn't any of your wild eyed defense of your hero. We have first hand knowledge of numerous cases of this.

Elon Musk very specifically DID use the term OPEN SOURCE when originally describing his patent position, though he has furiously and regularly backpedalled away from that position at the behest of his legal team.

And yes, I am Jack Rickard and cannot help it. I always was. 

Good to hear from you Kevin.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

mjrickard said:


> Elon Musk very specifically DID use the term OPEN SOURCE when originally describing his patent position, though he has furiously and regularly backpedalled away from that position at the behest of his legal team.


Since Musk's experience is in the IT business, failing to use the term "open source" properly is disturbing. Generally, I assume that his statements express the genuine intentions (product plans, etc) which he wants to share, and have little to do with current reality or even Musk's own knowledge of of what is coming.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

mjrickard said:


> ... discussing JUST the Model S, there simply IS no shortage of parts. But many are "restricted"...


So, when owners are waiting long periods for genuine OEM parts to complete authorized repairs, are they subject to a "restriction" for some mysterious reason... or are people such as Kevin just mistaken about the delays which they have experienced? 

Whatever the cause, vehicles held up for extended periods for repair increase the cost of repair costs to insurers, because the owner is typically being provided with a replacement vehicle.


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

mjrickard said:


> Nothing much has changed here since my last visit months ago. You guys type a tremendous amount of text with no information content but lots of conjecture.


Sure Jack, just go insult and belittle an entire community because of what 2 or 3 people you're interacting with say. We're all a hivemind, not individuals.

Yes, go on and become as narrow-minded as possible so you never have to think. Everyone here on these forums is the same personality with exactly the same opinions.

And, pot and kettles and all that, you're not really one to lecture others on verbosity or drivel. Have you looked in a mirror or experienced your own content?



> Setting aside the Model 3 for the moment, and discussing JUST the Model S, there simply IS no shortage of parts. But many are "restricted" and even those repairing wrecks have actually PURCHASED non-restricted parts up to the point where Tesla became aware of what they were doing, and then suddenly they had ZERO access to parts.


To what end?

How does this conspiracy benefit them as a company?

Maybe you're right, I dunno, but it's not very convincing.



> This is not a theory. It is not conjecture. It isn't any of your wild eyed defense of your hero.


Once again, unless you *know* their intentions, then sorry, but, yeah, it is just a theory and conjecture. All you know is that it's difficult for you to buy parts in some cases.

Or just dumb the world down to black & white, yes and no, you're with me or against me.

It couldn't be just that I have a reasonable, middle-of-the-road approach to things and haven't formed a solid opinion one way or the other. No, the only reason anyone wouldn't jump aboard taking everything you say on faith alone, is because they *must* be delusionally defensive about someone you've branded your enemy.

Again, like almost everyone, I have no skin in the game. It's a company, not a way of life.



> Elon Musk very specifically DID use the term OPEN SOURCE when originally describing his patent position, though he has furiously and regularly backpedalled away from that position at the behest of his legal team.


Okay, so, he made an immediate correction because he misspoke? Because the term for what they want to do isn't legally equivalent to Open Source?

I.E. "_We choose to let you do what you want with this information, but we still own it_" is slightly different than "_We choose to no longer own this information and are making it public property_". In terms of use it's identical, but in ownership it's different.

Are we entitled to this? How many years are you going to run around complaining about it?



> And yes, I am Jack Rickard and cannot help it. I always was.


You make acknowledgement of yourself as if doing so excuses your behavior rather than defines it. You can choose to act however you want, regardless of how you excuse it.


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

mjrickard said:


> Good to hear from you Kevin.


Really pleased to have you back on the forum Jack, I hope you can stay around this time


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

MattsAwesomeStuff said:


> Maybe you're right, I dunno, but it's not very convincing.


I would recommend you do some more research on the topic. Jack has multiple blogs and videos which are relevant and I suspect some research into the Tesla Right To Repair 'litigation' with Jack might be helpful (my memory is a little hazy and I don't have time to research the topic in full today).

Some useful background reading;

Right to Repair – Why it Matters…

Tesla Doesn’t Want You to Work on Its Cars

Fight over Right to Repair will heat up in 2018

Interesting video from EVTV (start at 13:00);


----------



## Kevin Sharpe (Jul 4, 2011)

Fascinating video from Rich Benoit which includes a list of repair costs from an authorised Tesla body shop... easy to see why insurers are writing off these cars


----------



## MattsAwesomeStuff (Aug 10, 2017)

Kevin Sharpe said:


> Fascinating video from Rich Benoit which includes a list of repair costs from an authorised Tesla body shop... easy to see why insurers are writing off these cars


I mean, no one takes their car back to a dealership to get repaired unless it's under warranty. There's a reason they call them "stealerships". Him claiming the dealership is charging a ridiculous amount for new parts, with the counterclaim that you can buy used refurbished parts cheaper and he'll give you a shock so there's no need to buy one... so? That's true of any car. And dealer prices for any kind of work on a high-end car are always gouging rates.

His example of his one buddy who had one shipped to Bangladesh and then complained there was no service center there, well... he's just being absurdist and dramatic. No shit when you take it to a third world country that they have no presence in that... there's no presence there.

Those are such poor arguments that it makes me doubt the truth or reasonableness of some of the other things he says.

The interesting part to me wasn't how expensive OEM parts were, I expect that, it was the lack of authorized service centers.

Why is this?

Is it because Tesla is restrictive or because most shops, for the volume of Teslas in the area, have no incentive or interest in investing in tooling and training to meet Tesla's standards? That to me is a combination of EV-specific and small-manufacturer issues. A rare low-volume ICE car a regular mechanic could at least know his way around, an EV, not so much. Meanwhile, GM and Nissan don't have that issue because of their built in scope.

Either way, doesn't matter from a spending standpoint, if it's expensive then it's expensive. But it does matter for those that are all angry about it as to who's to blame and making claims about Tesla's intentions.

These are things that make Tesla look bad, so, to me it doesn't make sense to claim it's intentional. More, they lack competence or ability.


----------

