Ulmo
Active Member
Agreed, but it's still early; being completely new to bids and auctions, I'm thinking it might still have a price now that you'd take. Do these auctions ramp up a lot at the end?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Agreed, but it's still early; being completely new to bids and auctions, I'm thinking it might still have a price now that you'd take. Do these auctions ramp up a lot at the end?
satoshi
Electrical Engineer
Yes, usually... I've had numerous examples where I was winning at $5k only for the car to sell well above $20k in the live auction.
Btr's flooded car is indeed a 85 or P85. As MP3Mike says, it is thus equipped with Supercharging enabled.
But the thing is: if you get your hands on a donor car, such as the one I pointed to you, then you will have access to ALL the electronic controllers, complete wiring harness,
all modules and airbags of the donor car.
That would permit to put the complete set of electronics from the donor car to the flooded car, have all components matched with the VIN, even the one on the dash, as it will
be swapped.
If it took you 20 hours to get to this point, probably another 20 hours to disassemble the components from the donor car, lets evaluate a 30 hours to reassemble it all back in
the flooded S and you are most probably good to go for a drive at Quantum's house! ;-)
Of course this makes sense if you can get the damaged S at a reasonnable price.
Franky
P85 2013
I just poke around auctions as a perverse form of entertainment. I look at the wrecked RVs too. And for land in the Cascades to build an ICF house on, but I usually don't talk about it. In 2011 I bought some land at auction from a bank and am preparing to build 5-7 ICF houses on it.... those won't be auctioned.
Nowadays there are so many ppl chasing Salvage cars the prices are unthinkable. Luckily I have Dealer's access to two major closed auctions though. I've fixed a couple of seriously damaged cars (because I'm cheap), usually for my own use since I know my own work is solid. Not much I can't do, but have never messed with a flood-car.
Life does it, mah bruva. There's not much I haven't seen, and I have seen some sh*t. Then again I'm strong enough now for anything.
Nowadays there are so many ppl chasing Salvage cars the prices are unthinkable. Luckily I have Dealer's access to two major closed auctions though. I've fixed a couple of seriously damaged cars (because I'm cheap), usually for my own use since I know my own work is solid. Not much I can't do, but have never messed with a flood-car.
Life does it, mah bruva. There's not much I haven't seen, and I have seen some sh*t. Then again I'm strong enough now for anything.
satoshi
Electrical Engineer
That's not to say that I haven't studied them extensively. That should have been evident in this thread. It's for that very reason that I've never messed with flood-cars. I did consider one as a body parts car, but it was fresh-water and I found another way.
Any time a Tesla is swamped, water will get into the battery through the vent holes. And it will get into the inverter through the vent holes. So you can't sell the battery or traction motor from a flood-car to get some of your money back. It's just a fact.
Any time a Tesla is swamped, water will get into the battery through the vent holes. And it will get into the inverter through the vent holes. So you can't sell the battery or traction motor from a flood-car to get some of your money back. It's just a fact.
If you fully fix the car, and it has supercharging disabled, I will personally come visit, root your car, and re-enable it for you. Then Tesla can stop being lazy and implement charger-side authentication instead of car-side authentication if they want to block people from charging. The fact that Tesla reaches their hands in remotely and disables a feature of the car on the car side on these cars really pisses me off. I'd have zero issue if the charger denied access, but they modify the vehicle without permission from the owner, which is shady. It's an 85, and all 85's come with supercharger as a standard option.
It's well known they do this to salvage cars, but I pulled proof off of a salvage car I checked out not that long ago:
The date was well after the new owner of the fully self-repaired salvage (had only minor front end damage) had purchased the car and had it on the road. I mean, I'm reasonably certain what they've done is quite literally illegal. It also prevents use of the CHAdeMO adapter, which has nothing to do with Tesla's infrastructure. (Pretty sure I've discussed my feeling on this elsewhere, so I won't continue this rant.)
And yes, I changed it back on that car. And yes, it supercharged perfectly fine afterward. And yes, as mentioned above, I'll gladly do it again.
It's well known they do this to salvage cars, but I pulled proof off of a salvage car I checked out not that long ago:
Code:
# Teleforce 2014-xx-xx xx:xx:xx: bchu changed fastcharge to 0
fastcharge 0The date was well after the new owner of the fully self-repaired salvage (had only minor front end damage) had purchased the car and had it on the road. I mean, I'm reasonably certain what they've done is quite literally illegal. It also prevents use of the CHAdeMO adapter, which has nothing to do with Tesla's infrastructure. (Pretty sure I've discussed my feeling on this elsewhere, so I won't continue this rant.)
And yes, I changed it back on that car. And yes, it supercharged perfectly fine afterward. And yes, as mentioned above, I'll gladly do it again.
llavalle
Member
+1
While I can understand the reasons behind blocking access to Superchargers... Disabling DC charging is really another thing...
Wow...
While I can understand the reasons behind blocking access to Superchargers... Disabling DC charging is really another thing...
Wow...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
My only question is what is the legal status of a vehicle once it's been totaled? Obviously it's no longer considered road worthy, and at that point the "owner" is the insurance company, and what they own is a wreck that could end up as scrap. I'm on both sides of the fence on this one, I understand why Tesla might not want totaled cars plugged into their superchargers, but as someone who has rebuilt totaled cars successfully I wouldn't want some feature disabled remotely.
jpet
Jan P.
They could consider this a security precaution until the car is re-certified. Look at the car in Norway that burned down at a supercharger. I'm not sure which side to choose on this one.
grichard
Member De-Luxe
The superchargers belong to Tesla. The totaled car doesn't.
Seems to me that Tesla clearly has the right to refuse supercharging to a totaled car. I'm not sure that it has the right to enforce this by modifying the car without the owner's permission. And I can't see how it has the right to prevent the car's owner from DC charging from another source.
Of course, I'm completely Not a Lawyer, and would be interested to hear a more learned opinion on the issue.
- - - Updated - - -
Further thought: the software on the totaled car probably *does* belong to Tesla. Do they have right to unilaterally mess with it and substantially change the function of something that they otherwise have no claim to (ie the car)? I have no idea.
Seems to me that Tesla clearly has the right to refuse supercharging to a totaled car. I'm not sure that it has the right to enforce this by modifying the car without the owner's permission. And I can't see how it has the right to prevent the car's owner from DC charging from another source.
Of course, I'm completely Not a Lawyer, and would be interested to hear a more learned opinion on the issue.
- - - Updated - - -
Further thought: the software on the totaled car probably *does* belong to Tesla. Do they have right to unilaterally mess with it and substantially change the function of something that they otherwise have no claim to (ie the car)? I have no idea.
Well, here's the issue. On the two vehicles that I've seen the configuration file for where Tesla has reached back in and modified it after the fact it has been well after the final winner of an auction has won the car, owns it, and was either in the process of repairing or had already repaired the car. Probably because prior to this the car was never powered long enough for them to do so. In these cases Tesla, IMO, would have been obligated to get permission from the owner of the vehicle in order to modify it. Since doing so is removing value from the vehicle, I think paying the owner a small fee for permission would be reasonable, but the owner has zero obligation to accept. I mentioned this elsewhere, but this is basically the equivalent of Tesla going to the car and physically removing something like, the 10kW charger or the 17" screen. Supercharging/DC charging is a standard feature of every car that's not a 40 or 60 and Tesla has no right to modify the vehicle's configuration without permission. Heck, "Supercharging Enabled" is listed in the MVPA as a line item. By disabling the feature on the car without permission they've simply robbed the owner.
Additionally, in the interim period before the car gets to a "real" new owner (not insurance company), it's likely not powered. Even so, I highly doubt Tesla requests permission from the insurance company to modify the car.
This is part of the issue. Tesla's software has no official license agreement with the vehicle owner. There is nothing in any signed or agreed to documentation regarding the car with a license agreement for the car's software. Not that this is new to Tesla in particular, but since Tesla is the only company to really have this level of remote access it seems that they're going to need to adopt an actual license for their software and remote access with the end user eventually. The absence of this would generally put more power in the owner's/user's hands, in my experience.
In short, yes, Tesla owns the software. I doubt there is much debate there. But there is an implied license to use the software on the car, being that Tesla ships the software with the cars. But, Tesla does NOT own the device the software is running on and is not permitted to modify your device without permission.
Again, I have near-zero issue if Tesla's chargers make a decision to deny service to a particular list of cars that Tesla has decided are not "certified" for charging. This is a bit of a grey area, because this could be considered a feature of the vehicle. In the absence of any official agreement on supercharging, though, I think both sides would have compelling arguments here. So, for now I think Tesla is safe having the charger deny service, well to almost anyone technically. But they aren't allowed to modify my vehicle to make it work this way.
Last edited:
If you sign away your right to own the software (which we have), then it's Tesla's. Just like Winduhs 10 is Microsoft's and they now have a right to know everything you do, and to sell certain bits. The argument could be made of vastly asymmetric bargaining positions (contracts must be voluntarily entered into by parties of equal bargaining power), which is true and correct, but that doesn't fly with today's ultra-right-wing Supreme Court.
Of course if Tesla takes away their software, your car is disabled. So there's a 'social contract' that they won't. Needless to say if they ever did that without very good cause it would mean a loss of trust and a flight from Tesla. So of course they can remotely disable anything, but limit it to SC and 3G for now.
Technically a second owner hasn't signed away {preferred pronoun} right to the software, but no doubt at some point Tesla will introduce a "licensing agreement" for the second owner to sign or else the software is disabled.
(Seems like wk057 has commented above, but I have him on Ignore so can't see. Be nice to him as he has lost a lot of money in the stock market)
Of course if Tesla takes away their software, your car is disabled. So there's a 'social contract' that they won't. Needless to say if they ever did that without very good cause it would mean a loss of trust and a flight from Tesla. So of course they can remotely disable anything, but limit it to SC and 3G for now.
Technically a second owner hasn't signed away {preferred pronoun} right to the software, but no doubt at some point Tesla will introduce a "licensing agreement" for the second owner to sign or else the software is disabled.
(Seems like wk057 has commented above, but I have him on Ignore so can't see. Be nice to him as he has lost a lot of money in the stock market)
We have? Where? Have a copy you could share? I've signed no such thing, and I've purchased three Model S.
- - - Updated - - -
LOL. LOL. .... did I mention, LOL? This just proves you literally make up information. I've not disclosed such information, and it's not true anyway. (Edit: Redacted. My financial gains are none of anyone's business really.) So... yeah, stop making up **** about me. lol. Apologies to the OP, this is not even remotely on topic.
Last edited:
Similar threads
