Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Does CCS Magic-dock allow CCS Equipped Salvage Tesla's to Charge with Superchargers again?

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
They do for most models. I don't think they do it for the Model X yet.

A number of people say this, and I'm confused. They very good guy at our local Tesla shop told me that they were approved for all four models. That they have been trained to do everything. I specifically ask him about an x because I was thinking of buying one. Instead I bought one that is not salvaged. Still, they are supposed to be able to do it now.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MP3Mike
I disagree with this. While I do understand from an individual owner's perspective that it might be frustrating to have a repaired salvage vehicle not allowed on the charging network, I think it's good stewardship on Tesla's part to disallow those vehicles unless they have verified that it's safe for them to charge.

That said, I do think Tesla should provide some sort of certification service (perhaps for $1000 at a service center) where the battery is tested for safety.

The idea that Tesla is doing something wrong by playing it safe seems short-sighted and/or selfish.
Are they going to do the same for all the non-teslas that are salvage titles that they don’t have that info for? It’s ludicrous to do this, opening up to everyone with CCS and forbidding those who are salvage title Tesla. It’s an old practice that should end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: advocate8
If they already do this, then why is there such a fuss from owners of salvaged Teslas about not being able to Supercharge? Is it just having to pay for the inspection?
I guess it's a combination of people unaware and also paying and possibly failing the inspection. Also the most recent discussion is dispute about if Tesla can cancel the free unlimited supercharging
 
Are they going to do the same for all the non-teslas that are salvage titles that they don’t have that info for? It’s ludicrous to do this, opening up to everyone with CCS and forbidding those who are salvage title Tesla. It’s an old practice that should end.
Discussed at length previously, putting aside the fact Tesla has no way to determine if non-Teslas are salvage in the first place (as others have mentioned in the past, CCS does not pass through the VIN), allowing non-Tesla salvage on the network does not change the rationale at all.

The block on Tesla salvage vehicles is because it's a Tesla charging on a supercharger network, which means Tesla is assumed "at fault" by the media by default (the media will practically never bother to determine if the car is salvage or not). If a non-Tesla charges at a supercharger either one can be at fault, and when at a third party charging station, many times people assume it's the car at fault by default (for example the Rivian fires at EA stations).

The cynical business reason some suggest is because Tesla wants to keep salvage values low, which non-Tesla salvage charging on superchargers does nothing to change.
 
Y’know, what with the parade with five marching bands following around every Tesla that’s ever caught on fire, you won’t have seen anything yet when the first Tesla at a Supercharger catches on fire. Or any other car at a Supercharger.

Yeah, I get it: people like to get cars, cheap, and restore them to health. And responsible types do a good job and have a pristine charging system that’s safe.

But in my five and some decades driving around, I have seen some of the most God-awful conglomerations of rusty bits traveling down the road that you can imagine. I borrowed a pickup truck from what I had thought was a sane coworker one year to move a desk the SO and I had bought. It scared the bejeezus out of me: one could look through the floorboards and see the road passing by, below. Worse, whenever the vehicle hit any kind of bump. It was clear that the cab and the rest of the vehicle were moving in different directions.

I lived and returned it to the guy later. Turned out this truck was somehow registered in Florida, even though this took place in upstate NY. And he had it that way so it didn’t have to go through inspections.

It’s not just idiot, cost-avoiding-to-the-point-of-suicide people that are problems. In just this past week, we had two different posters on the forum, both of whom thought they were getting used, but clean cars: one from a Ford dealer down in FL, another from CarMax elsewhere. After pretty much driving the cars off the lot and down the road a couple hundred miles, both cars failed. And it looks like both cars had their titles washed by third parties, although the threads are undecided about the Ford dealer.

Stories about unscrupulous used car salespeople and dealers are legend. As a 22-year old, I fell victim to one such. Bought a Datsun B210 from a dealer in MA. Even had it inspected by another dealer elsewhere. After struggling to get the car to take a tuneup and drive smoothly after a few months, found out the truth: someone had taken the bottom of the engine, crankshaft, cylinders, flywheel, and all, and mounted same to a head/carburetor/top end.. of a different model year, that was designed for a different displacement. No wonder there were hoses going nowhere, and it was impossible to put a proper tune on the engine. I got it fixed, but that’s a different story.

The point is that people with salvage title vehicles might be on the up and up, but they just might be the kind of person who doesn’t give a flying hoo-ha about anything in life, or they might be the victim of a low-life who, once they’ve got their money and kicked the as-is vehicle out the door, don’t give a hoot if said vehicle explodes and takes out a city block.

Did I mention the bunch of teens/early twenties types I knew in Indiana, who could clearly smell gasoline vapors around the car they were in (and whose vapors had been noticeable for weeks) and was being driven somewhere, and it didn’t occur to any of them that it should, you know, be checked? Right up until it caught fire in the middle of nowhere, they all bailed, then watched it burn to the ground. Some of these people became college students. And they were all idiots who were working on their very own Darwin Award.

With people like all of the above around, and some of them are pretty fast talkers, you bet, is it any wonder that Tesla Has A Thing about Not Letting Salvage Title Vehicles Near Their Superchargers?

Given that, if Tesla did generally allow salvage title vehicles near Superchargers, how would any of you like it if one of them lights up while you’re out getting a meal and your car is next to the flaming wreck?
 
Last edited:
So I guess my thoughts here are pretty much the same.

If a gas car is salvage title, should it be allowed to pump fuel above 1 gallon an hour? What if there is a hole in the fuel line? That could be a significant hazard!

Electric Vehicle charging is safer in a bunch of different ways. The fact that the car is managing the onboard charging and communicating with the EVSE is already better than old ways of gas being pumped into a tank.

The fact is, Tesla vehicles are so easy to reach salvage titles for the most minor of fender benders, should they even be allowed to disallow Fast Charging at all?

As we move towards a NACS future, I imagine this practice will be outlawed or at least required to be regulated in some way to minimize the impact to consumers.
 
So I guess my thoughts here are pretty much the same.

If a gas car is salvage title, should it be allowed to pump fuel above 1 gallon an hour? What if there is a hole in the fuel line? That could be a significant hazard!

Electric Vehicle charging is safer in a bunch of different ways. The fact that the car is managing the onboard charging and communicating with the EVSE is already better than old ways of gas being pumped into a tank.

The fact is, Tesla vehicles are so easy to reach salvage titles for the most minor of fender benders, should they even be allowed to disallow Fast Charging at all?

As we move towards a NACS future, I imagine this practice will be outlawed or at least required to be regulated in some way to minimize the impact to consumers.
Sorry, but you're engaging in, "Whataboutism!". Sure: Gas powered vehicles catch fire all the time. That bunch of college students is only one of the people I knew of that were driving around with gas-leaking cars. I knew a person, who, at the time, was some 30 years older than I was, who was driving some expensive (for the time) fuel-injected (also unusual for the time) German vehicle around and wanted me to take a look at it. How does a top end saturated with pools of gas take you? Clearly a leak in the high-pressure side of the fuel system. I told him to have it towed, but I'm not sure he took my advice.

Thing is, for whatever reason, people don't get fazed about gas leaks and cars bursting into flames with gas or diesel fires; it doesn't even typically hit the newspaper back pages. But let an electric vehicle catch fire? Like I said, marching bands running up and down with breathless reporters pulling up every electric battery that's ever died. I wish it was different than this, but that's the way it is.

Your idea of getting Tesla (or whatever vehicle manufacturer it is) to certify that a salvage title electric car is safe is probably a good one. For a reasonable fee, sure. But, if I was Tesla.. Thinking of all the idiots out there, how likely is it that an idiot used car salesman or just some suicidal shade tree mechanic will try and pull a fast one on Tesla? Or bribe a Tesla employee? Again, I can see why Tesla wanted to run away from the problem.
 
If they already do this, then why is there such a fuss from owners of salvaged Teslas about not being able to Supercharge? Is it just having to pay for the inspection?
I think it was because they imposed it randomly, Rich Rebuilds had that car that made him famous, the one his wife used every day, suddenly couldn't fast charge. All these years people expected to be able to Supercharge so it was a shock, and worst of all they took away ALL DCFCs (including Magic Docks and all CCS/CHAdeMO sites), you could only charge via AC on salvage cars. It wasn't done at the Supercharger level, it was sent to the car itself. This is why people would hack their cars and get back the ability to charge.

My understanding is that they have re-implemented the inspection-to-charge-again process so these Teslas should be able to use any charger when they pass that inspection. Considering they have built in diagnostics you would think they could just let the car check for problems, although perhaps they didn't want people disabling the diagnostics so that's why they require the inspection.

We are just at the beginning of the EV world, so it may be in the not too distant future that all EVs are required to be disabled from DCFCing if they are salvage, it's not a bad idea considering the voltages involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: father_of_6
Sorry, but you're engaging in, "Whataboutism!". Sure: Gas powered vehicles catch fire all the time. That bunch of college students is only one of the people I knew of that were driving around with gas-leaking cars. I knew a person, who, at the time, was some 30 years older than I was, who was driving some expensive (for the time) fuel-injected (also unusual for the time) German vehicle around and wanted me to take a look at it. How does a top end saturated with pools of gas take you? Clearly a leak in the high-pressure side of the fuel system. I told him to have it towed, but I'm not sure he took my advice.
That's not whataboutism. Whataboutism would be if you were saying Rivian or someone else is also cutting SC from their network. What White is writing is correlation and it is commonly used in law. More correlation is that a Y or 3 can still DC fast charge at a 3rd party EVSE. I'm sure those businesses are concerned about their optics as well. Lastly, my beef is not so much that Tesla cut SC and allows re-enabling but rather the cut is done to the car by Tesla without owners permission - to a car they don't own. It's more a legal issue than anything else, imo.
 
We are just at the beginning of the EV world, so it may be in the not too distant future that all EVs are required to be disabled from DCFCing if they are salvage, it's not a bad idea considering the voltages involved.

It's never been really feasible to implement a system that would prevent someone from pumping gasoline into a car that has a leak or other dangerous issue.

Since it's very feasible with an electric vehicle, it should be done (in my opinion). I think it shouldn't just be a Tesla policy, but a law.

Imagine a scenario where someone's done their own shoddy repair work, and their car is intermittently shorting a live wire to the car's body. Someone gets out of their car next to it and is lethally electrocuted just because their shirt grazes the body of the vehicle.

We're already up against a significant portion of the population that has a bias against electric vehicles because of a silly cultural identity. The last thing we need is negative media attention because of vehicle fires and electric shock.
 
a Y or 3 can still DC fast charge at a 3rd party EVSE. I'm sure those businesses are concerned about their optics as well.

They don't have the data to ban a Tesla salvage. If they did, maybe they would.

Lastly, my beef is not so much that Tesla cut SC and allows re-enabling but rather the cut is done to the car by Tesla without owners permission - to a car they don't own. It's more a legal issue than anything else, imo.

This is how the required annual vehicle inspection works in New York state. You bring it to a mechanic who is licensed to complete inspections. If yours is expired and your car *fails* the inspection, they scrape your sticker off the window and you can't legally drive the car until it's repaired. They don't ask for your permission to remove your sticker. It's no longer considered safe to drive, so you don't get to drive it.

This salvage fast DC charging issue is the same thing. Until the car is proven to be safe, you don't get to plug it into a public high voltage/amperage charging station. Rightfully so.
 
So I guess my thoughts here are pretty much the same.

If a gas car is salvage title, should it be allowed to pump fuel above 1 gallon an hour? What if there is a hole in the fuel line? That could be a significant hazard!

Electric Vehicle charging is safer in a bunch of different ways. The fact that the car is managing the onboard charging and communicating with the EVSE is already better than old ways of gas being pumped into a tank.

The fact is, Tesla vehicles are so easy to reach salvage titles for the most minor of fender benders, should they even be allowed to disallow Fast Charging at all?

As we move towards a NACS future, I imagine this practice will be outlawed or at least required to be regulated in some way to minimize the impact to consumers.
No it won't. Salvage cars are already treated as "second class citizens" by insurance, the government (which is why the title is "branded"), as well as manufacturers (voided warranties). This has been brought up in the past: there is no fundamental right for a car with a branded title to be treated the same as a clean title.
 
That's not whataboutism. Whataboutism would be if you were saying Rivian or someone else is also cutting SC from their network. What White is writing is correlation and it is commonly used in law.
Bringing up how gas stations don't ban salvage cars IS whataboutism! So is bringing up how other EV brands don't cut off salvage! It's literally asking "what about x"? As others point out, they don't do it because there is no practical way to do so.

Gas cars don't have an electronic connection to the gas station. CCS cars don't pass through their VIN to the charge station. In fact, since you bring up Rivian, apparently they don't even use a unique Mac address, meaning even methods that rely on preregistration (like Autocharge) doesn't work with them.

As others mentioned, if other charge stations had a way, they probably would do similar blocks. They just can't out of practicality.
More correlation is that a Y or 3 can still DC fast charge at a 3rd party EVSE. I'm sure those businesses are concerned about their optics as well.
As above, those business have no way to detect salvage vehicles. Also the reason why Tesla allows third party charging is because legally they have no standing to block that. Tesla owns the supercharger network however and they have every right to block salvage vehicles. It's a fundamental business right to refuse service other than toward protected classes (which title status isn't one).
Lastly, my beef is not so much that Tesla cut SC and allows re-enabling but rather the cut is done to the car by Tesla without owners permission - to a car they don't own. It's more a legal issue than anything else, imo.
I agree the mechanism of changing a flag on the car remotely is legally dubious. What should be done is either a block done by the station, or a "phone home" method, where the car phones into the system to determine authorization. However, that is an implementation detail, that doesn't change they have a right to block salvage vehicles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_H
My understanding is that they have re-implemented the inspection-to-charge-again process so these Teslas should be able to use any charger when they pass that inspection. Considering they have built in diagnostics you would think they could just let the car check for problems, although perhaps they didn't want people disabling the diagnostics so that's why they require the inspection.
Build in diagnostics would not be valid substitute to actual physical examination.
This is apparently the conditions for failure of the inspection:

-A dent or deepest point of gouge is 8 mm or more in depth (Figures 21 and 22).
-If the HV battery enclosure fails leak down test due to impact.
-The HV battery enclosure has low isolation due to impact.

All of these require physical examination. For the inspection of the gouge obviously you have to look under the car. For the leak test it requires using a leak test kit. For the isolation test it requires disconnecting the battery loop and measuring with a multimeter.
 
Build in diagnostics would not be valid substitute to actual physical examination.
This is apparently the conditions for failure of the inspection:

-A dent or deepest point of gouge is 8 mm or more in depth (Figures 21 and 22).
-If the HV battery enclosure fails leak down test due to impact.
-The HV battery enclosure has low isolation due to impact.

All of these require physical examination. For the inspection of the gouge obviously you have to look under the car. For the leak test it requires using a leak test kit. For the isolation test it requires disconnecting the battery loop and measuring with a multimeter.

And they also inspect the charge connection circuitry, and a battery charger area. They did something under the front hood, as they had removed the lining there too. I know these things because they did a really crappy job of putting everything back together. Seat belt underneath the seat, didn't even put the cover back over where the charge connector is, and didn't reassemble the front properly. But, they did give me my charging back, even if they ripped the label off my battery in the process. Sometimes I worry about the new Tesla techs!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: stopcrazypp
But, if I was Tesla..
Glad ur not lol or any similar minded ppl... And thanks heavens for smart ppl that can root n enable SC for us :)

Its been discussed on multiple threads here that Fire risk is NOT the real reason... because cars get salvage status for silly things like stolen car or hail damage, etc., nothing to do with battery or cars that have been in a wreck but still "clean" title cause owner didn't have Full coverage...
Only logical explanation is that it was financial reasons. In the beginning Tesla wanted to sell as much new cars as they can n Salvage cars were few so it was more beneficial for them to steer ppl away from them. Now that we have LOTS of salvage cars they're missing out on the Inspection n SC income...
There was nothing stopping Tesla from implementing Salvage inspections from the start if they really cared about fires...
And trust me they know about ppl hacking n unlocking SC cause there been stories about Tesla seeking abusers n locking them out. Why wasting resources on doing that vs inspection route?..

Imagine a scenario where someone's done their own shoddy repair work, and their car is intermittently shorting a live wire to the car's body. Someone gets out of their car next to it and is lethally electrocuted just because their shirt grazes the body of the vehicle.
I don't think u understand how electricity works...
This scenario is not physically possible...

-The HV battery enclosure has low isolation due to impact.

For the isolation test it requires disconnecting the battery loop and measuring with a multimeter.
Car already has built in detection for external/internal isolation, this is #1 safety concern, it doesn't have to be physically tested.

I also don't understand other inspection items either...
If dent is deep enough it'll touch the cells n cause isolation error, if not it doesn't affect anything so why the 8mm spec?...
If battery case has a crack or hole somewhere, it will get water inside sooner or later n cause isolation error (ask me how i know) so again unnecessary..
But whatever, at least Tesla offers a way to get SC back.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Synthax and Rocky_H