-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
mitch672
Active Member
I'm not talking specifically about THIS case specifically. In general Tesla refusing to sell parts, not supplying information to allow 3rd party repair, and insisting on Tesla certified body shops only being able to buy parts/work on the Model S, combined with the very high repair costs, combined makes for very little value for insurance company "totaled" vehicles. And, it's going to eventually affect ALL of us, in the wallet, count on it.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm posting a rebuttal specifically about your point about salvage title Model S being only worth their parts value, with counter examples.
Tesla's parts policy's affect on insurance rates seems to be a separate issue from this (which most people agree will probably need changing eventually). My personal view is that as Tesla gets bigger, this will resolve itself via third party / refurbished / used parts, and I think Tesla eventually won't be able to maintain the policy given a large enough spare parts inventory (esp. as Model 3 has been on the market for a while).
The view on this thread seems to be that Tesla is on relatively firm ground refusing to enable supercharging on a salvage title vehicle, but I want to revisit this with Otmar's project in mind (Stretchla Blog | Stretched Vanagon Westfalia shell on a Tesla platform). His plans to use a Tesla drive-train in a camper is one I dearly hope succeeds. I'm much less interested in whether someone can save a few bucks by fixing a salvage title vehicle.
Let's start with the classic gas station analogy; nobody expects that a gas station is implicitly vouching for the road-worthiness of a vehicle to which it sells gas.
Second, Otmar's project goes beyond repair. One can argue that the resulting vehicle is not a Tesla at all. It is a custom-made vehicle that makes use of Tesla parts. Moreover, it is compatible with the Tesla supercharging system. Tesla has indicated that it would look favorably upon other car makers having access to the supercharging network so long as their vehicles are compatible and they share the cost in proportion to use. I wonder whether Otmar can appeal for access to supercharging on that basis. With a fleet of exactly one vehicle, his contribution to the cost of the network should not be too large (and will shrink rapidly over time).
Let's start with the classic gas station analogy; nobody expects that a gas station is implicitly vouching for the road-worthiness of a vehicle to which it sells gas.
Second, Otmar's project goes beyond repair. One can argue that the resulting vehicle is not a Tesla at all. It is a custom-made vehicle that makes use of Tesla parts. Moreover, it is compatible with the Tesla supercharging system. Tesla has indicated that it would look favorably upon other car makers having access to the supercharging network so long as their vehicles are compatible and they share the cost in proportion to use. I wonder whether Otmar can appeal for access to supercharging on that basis. With a fleet of exactly one vehicle, his contribution to the cost of the network should not be too large (and will shrink rapidly over time).
Ok. Let's say I buy a fuel pump and lines from Porsche, install them incorrectly, and as a result my car catches fire.
Or let's say I buy calipers from Porsche, forget to bleed the brake system, and run down a group of nuns walking to church.
Is Porsche liable for selling me the parts?
You (and some others) just don't get it, do you?
How many tesla fires were there? How many injured? Whose fault it was?
What said the media?
How many Porsche accidents are there day after day? How many injured and dead? Whose fault it is? What says the media?
Is it more clear now?
There were two fires due to outside causes with no body harm.
Tesla was all over the press, stock price fell, demand fell.
Tesla just cannot afford to do what every single other old manufacturer easily does day after day. Things will change, but slowly.
Actually, I think it is the other way around. As the salvage value of the car drops, there will be a higher propensity to repair the cars rather than declare total loss. Right now, there are cars that *should* be repaired but aren't due to the high salvage value. In some cases, the insurance companies are actually taking a larger loss because it's a known value rather than risk the repair cost. This also reduces the number of repairs. As the number of repairs goes up and the demand of repair goes up, more shops will become Tesla certified and compete. Further, the significant investments in becoming Tesla certified get spread over more repairs and hopefully the cost of repair will drop.
The parts situation obviously has to change. One of the problem is actually trust in the inspection procedure. If that procedure was well documented and understood, then meeting those requirements in order to qualify for roadworthiness is easier to understand. Right now, we don't know if Tesla's possibly capriciousness would prevent 3rd party repair from meeting an ever changing set of requirements. It's a matter of trust. Also, pretty much only Tesla can determine the roadworthiness of a car right now. That will hopefully change, but Tesla's stated intent on rapid iteration to develop technologies for the car could be seen as a problem for 3rd parties to be able to understand and determine roadworthiness. Of course, right now, Tesla certified repair centers have to meet that inspection procedure. Matter of fact, they send metrics to Tesla engineering in CA to determine what needs to be repaired. As for as I know, that's not normal with other brands. So if Tesla made a statement where that inspection procedure is defined as the same as what a Tesla repair center uses (we can assume, but Tesla does need to state it), hopefully that trust issue goes away.
FWIW, the thread isn't specifically about supercharging (at least it didn't start out that way). The car won't charge (or run) on any power source at all.
First, I reject the idea that selling parts to individual owners makes it more likely that Teslas will burst into flames. But let's assume for the sake of argument that it would.
Tesla is also fighting a running battle with state legislatures and powerful dealer lobbies to try and gain (and preserve) the ability to sell cars directly to the public. This is a battle that I hope they win, but as others have said, examples such as this--where a customer cannot get access to the same support that other manufacturers provide as a matter of course--hurts the cause. Bad publicity doesn't only happen with fires.
What support Tesla customers don't get?
They don't get the "privilege" of paying for repair to their cars and doing the repair themselves.
Tesla is forcing them to repair the cars at no cost at 'Tesla controlled' service centers.
How exactly is this a disadvantage for ordinary Tesla owners is beyond me.
Once cars start to run out of warranty and service centers start to refuse doing repair or demanding absurd amount of money you will have a case. Right now your case is even more absurd than those fires.
Tesla's intent is to produce EVs and ensure they work OK.
Tesla's intent is not to produce toys for grownup children to tinker with.
They don't get the "privilege" of paying for repair to their cars and doing the repair themselves.
Tesla is forcing them to repair the cars at no cost at 'Tesla controlled' service centers.
How exactly is this a disadvantage for ordinary Tesla owners is beyond me.
Once cars start to run out of warranty and service centers start to refuse doing repair or demanding absurd amount of money you will have a case. Right now your case is even more absurd than those fires.
Tesla's intent is to produce EVs and ensure they work OK.
Tesla's intent is not to produce toys for grownup children to tinker with.
Krugerrand
Meow
First, there are some Model S vehicles that are already out of warranty. Probably not many, but some. That number will only increase.
Second, Tesla repairs vehicles under warranty for product defects, but does not repair body damage "free of charge." That's what we're discussing here--if you get into a wreck with your Tesla and want to fix it yourself, or have a shop do it that you trust but that isn't an "authorized" body shop, you appear to be SOL.
- - - Updated - - -
How is not being permitted to buy parts "more support," exactly? Note that the language of the waiver states that Tesla will not sell the owner parts. It's not as though all he has to do is sign the waiver and then he can buy parts--the contract specifically disallows parts purchase.
Can a non-approved body repair center get parts from Tesla? Asking because I honestly don't know.
Well, for starters, My5bAby over on the factory forum broke 100,000 miles last month. His drivetrain/battery warranty is still covered, but the 4/50 warranty on the rest of the car expired long ago.
