I've watched Rich Rebuilds for a while, and it's one of about 5 YouTube channels I've bothered to subscribe to. I like Rich and the content in the videos (for the most part, aside from the rants which aren't my favourites).

I watched this yesterday and was pleasantly surprised at the angle of the video - I expected it to be a little more snarky about what he's done, but it presented a much better angle in terms of the right to repair that Tesla clearly fights against.

I'm often told that I'm an Elon Musk fanboy by friends and family - I love what SpaceX is doing, and I want Tesla to succeed (because I'm convinced that the sooner we get ICE-powered vehicles off the roads, the better), but I have spent much of the last 30 years fixing my own vehicles; I built my first motorbike from a written-off bike, and I've owned hundreds of cars. I built my own rally cars and competed in one of them at WRC level. I love fixing things, and as soon as I found out (via Rich Rebuilds, or CarGuru as it was then) about Tesla's policy, my opinion on them changed completely; I still want them to succeed, but I can't imagine ever owning one because of their stance (even though it probably wouldn't affect me, even if I ever did own one, which is unlikely to say the least).

There are a number of people on here taking what appears to me to be a straw man on the 'right to repair' angle - talking about 'repairing the software yourself'. I don't think this is what most people are talking about (and it's certainly not what Rich is talking about). It's about Tesla's restrictive policy over spare parts and repairing vehicles - not down to software level, but to the level that Rich is working at - like-for-like replacement of entire components. If a vehicle is on Tesla's list, then they will not sell you parts. And you can't get pattern parts in the way you can for most ICE vehicles - I'd imagine this is because the supply chain/pool is much smaller (Tesla is a small, niche manufacturer in reality) and they have clauses in place to stop the sale of these parts via other channels. And this is just wrong. There is no more danger in the straight like-for-like replacement of a motor unit or inverter than there is in any other competent repair.

My experience of dealer repair work has been limited, but when it has taken place, it has been poor. The mechanics in question have been of the 'follow a fixed set of instructions in the order given' type, not seeming to know their trade well and get straight to the point. I was quoted over £2000 in labour costs possible to diagnose a problem with a Ford Focus I owned (car was about 5 years old at the time) - 'because we have to do the diagnosis step by step, even if it's obvious it's not that'. Had I taken it there, it would have been the full price as it was one of the last things on the list (small end failure, which was common on that particular engine). Service in the UK is incredibly bad for the most part, and I've seen friends have terrible (and expensive) experiences at franchised, approved garages, with multi-thousand costs being generated to replace parts without any improvement (A friend's BMW X5 is springing to mind).

There is no significant risk to anyone if this kind of repair is carried out by competent personnel. And there are plenty of competent personnel about who would be able to do everything normally needed to repair a Tesla. The service documentation alone would allow that to happen (factory service manuals are generally a goldmine of information, but also written in such simple terms that nearly anyone could follow them), and the supply of the right parts to anyone who wants them - at a price without a prohibitive mark-up - should be a right. I'm saddened that Tesla is instead following a path trying to lock people in to their ecosystem of service - and even more so when they refuse to carry out mandated safety upgrades (such as the airbag mentioned in the piece).

Oh, for anyone who thinks that Rich is really safe.... just do a bit of research into 'safety wood'!