Because unlike those automakers who are selling unconnected devices over which they have little control after sale, Tesla has a lot of agency over its fleet, by providing charging services and software upgrades they may be considered to be implicitly vouching for the roadworthiness of the car. But the risk to Tesla right now is just speculative; it will remain that way as long as they refuse to take the risk.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Because unlike those automakers who are selling unconnected devices over which they have little control after sale, Tesla has a lot of agency over its fleet, by providing charging services and software upgrades they may be considered to be implicitly vouching for the roadworthiness of the car. But the risk to Tesla right now is just speculative; it will remain that way as long as they refuse to take the risk.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
I'm not agreeing with the theatrics of the buyer, just talking about the actual document. I have the link a couple posts back. It's extremely restrictive, far beyond what one would expect from any other manufacturer, so I can see why he would be caught off-guard. I do agree that he should have done his due diligence, but that release to unreasonably general IMO.
If Tesla provided no support for battery pack inspections, regardless of who was asking for it, then I think that's analogous to your example. Manufacturers don't have to support every kind of repair on every kind of product.
On the other hand, if they do provide battery inspections to some group of customers, say approved repair facilities, or even let these facilities perform their own inspections, and also do it in house, but refuse to provide that service to other customers without some extremely general/possibly restrictive release, then that might be illegal in some states.
Similarly, not providing specifications for their vehicles and only working on cars that only go to these shops might be seen as unreasonably constraining competition (antitrust) because every other manufacturer permits the sale/service of their vehicles using their particular proprietary (the entity doing the repair still has to pay for access) software/hardware. But Tesla is also likely small enough to get away with that, at least for now.
The problem here isn't that Tesla is restricting use of supercharging/OTA updates (which they I think could reasonably do), but that they won't even turn on the car without the owner signing a release that gives them the ability to refuse to turn it on, or service it ever again, if they find anything they determine requires repairs. IMO the problem is that they have no constraints regarding that determination, as opposed to a state agency, which has clear guidelines for what is and isn't considered safe/road-worthy. A state agency can't refuse to declare your car road worthy because you straightened/reinforced the frame provided it meets specific criteria. Based on that waiver, Tesla can.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Not sure why you're focusing on battery inspection, I'm pretty sure Tesla wants to go over the entire vehicle to see if there are any serious issues, not just the battery pack. Also, Tesla is not saying they won't provide an inspection, they just want a waiver signed first, and they want the car owner to understand they may choose not to enable charging on the car if they think it's unsafe.
I bet if I brought in an ICE to any garage with a leaking gas tank to get the fuel pump switch reset they would insist on repairing that leak before resetting the switch and doing any other work on it. If I don't want them to repair the leak they can, and should, tell me to take a hike.
I bet if I brought in an ICE to any garage with a leaking gas tank to get the fuel pump switch reset they would insist on repairing that leak before resetting the switch and doing any other work on it. If I don't want them to repair the leak they can, and should, tell me to take a hike.
The way the waiver is currently written (clause 5), even if Tesla decided the battery could be activated safely, giving the buyer use of the most valuable component, Tesla could refuse under the "sufficient repairs cannot be made to the Salvage Vehicle" clause for the car as a whole.
Tesla can decline to fix anything under that clause, even if much of the car could be usefully salvaged.
Then add in clause 6 and not only can Tesla refuse something like activating a potentially functional battery, they can also refuse to sell him any parts that might allow him to fix and reuse things like an air suspension coil.
I can see why those sort of open ended, subjective clauses would set the fellow on edge.
Tesla can decline to fix anything under that clause, even if much of the car could be usefully salvaged.
Then add in clause 6 and not only can Tesla refuse something like activating a potentially functional battery, they can also refuse to sell him any parts that might allow him to fix and reuse things like an air suspension coil.
I can see why those sort of open ended, subjective clauses would set the fellow on edge.
Last edited:
dhrivnak
Active Member
I think Tesla is wrong here and a result of their actions will negatively affect the resale value of all of out cars. If cars can-not be repaired or rebuilt that will depress prices as very few people will be willing to risk their time and money.
What made Microsoft so successful is many people were able to write applications to use the OS. What makes I-phones a success is the thousands of apps people have written. Imagine the success or lack thereof, if Microsoft and Apple enforced a policy of running ONLY their software.
Yes a Tesla is a special car. But so are Shelby Mustangs and rebuilt Pontiac GTO's and Ford and GM do not actively discourage their rebuilding or modifications.
What made Microsoft so successful is many people were able to write applications to use the OS. What makes I-phones a success is the thousands of apps people have written. Imagine the success or lack thereof, if Microsoft and Apple enforced a policy of running ONLY their software.
Yes a Tesla is a special car. But so are Shelby Mustangs and rebuilt Pontiac GTO's and Ford and GM do not actively discourage their rebuilding or modifications.
But note that they won't sell him (or anyone working on his behalf) parts.
So he takes the car in. They say, oh, no, we think you need to replace the doohickey and the thingamajig. He says, great, can I buy a doohickey and a thingamajig? They say, nope. Sorry. If you want those, you have to take the car to an authorized service center, where they will charge you whatever rapacious labor rate they feel like setting, plus maybe a premium for the doohickey and thingamajig.
The upshot of this document is that you cannot repair a Tesla unless you take it to an authorized service center. Doesn't matter if you're a body shop ninja with a PhD in electric propulsion--you can't fix the car yourself.
As someone else noted, that's very bad for the resale value of salvage Teslas, and by extension very bad for all of our insurance rates--not to mention bad for our choice, as owners, of places like body shops.
I don't want to overreact, but it's troubling.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
So parallelling your example here of the software/OS industry what Tesla could, should and probably will do is what apple has done with iOS and the App store i.e. allow 3rd parties to work on the car but that some sort of Tesla certification/training or whatever is required before you are "allowed" to work on Teslas and before they will sell you parts (i.e. just like apps have to be approved and deemed both of good enough quality and safe by Apple before they can appear in the App store).
I believe Apple is a difficult example here because Apple is in both the software and hardware playgrounds, as is Tesla. And you're saying "take Apple's software stuff and apply it to Tesla's hardware stuff" which is -- um, I'll go with -- a "challenging" line of thought.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
You're right of course. It's never that simple. With teslas it's just like an iPhone or an iPad: the software and the hardware are very much interacting and it's hard to separate the one from the other. well, maybe not so much with the wheel or a part of the suspension but with the more intricate and advanced systems such as the battery management, Drive unit etc. it will be very difficult to separate hardware from software.
About selling parts... which owner will raise his hand and offer his car to go for spare parts him waiting another month to get the car? Parts are primarily built to build new cars and secondary to fix those cars still under warranty. Last time I checked *ALL* Tesla Model S are still under warranty so they are being fixed at Tesla Service centers at no cost to owners. And those owners must sometimes wait for SC to get replacement parts.
Selling those parts to third parties would only cause SC having less parts and owners with broken vehicles waiting longer for a fix.
This whole story is ridiculous. What is sad is a big crowd that is demanding Tesla to shoot themselves in the foot.
Another Sharpe, another Degusta, another Drucker. Sad party.
Selling those parts to third parties would only cause SC having less parts and owners with broken vehicles waiting longer for a fix.
This whole story is ridiculous. What is sad is a big crowd that is demanding Tesla to shoot themselves in the foot.
Another Sharpe, another Degusta, another Drucker. Sad party.
Maybe, though I can't imagine there are enough salvage cars out there to make much of a difference. Keep in mind that if this person elected to have an authorized service center fix the car, Tesla would happily sell the parts.
Selling to third parties isn't going to increase the total number of wrecked Teslas. It will only make it economically possible to restore a limited number of the marginal cases, where the value of a repair at a service center makes the car a total but where a third party can do the work more cheaply.
How many cars is that, total? I am going to guess that it is not a big number.
This is probably the most ridiculous argument I read about.
Nobody is asking Tesla to shoot themselves in the foot, you should be looking here about the precedent that could be set for similar cases in the future. Tesla or any other manufacturer shouldn't be both the producer and the judge of whether or not the car is road worthy.
Tesla is a small manufacturer with big plans and valuation and it's normal that everything they do gets through the macro lenses.
I see the argument from both sides of the fence, the DYIer thought it's just as any other car, fix the damage, get it inspected and drive it home and on the other side Tesla thinks the car was in a accident declared a salvage and therefore disabled for good.
What the new owner didn't realize is that the final word about the car's road worthiness is in Tesla's mouth. As much as I like Tesla and what they are doing, being a fan and everything they shouldn't be treated any different compared to other car manufacturers when it comes to parts access and diagnostic tools.
Sadly, the news story lacks a lot of information about the car and the accident it was into. It would have been nice if the owner of that car would share that information and provide us with the information needed to put this case to rest, the car might have been totaled because the cost of being repaired at an Authorized shop was blown out of proportion, at least that's not unheard of and all of us have read around the forums.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Isn't that what Apple did in the early days? And I seem to remember an issue with the early ipods where the non user replaceable battery was failing and Apple wouldn't replace it.
http://www.mtv.com/news/1503384/that-ipod-battery-problem-apple-steps-up-to-solve-it/
Hank42
Legacy Supporter
Every time I see a beautiful red sig die, I shed a tear:
5YJSA1DP6CFS00907, Salvage Title burgundy Tesla Model S at DAVENPORT, IA on online auction by October 06, 2014 | SalvageBid
5YJSA1DP6CFS00907, Salvage Title burgundy Tesla Model S at DAVENPORT, IA on online auction by October 06, 2014 | SalvageBid
Ditto. Part of the appeal of Sig was the limited number of them, but... not like this.
Similar threads
